Of Claiming Good and Doing Bad

A very good book was published this month.  Ostensibly, it is about our economy and the recession.  It is actually about much more.  It is the first book about the current American economy written by a philosopher, and it is perhaps the best book I have read yet about all the recent unpleasantness.  Some might say that the economic trouble still continues, more like a long, slow convalescence from a serious illness than a healthy recovery.  For many whose financial condition stagnates, for those who have replaced a full-time job with one or two part-time jobs, for graduates who have a degree in hand but no work in the field for which they have trained, and especially for the millions who remain out of work, talk of an economic turnaround can seem like a mockery.

For those and others, Infiltrated, by Jay W. Richards, can help make some sense of what hit us.  The book does not suggest that there was a massive conspiracy to drive our nation into economic turmoil.  It explains how turmoil came nevertheless as national policymakers followed the prescriptions of people who claimed to be doing good but tried to cheat the laws of economics and markets to impose what they might call “benevolence” on the rest of us. 

It was their idea that in order to help more people own homes lenders should ignore such things as ability to repay a mortgage, strong history of employment and steady income, and having some equity in the value of the house so there would not be an incentive to walk away if prices dropped.  They also agitated for the government to expand its guaranties for mortgages to people with poor credit histories and loans where lenders cut corners.  And they badgered builders to keep building more houses. 

Their plans horribly miscarried, and yet those people have even more control over us and our economy today and are more able and determined to try again.  The recession, rather than educating and deterring them, has made them bolder.

I am reminded of what the late Louis Rukeyser, the very popular host of the PBS program Wall Street Week, wrote in the 1990s:

            Washington has been taken over by an impregnable mob of short-sighted, power-hungry megaclowns.

They try their worst to micromanage every detail of the economy, but succeed only in whipping the markets back and forth, up and down in spastic patterns.  They despise the gentler forces of a free market, which would moderate swings far more predictably.

(Louis Rukeyser, 1993 advertisement for his financial newsletter)

The people to whom I refer and whom Richards exposes in his book do not like the markets.  They trust themselves more and think that you should trust them, too.  They seriously do believe themselves smarter than the markets, and that is the problem.  No one, other than God, is smarter than the markets.  A large part of economic history, the tragic part, is a chronicle of the disasters caused when a small coterie of people are able to enforce their wishes and preferences on the rest of us in contravention of economic reality.  It never works. 

That was the story of the Great Depression, and it was entirely the story of communism, where whole societies were based upon the now well-proven fallacy that any group of people, no matter how smart or well intentioned, can gather sufficient data and know and understand enough to run a national economy.  It is just far too complicated, with billions of economic decisions being made by millions of people all day and all night long.  The markets make it all work, because the markets are the sum combined total of all of those economic actions and decisions interacting with each other.  No human five-year plan for economic control has escaped failure.

What is worse, as well intentioned as such people may start out, all too often, as Richards’ book exposes, their efforts not only fail to do what they set out to do, they fail to stay virtuous and instead  become enlisted in the service of private gain at the expense of the rest of us.  The Soviet system might have worked pretty well for the party owners of the dachas along the Black Sea but only by impoverishing the workers their leaders claimed to be serving.

Do not let yourself be put off that Richards is a philosopher.  His book is remarkably readable, one that you can take with you to the beach and actually enjoy, and feel that you have learned something—a lot—in the reading.  Richards mixes real life narrative with hard facts and good research, unified by sound reasoning to expose a nasty and growing problem in American government today.  The problem is a big part of why government is expanding and becoming more intrusive in all aspects of our lives, including our financial affairs, education, healthcare, energy use, the products we buy, the food we eat, and the entertainment we enjoy, and even the breath we exhale. 

That is to say that the story told by Jay Richards, in Infiltrated, is actually a longer story, a story that began long before the recession, and continues afterward, a story that is bigger than his book.  The recent economic events and their painful aftermath illuminate Richards’ core message, the human wreckage caused when some people are able to harness the coercive force of government to impose their personal notions of “benevolence” on the rest of us. 

