Tag: Politics

My Thoughts on Raising the Debt Ceiling

I don’t think I’ve talked any about the current “debate” over whether or not the government should raise the debt ceiling. The reason I haven’t talked about it is the same reason I put the word debate in quotations, I don’t view this as a debate at all but simply political theater. You know damn well that the government will raise the debt ceiling, they’re too addicted to unlimited money not to.

If you’ve been reading this site for very long it’s probably obvious that I oppose raising the debt ceiling because it would hopefully force some semblance of a balanced budget. Overall though I find it rather absurd that the government has the power to raise it’s own credit limit.

Right now our government is like an 18 year-old kid who just received a credit card. As many 18 year-old kids have no concept of managing money our hypothetical kid goes out on a giant spending spree and maxes out the card’s $1,000 limit (number arbitrarily selected). Keeping with our government is the kid analogy, through some stupid mishap in the contract the kid was allowed to raise his credit limit whenever he wants. Instead of trying to pay off the $1,000 that he owes the kid decides he’ll just raise his credit limit by another $1,000 worry about paying the money back later. He keeps doing this through the years and eventually ends up with a debt of $100,000 dollars which he has no hope of every paying back.

That’s where our government is, they have a multi-trillion dollar debt that they can’t hope to pay back so they’re not worried about it. Nobody has called us on our debt yet (and most of it his held domestically anyways) so why worry about it? But the fact of the matter is our government is insolvent and could never payback the debt if needed. I would love to see some attempt of fiscal responsibility by leaving the debt ceiling firmly where it is but I know it won’t happen, it’ll get raise now and again next year and again the year after that.

The entire “debate” is political theater with the Republicans trying to pander to the fiscally responsible and the Democrats pandering to those who want free shit. Both parties fully intend to continue giving free shit but they want to be able to point at the other party and blame them for the increasing debt/lack of free shit.

EDIT: 2011-08-01 6:07: I wrote this power last night before going to bed and this morning saw that the cronies on Capitol Hill reached a “deal” to raise the debt ceiling. I could have deleted this power as it hadn’t been published yet but I’m leaving here because I like demonstrating when I’m right; it boosts my ego.

We Need More of This

What if there was an election and nobody ran? That’s what happened in the small North Carolina town of Tar Heel:

In the North Carolina town of Tar Heel, residents won’t have to worry about Big Government. It’s looking like No Government.

Nobody’s on the ballot for November elections, a county elections official told CNN Monday.

“The town had two weeks to file and no one stepped up to the plate,” said Cynthia Shaw, director of the Bladen County board of elections.

Granted this happened in a very small town but I’d love to see such things occur in large cities and even whole congressional districts. With very few exceptions those running for political seats aren’t doing it because they want to represent the people, they do it because they want power to wield of people. It would be nice to see people no longer jockeying for power or being willing to play the political game. As you can see by watching any major debate those outside of the political faction who want to control the everyday lives of American citizens are shut out by those inside. Politics is nothing but a giant play for power and we’re the ones who are getting fucked.

I wouldn’t feel bad at all if my congressional district had no “representation” at either the state of federal level. Why? Because having nobody willing to run would make the statement that there isn’t anybody in the district who wants to have power over others. On top of that anybody who would actually represent me is never going to get a voice in government bodies run almost entirely by statists, so what the hell do I care?

The Debt Ceiling Shouldn’t Be About Elections

John McCain, like almost every other politician on the planet, is a piece of shit who cares only about maintaining or increasing the power he has over people. I’m always proud of the fact that I didn’t vote for him or Obama because they’re basically one in the same. McCain recently came out and railed on the tea party (whatever the Hell that means anymore) for opposing raising the debt ceiling. His reason demonstrates that he sees the argument as nothing more than a power play:

Sen. John McCain on Wednesday took on conservatives reluctant to raise the national debt ceiling, calling them “tea party hobbits” and saying that if they reject the House Republican plan, they will help reelect President Obama.

There you have it, McCain’s only concern is whether or not Obama gets re-elected. You now what the sad truth is? That’s the only concern most of the politicians have over this debate. But the debate isn’t about whether or not Obama gets re-elected, it’s about the fact that the United States is spending so much money that we’ll never be able to pay it back.

In terms of normal people like you and me (OK I admit I hardly qualify as normal) this would be like racking up your credit card bill and then demanding a higher credit limit. Sure the bank may extend the amount of debt you can put on that card for a while but eventually they’re going to catch on and demand that you pay them back. If you can’t pay them back your option becomes defaulting on your credit in the form of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is where the United States is heading folks and we’re only going to get further in over our heads unless we stop extending the government’s credit limit.

Instead of being concerned over this fact the politicians are only concerned with power. The Republicans want more which means they have their eyes on the presidency while the Democrats want to maintain the presidential power they currently hold. Neither party gives two shits about you and me.

Another Example of Regulations Harming the Producers of Society

I’m usually not one to pull out Ayn Rand (I far prefer the likes of Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, etc.) but I’m also a fan of calling a spade and spade so I’m willing to say with confidence that the following is a situation right out of Atlas Shrugged.

Terry Douglas is the owner of two coal mines (you know, that material most of our power plants required) and obtained a permit to open a third one. These permits aren’t cheap, coming it at roughly $250,000, but a quarter of a million dollars simply isn’t enough flesh for the government so they decided it would be great to go after him for some more money. Well it sounds as if Mr. Douglas has finally had enough and may simply call it quits:

Here is a transcription of what he said that I oh so cleverly borrowed from the linked article:

Nearly every day without fail… men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just… you know… what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I see these guys—I see them with tears in their eyes—looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So…basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.

Of course many people will crucify Mr. Douglas because they believe environmental laws should be upheld at any cost. The problem is many of the environmental laws are bullshit created simply so the government can extract more money from those who actually produce goods that people want. On top of that we wouldn’t even need all these environmental regulations is our country simply recognized property rights as absolute.

Think about it for a moment, if a coal mine discharged a pollutant onto another person’s property that person could sue for damages. As it sits now if such an event occurs the government steps in, fines the polluter (or lets them off depending on how much the polluter has contributed to our political Leviathan), and perhaps gives the property owner a little bit of money if they’re feeling generous. The Gulf oil spill would have been devastating to British Petroleum (BP) had the owners of the shorelines covered in oil been allowed to directly sue BP. Instead our government decreed a maximum liability oil companies are responsible for paying which let BP get off with destroying a lot of property with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

If Mr. Douglas damages another person’s property then let that person take legal action. If no damage is occurring Mr. Douglas shouldn’t be punished by our government in the form of fines, taxes, and regulations. It’s honestly that simple.

I’d also like to bring up a side note that’s relevant to this story, which are complains some people make against mine owners. Mine owners are generally not well liked, even if their product is, and accusations are constantly made that these mine owners are skimping on safety and health related concerns. Mr. Douglas points out why that really isn’t the case:

When asked about typical concerns surrounding coal mining—including companies skirting health and safety regulations—Douglas said it “doesn’t make sense” to let safety lapse and risk losing miners to illness or injury when it would only cost more to train new personnel.

This is why business owners are the evil barons they’re often made out to be. It’s in the owner’s best interest to ensure his workers are safe and healthy. Not only do you face potential lawsuits against those you’ve wronged but you also have to hire and train all new personnel. The longer a person works a job the more experience they generally obtain which makes them more valuable to have around.

I expect to see more situations like Mr. Douglas’s where the government makes owning a business all but impossible by piling on pointless environmental regulations. If property rights were properly observed in this country we wouldn’t need all of these expensive regulations. Eliminating these unnecessary regulations would make doing business cheaper and likely cause a reduction in the amount of environmental damage since the consequences wouldn’t be easily bypassed by giving the right people a large campaign contribution.

Senate Demonstrates Opposition to UN Arms Trade Treaty

The United Nations (UN) is nothing by a giant inter-government circle-jerk. I imagine UN meetings to be composed of members nations sitting in a giant room and telling each other how awesome they are and how much the stupid slaves need them. With this understanding it’s no surprise that the UN doesn’t believe civilians should have the right to keep and bear arms; after all if those stupid slaves could be a threat to the glorious governments of the world it would be harder to shut them up and make them obey orders.

Currently the UN has been promoting its Arms Trade Treaty which is nothing more than an attempt to further disarm non-government entities of the world. It’s nice to know that our current “representatives” like to pay lip service to the Second Amendment which has caused a good chunk of the Senate to write Obama and inform him that the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be opposed:

As of this morning, a majority of 51 bipartisan members of the U.S. Senate have signed letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton saying they will oppose any Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership. These strongly worded letters caution the President and Secretary of State to uphold the Constitution of the United States. As Senator Moran’s letter warns, “(A)s the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration to uphold our constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership. These freedoms are non-negotiable, and we will oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items.”

Of course it would have been better if the language were changed to, “These freedoms are non-negotiable, and we will oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate.” Don’t tack on all the flowery shit at the end, just say you’ll outright oppose ratification of the Arm Trade Treaty regardless of what it says. For starters the United States shouldn’t be participating in the UN at all, but we certainly shouldn’t be signing UN treaties. The UN is nothing more than an orgy of big government supporters and no person can support such an organization and be a proponent of liberty.

Norway’s Maximum Prison Sentence Isn’t Exactly a Maximum

Some of the buzz surrounding the recent tragedy in Norway is dealing with the fact that the maximum prison sentence you can serve in that country is 21 years. A lot of people are rather upset that the man who has admitted to the attacks which killed 93 people may spent a paltry 21 years in prison. Oh ye of little faith. The state always makes exceptions in their rules that allow them to punish somebody more severely than generally believed. Norway does have an exception to their maximum 21 year prison sentence rule:

Norway’s mass killer faces a maximum jail term of just 21 years. Astonishingly, that is the longest sentence available to judges in Norway’s benevolent justice system.

[…]

Only in exceptional cases, if officials consider a prisoner is still highly dangerous, will sentences be extended for additional five-year blocks.

Judging by the man’s actions and material he’s produced I’d say justification for him being a continued danger to society wouldn’t be hard to come by. The man who claimed responsibility in this case very well could spend the rest of his life in prison so long as he’s judged a continued threat to society every five years.

Never believe stories that claim a state has established limitations on the amount of punishment they can dole out. In this case I believe the attacker deserves far more than a mere 21 years in prison and I’m betting he’ll get far more.

They’re Not Even Pretending to Be Representatives Anymore

I know that our “representatives” on Capitol Hill aren’t representing us in any way but at least they used to pay lip service to their title. For some time though these politicians have been getting more and more blatant about the fact that they view themselves as our rules, not our “representatives.” This becomes obvious when issues arise making it difficult for the government to grasp even more power.

Take the debt ceiling for instance, our government needs to be able to rack up the credit card some more in order to expand even further into our lives. As it sits the government’s credit limit is quickly approaching and no more money can be borrowed unless the government gives itself a credit extension. When you get to give yourself credit extensions they’re easy to obtain but sometimes you have to pretend it’s difficult. Right now there is a political pissing contest between those who want to rack up the credit card some more and those who are trying to salvage what they can of the American economy by reducing our ever increasing debt.

Well those who want to increase the credit limit have hit upon a plan, establish a 12 member “super” congress that would have the full authority to raise the debt ceiling:

The ongoing battle between the House, Senate, and President over the upcoming debt crisis has led establishment Congressmen in the Senate to propose the creation of a Super Congress to create and pass legislation allowing for the raising of the debt ceiling. Led by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, and proposed on July 24th during the weekend debt ceiling meetings, this new bi-partisan gang of 12 would unconstitutionally allow for laws to be passed solely by the group, and bypassing what they consider the majority of ‘regular’ members of Congress.

George W. Bush is often incorrectly quoted as saying the Constitution is just a “goddamned piece of paper.” Although it’s highly unlikely that he actually said that the bitch of the thing is that the quote is accurate.

I know a lot of people get very upset when you mention that the Constitution is just a piece of paper with some writing on it. What I’m talking about in this case is the physical document itself, divorced from the ideals and rules that are described in the document. Physically the Constitution is a mere piece of paper with writing on it that declares a foundation for the federal government. As with any piece of paper the Constitution is unable to enforce any ideas that are written upon it.

