Spoiled Goodness

(Meant to post this about three weeks ago. Pretend it's Christmas Eve. Sorry.)

By Michael Giometti-

C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity describes the derivative nature of evil and error. He points out that, since evil/error represents a twisting of something good, it is not a separate thing and thus always retains something of the virtuous:

I do mean that wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of
some good in the wrong way. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness: you
cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness. You can do a kind action when you
are not feeling kind and when it gives you no pleasure, simply because kindness
is right; but no one ever did a cruel action simply because cruelty is
wrong—only because cruelty was pleasant or useful to him. In other words badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. (p. 44,
2001)

The statists in Congress bent on further socializing our health care system are not immune to this fundamental law, but they are struggling mightily against it. For a long time now, whenever federal politicians have been asked to justify constitutionally their unconstitutional actions, they have given one of two responses. The increasingly popular one, illustrative of the progressive dulling of our political sensibilities, is to dismiss the question as entirely irrelevant (constiwhat?, constiwho?). The more quaint, traditional dodge has been to at least proffer some offhand (though erroneous) boilerplate appealing to the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution. Both cases illustrate Lewis’s maxim, and on more than one level.

Both of these techniques have been employed in the current health care debate. In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indulged in each herself. When asked to justify constitutionally the House health care bill, she simply dismissed the question entirely by saying, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” When pressed, her office fell back on the traditional dodge in the form of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Never mind that the sole intent of this provision was to facilitate the flow of goods across state borders. Unfortunately, since the late nineteenth century, it has been used to rationalize federal control over just about any type of activity you can think of.
When posed the same question with regard to the Senate bill, Senator Roland Burris was game from the get-go. He struggled manfully with the question and came up with this gem of extemporaneous constitutional reasoning:

Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the -- protect the health, welfare of
the country. That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any
constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the
Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the
country.

When notified that the Constitution says nothing about health, the Senator’s office later clarified his remarks by saying that he was actually referring to the General Welfare Clause. I suppose he can be excused for the lapse. Who can be expected to know much about the constitution after receiving an undergraduate degree in political science, a J.D., and an L.L.M.--or after spending a quarter-century in government?

Now notice what Burris has done here. In appealing to the General Welfare Clause, he is subscribing to that widespread, and mistaken, notion that it was meant to be a blank-check provision for anything that federal politicians think might be useful at any particular time. By way of assuring skeptics during the ratification debates, however, even the most ardent supporters of a strong national government, such as James Madison, “Father” of the Constitution, maintained that this clause did not grant any powers in addition to the ones enumerated in Article I, Section 8. Madison and the other proponents of the new constitution, at least at that time, considered the clause a summary of or caption to these enumerated powers and not a separate grant of power. The real, and universally recognized, import of this caption was that the powers listed beneath it were to be exercised in a way so as to benefit the nation as a whole and not one state at the expense of the rest.

So, Burris makes his first mistake by looking to the General Welfare Clause instead of those enumerated powers for overall justification of this bill. It’s not surprising to see statists do this since that severely limited list of powers doesn’t include one authorizing the implementation of a health care program (or much else, for that matter). But even if, for the sake of argument, we did assume a constitutional warrant, say under the General Welfare Clause, for nationalized health care, we notice that the statists with their current bill still run afoul of the constitution. This time, though, they do so, ironically enough, by abrogating the General Welfare Clause, with its requirement of non-partiality. For you see, in order to assure passage, Senate Majority Leader Reid has worked out deals, or “compromises” as he calls them, with Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, Louisiana, and, most publicly, Nebraska, which accord these states considerable special favors.

Now, getting back to Lewis’s point, it’s right and laudable for legislators to try to justify their actions constitutionally. The speciousness of any of these attempted justifications represents a falling away, and an example of evil, of error. Nevertheless, no matter how tortured or ironic a rationalization may be, more than a kernel of right-mindedness remains. In this way, Burris and Pelosi 1 are better than Pelosi 2, who dispenses entirely with the need to even try to adhere to this most important of legal standards.

