travisthornton.net

Documenting history as it happens.

Monthly Archives: October 2008

Successes in Failure

0 Comments

I didn’t mean to depress all of you in my last post… ok, I admit it, I did intend to alarm you, to get your attention.  Now I feel like that guy at a party that said too much, and feels bad the morning after. 

So let me try to make it up to you.  Regardless of the outcome of the election this Tuesday, there are reasons to be happy!  I am not doling out therapy here, but instead pointing to the reasons we have to be optimistic while being alarmist.

I must admit, it appears Obama will win the election, and while I see John McCain as the last man standing in this epic wind of collectivist change sweeping across our country, I have to come to grips with the facts, and you do, too. 

While things suck, it’s not totally dark, and I mean that literally.  If you are reading this on a computer, I assume you also have electricity powering your lights and heat.  That’s a good thing!  There are countries that don’t have that luxury.  If you are an American, you live in the greatest country in the world.  As we face globalization for what it is, we will push our industry even further, to compete on a global level with other blossoming free countries.  We should welcome the competition, not dread it, as it will push us to create a greater quantity of better quality items.  We have done this before, and we can do it again.  Things are no longer so compartmentalized; energy, education, national security, the environment, and education are all correlated.  It’s time to address these issues, regardless of the buffoons who might oversee our government.

Fear Change?

The President, as designed, has little influence over your life.  Even though the National Journal rated Barack Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate in 2007, followed by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (2) of Rhode Island, Joe Biden (3) of Delaware and also Obama’s VP pick, and Bernie Sanders (4) of Vermont, who is admittedly, not a Democrat, but a Democratic Socialist (Independent party), and even though it is true that John McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time while Barack Obama voted with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 100% of the time, and even though Obama has never opposed his party on major legislation, that doesn’t necessarily mean he will govern from the far left… ok, yes, it does, who are we kidding? 

The fact of the matter is, though, things are going to suck for a while, regardless of who the President is, and if they do, I’d rather the left get the blame for it.  We won’t become Obamistan overnight.  I know we can survive as a democratic and capitalist nation, because we are a nation of fighters.  Even though liberty ebbs now, the tide will come back in, with the help of patriots.

You have reasons to smile!

First, just to get this point out of the way:  with an Obama presidency, arguments for equality against racial prejudice will be put to rest.  We are at a pivotal point with regards to race relations, and it is indeed a great moment in our nation’s history.  If McCain were to win, though, we would hear about racism in America for his entire term as President.  He would go down in history as the spoiler to racial equality; if he lost, he would be remembered instead as the Greatest President We Never Had.

What excites me, though, is the fact that dissent is always strongest when it is in the minority.  Think about it.  It is now our duty, as Bill Buckley said, to “Stand athwart history, yelling, Stop!”  We are Americans, and we stand for freedom, regardless of which party will champion it.  Call your Congressmen and put up a fight.    The left protested the actions and decisions of this President for eight years.  Now, it’s our turn.

There are still reasons to fear, but the President has less to do with it than the rest of us do.  The Constitution can’t be repealed all at once, even if Obama wanted to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.”  His words, not mine.

We have the power to stop legislation through our objections.  Consider the fact that the Amnesty Bill actually crashed our Congress’s phone service due to the amount of incoming calls, or that the House of Representatives website crashed during the Bailout legislation due to overuse.  These actions had a direct effect on swaying legislation.

And here we go again.  Governors of states were on Capitol Hill asking for bailouts, with New York Governor David Paterson telling the House Ways and Means Committee yesterday, “We are cutting all we can.  Therefore, we feel that targeted, sensible actions by the federal government will provide relief for us now.”  New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine implored, “We need federal help to get through these tough times.”  Oddly enough, Corzine used to be our Treasury Secretary, and like our Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, CEO of Goldman-Sachs.  I wonder where they got the idea that Big Government will help everybody out?  But I digress.