Although the Constitution never mentions that the federal government has the authority to establish a 12 person “super” congress some people on Capitol Hill are seriously considering it. The Constitution also never authorizes executive orders, social security, public education, the highway infrastructure, or any of the other federally run government programs not outlined in the Constitution itself. What the Constitution does say in the Tenth Amendment is, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Thus if the Constitution doesn’t specifically grant the federal government powers they’re not supposed to have it. Yet they exercise verboten powers all of the time and nothing happens. Why? Because the Constitution is a piece of paper. The important parts, the ideas and laws set forth, are easily ignored because a piece of paper can’t enforce what is written upon it. That enforcement is up to people, and the people we’ve put in charge of doing that are disregarding their supposed duty.

Instead of performing their job of upholding the laws of the United States our “representatives” have decided it’s their duty to rule over us with an iron fist. They’ve decided this because unchecked power attracts megalomaniacs. The power to rule has been left unchecked in the United States because people no longer oppose blatant abuses of this power. The majority of the people in this country just sit idly by without raising a fuss and continue to re-elect those who keep grabbing for more.

The people of this country were supposed to be the teeth of the Constitution. If those who were sent to Washington D.C. abused their power the people who elected them were supposed to either recall the offender or prevent him from going back come next election cycle. The people of this country were supposed to use their power of jury nullification to toss out laws that were blatantly unconstitutional or otherwise bad.

When shit like this “super” congress come to light nobody puts up a fuss. As soon as this news became public there should have been angry letters and phone calls going to those supporting this idea with the threat of recall made absolutely clear. Instead the silence of the majority has lead to the creation of Leviathan, a monster created by power hunger madmen who conclude to increase the authority they wield of the people.

The reason I’m such a strong supporter of Ron Paul for president is because he’s one of the few politicians who not only promotes the idea of individual liberty but also votes based on those ideas. We need to get a man like that in the White House to keep the House and Senate in check. We need somebody who will like at a power play like this “super” congress and say “No way in Hell!” The guy sitting in the Oval Office should be liberal (using the definition of given, used, or occurring in generous amounts) with the use of veto powers.

To summarize what I’ve said to those not looking to actually read a long-form post, this shit needs to end. I’ve lost all belief that any government can be good but I still believe that it can be better than despotism. People need to look at news like this “super” congress and get pissed off. The people on Capital Hill are trying to control more and more of our lives and we need to say enough is enough. We have a chance at this by working to make Ron Paul is the Republican nominee and then electing him into the White House. With him in the White House there will at least be one check in the federal government working on our side and ensuring shit like this “super” congress doesn’t get through for four years (hopefully eight).

City of Gould Looking to Ban Free Speech

Sometimes you read a story headline and you think, “No way that’s correct.” That’s what I thought when I read the title of this article but after reading the actual story I found it factually correct. The city of Gould, AK is looking to basically ban the freedom of speech within city limits:

Gould, Arkansas, is a small town of about 850 people. If the city council has its way, those 850 people will be barred from gathering together to discuss city matters without approval from the city government.

[…]

Last Monday, the council voted to ban groups from gathering or forming without city approval.

Sonja Farley, a member of the Gould City Council, said that no matter the group, if anyone meets to discuss the city, that meeting must be approved by the city.

“You can’t just come in here, get with four people and decide to start an organization,” Farley said, adding, “You will go through your city council with legal documentation and get approval.”

That’s certainly interesting because I’m pretty sure that violates an often ignored piece of the United States Constitution we refer to as the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yeah the city’s ruling certainly does violate that particular piece of literature that our country is supposedly founded on. If you’re unfortunate enough to live in Gould it would be in your best interest to tell the city council to go fuck itself and continue gathering in groups. When a law is unjust there is absolutely no reason anybody should comply with it and any law other than those against harming others or the property of others is unjust.

Another funny thing about this story is the city’s name, Gould. Gould is also slang for the tyrannical protectionist race in Stargate SG-1, the Goa’uld. How fitting that a city banning the freedom of assembly should be named after a race of aliens bent on enslaving the human race.

Another Idiot That Doesn’t Understand Economics or Crime But Wants to Meddle with Both

There is stupid and then there is extremely stupid. Joe Huffman found an example of the latter in the form of a person named Otis Rolley who thinks adding a $1.00 tax to each bullet [PDF] will help reduce gun crime:

Reducing the violence in our neighborhoods will take a full commitment from the Mayor’s office, the police, neighborhood and community leaders, and faith leaders. It will take a partnership across the city.

To do this, as Mayor, Otis will:

[…]

— Impose a $1 per bullet tax on all bullet purchases in the city;

[…]

Impose a $1 per bullet tax. It is undeniable that we have to do more to reduce the devastating impact gun violence is having on our community. While the courts have consistently ruled against significant gun control legislation, there is still a way to decrease crime: substantially increase the cost of its’ commission.

Increasing the cost of guns won’t work because many criminals don’t purchase new guns and they can be borrowed or even rented in some areas. Therefore, as Mayor, Otis will move to impose a $1 per bullet tax (or about $50 per pack). That will increase substantially the financial cost of committing a crime and, unlike guns, bullets cannot be shared after their initial use. This will also dramatically cut back on the random firings that too often happen around holidays and celebrations.

That is a lot of herp derp to put between two blockquote tags. Here’s what Mr. Rolley’s plan will accomplish:

— Punishing legitimate gun owners who wish to do business in the city by buying ammunition;
— Punish stores selling ammunition;
— Nothing else;

Mr. Rolley doesn’t understand the basic concepts of economics or crime. First you have the economic issue that this type of city-wide tax would cause. If a box of ammunition in Baltimore costs $50.00 more than anywhere else due to such a tax gun owners are just going to buy their ammunition outside of the city (either by traveling or, more likely, ordering it online). What this tax would effectively do is drive business out of the city and that’s normally not considered an acceptable economic goal to most people.

Then you have the whole concept of crime. Criminals have the same options available to when it come to purchasing ammunition elsewhere but they also have another option, theft. If somebody is willing to commit a violent crime chances are they will have no problem going down to the local Wal-Mart and stealing ammunition. There is a large disparity between stealing and murder but chances are pretty high that a person willing to commit the former will also be willing to commit the latter.

And there is always the fact that ammunition can be manufactured. Many gun owners, myself included, also reload ammunition for a hobby and it may come as a shock to anti-gunners but bullets can be cast out of melted down lead. It’s true. You can go around town stealing wheel weights off of peoples’ cars, melt them down as they’re made of lead, and cast them into bullets. In that case Mr. Rolley’s proposed tax idea would lead to people making their own bullets and a epidemic of shaky cars. Lead can also be found in other places like fishing supply stores so even banning properly balanced wheels won’t stop this clever workaround.

Maybe It’s Time to Look at Spending Cuts

“Tax the rich!” That’s a quote you often hear from people who want the government to provide them everything and also lack a basic understanding of liberty and economics. Every time there is a government deficit in this country the statists scream that we need to tax the rich. Of course they never define nor justify their definition of rich so one is usually lead to believe it means anybody who makes $1.00 more than the screaming statist.

For others the definition of rich is $250,000.00 a year which I never really understood because somebody making that money certainly isn’t rich by my definition (no fancy boat, no private jet, no mansion on beach front property, etc.). Here’s the problem, even if we enact a 100% income tax on everybody making $250,000.00 or more a year it won’t clear up the federal government’s huge deficit:

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It’s not even yacht and Lear jet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

Now somebody with a lack of economic sense would come out and say we should tax the corporations (on top of the “rich”). Guess what? It won’t work either:

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

Taxing the “rich” isn’t going to get us out of the mess our government has created. The only option we have is to reduce our spending and that will require politically inconvenient cuts such as military, Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security. We certainly can’t afford to implement Obama’s Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act so that will have to be tossed out as well.

We literally have no other options available to us. We can’t fix this problem with taxation which leads us to look elsewhere and the only other place to look is spending. The United States government is like an idiot teenage kid (as opposed to an intelligent one) who gets his first credit card and don’t realize that money put onto that card will have to be paid back. Eventually they get in over their heads and apply for another credit card to continue their insane spending habits instead of looking at the real problem, their spending, and correcting it.