“Money, pardon the expression, is like manure. It’s not worth a thing unless it’s spread around, encouraging young things to grow.”
Dolly Levi in Hello Dolly!
Posted by, Nancy Tengler
http://www.wiseandfrugalgovernment.blogspot.com
It’s true. Growth is good. Growth is what has distinguished America over the centuries. It is also true redistribution is bad. Redistribution is what defined the failed Soviet Union. Dividing up an increasingly smaller pie doesn’t take you very far. Dolly Levi knew it. John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan knew it. So did ole Silent Cal Coolidge. Now would someone please tell Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi?
Mr. Obama’s redistributionist tendencies were well documented during the campaign in his oft repeated interchange with Joe the Plumber where he confessed he wanted to “spread the wealth.” Ms. Pelosi has made her tendencies clear with her recent statement regarding unemployment benefits: “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.” She added that unemployment benefits have the “double benefit” of helping the jobless and serving as a “job creator” on the side.
Sounds marvelous. A win win, right? Wrong. Ms. Pelosi’s incoherent logic and Mr. Obama’s “spread the wealth” philosophy are not just bad economic policy they are dangerous to America’s future. Read in its entirety, Dr. Arthur Laffer’s op-ed piece in July 8th’s The Wall Street Journal entitled: “Unemployment Benefits Aren’t Stimulus.” No one can explain economic principles in a more common-sense, logical and entertaining way that Dr. Laffer. No one else can present the case so clearly as to why Washington’s favorite policies simply won’t work. History, of course, could short-cut the arguments but Laffer’s analysis is much more accessible.
A few excerpts:
The flaw in their logic is that when it comes to higher unemployment benefits or any other stimulus spending, the resources given to the unemployed have to be taken from someone else.
The government doesn’t create resources. It redistributes them. For everyone who is given something there is someone who has that something taken away.
While the one person who is unemployed may “buy” more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will “buy” less. There is no stimulus for the economy.
And that is the best way to think about government spending. Since the government produces nothing (unless you count grief and frustration) the best way to think about government revenues (in the form of taxes) is that they come at the expense of the production of private citizens. Any amount of tax paid is money I can’t spend or save for retirement or invest in my business.
In February I wrote a blog entitled: “Superbowl of Government Spending–A Zero Sum Game” where I discussed James Payne’s 1991 book, The Culture of Spending. In that book, Mr. Payne introduces the concept of the “bureaucratic rule of two.”
He writes, “When the government purchases what people can buy for themselves, two additional costs are introduced: the cost of taxation, including the distortion of incentives governing production; and the cost of administration, including the distortion of incentives governing consumption. Calculating these costs is quite difficult but preliminary estimates suggest that for each dollar the federal government recycles through the taxation-subsidy system it wastes more than one additional dollar.”
Citing research studies at the time on the taxation side of the equation (cost is about 60 cents for every dollar collected) and the disbursement side (50 cents for each dollar spent) Payne ,and we, can conclude that government production of a typical good or service in 1991 cost twice as much as the same items produced in the private sector. Hence, the “bureaucratic rule of two.” Not only is the government sucking capital from the private sector which produces our food and clothing and iphones and the majority of our JOBS, but each dollar collected costs more to collect than the value of that dollar. Or as we like to say in the private sector (mostly when referring to government bureaucracy): it’s a lose lose.
If the above argument isn’t compelling enough, consider this final thought also from Dr. Laffer’s op-ed: “Since late 2007 the federal government has spent somewhere around $3.6 trillion to stimulate the economy. That is a lot of money.”
From Nancy Tengler’s Blog: http://www.wiseandfrugalgovernment.blogspot.com
In September 1933, the Agriculture Adjustment Administration in an effort to raise the prices of commodities slaughtered six million young pigs. With unemployment hovering at 22.9%, the homeless numbers rising each day, in the middle of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s economic policy to drive up prices in order to help the farmer resulted in the slaughtering of six million pigs. Never mind that millions of Americans went to bed hungry each night, six million pigs were sacrificed to the economic experiment of FDR and his advisers. Not only did the poor and hungry not get to eat those pigs, but the policy had the desired effect and the price of pork soared until a single slice of bacon was prohibitively expensive.