On a more abstract level, though, Burris and Pelosis 1 & 2 make the same mistake--and exhibit the same virtue. They both appeal, correctly, to the moral right of the Needy to receive help, and the moral obligation of the Able to provide help. And, in so doing, I don’t think that we can entirely discount a certain amount of genuine altruism on their part--and certainly not on the part of a lot of their supporters. In this way, we again see a residue of right-mindedness.
Where they fall away, though, in this respect, is when they confuse moral right with legal right, and moral obligation with legal obligation--important distinctions in a free society.

What they need to understand, and what we must continually remind ourselves, is that humans are made to live in an environment of freedom, with a minimum of coercion. In the final analysis, as a result of what happens in that realm of freedom--whether, for example, we act as benefactors or beneficiaries with regard to others--we are edified and help bring out the best in ourselves and others. We also bring about the best of all possible worlds--though not a heaven to be sure.

When we lose sight of this truth, when we lose faith in ourselves or others, when we seek to shirk the responsibility to live fully and grow in this daunting world and instead opt for some ersatz utopia, we relinquish our birthright as free humans and all that goes with it. It is comforting at this time of year and at this moment of in our history, however, to remember Lewis’s words and keep in mind that no matter how far down the road of error we go, we carry a seed of truth and virtue with us that continually, at the very least, beckons forth the best from us.

And Now for Something Completely Predictable: A Retro-Post for a Retro-Celebrity Part Two

By Michael Giometti-

(In the first part of this post we started to take John Cleese to task for his characterization of America, or at least that part of it that doesn’t swoon over Barack Obama, as “backwoods, racist, and redneck.” We set out to prove that there was very little in the way of “hope and change” that we could expect from an Obama administration (and so far we have not been disappointed). We numbered the ways that George Bush, far from being a” heartless, small-government conservative” when it came to social welfare policies, was actually a suitable heir in that respect to FDR and LBJ. Here we’ll continue the tirade by listing the ways that Barack Obama resembles George Bush and his ilk on national security issues.)

Left or Right?

On national security issues, the Bush administration was rightly characterized as fond of unconstitutional foreign military operations and domestic security measures. This behavior is considered typically right-wing, but a cursory look at modern Democrat administrations, from Wilson to Clinton, and their friendly Congresses puts the lie to this. Detailing the ways these “peace-loving” Democrats slashed and burned their way through the geopolitical landscape of the twentieth century will take another overly long post, so we’ll stick with Barack Obama for now.

Despite the constant shouts of “Hope and Change” that rained down like hammer blows from the Obama campaign, Democrats, and those in the media friendly to him (known as The Media), Barack Obama is no great agent of change. Consider his stands on various national security issues as Senator and candidate—and later as President:

· Senator Obama was always an outspoken critic of our involvement in Iraq and has moved to end that involvement as president. His commitment, like most Democrats in Congress, can be called into question, however, in light of his nearly complete reluctance to vote to defund the effort, as well as the leisurely nature of his exit plan as president, which will keep us there until at least 2012.

· Iraq aside, from listening to some of his campaign speeches one could be forgiven for seeing Senator and candidate Obama as an interventionist on the order of Bill Clinton or George Bush. While condemning our operation in Iraq, he nonetheless justified hypothetical large-scale operations in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Pakistan.

Just days after the inauguration, President Obama launched missile strikes against Taliban and Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan, continuing a recent Bush Administration policy of small-scale missile strikes there. In the ensuing months, Obama has softened his public comments on any intensification of American military activity in Pakistan in hopes of prodding Pakistan itself to take more active measures against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Toward this end he has secured a dramatic increase in aid to the country. Nevertheless, he has left open the possibility of more active military measures there.

· Like most Democrats, Obama has been an enthusiastic supporter of our involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed a common refrain among Democrats, including Obama, has been that the Republicans’ “obsession” over Iraq had caused the important struggle in Afghanistan to be “under-resourced.” As president, Obama sent 17.5 thousand additional troops shortly after taking office and has just announced a plan to send about twice as many more.