Listen how loudly South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s dissent rang before Congress, as his words gained national attention for the striking difference in tenor as compared to the Democrats, as he begged Congress NOT to bailout the states:

“I’d ask members of the committee to simply give the states more freedom.  Give us more flexibility.  Give us more in the way of control over the dollars we already have and less in the way of costs.  Give us more options, not more money with federal strings attached… The situation we’re now in did not develop overnight, and in the same way it won’t be cured by morning.  As the old saying goes, the first step to getting out of a hole is to quit digging… Our national debt is now over $10 trillion — more than $4 trillion higher than when I left Congress at the end of 2000… In fact, if this $150 billion stimulus package is passed, this year’s budget deficit could top $1 trillion — adding to the over $10 trillion national debt and making it 70% of a roughly $14 trillion economy…

Essentially, you’d be transferring taxpayer dollars out of the frying pan — the federal government — and into the fire — the states themselves.  I think this stimulus would exacerbate the clearly unsustainable spending trends of states, which has gone up 124% over the past 10 years vs. federal government spending growth of 83%. … There seems to be no consequence, and indeed a reward, for unsustainable spending growth by states.  In effect, sending $150 billion more to states would produce another layer of moral hazard — already laid bare at the corporate, individual and federal levels in recent years.”

So smile:  with patriots like these on the national stage, we won’t be marched into the gulag all at once.

I can only say this:  In the coming months, beware of legislation calling for equalization between individuals or industry by tinkering with the tax code.  If we don’t pay attention, it’s going to happen.  Liberals have been trying to achieve “economic and social justice,” to quote Obama, since the advent of our tax code.  I think unjust corporate taxation is a greater danger to America than an income tax hike is, although both are usually unjust.  We have to start thinking three-dimensionally about our tax system, remembering that we will experience diminishing returns due to over-taxation.

At this juncture, I’d like to make a point on the behalf of Wal-Mart, and corporations like them, such as Big Oil.  Sanctioning Wal-Mart for its innovation is simply un-American.  Wal-Mart’s annual profit is larger than the GDP of Saudi Arabia, and it employs more people than the American military.  Wal-Mart lowers the price of goods in an area by 5 to 8% (greater in rural areas).  Inhibiting growth is anti-capitalist.  I believe government’s role in regulating competition should be miniscule, and should only intervene to bust oppressive monopolies, which Wal-Mart and Big Oil are not.

Regardless of your concerns about Obama’s terrorist acquaintances, radical leftist leanings, inflammatory preachers (I said it), or Joe Biden’s predictions of an “international crisis,” or the Mayan prophecies, or end times analogies, or whatever’s got you scared, remember that America is resilient, and the President is constitutionally limited in the actions he can take against its citizens.  It’s not the end of the world, even if things are going to hurt for a bit.  We who stand for freedom will continue fighting for this country, and try to maintain an upwardly mobile trajectory, against all odds.  Americans love the challenge, and the coming challenge of our time is to keep government off our backs.  George Washington, the model for every Presidency since his, said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.  Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

So smile:  You are still an American!  Next up, your guide to Election Night.

Share on Facebook
Filed under Diatribe, News
Oct 31, 2008

As Liberty Ebbs

3 Comments

HpeUntyChnge.  Additional vowels withheld for upcoming tax code.  I sit tonight distraught, having watched the Obama Infomercial, and the Obama Media subsequently fawn over this piece of Hollywood production.  As New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said, “Obama can heal this nation,” making him “Barack the Healer,” I guess.  He’ll do well with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who claims, “I am trying to save the planet.  I am trying to save the planet.  I am trying to save the planet.”

Give me a break.

I am not editing this post, so if I make a mistake, so be it.  I sit tonight watching the politics of envy infiltrate the land of liberty.  There are great expectations tonight, from this man Barack Obama, or Barry Sotero, or whatever name he chooses to go by, but there are even greater expectations from the federal government as a whole, and I don’t see it letting up anytime soon.  I don’t have the space or wherewithal to counter every point made by BO, (ie. not everyone deserves a college education, not everyone deserves retirement, etc) but I would like to pick on two issues.