FDR’s policies were breathtakingly naive and their destructiveness, far reaching. The parallels to the policies being pursued by our current Administration are chilling though far less understandable. President Obama didn’t inherit the disastrous economy FDR did, rather, he is hell-bent on creating one.
When FDR began manipulating the price of gold over breakfast in his White House bedroom in the fall of 1933, he had already vacillated so dramatically and capriciously on monetary policy, British and European financial and political leaders not to mention American businessmen were furious. His efforts failed to calm the markets instead, increased uncertainty. In the spring when he had ordered the Treasury to no longer honor its own gold clause in contracts (a political maneuver that effectively took the U.S. off the gold standard) there was no formal mechanism to set the price. FDR desired to do so and a willing Senate complied with an amendment providing the Executive with the power. Senator Elmer Thomas of Oklahoma cheered the inflationary redistribution of wealth from the creditors (wealthy) to the debtors (those without wealth) by saying: “No issue in 6,000 years save the World War begins to compare with the possibilities embraced in the power conferred” by that action (Shlaes 158).
Yet Roosevelt confided to one of his advisers that he didn’t know what his own policies might be at any given time. He was on “an hourly basis and the situation changes almost momentarily” (162). As Shlaes summarizes Roosevelt’s behavior, “…the president was also inconsistent because he saw no cost to being inconsistent” (162).
But Roosevelt’s arbitrary gold pricing program did not have the desired result. In January of 1934, FDR submitted a bill to return to the gold standard. Almost a year was wasted on his great gold experiment while one in four Americans remained unemployed, millions lost their homes and Hitler strengthened his grip on Germany. The cost of inconsistency was great.
History will reveal the cost of Obama’s inconsistency and destructive economic policies. Millions have been and will be hurt irreparably. All of us will bear the scars. The slaughter of six million pigs by FDR’s Administration in the face of unprecedented unemployment and suffering during the Great Depression was unconscionable. One wonders what will tip the scales for Obama?
Will it be Mr. Obama’s reckless disregard for national security demonstrated by his Administration’s lawsuit against Arizona, unwillingness to protect our borders, proposal to try terrorists as common criminals in New York City, and efforts to close Guantanamo? Or will it be the profligate spending of Trillions of dollars placed on the backs of future generations? Will Health Care–not just the policy but the way it was achieved–be the final straw for historians? Or his ineffective and incompetent management of the Gulf Oil Spill? Relations with Israel? Inconsistent execution of the war in Afghanistan? Or will it simply be that while unemployment rose this president shamelessly and relentlessly worked only on lowering his golf handicap?
The former governor of Alaska wowed them last night in Turlock, California as she helped raise money for California State University (CSU), Stanislaus.
It was a terrific speech, one of her best to date, and thanks goes to CNM founder John D. Villarreal for capturing the proceedings on film for the best copy of the video that exists on the internet, to our understanding. Here is the full speech, in four parts from YouTube. We will list the individual YouTube links after the videos for those who wish to embed the videos on their own sites.
Conservative New Media is very proud and appreciative to have been able to attend Governor Palin’s brilliant night. The fundraiser set a school record which will help numerous Stanislaus students, and the crowd gave the governor a well-deserved, and sustained, standing ovation at the completion of her address.
Representative Todd Tiahrt, 4th Congressional District of Kansas, has recently received the endorsement of “The Architect” Karl Rove, and the Tea Party Express. This past week, he has received the endorsement of former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin!
Todd has been defending Kansas more than ever. Instead of shooting a campaign video, he was on the House floor this past spring debating the irrational and unconstitutional health care legislation being bullied through both chambers. He fought the Obama administration when terrorists were attempted to be transferred to the military disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth (which is a 20 mile drive from my residence).