Roger Kimball, writing in 2011 in The New Criterion, warned that such efforts are “intoxicating, addictive, expensive, and ultimately ruinous.” (Roger Kimball, “Liberty versus benevolence,” The New Criterion, February 2011, p.6)  Richards offers several well-described examples, well illustrating the truth of Kimball’s observations. 

A valuable lesson for policymakers and for the people they would govern:  the more discretion you give to government, the more you create the opportunity for abuse of that discretion for private gain.  Europe in the 18th century was lousy with the practice.  Our forebears sought to escape it and fought a revolution to get out of its grip.  The men who threw the tea into Boston Harbor were acting in protest of the partnership between the British Crown and the British East India Company. 

Beware the public-private partnerships.  Jay Richards explains how some public-private mortgage partnerships went bad, very bad, for the partners and for all of us caught in the dust and debris of their collapse.  I am reminded of the warning by former Congressman Dick Armey, that when you enter into a partnership with the devil, you are always the junior partner.

I conclude with the words of New York City Democrat Congressman Bourke Cockran, delivered 110 years ago:

That Government only is good, that Government only is great, that Government only is just, which has neither favorites nor victims.

(W. Bourke Cockran, speech given before the National Liberal Club of England, London, July 15, 1903, in W. Bourke Cockran, In the Name of Liberty, p.190)

Our government should be that government.

Of the American Revolution and the Counterrevolution

One of the comments that I have heard following this year’s national election is that it did not settle much.  Barack Obama was president before the election and he will now be president for another term.  The Democrats held a small majority in the Senate before the election, and they will have a small majority in the Senate afterwards.  The Republicans controlled the House of Representatives before the election, and they will control the House in the next Congress.

I acknowledge the point and the extent of its validity, but I am careful not to overvalue it.  This time was different, if not yet different enough. 

The reigning governing system is nearing its end.  Barack Obama and his companions embody in the 21^st Century the old wizening counterrevolution in America begun by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, now well into its senility.  The FDR counterrevolution has been the prevailing doctrine of governing in the United States since the (aptly named) Depression.  Even Republican presidents—with the exception to some degree of President Reagan—have governed within the terms and context of the FDR counter-American revolution, rarely taking issue with its basic theme of government as the ultimate source of solution to people's problems.

I like the analogy that Senator Phil Gramm used to offer in illustration of how Republicans get co-opted into the FDR approach.  Imagine, he would say, a great big piece of paper blown by the wind getting caught on the top of the dome of the U.S. Capitol, blocking out all sunlight below.  The typical solution from the Democrats would be to create an artificial sun inside of the dome to illuminate the room.  The typical Republican response has been to argue for a smaller artificial sun, one involving the private sector.  The real solution—seldom mentioned—is to remove the big piece of paper.

Today, the great piece of paper to be removed is the fundamental contradiction that lies at the heart of the FDR welfare state:  robbing Peter to pay for Paul’s votes.  For over 70 years Democrats and Republicans alike have been bidding against each other to gain Paul’s support, until the day is at last in sight when there will not be enough left to take from Peter to honor the promises to Paul.  The looming national fiscal crisis in over-promised Social Security, Medicare, and a host of government give-away programs is at last acknowledged by the public, even if its full import remains for most hard to grasp as real.  Still, more and more people suspect that all this has about played out.

Against much public vilification by the media propagandists, some are challenging the FDR counterrevolution, getting outside of the context of the tired debate that for decades characterized the contest between Democrats and Republicans.  They are explaining that government cannot create wealth, and redistributing wealth destroys it.  Defeating Barack Obama and his FDR policies this year would have been an important milestone, because more than any other recent president Obama fully embodied the FDR approach to governing, and more than any other presidency its abuses have been apparent.  At the same time, more than any time in the past 70 years political leaders and would-be political leaders have been challenging the FDR counterrevolution.  Mitt Romney chose one of those leaders, Paul Ryan, to be the Republican candidate for vice president.

In the event, we fell short, but we made progress.  As I said, this time was different.  To begin with, President Obama’s margin of victory was materially smaller than four years ago, 50%-48% of the vote in 2012, while in 2008 it was 53%-46%.  Similar narrowed margins were the pattern in the various states.  Moreover, notably few other Democrats were able to sail to electoral victory in Obama’s wake.  In 2008 along with President Obama 7 more Democrat Senators were elected and 20 more members of the House of Representatives.  Four years later it looks like Democrats will pick up only 2 Senate seats and 4 seats in the House.  In all respects, a very narrow victory.  Mitt Romney came close to being elected president, a point that media propagandists have been busily trying to bury in their efforts to make it feel like Obama won in a landslide with a mandate to continue on with his policies of impoverishment.

