It Is Time to Force a First Amendment Debate on the Democrats

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I have discovered in recent weeks that the left wing of the Democratic Party increasingly opposes the First Amendment.  Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute reports a 2017 survey that finds that, while 71% of Americans believe that political correctness has tended to cause Americans to silence important discussions, opinion is split along party lines:  52% of Democrats favor restrictions on the First Amendment.

The survey also finds that 65% of Americans believe that students who prevent speakers from speaking at universities should be disciplined and that 72% of Republicans and 60% of independents oppose government restrictions on the First Amendment.

It will be fruitful for Republicans to force a debate on the First Amendment, which will expose the increasing authoritarianism and extremism of the Democratic Party. Political correctness can be a wedge issue that pushes increasing support to Republicans, who are more mainstream on this issue.

For example, Republicans might propose a bill that withholds funding to universities that do not discipline students who disrupt public discussions, or they might propose one that ties federal funding of private universities to their complying with the First Amendment in personnel decision making.   Perhaps funding could be withheld from universities whose faculty members advocate abrogating the First Amendment.  Then, we might enjoy watching the Democrats complain that the bill violates the same First Amendment that they and their left-wing core wish to abrogate.
 
 Respectfully,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Cc: The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader
United States Senate

Russell Senate Office Building

317 Delaware Avenue NE

Washington, DC 20510

More on Kavanaugh Hearing

Tom Fitton on Fox Business News claims that an FBI investigation will be incapable of revealing additional information concerning Kavanaugh's 15-year-old spin-the-bottle activities.  Fitton characterizes Dianne Feinstein as corrupt because she withheld the allegations until right before the  vote or because she knows the allegations to be false and released them anyway.

The selective exaggeration of personal information about politicians with whom the Democrats disagree--no matter how dated or irrelevant--is about power, not about morality or concern about a youngster's sexual misdeeds. 

The issue here is that the Democrats do not want the Republicans to appoint a justice who abides by the written Constitution and does not favor the so-called "living Constitution," the penumbra theory of Griswold v. Connecticut.  The penumbra theory is dictatorial and places excessive power in the hands of the judiciary.

The Constitutional process for amendement requires ratification by three-fourths of the states. How much easier it is to subvert democracy in the interest of any policy that satisfies the Democrats' dictatorial whims.

The Democrats are a demagogic, slandering party that subverts the democratic change processes in the Constitution and favors a dictatorship by judges and the president--a dictatorship of 10 people out of more than 300 million.

The Romans reserved the role of dictator to war or crisis situations. The Democrats know no such limitation. They believe in permanent dictatorship, and they will slander anyone who threatens it. Republicans need to start thinking like Longinus, Albinus, and Brutus--sic semper tyrannis.

The American media's cooperation with the Democrats' dictatorial display is a disgrace, and it deserves little commentary.  The media is a lost cause.

The Dizziest Totalitarians

The Democrats see racists under every other rock and Russians under the alternate rocks.  They aim to restrict speech that they deem to be racist and to restrict speech that is friendly to Russians. They are the dizziest party of totalitarians in history.

Ulster County, NY Vote Stronger for Trump Than for Romney

A comparison of the vote counts for Ulster County, NY (h/t Glenda R. McGee) reveals something interesting: The vote for Clinton was weaker than for Obama while the vote for Trump was stronger than for Romney. 

Ulster County is a mixture of two elements:  rural New Yorkers whose ancestors have lived in the region for generations and are chiefly Republican  and transplanted New York City refugees like me.  The New York City refugees are mostly Democratic. 

Clinton stimulated less interest among the New York City element than Obama had while Trump stimulated more than Romney had. However, the numbers in the region are now overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats because of the demographic shifts. 

 2012 Ulster County Presidential Votes:

              Obama                              Romney

2012:     47,752                               29,759

               Clinton                              Trump

2016       44,597                               35,239

Source: Glenda R. McGee  

The Republican Congress Is Allowing the Democratic Media to Set Its Agenda

The Republican Congress is allowing the Democratic media to set its agenda.The investigations and accusations are ongoing but going nowhere. They need to stop.  In 2014 Andrew Cuomo dissolved a Moreland Act commission that was investigating his administration.  In New York the Moreland Act establishes a procedure for the governor to appoint investigative commissions. None of the media that is now so agitated about Trump's interference in the Russian investigation called for Cuomo's impeachment.

The 20th century media, the Democratic TV and radio stations, have proven themselves incapable of reporting news coherently, so it is time for the Congress to assert its legitimate authority and to tell the media that they cannot assert an agenda for the nation.   The media was not elected to do this, yet the Republicans seem confused about that.

Congress can use bloggers and social media to communicate with the public. Television, radio, and the Democratic newspapers have increasingly become irrelevant.  The Republicans made fools of themselves in the late 1990s when they impeached Clinton, and now they are making even bigger fools of themselves.  They control both houses and the presidency, but they are allowing media Democrats to dictate their agenda and focus on investigation of a Republican president. It is time that this circus ended.

Moderation as Vacuity

Americans sometimes claim to be moderate in their views.  "I don't believe in abolishing the Fed, for I am a moderate," is an example.  Moderation means limiting change to a moderate distance from present policy. But what if present policy is extreme?  Franklin Roosevelt might have said: "I don't believe in ending concentration camps for Japanese Americans. I believe in a more moderate course." Andrew Jackson might have said: "I don't believe in ending my policy of banishing all Native Americans east of the Mississippi. I believe in the moderate course of extending the Indian Removal Act to just one more tribe."

Is moderation as a mere increment meaningful in the context of policies whose effects are devastating or reprehensible?

There are other possible meanings, though. Perhaps moderation underlies a claim that state action is not a moral but a pragmatic question. "Only extremists hold that theft is wrong under all circumstances. We moderates hold that taxing some to redistribute to others is a pragmatic course."  Here, however, the claim is contradictory. If  morality that prohibits theft is extreme, why is the morality that motivates redistribution of wealth not an extreme? If it is wrong to say that theft is wrong, why is right to say that income inequality is wrong?

Since all government action involves violence, and since the elimination of violence is a prerequisite to the foundation of civilization, all government action involves moral choice.  Choice about violence,murder, or theft is inherently moral, and all government action involves violence, murder, or theft. Therefore, all government action is extreme if  extreme  is to be defined as making state decisions on the basis of morality.

A third possible meaning of moderation is that it accords with the majority.  The majority in America believe the claims made on television and in newspapers.  The writers in these sources are not well educated, and they have demonstrated a repeated capacity for advocating erroneous courses of action. One example was the Vietnam War.  Another was, in New York City, the urban renewal policies of Robert Moses.  A third was the Iraqi War and the strategy behind it. A fourth is America's monetary policy.  Ancient Athens lost the Peloponnesian War because it chose to invade Sicily, a decision that was politically popular. America's disastrous invasion of Iraq was similarly popular, and I was among the mistaken supporters.

In other words, defining moderation as incremental decision making, pragmatism, or accordance with majority rule potentially leads to policies that are extreme.  A fourth definition is mathematically certain, but it is also self-contradictory and equally vacuous.  The ancient Greeks defined sophrosyne (σωφροσύνη)  as temperance or moderation in the sense of  being well balanced.  Aristotle spoke of a range of virtues such as prudence, justice, and courage as well as sophrosyne. Moderation, in Aristotle's view, is the mean between two extremes.  Courage is the mean between rashness and cowardice, for instance.

Perhaps moderation in state action can mean the mean between two extreme courses of action.  In this sense, though, current American policies are not moderate.  An economy in which public debt is in excess of $55,000 per man, woman, and child, forty-four percent of whom have no savings, is hardly a mean between two extremes. It is an extreme. The same may be said of monetary policy. The tripling of the money supply in 2008 and 2009 can hardly be called a mean between two extremes: Historically, monetary expansion of that magnitude has led to economic collapse. Nor can we say that a nation that subsidizes one industry, banking, to the extent that the US government has is taking actions that are the midpoint between two extremes.

Moderation can be defined as a small increment over current policy, pragmatism, majority rule, or the mean between two extremes, but none of these meanings is inconsistent with policies that are genocidal, horrific, radically redistributive,  or economically destructive.  Americans' claim that their choices are moderate, like their claim that they are free or their claim that they are prosperous, is a chimera.

Obama's Popularity Sign of American Voter Derangement

Rasmussen reports that Obama's popularity has been higher this month than last.  Whereas 42% had strongly disapproved of Obama's performance on March 31, and 24% had strongly approved of him, as of May 9, 34% strongly disapproved, while  26% strongly approved. Rasmussen's total approval score for Obama is now at 51%, while his total disapproval score is at 48%.  In contrast, on March 31, his total approval score was at 44% and his total disapproval score was at 55%. However, Rasmussen's "presidential approval index," the percentage that strongly approves less the percentage that strongly disapproves, remains in negative territory at -8%. Lots of racists out there who dislike seeing American contribute $12.8 trillion to commercial banks and Wall Street.

The reason for the shift is likely the belief that Obama killed Osama. Of course, the military  had been seeking Osama for ten years, so it is difficult to grasp why anyone would imagine that Obama had much to do with killing Osama other than getting out of the way of the inevitable.  Concurrently, rumors are circulating that the military and the president knew about Osama's whereabouts for four or more years. 

My prediction is that Obama's popularity blip will fade. Elections are 18 months away, and the economy's state, thanks in large part to the Fed's and Obama's policies, is parlous.  I am getting back into silver and and buying some extra gold today.  The recent correction in silver may not be over, but it is not a permanent shift. The Fed and the Republicrats have been playing a game of chicken with worldwide dollar holders.  The dollar will continue to decline, and thanks to Obama, Bush and America's deranged democracy, Americans continue to see their representatives support policies that are gradually impoverishing them and supporting (a) Wall Street, (b) commercial banking, (c) government employees, and (d) stockholders. 

Rasmussen also reports that 57% of Americans support repeal of the national health care and only 36% oppose repeal.  44% strongly favor repeal and 26% oppose. 50% believe that the health care law will be bad for the country.  I guess most Americans don't look forward to seeing the reductions in their quality of health care that Obama, the Democrats and the Wall Street-owned media aim to induce.

I would not be adverse to Obama's reelection if the choice is between a big government Republican, such as Romney or Trump, and Obama. In that case I will certainly be voting for the Libertarian Party, hoping for a Republican Senate and House, and a Democratic presidency.

Responding to Olive's Socialists

Our local penny saver, the Olive Press (see pages 32-33 before and after my letter), features two letters this week attacking me, one from Brooklynite Gus Murphy and one from Guido Giuliani who accuses me of being a Klansman and hating Italians.  My response to editor Paul Smart:


Dear Editor:


I appreciate Guido Giuliani's and Gus Murphy's August 26 responses to my Olive Press letter.  Mr. Murphy makes an interesting point with respect to the centralizing parties being urban, and this, if true, would confirm that they were the parties of the wealthy as well. The concentration of wealth associated with the rise of cities also saw advocacy of Federalist, Whig and Republican philosophies.  But Federalists, Whigs and Republicans were not necessarily urban.  The Federalists included wealthy planters, the Whigs included rural leaders like Abraham Lincoln, and after the Civil War the Democrats were the urban party in the North.  But these successive parties did in part reflect the ideas of the urban industrial rich.  The Democrats were associated with the agrarian orientation of southern planters as well as urban workers.  Federalism collapsed when the public realized that the centralizing party was also suppressive, as the Alien and Sedition Acts showed.  Today's Democrats and Republicans with their Patriot Acts and Fairness Doctrines are authoritarian and extremist in the Federalist tradition.  The Whigs elected several presidents, including William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and arguably John Quincy Adams.   The Republicans subsequently dominated national-level politics even though the urban party was the Democratic, which dominated local politics. 

