The Blob

The unprecedented expansion of the state that has occurred under the Obama administration is seen by many simply as a response to an economic crisis. But, each day it becomes clearer that the massive shift of resources from the private to the public sector represents something more profound than simple crisis management; it is Obama's very raison d'être (reason of being).

Obama recently proposed changes to the tax code that will greatly reduce the deductions available to many Americans for making charitable contributions. His plan will start by raising the highest marginal rate from 35% to nearly 40% (for couples earning more than $250,000) and then it will reduce the charitable deduction rate from 35% to 28%. Economists estimate that this will result in at least a $5,000,000,000 reduction in charitable giving. So, by every definition this equals a shift of resources from the private sector and civil society to the state.

Even groups that are supportive of Obama are troubled by these developments. William Daroff, the Vice President of Public Policy for the United Jewish Communities, stated that "numerous studies confirm that any reduction in the tax benefits available for charitable giving will have a significant negative impact on giving...at a time when charities are literally going bankrupt...and we are seeing a huge increase in the demand for social services and a simultaneous decrease in resources to fund programs, governmental policy should be to incentivize charitable donations - not creating more reasons for donors to forgo making contributions."

Anyone who believes that this represents a move towards fiscal responsibility and away from subsidies must be blind, because Obama has raised government spending and subsidies for countless programs. Rather, this reflects Obama's Euro-socialist vision in which charity, social responsibility and individual initiative are outsources to the state. Why should individuals and private organizations strive to help their fellow man, when it's the job of the state to provide food, housing, medicine, mortgages and higher education to all?

On a deeper level this is a manifestation of Obama's BLOB like state that grows and expands through the consumption of all economic and social resources that cross its path. The BLOB started with free enterprise, now it turns to charities, what will it consume next? Stay tuned for the next episode of the BLOB...

Mass Illiteracy

Each person suffers from one or more form of illiteracy. You may be mathematically or musically illiterate, you could be culturally or geographically illiterate.

Of all the forms of illiteracy none is so widespread and detrimental as economic illiteracy. Even among educated, cultured professionals, ignorance of basic economics is pervasive. Few understand basic free market principles and even fewer have the vaguest idea of the source of America's unparalleled prosperity.

No other form of illiteracy has such a profoundly negative effect on governmental policy. We can be certain that an economically literate populace would tolerate few of our current policies, especially Obama's so called stimulus bill.

I am not asking you to become a "free market zealot," but if you haven't already done so, please take the time to learn some basic economic; how you view the world will surely change.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2007/08/01/economic_illiteracy

Straight Out Of Bush's Play-Book...

In a moment of candor, Rahm Emanuel confirmed what many had thought all along - the Obama administration was taking advantage of the crisis to push through their long standing agenda:

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

The $81 billion for Medicaid, $20 billion for food stamps and increased subsidies for Amtrak and the National Endowment for the Arts may be worthwhile, but they certainly do not constitute an economic stimulus.

Nationalizing a large segment of the health care sector may be worth while, but Obama's rational that it will "help bring down the budget deficit" is either an outright lie or a complete delusion.

This is straight out of Bush's 9-11 play-book: use a national crisis as a pretext to quickly push through a long standing agenda, while virtually eliminating public debate and oversight.

In the aftermath of 9-11, to question or debate the formation of The Department of Homeland Security and the invasion of iraq incited accusations of "being soft on terror."

And in our current economic crisis, those who question the almost trillion dollar government expansion are accused of "not caring about the economically distressed" and supporting "an unfettered free market."

I suspect that the great writer Mark Twain had the Bush and Obama administrations in mind when he stated: No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

On Short Term Cures & Long Term Health

Liberals and conservatives alike are distressed by the economic pain that so many people are feeling. What person of conscience would not be troubled by: recessions, unemployment, job insecurity, failing enterprises, outsourcing of production and a very unequal distribution of wealth?

Working together people have cured these economic illnesses and greatly reduced the economic instability that is the root of most of the pain that workers feel. Nations that have administered these cures neither suffer from recessions, nor job insecurity, nor failing businesses. They preciously guard each and every job and each and every factory, so outsourcing is out of the question. And they enjoy a very equitable distribution of wealth.

The cure is called socialism and indeed it does work. But, history has shown that this cure is far worse than the disease. Socialism eliminated painful bouts of economic instability, but over the long term it left nations economically and socially impoverished, morbid and maladaptive.

Socialism ensured fully employment and job security by making it virtually impossible to discharge unproductive workers and dissolve unproductive enterprises. The cost of these policies were a substantially lower living standard for most workers, chronic shortages of the most basic goods and services and widespread environmental degradation. And with a few exceptions, technological and cultural innovation ground to a halt.

Socialism ensured a very equitable distribution of wealth, but at the terrible cost of destroying incentives for hard work, productivity and innovation. Conversely economic penalties for laziness and incompetence were virtually eliminated. The end result was a lower living standard for the entire population with the exception of privileged party members.

So, those who applaud Obama's application of socialist cures should take heed; the cost of eliminating short term instability will be America's long term economic health.

The pain of one generation may be eased through massive deficit spending, but we shall deprive future generations of the greatest engine of economic progress and prosperity that history has ever known. Indeed, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

So Generous & Progressive...

As you've probably heard, several of Obama's appointees (Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis and Ron Kirk) were seriously delinquent on their taxes. This is a bit ironic, between we know that Obama's administration will raise taxes, if not on this generation on future generations through his massive deficit spending. This highlights an unsavory trait that is quite prevalent among "progressives," namely they impose policies on others that they would never subject themselves to.

First and foremost this hypocrisy is seen in issues of school choice. Democrats, such as Obama, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy have opposed school choice, yet they never would dream of sending their children to awful public schools. In general, 43.4% of Democratic Senators sent their children to public schools and I am certain that that vast majority of the rest are privileged enough to send their children to the best of the best public schools. And we can be certain that if they were faced with the option of sending their children to terrible public schools, they would quickly opt for quality private schools.

Most "progressives" avidly support immigration and housing policies that have greatly increased diversity in many neighborhoods and cities. Whether that's been beneficial or not is open to debate. But, there is no debate that few of these "progressives," especially those with children, would live in a diverse neighborhood.

When pressed to introduce public housing and integration in working class neighborhoods like Bridgeport and Marquette Park, the mayor responded (I paraphrase): I assume that wealthy liberals of Winnetka and Highland Park that criticize us will also be willing to introduce public housing in their own upscale neighborhoods.

Indeed, it's always easiest to be generous with other people's money, public minded with other people's children and progressive with other people's neighborhoods.

http://www.heritage.org/research/education/bg2066.cfm

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obama-and-vouchers/71798/

Nahhhh...

The insurance giant AIG received an additional $30 billion dollars bringing the grand total to 170 billion, yes that's billion with a "b." Could that have anything to do with the campaign contributions made to key members of the Obama administration and the democratic party?

Dodd, Christopher $104,300
Obama, Barack $45,111
Clinton, Hillary $36,831
Biden, Joseph R Jr $19,975

Nahhh....of course not!

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received billions from the government. Could that have anything to do with the fact that the two largest recipients of campaign contributions were Christopher Dodd ($165,000) and Barack Obama ($126,349)

Nahhh...of course not!

Why There Is Needless Intervention...

A landlord I know rented his property out to a section-8 voucher holder. The process involved having a CHAC (Chicago Housing Authority) representative inspect the premises to ensure that it was up to code. The property was in great condition, so the inspector came up with a light list of things that he needed to address. My friend wrapped up the work in a matter of days and called CHAC to schedule a follow up inspection.

Two weeks later, when a different inspector came out, the landlord presented him the original list and showed him that he had dutifully attended to each and every repair. The 2nd inspector replied "the last guy's list don't mean nothing to me..." and proceeded to write up a list of minute repairs, which the landlord was able to knock down in less than an hour.

Two weeks later a 3rd inspector came out. Ignoring the the reports of his predecessors, he wrote up a contrived set of repairs...which necessitated a 4th inspection two weeks later! Naturally, my friend and the prospective tenant were quite perturbed that the terrible organization of CHAC dragged out the process for over three months. The end result was three months of lost rent for the landlord and a tenant who needless had to wait for her apartment.

If CHAC were efficient, they would have sent the same guy to re-inspect the property or at least required that all inspectors use the same case sheet for each property. Either option would have resolved the problem in two inspectors, rather than four. At first we attributed this to terrible organization, but after hearing this same story from a half dozen other landlords we became convinced that it was intentional. The 2nd and 3rd inspectors had to generate arbitrary lists of repairs to justify their presence in a bloated, overstaffed bureaucracy. If enough inspectors were able to wrap up a case in half the time, with half the work, sooner or later the bureaucracy might be forced to do what is fiscally and ethically sound - streamline their operations to waste less of the taxpayer's money.

I am certain that the same dynamics apply to other government workers, from the lowliest bureaucrat all the way to Pelosi and Obama. We can be certain that not even the highest mountain of evidence that indicated that the market will correct itself and the recession will run its course would ever prompt Pelosi or Obama to take a less interventionist course of action.

To do so would diminish their importance and power. The expansion of their power and prestige is contingent on the existence of a crisis that only they, with their divine intervention, can solve. And by spending a trillion dollar on permanent programs to solve a temporary ailment, these demagogues increase the dependency of individuals, businesses and whole communities on the federal government.

Intelligent individuals and communities who are not dependent on the state hold politicians and parties accountable and accordingly are more independent in their voting patterns. And of course, those who are dependent on the state will always vote for the same statist politicians and parties, no matter how poorly they deliver. Just look at how awful public schools and public services are in African-American communities in Chicago, yet the democratic machine is strongest in those very communities. Now that's change we can believe in!