Some years ago I heard Oprah Winfrey talk about shadow beliefs. (Hey, don’t give me grief, I was home sick that day and do not make a habit of watching such drivel.) A shadow belief is one that influences your world view; you behave as if it is totally true, and yet, the belief is completely false. Since then, I have noticed that liberals are masters at holding and defending shadow beliefs. These beliefs bring comfort and often validate a person’s reason for existence. These otherwise gentle people will defend their shadow beliefs with hate-filled rancor and personal attacks if necessary. Conservatives are often baffled how much Liberal are impervious to reason and logic. Liberals often attack people of faith for having religious beliefs while holding to their shadow beliefs with equal fervor, attempting to expunge religious expression from public life while extolling their PC beliefs as the true orthodoxy. Although the irony is lost on Liberals because of their blinding arrogance, irony is yet another of their hallmarks. In our current discussions I would like to point out some of the shadow beliefs you are seeing in play.
Shadow Belief 1: Only the Federal Government can solve domestic problems.
This belief is largely driven by the fact the government has virtually limitless taxing power. Having limitless resources is useful in solving large problems. The truth is that the government can only tax up to the size of the economy and the more it taxes, the smaller the economy. Liberals like to talk about how much money this or that tax will raise and then act surprised when the numbers fail to materialize. I saw a poignant example of this on a recent trip to Savanna, GA. The lovely antebellum houses have balconies lined with ornate wrought-iron railing but there are no doors leading to any of the balconies. Instead, they are lined with floor-to-ceiling windows. This is because the British government taxed the number of external doors you have so people stopped making doors and just stepped onto the balconies through the large windows. The style is so ingrained in the architecture that over 300 years later, new buildings in the city mimic the design. Now I am sure some British law makers intended to raise a lot of money, not start a new building trend that would last forever but history is replete with examples of government intending one thing and getting something quite different. Furthermore, the fact that pyramid schemes are illegal in private enterprise means we understand how inherently dangerous they are but government is allowed to package them as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. All are going broke, as pyramid schemes do, and now they want to add health care? And if we continue to add $2 trillion to the national debt every year, I guess we will all find out where the resources of the Federal Government end.
Shadow Belief 2: Corporations are evil; Government is good.
From their tirade against Big Tobacco and Big Oil to their attacks on McDonald’s and Walmart, Liberals think corporations are out to get them. Current attacks against insurance companies continue the narrative. But corporations have created more wealth and made life better for more people than any government could. Where governments foster free enterprise and protect the right of corporations to operate, their people have become wealthy. In areas of the world where corporations are scarce or non-existent (largely due to adverse government action), people suffer crushing poverty. Placing sanctions on misbehaving governments is designed to drive out corporations to increase public hardship and, therefore, public pressure for reform.
Now the private sector does mess up but unlike the government, it self corrects quickly. Is anyone still complaining about the Edsel or platform shoes? But how many years are we to bemoan the state of public education, wonder why our food is literally being driven from the dinner table to our gas tanks, complain that our roads are full of potholes and our bridges are falling down? And while everyone knows what going Postal means, have you ever heard of someone going FedEx (other than someone trying to mail themselves to America from one of those flea-infested nations lacking a McDonald’s or a Walmart)?
Shadow Belief 3: Republicans are evil.
Perceived Republican sins make a lengthy list but two are particularly intriguing right now: Republicans are racist and want old people to suffer. Nancy Pelosi’s comments about town-hall protesters being Nazis flowed naturally from her inherent shadow belief. Dr. Hill, a distinguished professor and frequent guest on Fox News concluded that the protesters must be racist because they come from predominately white areas that voted heavily Republican. What other evidence did he offer? These people were old enough to have lived through the civil right movement and must have opposed it. They were not actually afraid of being condemned by Obama’s death panels but just disliked the President’s race. This stupid assumption about race played out in commercials when Bush ran and Liberals stated that more black churches would burn if Republicans were elected. More churches have burned and have been vandalized, but mostly all white. Yet you don’t see commercials warning that electing a liberal President who happens to be black, pretends to be Christian and is actually Muslim and listens to racist summons will cause more Christian churches to burn. That sounds almost as ridiculous as saying Obama care will create death panels. And while such panels may be one of the unintended consequences flowing from Shadow Belief 1, the Social Security Administration announced this week that benefit checks would be cut for each of the next two years. This while the government is wall to wall Democrat. I thought Democrats told us this would only happen if we elected Republicans.