He publicly opposed the nomination of then-Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mrs. Sebelius has driven the State of Kansas down the gutter in more way than one. She signed a bill in 2003 allowing illegal aliens to pay in-state college tuition in direct violation of Title 8 of the United States Code.
He was the senatorial candidate present at the Kansas City Tea Party, sponsored by PoliticalChips.org. I admit I was shy when I saw him being interviewed by Darla Jaye, of NewsRadio 980 KMBZ, at the Tea Party. He even was talking with people in the concourse at Community America Ballpark.
When I called his office on the day of the infamous health care vote, his staff was still there answering the lines. They still allowed me to voice my concerns, even though I was not his constituent (I’m in the Kansas 3rd).
If you reside in Kansas, I ask that you vote for a true patriot, like Todd Tiahrt for United States Senate on 3 August 2010. If you are not in Kansas, I still urge you to vote for true Conservatives in your state. Because, we will light up the Second of November like the Fourth of July!
In what appears to be a last act of desperation, David Harmer is asking his supporters for 1% of their yearly GROSS income.
When I really didn’t think this CD-11 campaign could get any stranger I get proven wrong! I received an email forwarded from someone on David Harmer’s donor list and started reading. If you can recall I wrote about the cult-like attitude amongst the Harmer supporters and how they were gulping the Kool-Aid by the gallon and this is yet another example.
In the letter, Harmer tells his supporters that if they make $50,000 per year then they should give $500 to his campaign. If they make $100,000 per year they should give $1000 to his campaign and so on. He sort of sounds like a televangelist the way he tries to guilt people into spending their hard earned money don’t you think? After receiving this letter, I wonder how many of his supporters ran to grab their checkbooks. After-all, he did compare this race to what the founding fathers endured when fighting for our nations independence! Are you kidding me? Who writes this crap? That is an INSULT to our founding fathers in my opinion. It is an INSULT to our nation’s independence in my opinion.
He goes on, “Think of what American soldiers risk every day to keep us safe. Think of what the Harmer family is enduring in this campaign…Sometimes it’s those who have the least who give the most.”
I’m sorry David Harmer but you are NOTHING compared to our good men and women serving this fine country! It seems like you are insulting their service and their sacrifice to compare your third political campaign to the risks and struggles that they have endured and continue to endure for us. And in my humble opinion, you and your campaign has reached a whole new LOW! I really can’t believe that you would try to convince “those who have the least” to donate “the most” to your campaign. Are you getting that desperate? Why don’t you file for some more unemployment! After-all, that is taking from the least…from those who need it the most.
Let me finish with this: If Harmer is having no problems asking for your money now and asking for you to give what little money you may or may not have, what is to stop him from voting for tax increases as a way for us citizens to “sacrifice” and do our part? Doesn’t that sound a lot like the liberal Democrats?
In 2007 House speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted President Bush for not asking Americans to sacrifice with tax dollars.
And also in 2007 John Edwards said that if he was elected president, he’ll “institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he’ll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.” – The Concord Monitor
Mr. Harmer you are sounding an awful lot like a Democrat!
Written by John Heida
Originally posted at http://www.rtamerican.us and written by John Heida. John Heida is not paid by any campaign and is not paid by Conservative New Media. He is only a guest author and has his own opinions which you can find on his website at http://www.rtamerican.us. The views expressed in this article are John Heida’s personal opinions only and are meant for informational and entertainment purposes only. John Heida does not allege any facts, cast aspersions on anyone, or make any claims about what he says here, or in any of his other columns on Conservative New Media or on his site. Again, these are only John Heida’s own personal opinions and his First Amendment protected exercise thereof. These opinions are not necessarily the views of Conservative New Media and Conservative New Media does not endorse or represent or warrant any of the content of his articles in any way and is not responsible for them.
Is it true that California 11th Congressional District Republican primary candidate David Harmer filed for unemployment shortly after making nearly $500,000 in a 16-month period?
Please watch the video below for more details on what appears to have been a most un-conservative course of action by the two-time failed political hopeful:
Contra Costa Times political editor Lisa Vorderbrueggen — whose paper had already endorsed Harmer — seemingly attempts to whitewash Harmer’s unemployment flap in her piece on the subject:
Harmer collected $2,395 in unemployment insurance through April 30, 2009. However, all eligible workers who pay into the unemployment insurance pool receive benefits regardless of whether they “need” the money.
Not exactly true, Lisa, which is what I attempted to tell you via Twitter when I saw your mischaracterization:
That is, one has to choose to file for unemployment before one receives any benefits, a reality which Ms. Vorderbrueggen almost certainly knows.
I should mention that I never received a reply from Ms. Vorderbrueggen on Twitter.
David Harmer, after making nearly half a million dollars in one-and-one-quarter years as a lawyer for a failed Wall Street Bank, decided that he deserved a few thousand dollars more from California’s public coffers.
Some might refer to Harmer’s choice to file for unemployment as “greedy,” particularly during a time of such national and statewide economic hardship.
However you view Harmer’s decision, this much is certain: Other conservatives who have made far less than Harmer had during that 16-month period prior to his filing for unemployment have chosen differently. That is, they have chosen not to file for unemployment insurance when it was their right, legally, to do so.
Whether these individuals have not liked the idea of relying on the government for money, have felt someone less fortunate may need the money should there be a shortage of California unemployment funding or were motivated by both of these or other reason(s) isn’t known.
What is known is the choice which David Harmer made when faced with that situation.
And his choice is something which California’s 11th Congressional District voters have the right to know before they head to the voting booth on June 8, 2010.
If you’ve been hearing any of the radio ads in favor of Proposition 14 lately, you may have come to the conclusion that this one is a no-brainer. The proponents of the initiative pitch the law as one which will cut costs and ultimately give us more moderate elected officials in Sacramento and Washington. On the surface, who wouldn’t want that?
This is where you have to look under the covers to see what’s really going on. This initiative would in fact, do just the opposite of what it says it would do. They say that the major political parties would have less of a stranglehold on politics in California if this passes. But, that’s not been the case in the two states that already have similar laws in place.
Both Louisiana and Washington have passed the “Top Two Law”, where all candidates run in a single primary without party affiliation, and the top two vote getters in the primary then face off in the general election. In Louisiana, this has lead to more control of their legislature by the major parties, primarily the Democrats. In California, where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one, it wouldn’t be unlikely in a statewide race for two Democrats to be on the ballot in November with no other party represented. The law also bans write-in candidates in the general election, so you wouldn’t even have that option.
In Congressional races, it’s likely that Los Angeles and the Bay Area would end up choosing between two Democrats, while the Central Valley and north state would be picking between two Republicans. And those of you who affiliate with the smaller third parties, you’re just plain out-of-luck.
There’s nothing about this initiative that will benefit voters, and I urge you to vote no on Proposition 14.
Originally posted at restoreconservatism,blogspot.com by Evan Stone. The opinions expressed in the above article are those of Evan Stone, and not necessarily those of Conservative New Media. Evan Stone is not paid by any political campaign or by Conservative New Media, and provides the above article as a guest contributor to Conservative New Media.
There is a very disturbing trend occurring with the signs of David Harmer’s opponents in the California 2010 Congressional District 11 Republican primary election.
At least some of the signs for Tony Amador, Elizabeth Emken and Brad Goehring — David Harmer’s three opponents in the upcoming primary — have been damaged in recent days.
Oddly enough, however, none of Harmer’s signs seem to have suffered similar “wind damage” or the like.
The video has more on this subject, including evidence of the damage that has happened to these signs:
Who or what is behind the damage which has befallen these signs, and why does it appear that the signs of David Harmer have not been similarly affected?
