Thanksgiving thoughts: socialism and property rights

I am a big fan of the Reason Foundation. On Reason's "out-of-control" weblog is an article entitled, "The First Thanksgivings: A Lesson in Socialism and Private Property Rights."

The reason article led me to a column written by Benjamin Powell at the Independent Institute about the Pilgrim's initial attempt at a communal economic system, how it went wrong and how it was fixed.

The Pilgrims’ Real Thanksgiving Lesson. From the article:

"In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.

Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.

This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.

We are direct beneficiaries of the economics lesson the pilgrims learned in 1623. Today we have a much better developed and well-defined set of property rights. Our economic system offers incentives for us—in the form of prices and profits—to coordinate our individual behavior for the mutual benefit of all; even those we may not personally know.

It is customary in many families to give thanks to the hands that prepared this feast during the Thanksgiving dinner blessing. Perhaps we should also be thankful for the millions of other hands that helped get the dinner to the table: the grocer who sold us the turkey, the truck driver who delivered it to the store, and the farmer who raised it all contributed to our Thanksgiving dinner because our economic system rewards them. That’s the real lesson of Thanksgiving. The economic incentives provided by private competitive markets where people are left free to make their own choices make bountiful feasts possible."

The Pilgrims, way back in the 1620's, realized that the way to prosperity for society is individual rights, freedoms and responsibility instead of redistribution of wealth, collectivism and being your brother's keeper. Let's not repeat the mistake the Pilgrims made, again.

Do government bailouts violate the Constitution?

Judge Andrew Napolitano seems to think so.

Treasury Secretary Paulson argued for the $700 billion bank bailout in order to acquire damaged mortgage assets. He initially claimed that the acquisition of these damaged assets would help to remedy the credit crunch. Paulson apparently had a change of heart and instead did something completely different with the bailout money - bought stock in banks that were operating in the black.

Not only does Napolitano take issue with the Constitutionality of the bailout itself, he also takes issue with the Constitutionality of Congress essentially delegating, to Paulson, the power of determining how to spend the bailout money.

The Bitter Fruit of an Unconstitutional Bailout

"Bailouts violate the Equal Protection doctrine because the Congress can’t fairly pick and choose who to bail out and who to let expire; they violate the General Welfare Clause because they benefit only a small group and not the general public; they violate the Due Process Clause because they interfere with contracts already entered into; and they turn the public treasury into a public trough. Worse still, Congress lacks the power to let someone else decide how to spend the peoples’ money. In effect, the Congress delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury some of the power the Constitution has delegated to the Congress: The power to decide when, how, for whose benefit, and in what amounts taxpayer dollars should be spent.

This delegation of power to the secretary directly violates a basic principle of constitutional law: Delegated powers cannot be delegated away. The Constitution delegates to the Congress the power to write all federal laws specifically related to spending, to the president the power to enforce those laws (and he must spend as the Congress ordains), and to the courts the power to interpret the laws (and they usually stay away from issues of spending).

Congress can’t cede power to the executive branch because Congress and the president are powerless to change the delicate balance among the three branches of government which the Constitution created.

The secretary of the treasury can spend all the peoples’ money he can get his hands on. He can buy all the stock he wants in all the solvent banks that don’t need it and don’t want government investments and the strings that come with them. He can bail out and try to manage all the corporations his advisers recommend whose executives made millions but lost billions. But he is exercising power unconstitutionally given to him by the Congress, procured with only ten hours of debate and hearings, and the very premise of which he unilaterally rejected afterwards."

Just wait until the TV networks come begging for bailout money. And we wonder why our economy and country are in the shitter.

One bailout after another.....

Plan begins to emerge to rescue Citigroup

"U.S. government regulators were nearing approval of a radical plan to stabilize Citigroup on Sunday in which the government would soak up tens of billions of dollars in losses at the struggling bank, according to people briefed on the discussions.

The plan, which emerged after a harrowing week in the financial markets, would mark the government's third effort in as many months to contain the deepening economic crisis. While the negotiations were in flux on Sunday night, the proposal, if applied to other banks, could set the precedent for other multibillion-dollar financial rescues."

Please allow me to provide my own personal interpretations of the bold and italicized sentences above.

1) "the government would soak up tens of billions of dollars in losses at the struggling bank."

My interpretation: our government will misuse more of YOUR tax money to pay for more corporate losses.

2) "the proposal, if applied to other banks, could set the precedent for other multibillion-dollar financial rescues."

My interpretation: don't think that our government is going to stop screwing us in the backside anytime soon.

Many who advocate for these business bailouts balk at the idea of cutting corporate taxes. The claim is that reducing corporate tax rates is corporate "welfare." I'm not so sure there is a difference. For a bailout, the government redistributes back to the corporations taxes which have already been collected. Why not just take less money from corporations (and the citizens) in the first place?

A very dangerous precedent is being set. Businesses will not be competitive or run a tight ship and competition may decrease (and prices will go up) when companies know that they can run to the government for financial help. We will be paying for this, among other government misuses of our tax dollars, for a long time.

Veterans day

Thank you to each and every veteran who has served, who is serving and will serve.