So if you have a liberal friend who appears to get angry at you for no apparent reason, you probably stepped on one of their shadow beliefs. You might as well apologize now, because whether Grandma is done in by a death panel or the whole fiasco goes down in a blaze of glory, you and the virtually non-existent Republicans in Congress are getting the blame. How’s that for irony?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Obama, the New Hitler?
The White House called on citizens this past week to forward “fishy” emails to the White House, emails that contradicted Obama’s claims in the health care debate. On par with buzzing New York City with Air Force One, this mistake is born of the President’s inexperience but also offers proof once again how broken down the American Press is.
Liberals defend the White House saying that it needs the opportunity to rebut misinformation that is floating out there about health care reform. The President is upset that people are mischaracterizing his health care reform plan. First, the President has not put forth a health care reform plan; the House has passed a bill. Much of the “fishy” emails stems from people reading and quoting from this bill. Many provisions are in conflict with Obama’s stated goals but instead of criticizing the bill, he demands it be passed immediately. Still many are uneasy with the call for emails. Senator Cornyn stated, "I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests…” Sen. Cornyn is not completely correct. Nixon ordered the FBI to attend anti-war rallies to collect data on what was said there and who said it. He was taken to court and the Supreme Court held this practice is unconstitutional. The government is forbidden to collect information about its citizens’ political speech. Furthermore, Obama need not sift through emails to discover the source of people’s “manufactured” outrage. The House bill is the source. But again, his inexperience shines through. He continues to point out that there is a fly in the room (i.e., medical inflation is too high, people without insurance overuse ERs, some go bankrupt over health issues) but has not explained to us why we need to whack the fly with a sledge hammer (i.e., dismantle the health care system) and does not explain what he will do with the damage when the sledge hammer, missing the fly, makes a hole in the wall (just look at Medicaid, Medicare, VA to see what can and will go wrong). But in the current debate there is only one pertinent question he needs to answer. If health care reform will be so wonderful, why do all proposal so far exclude him and his family, all of Congress and all government employees?
On a separate note, this call for “fishy” emails has demonstrated how broken the American press is. The institution known as the mainstream press, the constitutionally enshrined arbiter of our liberty has been virtually silent because of their blinding adoration for the President. Meanwhile, they have deluged the airwaves and wasted good ink criticizing Rush Limbaugh for comparing Democrats to Nazis while completing failing to mention that the Speaker of the House first claimed health care reform protesters were Nazis. Limbaugh is correct to point out that Nazi comes from a German word meaning National Socialist. The Nazis wanted free health care, guaranteed jobs, strong unions and a whole host of programs that are very similar to modern Democrat proposals. But they are most notorious for their evil atrocities in exterminating people they deemed unfit. However, they did not invent anti-Semitism; they simply exploited a prejudice that already existed. Fomenting this already ubiquitous hatred, they consolidated power. And then, when they had the upper hand, they terrorized everyone into submission. While no evil has yet surpassed the Nazi regime, how is it any better that Democrats, finding people full of envy for fellow citizens who have more, foment and exploit this envy to promote their policies and then cow political opponents with threats of political correctness and begin collecting IP addresses? Why does the press not object in harsh tones? The prewar German press was greatly enamored with Hitler and virulently anti-Semitic. Are the Rich simply the new Jews? Now I hate it when people quickly equate political opponents to Nazis but, since Pelosi started it, when are we going to question the policies of class warfare? Germany lay in ruins before questioning the destruction of Jewry. Health care reform is an assault on the Rich and on capitalism. What will be the condition of America before it realizes the immorality of destroying the Rich and the stupidity in attacking capitalism?
While Obama is no Hitler, with all due respect Ms. Pelosi, neither are the town-hall protesters who are just trying to save us from Obama’s inexperience. And those “fishy” emails wouldn’t be necessary if the malfeasant press would just do its job!