· Obama has a mixed record on civil liberties for American citizens. As a senator, though he did call for a liberalizing reform of the PATRIOT Act in 2005, he nevertheless voted for amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2008 that extended government wiretapping authority. Furthermore, as president, he is now calling for a renewal of those provisions of PATRIOT Act set to expire.

What hasn’t been brought up so far are the similar efforts under Bush and Obama to prop up/stimulate our ailing economy. This mare’s nest deserves its own post, but it suffices to say that Bush played Herbert Hoover to Obama’s FDR in laying the foundation (and the first few stories) of a vast government edifice of disastrous economic planning.

So again, Mr. Cleese, why all the breathless talk about some great choice to be made in this country?

(In the next, and last, part of this post interminable, let’s take a look at John Cleese’s political views—or at least what we can best determine them to be. For, you see, it’s hard to find anything explicit on that subject for about a decade. Watching him spew condescension from his seaside porch to an obsequious, nondescript interviewer or slap thighs with an equally unchallenging Keith Olbermann takes us pretty far, but we’ll nevertheless take a closer look. We’ll also show what these views have meant for Great Britain. More generally, we’ll consider why it is that the ideologies of Right and Left seem to converge, and why their respective members remain stubbornly oblivious to this fact and unjustifiably vituperative to their philosophical cousins. Finally, I’ll qualify my criticism of Europeans, but not Monty Python.)

What Recovery? America's Problems "Getting Worse, Not Better," Says Jim Rogers

(Yahoo Finance)

"It's getting worse, not better."

That's how Jim Rogers responds to the recent talk of improvement from President Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Fed Chairman Bernanke, among others.

"Papering over the problem is not going to solve America's problem," Rogers says. "The idea you can solve a problem of too much debt and too much consumption with more consumption and more debt defies belief. I cannot believe that grownups would stand there and say that."

History shows the only way to solve a financial crisis is "when people go bankrupt, you let them go bankrupt," Rogers say. "Then, competent people come in, take over the assets, reorganize and you start over."

But rather than "take the pain and reorganize and start over," as Sweden, South Korea and others have done, Rogers says America is "doing the Japanese model."

Keeping zombie banks alive and bailing out their creditors will only prolong the pain, the famed financier predicts. "What has been happening is the government has been printing and spending a lot of money," he says. "The problem is not solved - they're making the problem worse."

Adding insult to injury, Rogers fears the "unintended consequences" of new regulations that inevitably come from politicians seeking someone to blame for the crisis.

"The problems in last two years came from industries that are heavily regulated: banking, insurance, mortgage," he notes. "Now what? You're going to make the regulations tougher? It's not the regulations, it's the regulators."

Sovereign Debt Is the Next Big Worry

By MICHAEL CASEY (WSJ)

NEW YORK -- If you're looking for one global risk to really worry about, look no further than the mountain of debt accumulated by governments in their efforts to support domestic economies.

Moody's Investors Service says there's $49.5 trillion of sovereign debt outstanding -- and this week, ratings firms, and some jumpy bond traders, have shone a glaring light on it.

The raters are worried that governments' massive deficit-spending campaigns to pull their economies out of last year's crisis won't produce enough economic growth to pay for itself.
But none of this is new. A month ago, the International Monetary Fund projected that the average debt-to-gross domestic product ratio of the 10 advanced country members of the Group of 20 developing and developed nations would mushroom to 118% by 2014. Such numbers have led some pundits to warn of a debt crisis, especially regarding the U.S.'s dependence on foreign creditors.

What's key now is that the recent market jitters could be self-fulfilling. Falling bond prices mean higher yields, which makes it harder for governments to refinance future obligations. That will hurt the currencies of those nations and will challenge fixed exchange rate regimes -- especially in the euro zone and for currencies pegged to the dollar.