A history of Veterans Day.

Another bailout?

This story is just plain aggravating.

GM Warns on Liquidity; Talks With Chrysler May Be Off: "Despite massive restructuring efforts, General Motors (GM: 4.36, -0.44, -9.16%) warned Friday its liquidity next year will fall 'significantly short' of what’s needed to operate its business and that it needs more help from the government. GM also hinted it’s no longer pursuing merger talks with Detroit neighbor Chrysler................GM, Ford and Chrysler have already received approval for $25 billion in low interest loans from the government."

Here we go again!

Diatha D. Harris in her classroom

Fifth-grade teacher Diatha D. Harris says that for president "I can support whomever I want to support as long as I don't brow beat another person for the candidate that they supported."

Maybe she meant no brow beating unless its in her fifth grade classroom.

Yes, you heard correctly. Ms. Harris said, "John, oh no, John McCain. Oh Jesus, John McCain."

And yes, Ms. Harris did refer to the Iraq war as "a senseless war" followed by the statement that John McCain "is saying that our troops could stay in Iraq for another 100 years if they need to. That means your daddy could stay in the military for another 100 years."

I would have loved if the student actually did the math and exclaimed, "sweet my dad is going to live until he's 140!" I hope that Ms. Harris is not a fifth grade math teacher.

Diatha, you were brow beating that poor student. Most fifth graders are not mature enough to understand politics, let alone discuss the "senselessness" of a military conflict. Of course, we can't believe everything we see since "it (the video) has been doctored, they didn’t show anything about Obama.”

They didn't show anything about Obama? Do you mean to say that the video was doctored to purposely exclude where you brow beat Obama supporters, too (I doubt it)? These kids are in fifth grade. They're not old enough to understand politics, discuss reasons for going to war or ponder why people die in wars. Try teaching them some spelling or reading (but not math). Then maybe some day they'll be able to discuss politics and be part of the political process in America.

Chuck Schumer and the fairness doctrine

Schumer's words from the interview: "Do you think that we should allow people to put pornography on the air, absolutely not, particularly on television and radio?"

The very same people who don't want the fairness doctrine, want the FCC to limit pornography on the air.......but you can't say that government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you're allowed to intervene in another, that's not consistent."

No, Chuckie, pornography is not appropriate for commercial TV or radio. But the government has no place regulating the discussion of politics and political views, even if they are not yours. Its one hell of a logic leap to say that commercial talk radio, which is devoid of nudity and sex, is similar to pornography.

Here's why Schumer has a bug up his rear-end. Conservatives have traditionally done well in talk radio. Schumer wants to stiffle political discussion and debate (not pornography) because much of the programming is at direct odds with Schumer's liberal politics. When is Schumer going to call for the application of the fairness doctrine to cable TV news? CNN, CNNHN, MSNBC - all liberal. That unequal distribution of viewpoints on cable TV news apparently isn't "pornographic" to Schumer. Now that's not consistent.

Radio and TV stations play what makes them money. Its called the free market. Leave it alone.

Here's to the death of the fairness doctrine!

The two-party political monopoly in American politics

Yesterday, I voted Libertarian for president. I could not bring myself to vote for either the republican or democratic candidates since neither of them come close to my personal views. After the votes were tallied, 98.4% of the vote went to either McCain or Obama. I think that it would do a lot of good for our country if a strong third party could emerge. But less that 2% of the total popular vote went to presidential candidates from third parties.

Radley Balko has written an excellent opinion piece, which is posted both on foxnews.com and on his own website, about the monopoly that the Democrats and Republicans have on our voting system.

Here are some excerpts:

"Bob Barr has no chance of winning the election. But regardless of what you may think of his politics, or that of third-party candidates like Ralph Nader or Chuck Baldwin, this system is rigged. The two major parties have effectively cemented their grip on power by creating laws that make it virtually impossible for upstarts to compete with them. They have effectively done with campaign laws what federal business regulations tend to do in the private sector — protect the behemoth, entrenched dinosaurs that dominate the industry by making it too expensive and difficult for anyone to challenge them.

Consider these two figures: Congress' approval rating right now is a dismal 19 percent. Clearly, we aren't happy with the people who are governing us. Yet 90-95 percent of the incumbents running for re-election to Congress will be victorious on election night. Many will run unopposed. Between gerrymandering their districts to ensure a friendly electorate, campaign finance legislation, debate rules that effectively bar third-party participants, onerous ballot access rules, and the privileges of office, the Democrats and Republicans have ensured that the vast majority of the country will chose only between one of two candidates this year — candidates who, when it comes right down to it, really aren't all that different.

The system we have now selects for the sorts of people who want to make a career of politics. If, in order to successfully run for high office, you have to spend years culling favors and working your way up through one of the two major parties, the winners in this game are going to be the party loyalists and power-hungry climbers who couldn't hack it in the private sector — frankly, the last personality type we want governing."

Peggy Joseph: "If I help him, he'll help me."

I wonder if Peggy's gas tank was full this morning or will she have to wait until 21 Jan 2009?

