Compromise means government expansion of power

As I wrote earlier this morning regarding the discussion on Morning Joe related to compromise in congress, we need political unity to limit government power, not compromises that expand government power. We hear a lot from the political class about congress's failure to work together, thus nothing is getting done. Most pundits blame recalcitrant, radical rightwingers in the Republican Party -- Tea Partiers. They say that the GOP is captured by wild-eyed extremists who want to destroy government. Some in media who are more objective and fair point out that the senate has not produced a budget in three years.

We need representatives who will hold their ground against spending and increased government interventions into the economy. To compromise means that more spending and regulation will take place now with promises of frugality and economic liberty in the future when things get better. We've seen this shell game before -- the frugality and relaxation of interventions never come. Whenever there's a crisis that calls for government intervention, the power grabbed by politicians is never given back.

Democrats pretend they are blocked from passing infrastructure spending and support to states and such because the extremist rightwingers will filibuster, but Democrats know that much of what their general base wants will not play well for individual representatives in their home states. The Left's base is small and loud, and if Democrats push through the progressive agenda, or even try to, many of them will be punished by their constituents. It's the people who want to cut spending and stop government meddling, because if a majority wanted more spending and taxing, Republican representatives would be on board.

Morning Joe 5/16/2012 -- How does Obama change the perception?

Morning Joe was very revealing today. On the show were Donnie Deutsche, Mike Barnicle, Steve Schmidt, Paul Ryan and others who discussed the national debt, the two visions that separate Romney and Obama, economic stagnation and compromise in congress. This morning was different because the they had more guests from the Right who believe we have to cut spending and generate economic growth. One guest was from the private sector and he advises businesses on how to survive and thrive -- he said we need to depend less on government and work together more in the private sector to make things happen. Yes!

The Leftist view, though, was still presented, and one of the questions was whether Obama can do anything to help deal with the debt problem. Paul Ryan said that if we enter a debt crisis, it will be too late and no one can be helped. This has been my position all along. If we don't get government under control, welfare and social justice are moot points. In the future, we are going to need private sector solutions to social problems rather than Leviathan.

Scarborough asked one of his guests what Obama has to do to change the perception that he's a Spend and Tax Liberal. First off, this is the problem with programs like Morning Joe and with the pundits who populate the shows. They still believe in the old strategy of managing perceptions to win elections, then when elected returning to the agenda that's the real priority. Obama can't change the perception unless he changes his political philosophy and understanding of economics.

Democrats are in a bind. They think they can position themselves as Centrists who are blocked by radicals from the Right, but Democrats are in power maintenance mode. Unions, minorities, women, young people, the poor, the elderly, environmentalists, the LBGT community, are all dependent on the Democrat Party because they've been promised one thing or another. The problem is that we are going so far into debt, spending on these groups is restricted, But, it's not only spending, it's regulations that favor certain groups. Between the regulations and the spending, however, economic stagnation has developed and money just sits on the sidelines because investors are afraid to take a chance when they don't know what changes will come about tomorrow. Democrats want to take the money sitting on the sidelines, but there's backlash to more taxes, and taxing the producers more just adds to the uncertainty and the stagnation. Producers will operate overseas and keep their money overseas if they are threatened in the US.

Obama attempted early on to create the perception that he was with the Big Corporations, and Obama did help the Jamie Dimon types and the Goldman Sachs executives and GM and Big Unions, but it was a set-up. Now, the real agenda is unfolding, and it is written into the tens of thousands of regulations that are building the healthcare, energy and finance structures. When government controls finance and healthcare and enegry, it controls everything. How does Obama change the perception in order to get re-elected? The question is ludicrous. How does Obama reign over government control of the entire economy, yet fool voters into thinking he supports free markets and less government intervention? He can't. Not in the Information Age. Maybe Obama could have pulled it off when there were three main news outlets and they gave their versions of the news for about an hour a day, but not now.

I will write another post about the current pleas for compromise in DC. We don't need compromise that expands government power -- we need political unity that works to limit government power.

I just don't understand Republicans like Tom Coburn

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/15/tom-coburn-obama-told-me-hes-willing-to-go-a-long-way-to-reform-entitlements-in-his-second-term/

Coburn believes Obama when he says he will do something meaningful to reform entitlements if he has a second term. Coburn sounds like he's pulling for an Obama win. Coburn knows the presssure of complete control by the GOP means they would have to make radical changes or face the public's wrath and distrust for decades. I don't think status quo Republicans want to limit government power, so they will settle for pretending they can work with Obama if they gain some seats in congress. The statist Republicans don't want a Romney win.

I have news for Coburn. If he and his statist buddies in the GOP work to maintain the status quo, they will not last much longer in congress. It will be their careers that suffer from mistrust, as the Republican Party transforms to limited government advocates and free market champions.

It will be interesting. If the Coburns and Cantors and McConnells win, then we can look forward to a third party. Something will change, one way or the other.

Unsustainable dependence

As the Democrats moan about government cuts to vital programs, the reality is that states are growing more dependent on federal support as time goes by, regardless of the relatively small ups and downs in spending, mostly ups.

Because state governments would be rejected if they go to citizens of the states and ask for higher taxes to pay for the spending, the states hide the increased spending within the federal spending on state. This can't last, and the end result will be that the very poor who state politicians pretend to protect are made more and more vulnerable each day. When the day comes that the consequences can no longer be avoided, the poor will suffer while the politicians who set them up will blame the rich and scream for social justice. If federal and state governments didn't waste so much on spending that ensures they maintain power, there would be enough to help the truly needy. Until we get welfare out of the hands of government, the system will continue to unravel until it falls apart completely.

The J.P. Morgan loss is fishy

And not just because it involves a London Whale. Dimon was solidly in the Obama camp, but now Dimon says he's having second thoughts about the Democrats' war on the rich. I can understand this, and if it's genuine, then I say it's about time someone as smart as Dimon wakes up to statist corruption and how the whole crony system is dangerous to private enterprise, even when it seems to be a friend-- the political realm is killing the economic realm. On the other hand, it all sounds like a manipulation to justify full speed ahead with Dodd-Frank.

Those who accuse libertarians of being naive when we criticize government regulation miss the operative word -- government. Banks have become so big, and risk is so prevalent, that most banks want regulation -- they want effective feed-back regarding their ability to survive stress in the market. Unfortunately, government regulators can't seem to get the job done. Banks would pay private companies to give them a seal of approval, because this seal of approval is valuable to a bank that wants to assure investors they are solid. With a private system there would be enough flexibility to find the best way to make investors and bankers more comfortable. The private system, wanting to expand business, would also find a way to not block out the small players so that competition can flourish and Big Banks that can't cut it can fall by the wayside and allow competitors to take up the slack and improve the overall finance industry.

We are so government-focused that no one can imagine regulation efforts outside government control.