First, $10 billion dollars a week gets spent on Iraq:  true, but over $20 billion a week gets spent on entitlement programs, and Obama has promised – promised – to increase spending here.  He will withhold more from the makers, and give more to the takers than any President ever has during a recession.  Except for Herbert Hoover, and the verdict is in on his decision.  Expect a tax hike greater than anything America has seen since World War II to pay for these programs.

Secondly, I’ll bring up this Bailout issue one more time as an example.  The general public, lead by a leftist media, decries the severance packages and salaries of Wall Street CEOs.  Well, 1% of these companies’ assets comprise CEO salaries.  If all CEOs gave their salaries back to their respective companies, 99% of the problem would still exist, thereby not addressing the root issue.  It is, therefore, NOT unbecoming for John McCain or Sarah Palin to question Eurocentric Socialism when they see it rising, or the frank egalitarianism of Obama’s policies.  These policies are not American, and if they are not American, they can rightly be called anti-American or un-American.  There is nothing wrong with that.

I’ve wanted to call the election for some time, because it looks like its over… but I simply refuse to acknowledge our public’s apparent disdain for the fundamental freedoms this country was founded upon.  This is more than just a 72-year old white man versus a 47-year old black man.  Our future is at stake.  The free market is at risk.  Capitalism is at risk.  Remember that?  It is based on supply, provided by companies, and demand, provided by the money citizens are able to take home.  Capitalism, on both an individual and corporate basis, is at risk.

The Laffer Curve shows a phenomenon in supply-side economics in which there are diminishing returns to the coffers of government when the tax rate is raised past a certain level.  When government reaches its critical mass, and more people are riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving.  I believe we are approaching that point, where government will not allow its people to be free enough to fail.  The verdict is also in on collectivism; the Soviet Union is gone, and we are still standing.

As of now, at least, we are still here.  Liberty is not easy to maintain.  We have survived for 230 years with a relatively small government.  Look across the globe, and you will see larger governments in weaker countries with worse standards of living.  Coincidence?

Liberty is not easy.  We have the power to vote ourselves into oblivion.  Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”  Maybe this is that generation.  Liberalism, collectivism, and statism may win today, but I will continue to fight here and elsewhere, for our future, and for my upcoming son’s future.  If I have depressed you, I am sorry, but in summary, since I don’t use profanity on this website, I am limited in saying only this:  In this 2008 Election, WE ARE SCREWED.

Share on Facebook
Filed under Diatribe, Ideology
Oct 30, 2008

Liberty at Stake

0 Comments

The post below was submitted to the local paper, the Liberty Vindicator. Check out the newest website on the block, www.robertthornton.net, where my brother pontificates on various subjects of his interest. Thanks to cousin Brian Howe for his webmastery!

By now, everyone is familiar with “The Bailout,” its supposed benefits and its subsequent cost to taxpayers. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is intended to dump capital into the American financial system to shore up failing banks, and in turn, restore confidence in our market. What is being disregarded is its impact to America’s governing philosophy and the threat it poses to capitalism as a whole.

The $700 billion bailout marks the largest infusion by the federal government in the corporate sector since the Great Depression, but it is not alone: $380 billion had already been spent in the last six months bailing out Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the US auto industry. Due to these recent government interventions, over $1 trillion will be added to our National Public Debt, pushing inflation higher, while we stand on the brink of recession.

Did America become the greatest country in the world by bailing out failed businesses? Not likely. Our capitalist economy is based largely on the ideals of Adam Smith, 18th Century author of The Wealth of Nations, which dictates that “an invisible hand” drives a free market. We know from history, that in any society, people will act according to their self-interests. Good business practices lead to good business and the opportunity of wealth for all involved. Today, the Leviathan hand of government intervention provides endless safety nets for both individuals and corporations. In doing so, government, instead of supply-and-demand economics, pick the winners and losers in the market. I contend these actions constitute a dangerous march into statism, and eventual tyranny at the price of freedom.

A free market allowed to operate without massive government intervention benefits all citizens. Isn’t it true that the world’s richest nations have better standards of living for all members of their society? Isn’t it also true that the world’s richest countries have the freest economies? Innovation thrives in free nations, due to capitalism. Consider this: how many Russian cars do you see on the road? Do any of you own a Saudi-made computer? Even with massive amounts of petrodollars, these countries’ governments cannot compete with free markets.

To give Keynesian economic theory its due credit, our government should stand ready to intercede and regulate our market, as a running machine must be oiled occasionally to ensure its proper operation. As we have seen recently, minor tweaking in the market can have major, and at times, disastrous consequences down the road. It must also be true, then, that proper regulation can lead to recovery. When restored, however, the market must be let go.

So what, besides redistributing wealth, can be done to prevent financial freefall and panic? A better question to ask is, not what can be done, but what should be done?

First, transparency must be maintained regarding any interference in the economic sector. Bailouts must have proper oversight to ensure quality control. There must also be the intention to keep all unneeded bureaucracy temporary, remembering the words of economist Milton Friedman: “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.”

Secondly, reform is needed in lobbying and campaign contributions. Consider the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doubled every five years from their inception in 1970 until their recent collapse due to overwhelming government subsidies. At the first sign of alarm among our legislators, lobbyists on behalf of the mortgage giants kept Congress quiet, spending over $200 million in the past ten years in campaign contributions. Then, when the system collapsed, Congress attempted to redistribute the blame.

In addition to lobbying reform, government must be cautious about deeming every financial situation an emergency. Doing so can exacerbate a problem and affect the market adversely in a number of ways. Bailouts crush consumer confidence, which is crucial in a free market. Let’s remember that 94 percent of American house mortgages have not faced foreclosure; unemployment is substantially less here than among our European allies who have a more “social market,” with more government control. Our “real” economy – that is, industry – has remained relatively strong, and will, as long as lending remains available and corporate taxes remain low. Economic crises in the past have resulted in hasty responses, as in the case of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that aggravated the Great Depression. Therefore, a government willing to jump in and save the day has proven mixed results. Intervention and its ramifications should not be taken lightly.

Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek warned us that, “‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.” For America to maintain a free market, actual freedom must exist, including the freedom to succeed or fail as a consequence of actions. In accordance with founders’ intent, citizens must value this freedom more than economic security: as Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In turn, it is the government’s duty to resist weakening our system with more security while risking the economic freedoms of our society. This too shall pass, if we value liberty as greater than safety.

Share on Facebook
Filed under Ideology, News
Oct 23, 2008

Running at Arlington

1 Comment

Just another day at work, out for a run, from the Navy Annex into Fort Meyer and back.  While running my three miles adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery, I pass by Arlington Cathedral.  Today, though, I see six black horses, men in Army uniforms, somber faces, and a flag-draped coffin on a carriage.  As the procession gears up to inter their fellow soldier, I notice how few people are actually in attendance.  This is reality; the cost of war.  If forced to look forever upon those square miles of perfectly aligned headstones in close proximity on those hills, it would not be long enough to pay homage in their remembrance. 

arl626040042.jpg

As I run past, with my eyes fixed downward, the bells of the church resound in a familiar tune, with a long, hollow pause before one final strike signals 1 p.m.  For the living, it’s just another day.  My gait lengthens, my pace quickens, an odd tribute to the centuries of fellow servicemen now departed.

Share on Facebook
Filed under Personal
Oct 15, 2008

CNNspiracy

2 Comments

If you watched last night’s presidential debate on CNN, you may have noticed the squiggly lines at the bottom, indicating the dial testing of 32 supposedly objective, or “uncommitted” voters who dialed up when they agreed with a candidate, and down when they disagreed.  These 32 voters, in turn, had the opportunity to influence millions of viewers on who was winning.  Clearly, throughout the night, the dial testing favored Obama, especially during those lofty speeches that make the women faint and the men cry.  Later, CNN released the results of further polling data, concluding Obama was the winner of his second debate with John McCain.  The numbers subsequently released call the debate 54-30 in favor of Obama. 