Spain became the latest flashpoint Wednesday when Standard Poor's changed the outlook on its AA+ rating to negative. As it did when it downgraded Portugal's outlook Monday, S&P emphasized a weak growth outlook.

And with their bonds hammered for different reasons, Greece and Dubai's and Abu Dhabi's government-controlled entities have similarly seen ratings or outlook downgrades this week.

Also on Tuesday, Moody's acknowledged two elephants in the room. Although it referred to worst-case scenarios, the agency said the U.S. and the U.K.-- whose public debt runs to $12.1 trillion and $1.3 trillion, respectively--could potentially lose their triple-A ratings.

Meanwhile, analysts are worried about Japan, where deflation makes it ever-more expensive for the government to repay a debt that's projected to hit 220% of GDP in 2014.

Sovereign borrowers aren't supposed to default, at least not on local-currency debt, because their central banks can always print money. But Russia's ruble default in 1998 blew that theory away. And in any case, printing money to pay down the debt means robbing Peter to pay Paul: too often, we pay for it with inflation.

In theory, if a global capacity glut were to continue generating deflationary pressures, it might not be a problem to repay the debt with yet more "quantitative easing." But with so much liquidity already making inflation hawks nervous and fueling potential asset bubbles, pressures are rising for monetary tightening, not loosening.

And that's why sovereign strugglers are most at risk. When the European Central Bank hikes rates it's going to make Greece's interest obligations only more burdensome.

That raises questions about the entire euro zone. The ECB must pursue a policy that fits the price stability outlook for the 16-member euro zone as a whole.

But can debt-laden Greece handle that? Or Spain? Or Italy? What if a U.S. recovery pushes the Federal Reserve closer to an exit from its extraordinarily accommodative policy stance? That would hurt big sovereign debtors whose currencies are pegged to the dollar -- ike Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Alternatively, what if the biggest shoe were to drop? Although it's near impossible to imagine the U.S. Treasury formally defaulting, many worry that its mammoth debt burden could lead to a dollar collapse. Then all bets are off.

None of these scenarios must play out. Nonetheless, they show why sovereign debt is the problem to watch.

White House Calls for Summit on Summits New “Summit Czar” Named*

By Michael Giometti –

On Thursday, the White House called for a major overhaul of the way it conducts summits. Part of the initiative is a proposed meeting of stakeholders who will be entrusted with the task of constructing a plan to improve the operation of these meetings—a “summit” on summits, as it were.

“For far too long in this town,” the President said, “both Republicans and Democrats have conducted these meetings in an environment of partisanship and pleading of special interests. Those days are over. From now on it’s no longer “summits as usual.”

The director of the newly created White House Office of Consensus Development, or” Summit Czar”, Frances Tugwell, when asked about the new initiative, affirmed the President’s commitment to openness and inclusivity. “We are eschewing the politics of exclusion and special interest. The participants of this summit represent the breathtaking diversity of this wonderful country, from the AFL-CIO to the Sierra Club to Public Citizen.”

When asked about the improvement in the environmental impact of future summits, if any, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “Well, uh, I don’t know exactly what the carbon footprints of these meetings will be, or, uh, what exactly a carbon footprint is, but I’ll, uh, get back to you on that, uh.”

*keen political satire

And Now for Something Completely Predictable: A Retro-Post for a Retro-Celebrity, Part One

By Michael Giometti –

You might remember British comedian John Cleese. He was the one who played, very competently, a haughty, condescending psychotherapist in one episode of the 80s sitcom Cheers. He is also one of that breed of Europeans (called “Europeans”) that feels the need to characterize America as uncivilized, uncouth, and unenlightened. This breed habitually attempts to soothe, through slander, its wounded collective (per EU) ego over the success of its upstart bastard child, the United States. The fact that the U.S. had surpassed its parent continent long ago by just about any measure you care to use: economic, cultural, altruistic, etc. is of no end of annoyance to the Mother Race.

