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).

We are all Extreme Empiricists Now

By Michael Giometti –

Since President Obama took office, we have been treated by his supporters to the rhetorical ju-jitsu move of the “give the guy a chance; he’s only been in office X days/weeks/months” variety. Such appeals to extreme empiricism, where philosophical opponents are admonished to put off judgment until some indefinite point in the future when, supposedly, sufficient information is available, is a manipulative dodge meant to forestall legitimate debate. It belongs in the same dustbin as a similar dodge employed by others in time of war: “don’t express opposition to the war; we need to display unity and support our troops.”

The unreasonable nature of this tactic can be brought to light quickly by asking those using it if they would abjure from reasoned opposition if a new and different president in the present circumstances advocated the invasion of Canada or the expulsion of the Jews as remedy for our ills, be it the general economic malaise or our “broken health care system.” The historical record is replete with actions like these being touted as national tonics in times of crisis. The answer is obvious.

No, to judge the president’s policies we need not wait for some utilitarian standard of success or failure to be met sometime in the future, perhaps after the maximum amount of damage is done. We are well able to discern deductively, for example, that inherent moral wrongs have already been committed by the president, his administration, and his allies in Congress (not to mention, his predecessor) in their misguided attempts to “stimulate the economy.” The canon of classical liberalism is filled with unassailable a priori arguments for the moral requirement of freedom from a natural law perspective.

Moreover, such expressions of natural law have been codified in our positive law at a fundamental level in our federal (and state) constitutions and should ensure that positive law adheres to these classical liberal tenets. Of course for about a century now, however, any appeal to such underpinnings is almost always laughable window dressing. Such alarmingly statist measures as handouts to, and even equity purchases of, private financial institutions and other entities (with all the attendant government influence that brings) are fraudulently dressed up as necessary expedients well within the purview of the federal government in time of crisis. It shouldn’t take much imagination to understand the horrible immorality and illegality of this ham-fisted expropriation of the property of supposedly free citizens—of not only this generation, but probably the next few as well. Also somehow considered within the pale is the rewriting or voiding of valid contracts freely arrived at by willing and legally competent parties, as well as the theft of the average American citizen’s wealth through inflation of our money supply by means of government-sponsored counterfeiting—er, sorry--monetary stimulus.

Just as we can immediately infer, deductively, the moral impropriety of current policies, we can infer the self-defeating nature of the utilitarian consequences thereof. Those writers mentioned above, as well others-- most notably the economists of the Austrian school such as Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard have provided concrete proof as to the efficacy of freedom. For example, it is the Austrian School which has provided the only coherent explanation of the occurrence of boom and bust in the economy. The sine qua non of this theory is none other than the above-mentioned coerced, government-sponsored inflation of the money supply, which, perversely, is all too often (as now) touted as a cure for the business cycle!

Likewise, in regard to the supposed need to fix a health care system that is already at least half-socialized, we are led to believe that the road to utopia is—wait for it--more government involvement. Again, the moral and legal problems of the theft of citizens’ money (and choices) to build this rickety edifice are brushed aside, as is the powerful inductive argument against such a course as presented by the spectacles of such medical “utopias” as Britain and Canada. Thomas DiLorenzo provides a comprehensive argument here for returning more freedom to this realm.

Far from being a prudent prescription for our recovery, these policies, ironically, represent more of the same poison (namely, overweening government) that has laid us low to begin with. The medical technique of homeopathy, where pathogens are countered with medicines that in the absence of illness have similar effects upon the body, may be effective in treating the human body, but as legal and economic theory it’s a death sentence to the body politic. Policies such as these, which are at odds with the ideals of a free, civilized society, not to mention the binding legal embodiment of these ideals in our constitutions, cannot work to restore those ideals. Nor will they, not coincidentally, yield practical benefits—quite the contrary; to be sure, any future evaluations of the utilitarian consequences are bound to confirm this—but maybe only after it is too late.

You Print The Money, You Get The Perspective.

Today the Federal Reserve expressed jovial confidence that the budding economic recovery was indeed a reality. “Last month we stabilized and now we are building a base. This is the best unknown trillions we have ever spent,” said Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. Additionally, to prove its commitment to ending the “Great Recession” the Fed left borrowing costs near zero for “as long as the people need it.” The central bank also said it would buy about $175 billion of debt issued by government-backed mortgage finance agencies because “we’ve got the money, so why not?”

When asked about the Fed’s decision to keep its benchmark federal funds rate in a range of zero to 0.25 percent Chairman Bernanke said “Sure we’re hedging our bets here, but the crisis is over people! You got to get out there and spend that Money!” The Chairman was also cited as being enthusiastic about the Ghost Mall & Mob Rule Index moving down .68 percent over the last 30 days (the Ghost Mall & Mob Rule Index replaced the formerly tracked M3 shortly after Bernanke took over the post of Chairman).

Read my lips, More New Taxes.

Here are just some of the great ideas coming down the regime’s pipeline.

· Allowing the expiration of the previous Bush administration tax cuts at the end of 2010. The cuts go away if Congress does nothing, raising tax rates on the top earners to 39.6% from 35%, and on the next-highest bracket to 36% from 33%. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 55% of these tax increases will come from small-business income.

· Additional tax increases as part of the House health-care bill. The House Ways and Means chairman calls for a 1% surtax on couples with more than $350,000 in income, 1.5% on incomes more than $500,000, and 5.4% on incomes more than $1 million. The extra tax would kick in at lower levels for unmarried taxpayers. And if promised health-care cost savings don’t materialize, the surtaxes would automatically double.

· $8.2 billion of tax increases for people using health savings accounts or other tax-free savings to purchase over-the-counter drugs.

· A “Comparative Effectiveness Research Tax” of $2 billion on all private and “public option” insurance, plus up to 8% paid by employers–mostly small businesses–that don’t offer health insurance.

· A proposed tax on individuals who do not have health insurance.

· An increased tax on American companies doing business in other countries.

· Raising or abolishing the wage cap on Social Security taxes, which would effectively convert Social Security into a welfare program.

· Reducing the tax benefit for itemized deductions like charitable contributions, which would reduce philanthropy.

John Stossel, ibertarian (not a typo)

By Michael Giometti –

Say it ain’t so, John. In case you haven’t heard, John Stossel , a fixture at ABC for about thirty years, and for some of that time the network’s libertarian gadfly, has finally jumped ship to FOX . No doubt he’ll feel more at home there, maybe more that I thought he would. During one of his pieces on Bill O’Reilly’s show the other night, Stossel was discussing health care with O’Reily, wherein Stossel agreed with O’Reilly that government must play some role in providing healthcare to the poor. Now no one should be surprised that populist republican O’Reilly thinks this is a good idea, but how can someone who calls himself a libertarian endorse this. I’m familiar with the concept of a “small l” libertarian, but this “l” is too small to see-very disappointing. FOX is the best game in town, but is it too much to hope for that a “big L” outlet will appear someday?