The Dreaded S Word – Are the writers of Newsweek insane

Those writers over at Newsweek have lost their marbles. First they said that Somalian immigrants have “saved” Lewiston Maine from crumbling. Now “we are all socialists“.

from Newsweek

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

Ok, I admit I’m taking the title does not represent the article. The Newsweek article simply stated that as more and more babyboomers reach retirement age our entitlement spending will grow. As other problems arise, health care or fuel for example, the government will be forced to spend again. The article suggests we should just except this fact and move on. Does that sound right to you? It shouldn’t.

I don’t mind the government spending if it is smart spending. Newsweek seems to be advocating a spend spend spend government. I give you this analogy. Newsweek has a car. nearly every other month the car is in the shop. $200 here $400 there. They keep going through these small patches until finally the car craps out. Unfortunately for Newsweek, because they were spending to keep fixing the car they never saved enough to afford a new one. That is what they would have us to with our government. Just keep tossing cash around instead of truly fixing problems.

Bush tried it with his bailout and other spending during his administration. I think it’s clear how that turned out. We thrown money at our education system for years. Still our children are not meeting standards and districts still have their hands out. Pension payouts helped tank the big three auto makers. Putting more money into Social Security will not stop the looming shortage.

We need reform and strategic spending not blanket spending. Even Sweden has partly privatized it’s social security. Common sense and cool heads are what we need now. At the end of the Newsweek piece they say, “the catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America’s birthright and saving grace.”

This is why we are not, and will never be, a socialist state, or even a welfare state like France. We will not be limited. Our individual ambitions will not be stifled. Americans don’t just break glass ceilings. We obliterate them. That is what gets us ahead.

I think de Tocqueville said it best

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

The Dreaded S Word – Are the writers of Newsweek insane

Those writers over at Newsweek have lost their marbles. First they said that Somalian immigrants have “saved” Lewiston Maine from crumbling. Now “we are all socialists“.

from Newsweek

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

Ok, I admit I’m taking the title does not represent the article. The Newsweek article simply stated that as more and more babyboomers reach retirement age our entitlement spending will grow. As other problems arise, health care or fuel for example, the government will be forced to spend again. The article suggests we should just except this fact and move on. Does that sound right to you? It shouldn’t.

I don’t mind the government spending if it is smart spending. Newsweek seems to be advocating a spend spend spend government. I give you this analogy. Newsweek has a car. nearly every other month the car is in the shop. $200 here $400 there. They keep going through these small patches until finally the car craps out. Unfortunately for Newsweek, because they were spending to keep fixing the car they never saved enough to afford a new one. That is what they would have us to with our government. Just keep tossing cash around instead of truly fixing problems.

Bush tried it with his bailout and other spending during his administration. I think it’s clear how that turned out. We thrown money at our education system for years. Still our children are not meeting standards and districts still have their hands out. Pension payouts helped tank the big three auto makers. Putting more money into Social Security will not stop the looming shortage.

We need reform and strategic spending not blanket spending. Even Sweden has partly privatized it’s social security. Common sense and cool heads are what we need now. At the end of the Newsweek piece they say, “the catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America’s birthright and saving grace.”

This is why we are not, and will never be, a socialist state, or even a welfare state like France. We will not be limited. Our individual ambitions will not be stifled. Americans don’t just break glass ceilings. We obliterate them. That is what gets us ahead.

I think de Tocqueville said it best

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Is This Stimulus for Us? – Economic stimulus or government stimulus

I am an advocate for sensible stimulus spending. Spending that creates jobs, repairs our failing infrastructure, and reduces our dependence of foreign oil is fine. You’ve got to spend money to make money. For those who’ve had the time, and lack of sanity, to pour over the 700 page American Recovery and Investment Act there are big concerns over how much of this money is going into the government. Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal is one of those concerned citizens.

from Wall Street Journal:

Check your PC’s virus program, then pull down the nearly 700 pages of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Dive into its dank waters and what is most striking is how much “stimulus” money is being spent on the government’s own infrastructure. This bill isn’t economic stimulus. It’s self-stimulus.

(All sums here include the disorienting zeros, as in the bill.)

Title VI, Financial Services and General Government, says that “not less than $6,000,000,000 shall be used for construction, repair, and alteration of Federal buildings.” There’s enough money there to name a building after every Member of Congress.

The Bureau of Land Management gets $325,000,000 to spend fixing federal land, including “trail repair” and “remediation of abandoned mines or well sites,” no doubt left over from the 19th-century land rush.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are getting $462,000,000 for “equipment, construction, and renovation of facilities, including necessary repairs and improvements to leased laboratories.”