Liberals defend the White House saying that it needs the opportunity to rebut misinformation that is floating out there about health care reform. The President is upset that people are mischaracterizing his health care reform plan. First, the President has not put forth a health care reform plan; the House has passed a bill. Much of the “fishy” emails stems from people reading and quoting from this bill. Many provisions are in conflict with Obama’s stated goals but instead of criticizing the bill, he demands it be passed immediately. Still many are uneasy with the call for emails. Senator Cornyn stated, "I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests…” Sen. Cornyn is not completely correct. Nixon ordered the FBI to attend anti-war rallies to collect data on what was said there and who said it. He was taken to court and the Supreme Court held this practice is unconstitutional. The government is forbidden to collect information about its citizens’ political speech. Furthermore, Obama need not sift through emails to discover the source of people’s “manufactured” outrage. The House bill is the source. But again, his inexperience shines through. He continues to point out that there is a fly in the room (i.e., medical inflation is too high, people without insurance overuse ERs, some go bankrupt over health issues) but has not explained to us why we need to whack the fly with a sledge hammer (i.e., dismantle the health care system) and does not explain what he will do with the damage when the sledge hammer, missing the fly, makes a hole in the wall (just look at Medicaid, Medicare, VA to see what can and will go wrong). But in the current debate there is only one pertinent question he needs to answer. If health care reform will be so wonderful, why do all proposal so far exclude him and his family, all of Congress and all government employees?
On a separate note, this call for “fishy” emails has demonstrated how broken the American press is. The institution known as the mainstream press, the constitutionally enshrined arbiter of our liberty has been virtually silent because of their blinding adoration for the President. Meanwhile, they have deluged the airwaves and wasted good ink criticizing Rush Limbaugh for comparing Democrats to Nazis while completing failing to mention that the Speaker of the House first claimed health care reform protesters were Nazis. Limbaugh is correct to point out that Nazi comes from a German word meaning National Socialist. The Nazis wanted free health care, guaranteed jobs, strong unions and a whole host of programs that are very similar to modern Democrat proposals. But they are most notorious for their evil atrocities in exterminating people they deemed unfit. However, they did not invent anti-Semitism; they simply exploited a prejudice that already existed. Fomenting this already ubiquitous hatred, they consolidated power. And then, when they had the upper hand, they terrorized everyone into submission. While no evil has yet surpassed the Nazi regime, how is it any better that Democrats, finding people full of envy for fellow citizens who have more, foment and exploit this envy to promote their policies and then cow political opponents with threats of political correctness and begin collecting IP addresses? Why does the press not object in harsh tones? The prewar German press was greatly enamored with Hitler and virulently anti-Semitic. Are the Rich simply the new Jews? Now I hate it when people quickly equate political opponents to Nazis but, since Pelosi started it, when are we going to question the policies of class warfare? Germany lay in ruins before questioning the destruction of Jewry. Health care reform is an assault on the Rich and on capitalism. What will be the condition of America before it realizes the immorality of destroying the Rich and the stupidity in attacking capitalism?
While Obama is no Hitler, with all due respect Ms. Pelosi, neither are the town-hall protesters who are just trying to save us from Obama’s inexperience. And those “fishy” emails wouldn’t be necessary if the malfeasant press would just do its job!
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Unexpected Consequences, the Hallmark of Liberalism
Liberalism's strength is that is sounds so good. It's weakness is that it's application is usually disastrous. It proposes solutions to problems without examining what other effects will manifest when the solution is implemented. These effects are usually predictable but are often misnomered "Unexpected Consequences" by Liberals. Liberal damage is most severely felt in economic matters. Because they like to pretend certain economic forces do not exist, they forge ahead and act surprised when the inevitable ill outcomes materialize. But as the Nobel-Prize winning Economist, Friedrich August von Hayek pointed out, "Economic forces are just that, forces; ignore them at your own peril."
This week we were treated to a new volley of simplistic solutions with some very nasty "unexpected consequences" looming in them. First, we had Barney Frank insisting that banks lower the payments for home borrowers who were having a difficult time making payments. The implication is that the principle be reduced, transferring money/assets from the bank to the borrower. The obvious result is that millions of home owners stay in their homes and avoid bankruptcy. But what other effects will follow? Just as water under the force of gravity seeks lower ground, economic activity seeks profit. By rewarding borrowers that did not pay their mortgage timely, you encourage this activity. You set the expectation that the government will rescue you if you get into trouble. This increases the number of borrowers going into arrears. At the same time you punish banks for making the loans. This causes a decrease in the amount the banks are willing to loan. We already have this problem and Frank proposes something to make the problem worse? What is more insidious is that when the problem does worsen, he will propose another "solution" more invasive and more idiotic to keep the abyss going.
Next, congressional leaders went after insurance companies. Harry Reed claimed that insurance companies have seen profits grow four fold over the last seven years. The fact is that they have seen their profits drop precipitously over the last two. But liberals just hate it when we confuse the issue with facts. Just as there is a reason a ball drops to the ground when thrown out a second-story window, there is a reason why insurance profits are the way they are. The simplistic answer is that they are greedy. But few businesses are altruistic. Greed and fear are essential to a free market. Businesses vie for your money (greed) and hope they make you happy (fear). This balance keeps prices in check while maximizing your satisfaction. You vote with your money who wins. Losers disappear in this economic Darwinism (Hey, don't liberals adore Darwin).
Government has only greed because it possesses what no business has, power. Government can be useful when it uses power in endeavors that require it. For example, military power can be used to strike fear in our enemies while sparing us the fear of invasion. When government power is aimed at economic activity, you get a disaster like Chrysler. Bailing out Chrysler in the '70s removed the fear of making bad decisions. Once I owned a Dodge that had its transmission blow at 60,000 miles. The dealer simply rolled his eyes and said that was happening to all them, then handed me a $700 bill. I decided not to buy any more Chrysler products. But the government reached into my pocket and undid that decision with a second bailout. Chrysler, immune from fear, can proceed without ever changing. Meanwhile, we instill fear in the insurance companies with the zeal Bush used against Al Qaeda. Do you have any doubt the Federal government can wipe out the insurance industry just as effectively?
And once the insurance industry is gone, replaced with an entity with massive power and greed and virtually lacking in fear (i.e., the government), how will that will be better? How will it be punished for mistakes? Currently, the government is tasked with curbing one of very few vices in capitalism, fraud. Bernie Madoff was supposed to be stopped by Federal regulators. The head regulator in New York at the time was Tim Geithner. And how was he punished for this massive failure? He was made Treasury Secretary. What kind of punishment is that? (Can somebody remind me why Obama thought he was the only one smart enough to do that job?)
Finally we have the proposal to cap executive salaries on Wall Street. This asinine idea presupposes that government officials can correctly guess what the salaries are supposed to be. Again, economic forces, like physical forces kick in. And just as throwing a couple liberals out a second story window may make you feel good for a while, capping executive pay will also leave you with a big mess in the end, no matter how many times Congress votes to repeal the Law of Gravity. This stuff has been tried before!
In Venezuela economic forces caused milk to rise in price above what most people could pay. Chavez vowed to fix the price at a lower level. People cheered at this idea (people often cheer at liberal ideas when the nasty consequences are hidden or glossed over). Now you cannot find milk anywhere in Caracas or in most of Venezuela. Do you think people would have cheered if he had promised to make milk disappear from the country? Will people cheer when their 401(k) plunges from lack of talented corporate leadership. Will people cheer when their insurance coverage is terminated, their doctor is force out of practice, and the number of years it takes to get a doctor increases as the pool of practicing doctors shrinks?
In the '70s Nixon responded to inflation by freezing wages and prices. The price of beef was set below the market price. Beef produces could not make a profit (there's that awful word again) and rushed their herds to slaughter. For a while the market was awash in beef. Then nothing. With no beef on the market people began searching for substitutions. Toast with peanut butter became known as a Nixon Burger. (Fortunately we were spared the Clinton Burger but I still hate to imagine what an Obama Burger would be made of.)
So Barney, Harry and Nancy, next time you talk to me about economic matters, let's all pretend I am an intelligent human being (i. e., a conservative) and give me the facts. And don't pretend you can squeeze one part of a balloon without affecting the rest of the balloon. Better yet, keep your hands off my balloon and go get your own!
This week we were treated to a new volley of simplistic solutions with some very nasty "unexpected consequences" looming in them. First, we had Barney Frank insisting that banks lower the payments for home borrowers who were having a difficult time making payments. The implication is that the principle be reduced, transferring money/assets from the bank to the borrower. The obvious result is that millions of home owners stay in their homes and avoid bankruptcy. But what other effects will follow? Just as water under the force of gravity seeks lower ground, economic activity seeks profit. By rewarding borrowers that did not pay their mortgage timely, you encourage this activity. You set the expectation that the government will rescue you if you get into trouble. This increases the number of borrowers going into arrears. At the same time you punish banks for making the loans. This causes a decrease in the amount the banks are willing to loan. We already have this problem and Frank proposes something to make the problem worse? What is more insidious is that when the problem does worsen, he will propose another "solution" more invasive and more idiotic to keep the abyss going.
Next, congressional leaders went after insurance companies. Harry Reed claimed that insurance companies have seen profits grow four fold over the last seven years. The fact is that they have seen their profits drop precipitously over the last two. But liberals just hate it when we confuse the issue with facts. Just as there is a reason a ball drops to the ground when thrown out a second-story window, there is a reason why insurance profits are the way they are. The simplistic answer is that they are greedy. But few businesses are altruistic. Greed and fear are essential to a free market. Businesses vie for your money (greed) and hope they make you happy (fear). This balance keeps prices in check while maximizing your satisfaction. You vote with your money who wins. Losers disappear in this economic Darwinism (Hey, don't liberals adore Darwin).
Government has only greed because it possesses what no business has, power. Government can be useful when it uses power in endeavors that require it. For example, military power can be used to strike fear in our enemies while sparing us the fear of invasion. When government power is aimed at economic activity, you get a disaster like Chrysler. Bailing out Chrysler in the '70s removed the fear of making bad decisions. Once I owned a Dodge that had its transmission blow at 60,000 miles. The dealer simply rolled his eyes and said that was happening to all them, then handed me a $700 bill. I decided not to buy any more Chrysler products. But the government reached into my pocket and undid that decision with a second bailout. Chrysler, immune from fear, can proceed without ever changing. Meanwhile, we instill fear in the insurance companies with the zeal Bush used against Al Qaeda. Do you have any doubt the Federal government can wipe out the insurance industry just as effectively?
And once the insurance industry is gone, replaced with an entity with massive power and greed and virtually lacking in fear (i.e., the government), how will that will be better? How will it be punished for mistakes? Currently, the government is tasked with curbing one of very few vices in capitalism, fraud. Bernie Madoff was supposed to be stopped by Federal regulators. The head regulator in New York at the time was Tim Geithner. And how was he punished for this massive failure? He was made Treasury Secretary. What kind of punishment is that? (Can somebody remind me why Obama thought he was the only one smart enough to do that job?)
Finally we have the proposal to cap executive salaries on Wall Street. This asinine idea presupposes that government officials can correctly guess what the salaries are supposed to be. Again, economic forces, like physical forces kick in. And just as throwing a couple liberals out a second story window may make you feel good for a while, capping executive pay will also leave you with a big mess in the end, no matter how many times Congress votes to repeal the Law of Gravity. This stuff has been tried before!
In Venezuela economic forces caused milk to rise in price above what most people could pay. Chavez vowed to fix the price at a lower level. People cheered at this idea (people often cheer at liberal ideas when the nasty consequences are hidden or glossed over). Now you cannot find milk anywhere in Caracas or in most of Venezuela. Do you think people would have cheered if he had promised to make milk disappear from the country? Will people cheer when their 401(k) plunges from lack of talented corporate leadership. Will people cheer when their insurance coverage is terminated, their doctor is force out of practice, and the number of years it takes to get a doctor increases as the pool of practicing doctors shrinks?
In the '70s Nixon responded to inflation by freezing wages and prices. The price of beef was set below the market price. Beef produces could not make a profit (there's that awful word again) and rushed their herds to slaughter. For a while the market was awash in beef. Then nothing. With no beef on the market people began searching for substitutions. Toast with peanut butter became known as a Nixon Burger. (Fortunately we were spared the Clinton Burger but I still hate to imagine what an Obama Burger would be made of.)
So Barney, Harry and Nancy, next time you talk to me about economic matters, let's all pretend I am an intelligent human being (i. e., a conservative) and give me the facts. And don't pretend you can squeeze one part of a balloon without affecting the rest of the balloon. Better yet, keep your hands off my balloon and go get your own!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)