What the election has not changed are those policies.  President Obama’s economic program is just as much a failure today as it was before the election.  The vote on November 6 did not make it any better.  Neither have the problems changed, except that they continue to grow.  With each day, the federal deficit and federal debt deepen and America’s ability to manage that debt declines.  Each day brings us nearer to the day when we as a nation will be unable to pay that debt.  Economic performance as a nation remains weak and wobbly, while Administration apologists preach that weak is the new normal for the United States of America.

Governing will prove even more difficult for President Obama.  At least now he can truthfully blame the previous administration, the Obama first term administration.  He spent those years avoiding the most significant problems, pushing them off until after November 6, 2012, while creating new ones with his healthcare, regulatory, energy, and environmental policies.  The problems are a gathering storm.  There is not enough money left to run the welfare state, and the willingness of investors—foreign and domestic—to lend Uncle Sam money to pay for it is four years closer to an end. 

Foreign policy does not look very good either.  National weakness, economic or military, is provocative.  It encourages those who mean us harm.  Iran is heading toward crisis, without a comprehensible U.S. policy to deal with an unstable violent regime approaching the production stage of a nuclear arsenal.  The unanswered, mishandled, and covered up failures against the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, will invite others.  With dread we await the realization of what President Obama meant when he told the Russians that he would have more “flexibility” after the election.

I acknowledge and applaud those who worked so hard to bring an end to a misrule that now will continue to inflict hardship on the nation and the people.  We came close to turning back the FDR counter-American Revolution in its naked manifestation.  We all need to keep on working for something a lot better, to restore the American revolution of 1776.  We are gaining ground.

Of Government and Getting What We Deserve

There is a theory that I believe but I am not sure how to prove (this side of the final judgment) that over time people tend to get the government that they deserve.  This idea comes to mind when I hear complaints in the public media about the Congress.  You have certainly heard them.  They come in various flavors, but they are the same soda:

• Why can the Congress get nothing done?

• Congress is unable to rise above partisan politics.

• The people in Congress seem so out of touch with the rest of America.

• Congress avoids making tough decisions.

You could surely add to this list.  The underlying theme is that the Congress is not doing its job.

These comments are a frustrating alloy of truth and silliness.  There is a lot that is right and wrong with the current Congress.  Who put these men and women on Capitol Hill?  With the exception of a handful of Senators appointed by their governors to fill temporary vacancies, and the few dozen congressmen who by order of the Supreme Court must be elected in districts where there really is no democracy (I refer to those from districts mandated by the courts to provide only minority representation), all of these congressmen and Senators were elected—by the people whom they represent.

I mention that to refer to both sides of the coin.  We, the people, put those people there.  The other side is, we the people can send them home.  That is a weighty responsibility, one that we cannot discharge faithfully by just complaining.  We cannot do our legislators’ jobs for them and be involved in all of the minor details of all that they do, but we can and must hold them accountable for the sum of what they do and for the general tone and direction of their actions.  To be successful we need to have a clear idea of what we want our representatives to do and be well educated about what they are doing—not just what they are saying.

One of the sillier comments I hear is the suggestion that we should “throw them all out.”  Is that true?  Is every single congressman and Senator doing a bad job?  Even a basic review of congressional action should tell us that is not the case.  On nearly all of the most important issues there is in fact quite a divergence of views and actions.  Again, our inescapable job is to figure out what is the right policy and look carefully at how our elected representatives are conducting themselves with regard to it.  We should weed the garden, not plow it under.

There are many policies and many issues from which to choose.  Let me suggest two.  The first would be the Constitution.  What have been the actions of our own particular representatives with regard to supporting and defending the Constitution and the rule of law?  Our current President has been active in undermining the Constitution and disregarding the rule of law, so this is not a theoretical issue.  What have our representatives been doing to combat voter fraud, to make sure that the executive branch does not spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, or to prevent bureaucrats from telling law abiding people how to spend their money, run their businesses, freely express their opinions, or observe their religion?  There have been many other assaults on the Constitution by people in Washington.  As voters, we should be mighty touchy about any of those efforts and reluctant to vote for people who do not share our sensitivity about the importance of the Constitution and our rights as citizens.

The second issue I would suggest is economic growth.  We will never really get out of this recession (that feels depressingly like the 1930s) unless we place a top priority on getting the economy growing.  We cannot solve our budget deficit and federal debt problems without economic growth.  People forget that the few years that we had a balanced budget in the 1990s did not come by government action.  Congress and President were in fact surprised by the surpluses.  They came about because the economy grew more strongly than expected.  We should support those legislators who act like they understand that economic growth creates jobs and that economic growth is created by private initiative.  We should support those legislators who consistently vote to remove barriers to business creation and innovation and defeat those who do not.  Those barriers include higher taxes and increasing government involvement in business decisions and operations.

All of this will take work on our part.  We cannot expect to have legislators who work for what is right and wise unless we do our work to find and support those who do.  There are many of them in the House of Representatives and in the Senate today.  We need more of them.

I believe that people eventually get the government that they deserve, and I yet believe that we deserve better than we have and that the time has come to get better.

Of Washington Poverty and Market Growth

We are now well into the new year and even farther into the economic recession, and it would be hard to find people who think that things are looking better. The best you can find are those who will say that things are looking like they may soon start to look better, at least a little bit.

Unemployment continues to grow, with the best predictions calling for a turn around in 2010. The economy continues to shrink. Trade—imports and exports—is contracting. The number of bank failures has been growing in recent weeks. The stock market, after a hope-led surge in the Spring, is languishing. And the great State of California is bankrupt, literally bankrupt. It cannot even borrow money. The state government is making payments with IOUs—as long as people will accept them, and patience is running very thin.

We are now into a full year of trying to run the economy from Washington—stretching back into last year’s failed economic policies under President Bush and continuing at an accelerated pace under President Obama. Things have gotten progressively worse. Maybe it is time to admit that Washington cannot run the economy, at least not if you measure success by economic growth, business expansion, and generation of good (rather than make-work) jobs.

After one year of trying everything, if government-directed, Washington-led economic control worked, you would think that we would see strong evidence by now. The evidence is just the opposite. The job creation engines—business and investment—seem to be on strike. Or maybe they are just frozen out by government programs trying to take their place. With efforts to control all aspects of the economy, from taxes that reach to anything that uses energy, to proposals for government to “compete” with the private sector for health care (you ever try to “compete” with the umpires in baseball?), to plans to have brand new government agencies control the banking system (protecting the “consumer” by making consumers’ banking decisions for them), how can investors figure out where to place their money? How can businessmen make plans for growing their businesses?

The problem is not that the people in Washington are not smart. They are smart. They are just not smart enough. No mortal is. The economy of a great nation like the United States is far too complex for any small group of people to run it. It is impossible for them to know enough or to do enough. These smart people desperately pull on a handful of economic levers and hope to run the entire economic machine, always overlooking myriads of other important economic matters, and mishandling the levers that they can pull.

It is best to let the markets run the economy, the markets that efficiently take the billions of freely-made economic decisions of the whole population every day, drawing upon the combined knowledge of everyone, and turn them into economic growth and expansion. The interference of the government policies got us into the current recession, and the increased interference has intensified it. Now it is time to back off, and let the people make their decisions, all of the people, and watch this economy soar. That formula has always worked.

Of Recovery and Renewed Recession

The economic developments up to this early stage of the new year have reaffirmed the resilience of the American banking industry. After more than a year of recession, bank earnings are rebounding. Non-bank financial firms have dramatically declined or disappeared. Government bailout programs have come and gone in rapid succession doing little better than stimulating panic and sowing confusion among customers and investors—and wasting taxpayer funds. The vast majority of banks have survived all of that.

The early recovery of the banking industry this Spring was publicly interrupted by a set of phony stress tests, subjecting banks to evaluation under hypothetical future conditions that not even the Treasury officials who imposed the tests believed to be realistic. That is, they could not be expected to believe in the hypothetical conditions of the tests, since the conditions assumed that the Obama economic program not only would not work but would actually make things worse. For example, the hypothetical stress tests asked banks how they would do if loan losses became worse than at the deepest point in the Great Depression. We all must believe that the Treasury has better hopes than that for its own economic programs.

Even against those unrealistic measures the banking industry came off well. Despite the fear mongering of short sellers, the obtuseness of accounting standard setters, and the vivisection experiments of policymakers, the bank panic is over and the industry is poised for economic recovery.

The sky ahead, however, is not blue and cloudless. There are three major dangers on the horizon that could play havoc with the economy, the banking industry not excepted. The good news is, that all three are subject to government action. The bad news is that government leaders are showing little sign of even recognizing the dangers, let alone taking action to avoid them.

The three dangers are ballooning inflation, rising interest rates, and increased taxes. The three are related. Any one on its own could stifle recovery.

The Federal Reserve has pumped more than a trillion dollars into the economy, increasing the money supply dramatically. With fewer goods and services to buy with all that extra money we would be in a major inflation now if most people and businesses were not instead hoarding the money. Once coffers and savings accounts get full and people and businesses start spending again inflation can be avoided only if the Federal Reserve can mop up all that extra money and do so precisely as it comes gushing out into the economy. Success with such a delicate maneuver may not be impossible, but it would be astonishing.

The chief baggage from Federal Reserve efforts to reduce excess money supply is higher interest rates. High interest rates are both a tool for encouraging people to save their money rather than spend it, as well as a reflection that the program is succeeding in pulling money out of the system. But high interest rates also depress the economy, making business investment (think new machines and buildings) and consumer purchases (including houses and cars) more expensive.

Complicating this nearly impossible task for the Federal Reserve is the problem that the trillion dollar overspending by the Federal Government—well on its way to more than two trillion dollars—will be demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowing from the public just when the Federal Reserve may be wanting to reduce the money supply. Foreigners are showing reluctance to lend to the Treasury, so domestic savers will have to choose more and more among spending their money, lending it to business, or lending it to the Federal Government.

Treasury debt auctions have already been soft. Interest rates are creeping up to keep Treasury debt attractive. The Federal Reserve may soon be stepping in to buy Treasury debt to keep the auctions from collapsing. If the Federal Reserve did so, it would be pushing more dollars into the economy just when it needed to pull them back to hold off inflation. The Federal Reserve would be in a no-win situation, and so would the rest of the country.

We could overcome both inflationary and interest rate risks to the economy by dramatically reducing taxes, particularly taxes on capital gains—making investment and new business activity more attractive by letting people keep more of what they earn. Instead, the Obama administration is proposing a host of major new taxes. Some are hidden as part of new environmental and health care programs. Others are more overt, such as plans to raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, the very sources of job creation and investment.

The Franklin Roosevelt administration well earned the condemnation of history by taking a deep economic recession and making it last for a decade—encouraging enemies of freedom all around the world. President Obama would do well to avoid that example.

Of Plumber Joe and Community Organizer Barry

It took a real life example to give life to the key difference between the two candidates for president. When Plumber Joe met Barack Obama campaigning in his neighborhood, Joe asked the would-be president, why do you want to tax my small business? Actually, more precisely, Joe wants to buy the plumbing business he has worked at, and Obama wants to raise taxes on it, and Joe asked Obama, why? At first, Obama equivocated and mumbled something about getting some tax breaks to offset the tax hikes. When Joe refused to buy into that sleight of hand trick, Obama fessed up. Obama admitted that he wanted to spread the wealth around. In other words, he said that Joe would be making too much money, so Obama wanted to take from him and give to someone else.

Why would Obama want to do that? Because, unlike Plumber Joe, who has a real job, Obama’s career experience came as a “community organizer” (when he was known in Chicago as Barry). Taking money from people and giving it to others is what community organizers do. Barry the Community Organizer now wants to organize a big community, of over 300 million people, and he wants to keep spreading the wealth around. Community organizers like to do that, because they like to get the credit for being compassionate and generous, compassionate and generous handing out other people’s money.

Joe has worked hard as a plumber. Joe has saved and prospered. Now Joe wants to own his own business and provide work for other employees. The employees, these plumbers, would provide plumbing services and get paid by their customers. Barack Obama wants to take some of that money—O.K., a lot of that money—and spread it around to people who would get their money from Barack, people who have not been as “lucky” as Plumber Joe.

Lucky? My guess is that it was not luck that made Joe work hard over the years and save his money to be in a position to own a business and provide real jobs to other people. Under a President Obama, Joe and others like him would become unlucky.

John McCain has been trying to point out for weeks that the change offered by Barack Obama is a big time return to the tired old tax and spend politics of the big government politicians. John McCain is not the most eloquent campaigner, and the mass media has been doing its best to bury his message anyway. McCain finally found a real life example, and that is the most eloquent statement of all. At the last national debate, on a stage that the mass media could not ignore, McCain introduced us to Joe the Plumber (who by the way did not ask for all the attention and is a bit embarrassed by it), and McCain asked, why raise his taxes? Why raise anybody’s taxes going into an economic downturn?

If you do not raise the taxes, you cannot keep spending other people’s money and winning praise for your compassion and generosity. And that is the point of this election.

Of Elections and Consequences

Elections have consequences, real, life-affecting consequences. One of the more unfortunate aspects of the mass media attitude toward elections is their approach to them as if they were some kind of game. The running score that they keep of the latest polls, their up-to-date electoral college count, the fixation on who “won” the latest debate, all demonstrate a sentiment that the election is some kind of sporting event, where we all root for one side or another, and when the game is won and the season is over we all go back to business as usual. That is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

After the election in November is over, it will not be back to business as usual. America’s standard of living, our economic welfare, our health, safety, and national security will all be affected. Electing Jimmy Carter meant economic and social malaise, it meant the loss of allies in several parts of the world, it meant civil war in Central America and the rise to power of the Ayatollahs in Iran. It meant a toxic economic brew of high unemployment, high inflation, and high interest rates. It meant increased crime in our cities. It meant an underpaid and undersupplied military, with Navy ships coming into harbor trading ammunition with those leaving port because there was not enough ammunition to go around.

Barack Obama is not quite as good or experienced as Jimmy Carter. His leading economic proposal is a whopping tax in the face of an economic downturn. Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt tried that in the 1930s, which turned a recession into the Great Depression. And Obama lies about his tax increase. He lies that it would not affect 95% of the population. The severe recession that it would cause will affect everyone, even the non-tax payers who are promised a tax cut by Obama.

Obama’s plan for a camouflaged government take over of health care will mean that health services will be provided with the same efficiency of the U.S. Postal Service. That means that sick people will have reduced access to medical services. It means that incentives to develop new medicines and new treatments will melt away. If government runs health care, as Obama wants, that means that political muscle will determine health care priorities rather than patient demand setting the priorities.

Obama’s foreign policies are right out of the Jimmy Carter briefing book. That means betrayal of our friends, appeasement of our enemies, and adventurous use of the military in places and causes that mean little to the national security of the United States. It means preparation always for some other war but inadequate commitment to fight the war we are in (he's eager to send more troops into Afghanistan, but unwilling to win the war in Iraq). It means further design of the next weapons system, but never deployment of it, a return to starving our military of what it needs to do the job with least loss of life and maximum success. It means that the most important issues for the Obama military will be social engineering of the armed forces rather than a focus on their increased effectiveness and efficiency.

Voting in a republic like the United States is a serious matter. It is not a game. It means far more than bragging rights over whether our team won the World Series. It means that we are responsible for our electoral choices, with a full understanding that the people we elect will mean a difference in our lives and the lives of our families. It is a truism that people get the government they deserve. I firmly hope and believe that the American people deserve better than Obama. I know that my children do.

Of Con Artists and Presidential Candidates

There is something disturbing about Barack Obama. I have been trying to put words to it. It is not merely that I disagree with him on his political prescriptions. There are many people, across the political spectrum, with whom I disagree on political policies and programs, even those for whom I used to work. With only a relative handful of them, however, have I sensed the same disquiet that I feel with regard to this year’s Democrat nominee for President.

After the recent presidential debate between Obama and Republican candidate John McCain I found the right words. Obama is a con artist. Fundamentally, he is acting in a deceptive way to get something from you. He wants you to believe that he has your best interests at heart so that he can get from you your precious vote. He pretends to be what he is not, because if you understood what he is all about, you would not vote for him.

Take, for example, his tax policies. Barack Obama promises a tax cut for 95% of the population. He is offering you a financial incentive for your vote. He is offering to buy your vote. He does not tell you that many of those people for whom he promises a tax cut do not pay any federal income taxes. A tax cut to people who do not pay taxes is just a government hand out. And he usually tries to hide the fact that this hand out to people who do not pay taxes is coming from you. We should not be so willing to believe that you can tax just 5% of the people in order to give a tax break to the other 95%—especially if many of the 95% do not pay any income taxes. You cannot get there, even if you try to take all of the money of the “rich,” and once that is gone what do you do for the next act?

If you own your own business, chances are very high that your business is taxed like an individual and that the revenues for that business will be classified as the “rich” that Obama says he thinks need to pay more taxes. Or perhaps you have some investments in the stock market—half of all Americans do. When those rich companies pay the new Obama taxes, that money comes out of the hides of the companies’ shareholders. Moreover, raising taxes into the teeth of an economic decline is a certain recipe for accelerating the decline. That is what Hoover did, and what Franklin Roosevelt did in order to make an economic recession last for a whole decade (eventually history should recognize that FDR was the worst president of the 20th Century—even if he could talk a good game).

A second example follows directly from the tax example. After he is finished talking about tax cuts (on people who do not pay taxes), Obama starts his litany of very expensive new government spending programs. The price tag for these comes to some $800 billion, give or take a hundred billion dollars. Each program is carefully designed to buy votes. Not only do his tax cuts not work as real tax cuts—taken by themselves—they cannot possibly work in the face of $800 billion of new federal spending.

The third example is really the most prominent. Barack Obama says that this is all “change.” He says you should vote for change, because he thinks that you want change and that his promise for change will get you to give him your vote. If you believe that major tax increases and massive new government spending programs are change, maybe he will succeed in getting many votes. But maybe people will say that they have heard that formula before, and whenever it is applied the nation always becomes poorer.

Barack Obama looks good, talks smooth, promises everything. If he loses this race for President, maybe he could try his hand selling used cars.

Of Presidents and Training for the Job

There are some jobs you just cannot safely do without proper training and experience. Flying an airplane is one that comes to mind. Driving a bus is another. I would put being President of the United States in the Twenty-First Century on the list, too.

President of the United States was a tough job in the days of George Washington. It was even a challenge in the days of Millard Fillmore. It has not become any easier in recent years, and next year it will be a very big job. Considering the global responsibilities of the United States, with several irresponsible oil-drunk regimes threatening peace and freedom (ours and other’s) around the world, can we afford to enroll our new President in a foreign policy on-the-job-training program?

Economically as well, there is little room for error. So far we have gone through a year and a half of the housing market bust without falling into a recession. But our economic growth is anemic. A small false step or two can put us into a full-blown economic decline, exploding banking and financial markets that will then take years to recover. It is important that economic policy next year be led by someone who understands economic growth and how to promote it. The formula for growth—low taxes and steady prices—is well known to those who have learned the lesson; we do not need a novice who does not have enough experience to know that you cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity. We cannot afford his experiments with our jobs and livelihood.

That is why it is breathtaking that a major political party is on the verge of nominating for President someone so inexperienced as Barack Obama. I am unable to recall a single nominee for President, by any major party, less prepared for the office than Barack Obama. Really, there is the challenge for you. Name a nominee—Republican, Democrat, Whig, Federalist—less prepared than Obama.

Barack Obama likes to liken himself to Abraham Lincoln. I cannot claim to have known Abraham Lincoln or assert that he was a friend of mine, but I do say, Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln. Even liberal exaggerations of Obama’s undistinguished career cannot make it compare favorably with the long and grueling life experiences that schooled Lincoln for the White House.

In short, Obama does not have the training for the job. It may be that the Democrats’ talent pool is so thin that he will be nominated. But the job of President is too important—to all of us—to be extended to someone so unready.