40298766countingsheep.jpg

What do the experts think of this dial testing phenomenon?  University of Chicago psychologist Howard Nusbaum says your brain can’t devote its full attention to what the debaters are saying and what you’re seeing.  “There’s cognitive capacity devoted to those graphs that is not devoted to what they are saying.  The information that is available to you becomes thinned out, so it becomes as if you’re skimming the debate,” he says. 

Viewers may also be swayed by the human desire to seek consensus, says Washington, D.C.-based psychologist Alan Lipman.  ”It’s kind of like the difference between watching a movie and watching a movie with commentary,” he said.  “It’s going to affect your perception and beliefs.”  Lipman also said that television’s competitive push to be fast rather than deep “drives people to believe that the way to make decisions about political candidates is the instantaneous gut responses.”

I watched the debate and thought John McCain did well, although I will agree with CNN that it “was no game-changer.”  I thought McCain had a slight edge on Obama in the debate, and I watch these debates waiting for my candidate to screw up, so I will know from where the attacks will come.  It didn’t happen.  I thought Obama looked angry when McCain exploited the ideology driving his policies, while CNN thought he looked cool and collected throughout the debate.  Which one of us is wrong?

I found the following CNN Transcript interesting, as it documents CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien’s honest candor with the dial-testers, which, as Anderson Cooper points out, is very interesting given the supposed outcome of the debate:

O’BRIEN:  A final show of hands if you will, if you were – you all came in persuadable.  But if you had to vote today, how would you go, raise your hand if you would vote for Senator McCain.  One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14.  Do I assume the rest of you for Obama?  That would be 11.  So a slight advantage to Senator McCain if they had to vote today, that’s our folks who are persuadable.

You know you only have 27 days left until you actually have to make a decision.  And many of you are still undecided.  Anybody make up their mind tonight?  Raise your hand if you are no longer an undecided.  We have got a few, one, two, three, four five, six, seven people.  So of our panelists, 25, seven now say this debate was enough to convince them one way or the other – Anderson.

COOPER:  Soledad, it’s interesting because if you judge them by their dial testing, their dial testing seemed to go up much more for Barack Obama than it did for McCain and yet clearly they prefer John McCain in that crowd.  Interesting to see the decisions that they have reached.

Soledad, thanks very much, always interesting to see.  We’ll have a lot more of that ahead in the hours ahead.

So why, in “the hours ahead,” does CNN.COM proclaim Obama obviously won the debate?  That’s not what it sounded like when the same individuals who supposedly dialed up and down were surveyed.  Whatever history CNN had as an objective news source is waning with the use of these squiggly EKG-style lines.  If these lines averaged out between the candidates at the end of the day, it would be a different story, but they did not, and therein lies the sway.

The fact of the matter is America is about to elect, to quote Fred Thompson at the Republican National Conference, “a history-marking nominee for president.  History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president.”  Thompson went on:  “Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making Democratic-controlled Congress.  History-making because it is the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation’s history.”

History is on John McCain’s side, even if recent history is not.  Obama’s refusal to relinquish his trillion-dollar proposals during this historic economic slump will inevitably render a tax hike on nearly all Americans, which is what Herbert Hoover did eight decades ago.  A simple equation for you at home:  Tax Hike + Recession = Depression.  This is no time for rhetoric.  We stare into an abyss, both at home and abroad.  But we are in the trenches of political silly season, with 27 days to go.  I am unsure if CNN has taken on the task of deliberately trying to sway voters, but on the face of it, their analyses have veered away from objective.  This subliminal dial testing stunt furthers my suspicions.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” – Albert Einstein

Share on Facebook
Filed under News
Oct 8, 2008

Discovering My Perspective

All of my past posts are archived below. Feel free to comment to any post by clicking the "Comments" link at the bottom of each post.

I have no rights to the photos used herein. Most were found online through a simple Google search. If a copyright issue exists, please message me and I will eradicate the problem. Thank you!

My Twitterfeed

Follow @travisthornton on twitter.

Categories