The National Institute of Standards gets $357,000,000 for the “construction of research facilities.” The Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gets $427,000,000 for that. The country is in an economic meltdown and the federal government is redecorating.

The FBI gets $75,000,000 for “salaries and expenses.” Inside the $6,200,000,000 Weatherization Assistance Program one finds “expenses” of $500,000,000. How many bureaucrats does it take to “expense” a half-billion dollars?

The current, Senate-amended version now lists “an additional amount to be deposited in the Federal Buildings Fund, $9,048,000,000.” Of this, “not less than $6,000,000,000 shall be available for measures necessary to convert GSA facilities to High-Performance Green Buildings.” High performance?

Sen. Tom Coburn is threatening to read the bill on the floor of the Senate. I have a better idea: Read it on “Saturday Night Live.”

Such as the amendment to Section 2(3)(F) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, which will permit payments to guys employed to repair “recreational vessels.” Under Incentives for New Jobs, we find a credit to employ what the bill calls “disconnected youths,” defined as “not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient number of basic skills.”

President Obama is saying the bill will “create or save” three million new jobs. The bad news is your new boss is Uncle Sam.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says, “Everybody agrees that there ought to be a stimulus package. The question is: How big and what do we spend it on?”

Sen. McConnell should reconsider. He knows that the Bush-GOP spending spree cost them control of Congress in 2006. Thus, “How big?” is not the question his party’s constituents (or horrified independents) want answered. This is a chance for the GOP to climb down from its big-government dunce chair. Until that reversal is achieved, there is no hope for this party.

I think that behind the bill’s sinking public support is the sense that it won’t work and its cost is dangerous. The bill’s design, an embarrassment to Rube Goldberg, is flawed. Even were one to grant the Keynesians their argument, this is a very mushy, weak-form stimulus.

Rather than try to “reform” it, which won’t happen, Sen. McConnell should ask President Obama to pull it and start over. One guesses that privately the president’s economic team would thank the senator. If he won’t pull it, the Senate Republicans should walk away from it. This bill is a bomb. It may wreck more than it saves.

This could go a few ways for the Republicans if they return to their smaller-the-government-the-better roots. If the stimulus should succeed without Republican intervention they will look like out of touch ideologues. Or the stimulus fails without Repubs help. They say I told you so, the people say that’s nice but why didn’t you do anything about it earlier. Those two scenarios aren’t likely. There are Republicans who are keen to do more than partisan posturing and are working hard on cutting the fat from the stimulus bill already.

If they Republicans can work with the Democrats to get this bill trimmed down to be most effective for the crisis they will be in prime shape. Faith will be restored that Repubs have left the big spending ways of George W. behind. I disagree with Henninger that this bill can’t be saved. Republican reform, or financial conservative reform rather, is just what we need to difuse this “bomb”

Nightly News Roundup – Salmonella, Economic Downturn,

ABC: Killer peanuts

NBC: Incredible shrinking economy

CBS: Big ol Gov

WMTW8: 60 for Okie

WCSH6: Vandals strike

WGME13: Stranger danger

The Libertarians Were Going To Come Save Us, But They Thought We Should Learn How To Fix The Economy Ourselves.

Libertarianism…I figured someone would bring that up eventually, other than the fine folks at Reason Magazine that is. Oh that delightful belief that we can solve everything by doing nothing. Well, I read an article the other day stating that libertarianism, mostly its tenant of little to no government regulation, will provide a viable and needed alternative to what the “big government” Obama administration plans to attempt. While I certainly agree Libertarianism has its time and place to be useful, now is neither. Wasn’t 8 years of Bush style Libertarian polices enough?

Bush was no Libertarian you say. On matters such as wiretapping of US citizens, LGBT rights, and stem cell research, the Bush administration operated in a hands on matter to understate the issue. When Bush applied a little Libertarianism the results were utter failure.

Concerning Iraq, the Bush administration favored using contractors rather than government military personal for many positions. A Libertarian would argue here that this would be favorable. Opening the market to many different bidders should allow the government to have the job for the best price by the best workers. That didn’t happen. Companies gouged the government, going way over schedule and way over budget. The government has found much of the building contractors are doing to be well below standards. And of course there is the whole Haliburton mess. KBR, which was a subsidy of Hal, has $2.7 Billion in undocumented spending. They supplied our fighting men and women with unsafe drinking water and faulty electrical work that led to troop deaths. KBR still operates in Iraq. Who picks up the tab? I’m sure you can guess.