It’s not just that we’ve achieved more and are resented for it; what’s truly galling is that, on net, we’ve benefitted the rest of this benighted planet (including Europe) more than any other society in history—and, on a lot of that planet are resented, in direct proportion, for it. We do deserve to be criticized, but not for our racism, or laissez-faire thinking (which are more at odds with each other than some think) but, ironically, for our increasing tendency to ape our critics, from Europe and elsewhere, in their statism.

In an interview just before the election of President Obama, Cleese gleefully smeared any American who didn’t look forward to that outcome. Without defending unduly George Bush (a truly bad president), John McCain, Sarah Palin, or Republicans in general, I bristle at his judgment that only the election of statist (and black) Barack Obama could prove to the rest of the world that we’re not a “backwoods, redneck, and racist country.”

I have two big problems with Mr. Cleese—well, three, if you count Monty Python. Ignoring for the time being that silly, over-rated waste of time (Monty Python, that is), my first problem is with the idea that in this day and age a genuine, discrete difference in philosophy exists between evil, plutocratic, racist Republicans and compassionate, deep-thinking, heroic Democrats. There certainly is not more than a marginal difference between the philosophies of your run-of-the-mill Republican and your run-of-the-mill Democrat—which, make no mistake, Barack Obama very much is. My second problem is that this shared philosophy is not at odds with, but rather is largely in accord with, contemporary European thinking, and is thus disastrously illiberal and statist. It is also, ironically, a repudiation of those civilizing classical liberal ideals which we took from our European parents (they weren’t really using them much anyway), applied assiduously here, and built the best society ever.

Right or Left?

As for the supposed distinctions between Republican/Democrat, Right/Left these days in America, Cleese should do some homework. Consider the record of the previous “evil” Republican administration regarding domestic, non-security-related matters:

· George Bush enthusiastically supported and signed into law the biggest entitlement program enacted since the genesis of the Great Society, namely, Medicare Part D.

· George Bush increased education spending 58% faster than inflation during his time in office. As usual, leftist objections to Bush’s education policy are laughably hypocritical.

· Bush’s tax cuts were modest and temporary, and, press coverage notwithstanding, increased the relative tax burden on the rich, while decreasing it on the less well-off.

· De-regulation, again notwithstanding misleading press coverage, did not occur under Bush.

· George Bush was actually quite green, and didn’t deserve the hysterical scorn heaped upon him by “environmentalists”.

· Bush’s Ownership Society idea, supposedly a way to reduce people’s dependence on government, actually fostered more, as in the case of home ownership. Long a fetish of politicians of both parties since the New Deal, government sponsorship of home ownership through tax policy, mortgage guarantees, secondary mortgage purchases, and onerous arm-twisting of lenders accelerated during the Clinton and Bush administrations. These chickens have recently come home to roost.

· George Bush increased federal spending by about as much as Lyndon Johnson--remember him, the author of the Great Society, the biggest package of misguided welfare spending in world history. Far from dismantling egalitarian Democrat panaceas like the Great Society and the New Deal, Bush extended them more than any other administration. What helped Bush here was his refusal to veto a single appropriations bill until the second half of his second term. In answer to those inclined to defend Bush’s profligate spending by pointing to the demands of pressing national security issues, consider that Johnson had a little thing called the Vietnam War.

In short, Mr Cleese, on domestic, non-security-related matters, Bush and the Republican Congress acted not like the aloof, laissez-faire caricature living in leftists’ heads, but rather like fairly typical twentieth-century statist politicians—in other words—like Democrats . . . or Europeans . . . or Barack Obama. By the way, John McCain wouldn’t have disappointed on this score.

(The second part of this post will explore the “surprising” ways Democrats act like Republicans.)

Something to consider during the destruction of your wealth.

Democrats, in their own words, denying any crisis concerning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a 2004 congressional hearing.

Note: this is not an endorsement of Republican policies.
Disclosure: The Socialist Nightmare Escape Plan does not support the creation or continuance of any GSE (government-sponsored enterprises).