The Democrats today advocate the Federalist-Whig-Republican philosophy of the rich, of Theodore Roosevelt, George Soros and the teacher of the rich, Paul Krugman (who teaches at Princeton and is paid from its endowment, which depends on subsidy via the Keynesian, pro-bank policies that he and Guido Giuliani support).  The triumph of the Democrats was to convince the public that the pro-banking Keynesian policies they advocate help the poor.  This was done by crippling Americans educationally.  I appreciate that Democrats like Jill Paperno feel that the Republicans are the party of big corporations, but they seem to forget that Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Larry Paige and Paul and Nancy Pelosi are all Democrats.  Moreover, the wealthiest Republicans such as David Rockefeller and Michael Bloomberg have views that are indistinguishable from the Democrats'.  Hence, the claim that Democrats represent the poor is a lie.

As far as Theodore Roosevelt's (TR's) being a socialist (and my point is emphatically that the Democrats and Republicans are both socialist parties of the rich) the best source is Martin J. Sklar's Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism. Dave Nalle, head of the Liberty Republican Caucus took issue with my same assertion about TR as Mr. Murphy has.  However, I sent him home to read Sklar and I suggest the same antidote for Mr. Murphy. Sklar provides meticulous detail about TR's adoption of socialism, specifically his advocacy of licensure and control of big business's pricing policy. Sklar, like other of the historians I have been quoting such as Gabriel Kolko and William Appleman WIlliams, have a New Left perspective.  As well, a review of TR's speeches during and after his presidency will convince you that his ideas had certainly by 1912 (when he ran as the Progressive Party presidential candidate) become socialist.

Prior to Taft and Roosevelt the meanings of conservative and liberal were opposite of what they are today.  Liberal meant a believer in freedom from state control.  Conservative meant an advocate of the state control characteristic of Europe.  In marketing their philosophy of the rich to the public, the Progressives developed the tactic of calling socialism "liberal" and liberalism "conservative."  Previously conservatives had been people who believed in monarchy, for instance the kind who all cry out for a monarch to bring "change" in a monolithic voice. "Change!" "Sieg heil!"  "Change!" "Sieg heil!"  The words were not used in their current form until Roosevelt and Taft. Grover Cleveland, president until 1896, was not called "conservative."

The term "Progressive" originated with a group of political writers between 1890 and 1920.  Their magazine, the New Republic, is still published today and remains a bulwark of what is incorrectly called "liberalism," more accurate names being Federalism, Whiggery, Republicanism or national socialism.  The writers were Herbert Croly, Walter Weyl, and Walter Lippmann. Their books are harder to read than Howard Zinn's but you will learn more, Zinn's communism being a rehash of the Onteora Central School district's elementary school curriculum.   The meaning of the word "Progressivism" has changed only slightly since then.  A good follow up book is left-wing Peter Levine's "New Progressive Era" in which he outlines the continuity between the Progressivism of Croly and Roosevelt and today's "progressives".  But the Progressives (who have dominated the Republican Party since Roosevelt) and the progressives (who now dominate the Democratic Party) are both marionettes of big business: David Rockefeller on the Republican side, George Soros on the Democratic side. The left-wing Onteora elementary school curriculum reflects the needs of Rockefeller and Soros.

Part of the problem with Mr. Giuliani's letter is his reliance on ad hominem insults, which do not contribute.  He may be interested to know that my brother-in-law hails from Sicily and perhaps I do hate Italians in this sense.  My nieces and nephew never call, and I just hate that.  Mr. Giuliani shows scant regard for factual evidence in this regard as in his other points, a vice which he attributes to me. Besides being a Jew whose relatives were killed in the holocaust, my last name, Langbert, is a Germanicizataion of the Italian Langobardi, which means long beard.  Hence, I  have little in common with the KKK and do not hate Italians.  If Mr. Giuliani had read what I said, I was describing a firm based in Milan, an Italian-based firm, not a firm run by Italian-Americans.  But the left, like the rest of America, is educationally crippled and lacks reading skills.

Mr. Guiliani questions my ability to teach, which is the kind of suppressive, ignorant insult which indicates that the left's totalitarian nature has not changed one bit. .  When in office, the left will certainly deprive people like me of the ability to earn a living, just as the academic left has excluded conservative and libertarian thinkers. Let me clue you in as to how I got to teach, Mr. Giuliani.  Perhaps you can try it yourself.  Get admitted to the doctoral program at the Columbia Business School; pass the doctoral economics, statistics and field courses; convince a faculty committee that your dissertation makes sense; publish twenty articles in peer reviewed journals; and get tenure. 

As far as Mr. Giuliani's other points, I understand that, like the left in general, Giuliani lacks the education that Tea Partiers have and therefore has trouble with understanding factual evidence, but saying that something is factual because Howard Zinn or Paul Krugman say so does not make it so. We liberals-in- the-19th-century-sense believe in thinking for ourselves, not appealing to half baked experts whose ideas, like Krugman's, fail, fail and then fail again. With respect to Marx, whom Mr. Giuliani superstitiously reveres, you can add a dozen "fails."  With respect to Mr. Giuliani's confusion about taxes, he conflates total (per capita and inflation adjusted) tax receipts with marginal tax rates.  I gave the numbers in an earlier letter and readers can refer to them.  In fact, total per capita, inflation adjusted tax receipts have nearly tripled since 1950.  Marginal tax rates were reduced, but there were many loopholes in the 1950s and earlier.  Marginal rates are on paper.  Real per capita receipts, which the public really pays, have tripled.  As far as unemployment, after Obama's spending upwards of a trillion dollars at Krugman's behest, unemployment as of July was 9.5%.  In March 2009 it was 8.5%.  Paul Krugman and Barack Obama have advocated spending trillions of dollars to bail out their supervisors at Goldman Sachs, another trillion on stimulus, and unemployment has gone from 8.5% to 9.5%. Let's keep taking their advice, give another trillion to GM, Goldman and Morgan Stanley, and watch unemployment go to 10.5%.  Plus, the trillions in debt will further impoverish future generations, just so Obama and Krugman can subsidize Wall Street.  Future generations are looking forward to impoverishment thanks to the pro-banker economics of the Obama, Bush, Krugman and Giuliani and the voters whom the Democrats have duped.

As far as Mr. Giuliani's arguments about Adam Smith and Alan Greenspan, I appreciate that Mr. Giuliani lacks the education to evaluate the role of either, but that is because of the ideological bias of the education system, which fails to discuss the more important and successful of the two thinkers: Smith.  Adam Smith's ideas have not been refuted. Marx's have.  A century of economic and bloody civil failure of Marxist socialism has coated Mr. Giuliani's and his fellow socialists' hands thick with blood, whether the failure be of the Soviet socialism of Stalin and the Soviet gulag, which butchered 65 million people; the Maoist socialism of China which butchered 25 million people; or the Pol Pot socialism of Cambodia which butchered 1.5 million people and which holocaust deniers like Noam Chomsky claim did not occur.  Having butchered more people than the Nazis, one might think that the left might reconsider its religious commitment to Marx, but apparently it hasn't.  One can see the extremism in the Democratic Party when Obama supporters like Mr. Giuliani continue to argue for communism. 

Nor has socialism worked in the "third way" countries.  Riots in Greece; economic breakdown in Spain; the ongoing failure of the "third way" here in America (such as the breakdown in Social Security which will only be cured with the Baby Boomers's being unable to retire) suggest that Hayek and von Mises were right and Croly was wrong. I very much doubt that Mr. Giuliani has ever read Smith, von Mises or Hayek (or Croly for that matter, limiting himself to the cartoons of Zinn and the the sixth grade-level New York Times) and so has nothing of any use to say on the subject.  

As far as Mr. Giuliani's claim that Greenspan's association with Ayn Rand in the early 1960s proves that Adam Smith's ideas don't work, the claim is funny as it is ignorant, and if  Giuliani had learned some Smith in school he would know that Greenspan's policies were completely irrelevant to Smith.  We liberals oppose the existence of the Fed. Hayek has outlined an easily adopted alternative: reintroduce competition into the money supply such as existed in the nineteenth century.  Greenspan jumped ship years before and he is dead to libertarians.  In the 1970s he worked in the same building that I did, One New York Plaza. He once rode up the elevator with me and saw a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" in my hand.  He turned to his colleage at Townsend Greenspan and said to him "he's young, very young."     

There are numerous other issues in the two letters.  Mr. Murphy's points about Social Security, the failed boondoggle (failed for anyone born after 1940, that is), require a lengthy response in themselves and I will respond at some future point. 

Sincerely, 

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Democrats, Progressive Republicans Take Sledge Hammer to Economy

Bloomberg reports that the economy is in a tailspin.  The unemployment rate is now 9.7%, 0.2% lower than last month, but that statistic deceives.  Last month, there were 431,000 new jobs with 411,000 census workers hired. Only 41,000 private sector workers were hired.  Manufacturing jobs increased by 29,000  while service jobs, mostly temporary, increased by 27,000. The retail job number fell.

The labor force fell by over 200,000.  A statistical characteristic of the unemployment rate is that people not in the labor force are not counted in the unemployment rate. So if you give up looking for a job you are not counted.  200,000 left in response to the policies of Obama and the Democrats. They are so great at helping the average American. 

Now if you subtract the 200,000 who left the labor force and the 411,000 temporary census jobs from the 431,000 new jobs, do you really find an improvement in unemployment?

The truth is that the unemployment rate is too low.  The reason is that the government has subsidized badly run businesses that should be terminated and much of government is pure waste.  Rather than subsidize and stimulate waste as the Democrats have, the incompetently run businesses need to close.

Money should have been spent on welfare subsidies to the unemployed, whose lives have been upended by the incompetence of the Progressive/Keynesian economic system. Instead, the economy has been put on life support and the misallocation of investment will cause continued decline until the Democrats and Progressive Republicans are booted out of office.

I feel sorry for my students, who look forward to suffering economically because of the moron whom they voted into office, Barack Obama.

Happy Easter--Enjoy the Coming Economic Collapse

The Econdata site has posted the above graph of the Consumer Price Index, CPI, since 1800.  I'm not sure how they calculated it for the 19th century because the Bureau of Labor Statistics didn't start its series until the first or second decade of the twentieth century.  There were various attempts to measure inflation in the 19th century so approximations can be made.   I can't vouch for their numbers but let's assume they're correct.

Notice that most of the inflationary peaks are around wars.  There's a peak following the War of 1812, a peak right at the end of the Civil War, a peak around 1920, following World War I, and then an upswing that starts around 1940 and doesn't abate. Around 1970 (the gold standard was abolished in 1971) the inflation rate surges. It surged at a faster rate in the 1970s than during 1980 to 2010, which is probably why many Americans believed that inflation had ended in the 1980s, which it had not.  It just began increasing at a decreasing rate instead of an increasing rate.

Compare the deflation that occurred after the post-Civil War peak with the deflation that occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.  During the Gilded Age, from 1865 to 1910,  the deflation was proportionately greater than in the period from 1930 to 1940 (notice that the twenties, which are usually considered a boom period, also saw some deflation).  The Gilded Age was the period of greatest rates of innovation, expansion and immigration.  Fundamental inventions like the telephone, the railroad (actually pre-Civil War but largely developed post-Civil War), the automobile, radio, A/C electricity, movies, all were created in that period.  As well, there was across the board innovation in processes and methods to a far greater degree than today, despite the lip service paid to total quality management and reengineering.  Moreover, on a proportional basis there was heavy immigration, a few years reaching as high as 500,000 on a base of less than 90 million.

Yet the rapid progress occurred during the largest deflation in American history.  The deflation during the 1930s was much milder, yet the employment effects far more severe.  Yet, academic economists base their arguments on the grievous harm that deflation causes.

Here is the reason.  In the Gilded Age businessmen and Wall Street complained endlessly. The deflation created political instability because real estate investors and farmers who were anticipating real estate profits suffered losses.  But the skimpy profits led to intensification of competition.  Reducing labor costs was hardly sufficient to compete. This led to innovation.

Wall Street, the real estate investors, farmers and businesses complained about the deflation, but the average American was better off.  There was an election that emphasized this issue in 1896, and the pro-gold (but pro-tariff) McKinley defeated the pro-silver Bryan.   Despite this victory, within seventeen years in 1913, the year of JP Morgan's death, Woodrow Wilson established the Fed, which was modeled after a recommendation that Morgan's associates had previously devised.

The depression of the 1930s was accompanied by a rapid expansion of the state and by continued missteps in monetary policy (especially in the late 1930s by Mariner Eccles, the Fed chairman, who caused a second stock market collapse).  The crash of 1929 was a second leg to the correction of the 1920 inflation that the Fed had caused.  The unemployment was intensified by federal policy.  For instance, Herbert Hoover, the last Progressive president, "jaw boned" corporations into not cutting wages.  This forced a much higher layoff rate than would have otherwise occurred (see Murray Rothbard and Ronald Radosh's New History of Leviathan for information about Hoover's role and Hoover's long standing commitment to price fixing and cartelization).  Following Hoover's loss to FDR, the nation embarked on a long term socialization policy that integrated Hoover's Progressive ideas (public works and cartelization via FDR's failed National Industrial Recovery Act) as well as additional ideas that the New Deal Democrats added--regulation of wages via the Fair Labor Standards Act; Social Security; the National Labor Relations Act; and price fixing for agriculture, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers not to grow.  As well, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, enacted in 1930, raised tariffs to the highest levels at any time in US history save in 1828.

The period of inflation from 1940 to today has been the worst in American history for the average worker.  The claim that deflation during the 1930s caused the massive unemployment is contradicted by the fact that a larger deflation in the late nineteenth century was not accompanied by such severe unemployment. 

In other words, the Democrats used the failure of their policies to justify intensification of their policies.  They are doing it again with health care.

Happy Easter!

Grigsby (d. 1890, RIP) Said It All

Contrairimairi (h/t David) sent me these photos of an Indiana gravestone. N. Grigsby was a great American. I found a history of the 10th Indiana Cavalry of which Grigsby was a veteran on Civil War Archive.com. It was organized in Columbus, Vincennes, Terre Haute, New Albany and Indianapolis, mostly during the first few months of 1864. It saw action at Richland Creek and Pulaski, Tennessee, the siege of Decatur (October 1864), the siege of Murfreesboro (December 1864), and the Battle of Nashville (December 1864). It pursued Confederate General John Bell Hood to the Tennessee River December 17-28. It fought in Mobile, Alabama in April 1864. It besieged Spanish Fort and Fort Blakely and captured Mobile the same month. "Regiment lost during service 1 Officer and 20 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 4 Officers and 157 Enlisted men by disease. Total 182."

Nancy Pelosi: We Have to Pass the Bill So We Can Know What's In It.

First, it's a measure of their suppressive ideology. Second, the Democrats are demonstrable "geniuses." Third, chalk it up to reverse gender discrimination. H/t Porcupine Rim and Gateway Pundit.

Partisanship and the Politics of Failure

Partisanship has replaced patriotism. On the one hand, we have Democrats who are loyal to the collectivist dream, to the vision of Swedish and German national socialism. As well, the Democrats consider it necessary to put the economic needs of Paul Pelosi, George Soros and the Service Employees International Union before American freedom. On the other hand, the Republicans thought up the bailout and have been scrupulously loyal to the needs of the pharmaceutical industry.

Neither party has pursued policies that would maximize America's well being. These are cutting by two thirds the book of regulation, the tax burden and the size of government.

The media, which is on Wall Street's payroll, have painted American politics as a partisan contest instead of a partisan collaboration. On the one side, MSNBC claims that Obama is America's savior. On the other side, Rush Limbaugh claims that the GOP is. The Democrats advocate national socialism while the Republicans advocate national socialism without welfare programs. There is much overlap, especially because the GOP has never seen a Democratic welfare program that they wanted to repeal. That is, the difference in advocacy is not matched by different action. Both parties advocate big government.

The media's emphasis on partisanship is one more in a long line of distraction tactics, a three card Monty trick. It is one more way that Wall Street's lackeys help divert Americans from the current system's failure.

To the extent that Americans have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the scam, they have suffered. The real hourly wage now is the same as it was in 1971. Forty years of stagnation thanks to the Socialists of Both Parties.

Somehow, neither Limbaugh nor MSNBC managed to "just say 'No!'" to Federal Reserve monetary policies that transfer large amounts of wealth to Wall Street and the recent trillion dollar bailout of the same Street. Put together, the monetary subsidies to the money center banking system serve no productive economic purpose unless you wish to claim that the money center financial institutions have been adept at choosing innovative investments to spur the American economy. But if you claim that you need to explain why they need multi-trillion dollar bailouts.

No industry has failed more dramatically, has demonstrated less competence, has proven itself less capable of serving any socially redeeming function than the money center banking institutions that have received trillions of dollars in subsidies. This is not an emotional assessment. No industry in history has ever depended on life support to that degree, has more egregiously sucked assets out of the productive sector of any economy than has the money center banking system.

Yet, Mr. Limbaugh, MSNBC, the New York Times, and Fox are all scrupulously loyal to it.

Americans need to reconsider their love affair with the mass media. On the one side, the Republicans love to hate it. On the other, the Democrats have replaced their natural thought processes with the parroting of entire sentences from the mass media's dim wits. Both sides have lost the habit of thinking for themselves.

As well, Americans need to consider whether the two party system continues to work in their interests. Jefferson said that there needs to be a revolution every twenty years. The current two party system has been in place for 150 years. Over time, corrupt relationships have developed. The solution proposed about a century ago was to expand federal power. But that solution has failed. Partisanship has become much of the problem, not the solution. Unless, that is, you believe in "Socialism in One Country."

A Dem-GOP Split is Preferable to a Bush-Like Palin

The recent election of Scott Brown has two sides. The good side is that it amounted to a rejection of the destructive Obama-Democratic health bill. The bad side is that Brown turned out to be a Progressive. For how long have the Republican rank and file been falling for this? The Democrats produce toxic policies, and in reaction the Republicans support politicians who are committed to maintaining the Democratic policies. This kind of self-destructive stupidity has become so habitual that now a supporter of government sponsored health care in Massachusetts is hailed as a savior.

The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is capable of perpetuation of the Progressive habit. Hence, there is no large-scale voice in America for small government. There is a chance that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction, but I do not see any backbone or leadership that would be necessary to reject the nasty GOP national leadership. The Tea Party's connection to Fox News, an integral part of the current tax-and-spend establishment, is evidence enough. Their applause for bailout supporters like Sarah Pailin also gives pause. Let us hope things can be turned around. I am not convinced.

I think the best that libertarians can do at this point in time is support the GOP at the local level and sit out the presidential election. A split with the Republicans controlling the Senate or hopefully both houses and a Democratic president, especially a joke like Obama, is preferable to the GOP controlling both branches. The chief downside is Democratic access to the Supreme Court. But the author of the New London v. Kelo decision, John Paul Stevens, was a Ford appointee (he goes back to 1975). The decision, which gave government the right to steal homes from private citizens, was passed in a court that was 7 Republican, 2 Democratic. As Mike Heuss wrote of New London v. Kelo:

"The Supreme Court is made up 9 individuals. Of those nine people, all but two are life-long Republicans: Appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. Of the two Democrats on the Supreme Court Ginsburg is typically considered a moderate and so is Stephen Breyer.


"In truth, nationwide, the Republicans have placed more judges in all levels of the federal judiciary. So when I hear a Limbaugh / O'Reilly blowhard scream about activist judges, I recognize the spin and chuckle. They are saying "Maybe if I talk loud enough and label them all liberal, the Democrats will get blamed instead of us."

Thus, I don't think the GOP has made much difference for good at the presidential level. Libertarians might begin to think of the advantages of a GOP-led Senate and a Democratic president. There would be gridlock, hence government would considerably slow down. Partisan squabbling would be much preferable to what Bush did, such as the horrifying prescription drug law.

Gridlock sounds good to me. Better than seeing the national Tea Party played for a bunch of patsies with a Bush-like Palin in the White House. As well, it is more likely that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction at the local level.

The Ineluctable Violence of New York Times Democrats

The Other McCain blog (h/t larwyn) features the above Boston Herald photograph of Democratic staffer Michael Meehan assaulting Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack. Also see the discussion on Greg Sargent's blog, Plum Line and the photo as it originally appeared in the Boston Herald.

Weekly Standard, a corporatist, neo-conservative publication, is one of a small handful of Republican news sources. There is mostly overlap between the Democrats' progressivism and Weekly Standard's version of Republicanism. But Democrats become violent at the slightest ideological divergence. Republicans are to be hated, even when they aren't that different. Why?

Socialism, to include social democracy, is inherently violent. One cannot re-distribute wealth without violence. If anyone disputes the Times's socialist ideas when turned into law by zealous Democrats, they must comply anyway or be thrown in jail for tax evasion. The essence of socialism is that those who disagree cannot be permitted to live on their own terms. They must comply, pay and obey, or be incarcerated. It is a small step from the violent, socialist ideology of the New York Times to Michael Meehan's violence pictured above.

American conservatism in its present, non-European form (in the 18th and 19th century the term conservatism referred to supporters of monarchy, state establishment of religion and the like) began in 1908, with the election of Progressive William Howard Taft. Democratic Party style social democracy began earlier, with the Populists and with William Jennings Bryan, who first ran for president in 1896. The conservative version of Progressivism claims that because of their superior intelligence, government bureaucrats and bankers (they seem to seriously believe this, although I've never been certain) must decide for everyone else.

In contrast, social democrats believe that democracy should rule, and that the meaning of democracy is that bureaucrats and bankers should make decisions for everyone else. The difference between "conservatives" and social democrats was always small. Both ideologies grew out of Progressivism and both are opposed to libertarianism, the view of Sam (but not John) Adams, Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland.

Main Street Republicans have scratched their heads for 100 years as to why people like Bush call themselves "conservatives" and then act like corporatist Democrats. The reason is that they were the original corporatist Democrats. The Democrats copied them and upped the rhetoric a bit by untying the hands of the Fed to give unlimited subsidies to the money center banks and Wall Street. The Democrats both out-corporatized and out-rhetorically-democratized the Republican Progressives. No wonder they hate each other. In rational language, the two are a twin headed hydra.

Michael Meehan is a good Democrat. He is violent. He is politically correct. He has a short time horizon. Let us hope that Scott Brown wins. But let us not deceive ourselves about for whom we vote. I know nothing about Scott Brown. But if we continue to allow Progressives to dominate the conservative movement, we will continue to see the same Rockefeller-Bush version of New York Times socialism.

Republicans Roar While Deficits Soar

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit (h/t Larwyn) notes that:

"The Democrats increased the national debt to $12 Trillion. And Democrats nearly doubled the unemployment rate since the Bush years with their failed Stimulus Plan. So now their going to give 'Son of Stimulus' a try...

"Not a single GOP Rep voted for the democrat’s historic trilion dollar Stimulus Package. Not a single GOP Rep voted for the democrat’s record budget.
And, once again, not one single Republican House members voted for “Son of Stimulus” the latest Democratic spending bill. Despite what some people say, there is a difference between the two parties."

Here's the picture Jim presents. It is ugly:



The Democrats are a joke. But the performance of the Republicans while out of office has repeatedly failed to match their performance while in office. George W. Bush also increased spending, and if you looked at the magnitudes in 2003-2008 they looked really bad. It is true the above picture is that much worse.

Jim is right that the Democrats are worse, but notice that on the graph the only positive years were during the Clinton administration. The Republicans can do much better. There needs to be a two-pronged strategy of taking responsibility for tax-and-loot white elephants as well as defeating the donkeys.

Democrats: the Party of Selfishness, Greed

The "Progressive" Republicans and Democrats, the parties of Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Barack Obama, have created a system where each aims to steal from each. This system has crystallized most completely in New York State, where the Service Employees' International Union has formed a one million strong unit whose aim is to expand the public sector to create ever greater numbers of unproductive government jobs. New York's economy is no longer founded on productive economic work but rather on the Wall Street bubble economy, which depends on government extraction of wealth from the rest of the world via the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bush-Obama bailout.

The way the Progressive Republicans and Democrats accomplish the wealth extraction is that the Fed deposits monetary reserves in the money center banking system, which is empowered to lend a larger amount (up to six or seven times as much) to the public. The first borrowers are Wall Street banks and hedge funds. The increased monetary reserves push down interest rates and push up the stock market, as has recently occurred. Wall Street benefits. The money circulates, and the poor pay higher prices. Propagandists for Wall Street such as William Greider in his book Secrets of the Temple deny this mechanical process, claiming that inflation affects all neutrally. That is also the claim of university economists. A moment's reflection makes clear that this is impossible. Most of the money is lent to hedge funds, for corporate takeovers, the carry trade and real estate speculation. By the time the money circulates through the economy, its purchasing power has diminished. Only fools would claim otherwise.

Perhaps no phenomena better testifies to the authoritarian greed of the Democratic Party and the "Progressive" Republicans than the bailout, which some have predicted will eventually amount to as much as $24 trillion. All of the advocates of remedying "income inequality" among the Democrats and the "Progressive Republicans" supported this massive transfer to the wealthy in unison.

The Democrats are a party of school teachers who do not educate but demand higher salaries; unions whose workers expect make work jobs; government employees who produce nothing but demand large raises; trial attorneys whose work cripples the economy but lobby for laws that protect their privileges; and on and on.

Karl Popper makes the point in his book Open Society and Its Enemies that, 2,500 years ago, Plato intentionally confused the debate concerning individualism versus collectivism. Plato was a communist who believed in tight state control of every aspect of human existence. To defend this claim, he equated selfishness and individualism. He claimed that collectivism, violent control of humanity, was justice.

The Democrats are very much in the Platonic tradition. Their advocacy of extremist versions of environmental regulation that would impose high costs on homeowners via the cap and trade provision is only the beginning. In upstate New York, Congressman Maurice Hinchey has proposed a plan to turn the Hudson Valley into a federal park. The extent of regulation in a federal park under the regulatory authority of the cap and trade administrator is potentially crushing. The very people who will potentially be forced to leave their homes because of cap and trade continue to applaud Mr. Obama.

Glenda McGee Tells It Like It Is

Dear Editor,

In a small town it seems there is a personal nature to an election that is unfortunate and I think unwise.

When voting for your personal interests means not voting for people you are friendly with and have happily done town business with, an election challenge to incumbents can be misinterpreted as a personal affront. But is that wise?

When voting I disavow "feelings" and assess the best economic choice that serves my fiscal well being. I swear I would vote against my own son if I thought he was going to raise my taxes. "Sorry, kid."

The team challenging our Town of Olive incumbents is running on the Republican and Conservative lines this year.

They have made a commitment to a hiring freeze and a frozen budget. They will actually refuse the health care package and will not take a health care buyout.. Vince Barringer, running for supervisor, will take a ten thousand dollar pay cut as well. I really appreciate that.

Because the Republican / Conservative candidates are making a clear commitment to thrift at their own personal cost, I am convinced that this year I should vote the Republican Conservative ticket for the first time.

By the way, these candidates will require a town board majority to halt the growing town budget burden.

These are new and scary times. We New Yorkers will soon pay a huge government mandated obligation to make up the pension shortfall of the New York State employees. Spam and water for dinner anyone? The tax burden we face will be enormous and will threaten the home ownership of those who live on the fiscal edge. Federal spending on the "Stimulous Package" has lowered our dollar index value from 99 to 75 in the past eight months. Yikes, there goes the buying power of the American dollar.

When I vote for Vince Barringer and the rest of the Republican/Conservative ticket November 3rd., I will not be voting against anyone. I will be voting for my economic survival.

Sincerely,

Glenda Rose McGee

Town of Olive Conservative Caucus Nominates Vince Barringer

I attended the Town of Olive Conservative Caucus last night in the Town of Olive Justice Court on Bostock Road. The most remarkable thing about that building is that the men's rooms have two wooden doors. You open the rickety wooden door to the men's room and there's a small ante-room and then you open a second rickety wooden door.

The Town of Olive has a split personality. The Conservative Party has about 85 members and gets about 10 percent of the popular vote in the town. But the town is no longer Republican as it once was. In the late 1980s, I am told, the Republican majority became Democratic as immigrants from New York City, owners of weekend houses, rock stars (no kidding) and other Democrats moved to Olive. Thus, there is a split personality, with a large chunk of the population descendants or long time residents and a large chunk consumers of granola and yogurt. As in New York City, many of the Republicans are left of the Democrats, but the Conservatives can play a decisive role. The candidates need to seem conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on environmental and lifestyle issues. There is a healthy competition for the Conservative Party nod because of the area's split personality.

All of the town's incumbents are Democrats. The Democrats enjoy roughly a ten percent lead in enrollment. The Democratic town supervisor, Berndt Leifeld, has been supervisor since 1988, according to the Olive Press. Timothy Cox, an attorney with the Catskill Watershed Commission and a former Republican, is running for town justice. Bruce Lamonda (who I know from the Emerson Inn and Spa's workout room) and Linda Burkhardt are running for town council and Jim Fugel, who turned down a cross-nomination from the Republicans, is running for highway supervisor. Running unopposed is Sylvia Rozzelle for town clerk. The Democratic candidates are all worthy. However, Republican challenger Vince Barringer makes an excellent point: Leifeld has been serving for over 20 years and is the highest paid town supervisor in Ulster County and among the highest paid in the State. This is excessive given that the Town of Olive is a small town, with less than 4,000 residents.

The Conservatives gave the nod to most of the Republicans, and this was a positive step as their support was not given. Barringer got the Conservative Party nod for town supervisor. Two charming and capable Republicans, both excellent candidates, Don van Buren and Craig Grazier, got the nod for town board. But the compassionate and insightful Earla van Kleeck was nudged out by Tim Cox. Van Kleeck is a good candidate and has an excellent shot at town justice. The Republican candidate for highway supervisor, Chet Scofield, was unable to attend the caucus and was nudged out by Democratic incumbent Fugel.

The candidates spoke to about 20 Conservatives and roughly an equal number of observers, of whom I was one. One of the interesting phenomena of a small town is that the politics are a little less subtle than in Albany or New York City. Two of the Democratic candidates' children are enrolled Conservatives and one of these began to aggressively disrupt and argue when the Republican candidate for town supervisor, Vince Barringer, was speaking. Nevertheless, I thought the Conservative caucus meeting was very well run and the outcome overall is positive for the Republican cause.

You are Leaving Your Children the Husk: Politics, Debt Addiction and American Decline

I just had a long conversation with a friend in my neighborhood, Ulster County, New York. My friend owns a construction company that specializes in high-end residences. She advocates hyper-inflation and low taxes. The connection between her business and inflation is that debt is necessary to stimulate purchases of expensive houses. Monetary expansion is one and the same thing as debt expansion. The Federal Reserve Bank expands the money supply by increasing bank reserves (i.e., by purchasing government bonds from banks and depositing artificially created dollars in the banks). The banks lend out a multiple of the reserves, increasing the money supply. The new debt is used to build expensive houses, but the purchases of the materials for the new houses increases prices. Increasing prices spread through the economy as suppliers of suppliers face increased demand. The result is higher prices at the supermarket, and widespread wealth reduction for anyone who buys consumer goods. Inflation is thus a tax on all Americans in the interest of specific businesses and government that depend on debt. The biggest debtors are of course big, not small business. Examples are hedge funds and Wall Street. Government is the biggest debtor of all. Direct taxation "crowds out" spending on personal consumption in favor of the black hole of government waste. Inflation allocates consumption to the wealthy who can afford to borrow for expensive houses at the expense of those who buy at the supermarket check out.

The use of monetary expansion stimulates businesses that require debt at the expense of those that do not. Thus, expensive, big ticket items such as automobiles and houses are emphasized at the expense of smaller ticket items that you might purchase at a local fair, a supermarket or a boutique. Innovation of new technology that would not depend on debt for demand is replaced by real estate, investment and luxury markets. Returns to innovation become smaller in comparison with subsidized interests such as hedge funds. Income inequality results when merchandise that requires good credit is subsidized and risky innovation is discouraged. Things that people really need are not produced and instead things for which debt is available are produced. Inefficient businesses that do not reflect neutral demand but rather artificially induced demand are encouraged. Special interests accumulate that demand greater inflation. My friend, for instance, has invested in a construction company that depends on inflation. If inflation were to end, she would be ruined. Thus vested special interests that demand ever greater misallocation accumulate. Funds available for innovation diminish. The economy becomes rigidly committed to construction, real estate and automobiles, forgetting that but 15 decades ago suburbs and automobiles did not exist at all, and only came into being because of unpredictable, spontaneous innovation that social democracy has aimed to destroy since the days of Walter Weyl.

One of the effects of social democratic monetary expansion is to reduce demand for labor as debt for capital investment is made artificially available. Labor-saving machinery is made more readily available because interest rates are low. Therefore, demand for labor in capital intensive industries becomes weaker, resulting in stagnant wages. Also, expensive plant relocations to low wage nations are facilitated by low interest rates. Plant relocation is also a form of capital investment that artificially low interest rates stimulate.

There is considerable mal-investment in the American economy. My friend's construction firm is an example. Expensive house building is subsidized by low-wage consumers. The resources that could have gone into innovation and the creation of jobs to manufacture new products instead subsidizes expensive house building. There is only marginal demand for the expensive houses, so ever lower interest rates are needed to stimulate ever greater amounts of house building.

The same is true of Wall Street investments, hedge funds, and corporate takeovers. Printed money is made available to these special interests, who enjoy profits and a rising market as demand is initially stimulated through artificially low interest rates. The general public pays a tax to the wealthy via the Federal Reserve.

This system of allocation of wealth to wealthy interests is the product of the Democratic Party, specifically Woodrow Wilson, who oversaw establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who first abolished the gold standard in the early 1930s. However, the Republicans have also played an active role in establishing this system. President Richard M. Nixon abolished the gold standard in 1971 and Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush were aggressive inflationists.

Both parties, Democratic and Republican, are big government, interventionist parties. Both favor monetary creation to subsidize special interests. Both have favored Wall Street, commercial banking and corporate interests.

The problem with allocating wealth to special interests is that less productive investments are pursued at the expense of more productive. As less efficient firms accumulate, from Wall Street firms to real estate construction, waste becomes greater. The nation's wealth is extracted and new, innovative ways of using wealth are neglected because the rewards from innovation are diminished while the rewards of wealth extraction by banking, law and investment interests are expanded. Government work is subsidized while the work of factory supervisors and inventors is diminished. As wealth is squandered, the nation becomes poorer.

One of the ironic effects of this process is that the stimulated industries tend to be harmful to the environment. Thus, suburbs were created by Federal Reserve financed construction that far exceeded the demand that would have existed without subsidies from poorer Americans to suburban borrowers. The effect is enhanced use of the automobile, ever greater commutes and worse pollution.

As resources are squandered the technological model which utilizes them becomes exhausted. Innovation has been squelched so new technological advance does not occur. The result is national decline, stagnant or declining real hourly wages and declining opportunities for future generations.

The Federal Reserve Bank is impoverishing your children. But the interests who benefit are palpable, while the interests that are harmed, those who would benefit from unknown invention that would have occurred in the absence of the subsidies, cannot be identified. Public employees know who they are and form a powerful lobby. Beneficiaries of a yet-unknown cure for cancer or a new form of transportation are not known to themselves or anyone else.

This system is leaving future generations a husk. It is eating the corn without planting for the future. It is a reactionary, declining system.