How about health care? According to a recent article in the Atlantic in 2000 there were 39.8 million Americans without health insurance. By 2007 the number had swollen to 45.7 million. Health care premiums rose from $6,438 per year to $12,680 per year from 2000 to 2008. Could this have all stemmed from the Libertarian approach to letting the markets sort out health care the Bush administration took?

“Perhaps the most puzzling abdication was the GOP failure to do anything at all on health care. The window for saving private health care from government encroachment is closing, and both business and workers are feeling the pinch from rising costs. Yet Republicans failed to make health-care savings accounts more attractive, failed to let business associations offer their own health plans, and failed even to bring to a vote Arizona Congressman John Shadegg’s bill to avoid costly state mandates by letting health insurance be marketed across state boundaries.”

They missed their chance to fix health care without “big government” stepping in. By taking such an extreme hands off approach to health care, the Bush administration pretty much secured the need for government to step in and solve the issue.

Of course we can’t forget the current economic crisis; really how can we forget. While a few hard right free market groups will slap your mouth if they hear you blame deregulation for the crisis, most will agree that deregulation or at least a lack of regulation is at least partly to blame. The government did not prevent the sale of the toxic mortgages which started this whole mess. When the bubble was about to burst the Federal Reserve did not react accordingly. Had Fed Chair Alan Greenspan only identified the bubble the public perception of the housing market would have altered and the crisis would have been averted or at least contained. Lack of regulation on mortgage qualifications, loan risk assessments, and predatory lending ultimately pushed the crisis over the edge.

Now, here we are living the results of the Bush administrations Libertarian policies. Do you still think that is what he need right now? If you do I just have one more thing to say. Katrina.

The Libertarians Were Going To Come Save Us, But They Thought We Should Learn How To Fix The Economy Ourselves.

Libertarianism…I figured someone would bring that up eventually, other than the fine folks at Reason Magazine that is. Oh that delightful belief that we can solve everything by doing nothing. Well, I read an article the other day stating that libertarianism, mostly its tenant of little to no government regulation, will provide a viable and needed alternative to what the “big government” Obama administration plans to attempt. While I certainly agree Libertarianism has its time and place to be useful, now is neither. Wasn’t 8 years of Bush style Libertarian polices enough?

Bush was no Libertarian you say. On matters such as wiretapping of US citizens, LGBT rights, and stem cell research, the Bush administration operated in a hands on matter to understate the issue. When Bush applied a little Libertarianism the results were utter failure.

Concerning Iraq, the Bush administration favored using contractors rather than government military personal for many positions. A Libertarian would argue here that this would be favorable. Opening the market to many different bidders should allow the government to have the job for the best price by the best workers. That didn’t happen. Companies gouged the government, going way over schedule and way over budget. The government has found much of the building contractors are doing to be well below standards. And of course there is the whole Haliburton mess. KBR, which was a subsidy of Hal, has $2.7 Billion in undocumented spending. They supplied our fighting men and women with unsafe drinking water and faulty electrical work that led to troop deaths. KBR still operates in Iraq. Who picks up the tab? I’m sure you can guess.

How about health care? According to a recent article in the Atlantic in 2000 there were 39.8 million Americans without health insurance. By 2007 the number had swollen to 45.7 million. Health care premiums rose from $6,438 per year to $12,680 per year from 2000 to 2008. Could this have all stemmed from the Libertarian approach to letting the markets sort out health care the Bush administration took?

“Perhaps the most puzzling abdication was the GOP failure to do anything at all on health care. The window for saving private health care from government encroachment is closing, and both business and workers are feeling the pinch from rising costs. Yet Republicans failed to make health-care savings accounts more attractive, failed to let business associations offer their own health plans, and failed even to bring to a vote Arizona Congressman John Shadegg’s bill to avoid costly state mandates by letting health insurance be marketed across state boundaries.”

They missed their chance to fix health care without “big government” stepping in. By taking such an extreme hands off approach to health care, the Bush administration pretty much secured the need for government to step in and solve the issue.

Of course we can’t forget the current economic crisis; really how can we forget. While a few hard right free market groups will slap your mouth if they hear you blame deregulation for the crisis, most will agree that deregulation or at least a lack of regulation is at least partly to blame. The government did not prevent the sale of the toxic mortgages which started this whole mess. When the bubble was about to burst the Federal Reserve did not react accordingly. Had Fed Chair Alan Greenspan only identified the bubble the public perception of the housing market would have altered and the crisis would have been averted or at least contained. Lack of regulation on mortgage qualifications, loan risk assessments, and predatory lending ultimately pushed the crisis over the edge.

Now, here we are living the results of the Bush administrations Libertarian policies. Do you still think that is what he need right now? If you do I just have one more thing to say. Katrina.