And for the record, I voted for Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party yesterday. Politics as usual is not my thing.

Presidential stances on the second amendment

Barack Obama's stances on the second amendment here, here, here and here.

John McCain's take on the second amendment here and here.

Bob Barr's opinion here.

Tomorrow's election

If you're voting for Obama tomorrow or if you're still undecided, please think about the bull.

Five reasons to vote against Obama

I came across this article in the Boston Herald written by columnist and talk show host Howie Carr. Despite the article's title, there appears to be six reasons listed in the article (not to mention the many reasons that were left out - after all, a columnist's space is limited). Getting this particular list down to a mere 5 or 6 was probably incredibly difficult.

Five reasons to vote against Obama:

"Five reasons to vote against Obama? Only five? I could give you 50, no problem.

1. He wants to tax working Americans back to the Stone Age. He lies when he says he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You know it’s nonsense because they can’t keep their numbers straight from hour to hour. Obama claims everyone making under $250,000 is safe, or is it $200,000 (the infomercial) or $150,000 (Joe Biden)? On Friday, Gov. Bill Richardson cut it to $120,000. Oh what a tangled web we weave. The fact is, the wealth-spreaders have vowed to do away with the Bush tax cuts. So everybody who pays any income taxes is going to take a hit. Plus, the friends of ACORN also plan to get rid of the cap on Social Security withholding taxes. That means everyone who makes over $102,700 will be slaughtered. I don’t have room to talk about capital gains.

2. The federal courts. In that famous 2001 Chicago radio interview, Obama wistfully talked about the need for the Supreme Court to break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. You know, those pesky constraints that make us a nation of laws, not governed by the whims of the Friends of Obama, or Jeremiah Wright. You think Breyer and Ginsburg are beyond the pale? Obama’s crowd thinks they’re too conservative.

3. Teach the Obama-worshipping bumkisser media a lesson. Have they ever been more in the tank for anyone? They’re all worried about the Patriot Act and terrorists’ rights at Gitmo, but they had no problems printing flat-out lies about Sarah Palin. More recently, they took handouts from Obama thugs in Ohio on Joe the Plumber’s tax liens, divorce problems, child-support payments etc. - worse violations of privacy rights than anything that’s happened under the Patriot Act. But who cares - Joe the Plumber is just a typical white person.

4. The character of Barack Obama. You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much. He lectures you that your kids will have to learn Spanish - your kids, not his. He’s always railing about economic justice, but his illegal-alien aunt lives in poverty in Southie. Hey Barack, I thought charity began at home. Like John Kerry and Joe Biden, he doesn’t believe in donating to charity. Obama is a classic liberal hypocrite: He’ll give anybody the shirt off your back, not his.

5. Michelle Obama. Another pampered semi-literate Ivy Leaguer who still considers herself a victim, even with her $360,000-a-year job as diversity coordinator at a Chicago hospital. Can you stand four years of this harridan lecturing you on your greed?

6. All the other stuff I don’t have much room for. Where the heck was Barack Obama really born? Don’t forget his pal Bill Ayers dedication of his 1974 book 'Prairie Fire' to, among others, Sirhan Sirhan. (Are you listening, Teddy and Caroline?) If Obama loses, Gwen Ifill’s book tanks. The return of the Fairness Doctrine to censor free speech. Joe Biden, a heartbeat away. And the No. 1 reason of all to vote against Barack Obama: If he loses it will drive the moonbats absolutely bonkers."

Is this the "change" we want?

We are in the 11th hour in the decision for our next president and either we have our heads up our asses or we're all like moths following the bright and shiny light in the Obama/Biden moth trap.

Exactly how does the Obama/Biden camp define rich? Exactly how would an Obama administration change our already onerous and ridiculous tax code?

Obama's tax-cut threshold shrinking? Confusion abounds as voters hear $250,000, $200,000, now $150,000

Originally, Obama said everyone making less than $250,000 will not see a tax increase.

Then Obama said that everyone making$200,000Then Joe Biden said it wasbut Gov. Richardson said

Then there is the famous claim that "95 percent of working Americans" will receive a tax break. However, 95% of Americans would only include those making less than $153,542 per year (which essentially supports Biden's claim).

Nevermind the continual flip-flopping between "tax cut" and "no tax increase."

So exactly where would an Obama administration draw the line? The election has yet to happen and the taxation message out of the Obama/Biden camp has changed more often then there are days remaining until the election. Is this the type of change we want - continually changing positions on the issues? Perhaps next the limit for a tax increase will be near the poverty level so EVERYONE sees a tax increase. Again, I ask, "is this really the 'change' we want??"

A civilian national security force?

A civilian national security force to help defend and secure the homeland? Cool, he must be talking about the second amendment! Sweet. Oh, wait, how will we defend the homeland if the government takes away our guns? I guess we should all start sharpening our sticks. Of course when someone uses a stick to commit a murder, sharp sticks will be outlawed.

The government is big....and its only going to get bigger.

Barack Obama on Concealed Carry

Under Obama/Biden, you would likely lose the individual right to personal protection.

From nraila.org: Barack Obama and Concealed Carry: