Tim Cavanaugh at Reason's Hit and Run makes a good point -- it's not within government's power to create meaningful jobs. The governent can create the illusion of productive activity by creating temporary, unproductive positions in which people are paid with money taken from people who are being productive, but only the market creates jobs that are required to meet consumer demand, which create new wealth and trade production for production. The money we've already paid in taxes to take care of road maintenance and bridge building has obviously already been spent by a wasteful government, so now they're borrowing money which will have to be paid back in the form of higher taxes, so those types of jobs, although in some cases helpful, aren't creating wealth, and they are temporary.

If "green" products and services, whatever they are, were in demand, the market would be meeting that demand, so "green" jobs are an illusion. This is government's attempt to play the part of producer, but it's a joke. The administration seems to think that by calling make-work "green" it will somehow add value. The State can get out of the way, if they want to help, and not add regulatory and tax burdens to the free market. There's a fundamental problem with the State when it attempts to control economic activity and create growth by interfering in the market and attempting to spur and guide production by "creating jobs".

When the State attempts to adjust economic growth upwards because slow growth is politically damaging, it places political wishes above economic reality. If the State has this kind of power it would have found the right combination of interventions by now, after decades of tinkering, to maintain permanent  full employment and steady economic growth.

You don't stimulate the healing of a recuperatng patient by adding unnecessary layers of bangages and hiring more unnecessary doctors and nurses, even if the bangages are green and the healthcare workers will like you for giving them the work. The patient doesn't heal faster and the cost of treatment skyrockets. 

Speaking of moderates, David Frum and his cohorts are calling for a Moderate Convention -- hmm, in Peoria, perhaps? The moderates say they are passionate about their centrism. There used to be talk about the radical center, but I never hear about that anymore, since no one could really figure out what it meant. I think it was just a macho reaction to being seen as squishy.

I've never understood "moderate" as a permanent political position, since, so often choices have to made regarding one postion or another. There's not often a center position, so what does a "moderate" do? Accept both sides? Refute both sides? I can see being moderate at times when extremes are unreasonable, but extremes are necessary at other times. Many times when simply mixing two opposing views you get gobbledygook -- you get a lot of on the one hand and then on the other hand without ever clarifying a position. The main convention speech would go on for ever as synthesis is sought on every controversial issue. I don't like conventions in general, and I'm sure I wouldn't like a moderate convention -- it sounds awfully boring.

Getting back to Palin -- I love it when she stirs up people like on Joe Scarborough's coffee show this morning -- Peggy Noonan, Mike Barnicle, Andrea Mitchell -- Oh, it was wonderful.

No one cares, and whatever the facts are, they are close enough for government work. It's a dead issue, and there are many more issues which are far more important. Obama is embracing statism, so that is a fair attack. Make Obama and his supporters defend statism without double-talk, not where he was born.

Make Obama and those who promote more presidential power defend this.

I don't separate banks into a category of "evil companies", just as I don't separate insurance companies into such a category. A company is a company as long as they are competing fairly in the free market. When banks, and companies from other industries, begin rent-seeking looking for government protection and an unfair advantage in the market place, then I'm judgemental -- both government and the rent-seeking companies are then acting in opposition to free market principles -- this is bad.

Big banks have sunk neck-deep in government protection and many are likely regretting their cowardice -- hopefully, they've learned a deeper lesson than simply that government is a lousy, dangerous and fickle partner -- hopefully they've learned they need to compete in the free market without unfair avantage.

There is a price to pay for protection, and big banks might be understanding this price is too high, although, like I said, I hope they learn something more fundamental and meaningful.

The link above is to an article showng that banks are reacting to Democrat tenacles by contributing to the Republicans. Expect Democrats to fight hard for regulation blocking companies from trying to buy their way free of the tenacles. The banks might be screwed -- it might be too late to escape the price charged for protection. One part of me will regret the damage done to free market principles, and another part will understand that when you play with rattlesnakes you'll soon get bitten.

The private sector needs voices and personalities like Sarah Palin, but once she gets into national politics as a candidate or offcie holder, if elected, she will be constantly atacked and diverted. She can't be touched in the private sector, plus she has the freedom to be herself. Some people, it seems, are born to be politicians, and when they run or get elected it's sort of expected they will wheel and deal -- but if someone like Palin turns into just another politician it weakens the external pressure to change government -- more people become disillusioned and give up.

Government work is too small and restrictive for big personalities and principled people who can influence others in a positive way. Politics get dirty and bogged down in process. Some people are suited for the process of government work, but my hope is that our best personalities are not misused and abused in government work. The allure of national politics should never have become such a reality. It should be boring work done by personality types who are suited for it. The celebrity status placed on representatives is likely to change, and fewer people will find it appealing, thus not running for office for the wrong reasons.

In the private sector, with the information age growing by leaps and bounds, there's more opportunity to shine and be influential, because people are free to be themselves and say what they want to say. From outside the system, influential personalities can shape debates and help good, qualified people get elected who are suited for government positions and can do the grinding work to limit State power and free the markets to grow and create new wealth. America needs to shrink it's Super-State persona in the world and get down to the business of producing, and not just widgets, but art and culture and intelligent discourse and all the other things it takes to build an exceptional place in the world where free people can flourish. Personalities like Sarah Palin can rally for this type of America and be much more influential in private roles than getting bloody in political knifefights over State power.

We need many voices in the private sector to step forward and help build this type of space for individuals to flourish and overcome the chains of poverty and preventable sickness -- to enrich themselves intellectually and spiritually -- to be an example of reason, fair competition, smart co-operation, good common sense, peaceful co-existence and diversity. We need men and women from science, industry, arts, technology, literature, etc., to rise and create a private sector that isn't dependent on government nannies, but rather controls our government to perform the duties we hire them to perform.

President would be a demotion compared to what can be accomplished in the private sector.

There's a good possibiliity that progressive over-reach will be moderated starting in 2010, but this is not good enough. The Democrats saw an opportunity during a financial crisis to make a giant progressive leap, but their ambition to socialize America has been met with resistance. I'm not quite convinced this means that government will learn its lessson, back off and allow the private sector to return to free market principles. The Old Guard in the Republican Party is basically statist and philosophically tied to a centrist route of mixed economy, world leadership/dominance from a militaristic position and moral  nannyism. The New Center-Right is not much different than the second term of Clinton, or Obama's campaign rhetoric as it related to bipartisanship and a new way of governing. Many moderates dissatisfied with Palin as McCain's pick undoubtedly voted for Obama.

The McCain-like political elite in the Republican Party represents centrist statism and will be just as resistant to a tea party-like movement to limit government power as the Democrats. If the Old Gaurd regains power, they will compromise with progressives to reform healthcare and implement some form of cap and trade -- it will be done in a way that protects large corporations and blocks competiton from small and medium size companies. Healthcare reform and energy policy will be done in less extreme measures which will be more window dressing than anything else -- they will advance State control over the economy.

Many of the Republicans who are now associating themselves with the Tea Party movement will likely rationalize why we must compromise and slowly move toward a moderate management of the economy and how this is better than the radical management of the progressives. The Republians will promise to manage the economy so it reflects American values, but we must not forget the dangerous world and our place in it -- the State still needs to take the lead, they will say, so that we aren't threatened by terrorists, progressives and moral degenerates. They will offer the statism of good old fashioned American values rather than the statism of socialist/commie/degenerate values.

They will patiently explain to the ignorant public why we can't have a willy-nilly free market with no supervision, or allow people to become morally corrupted, or allow other countries to threaten democracy and traditional American values. They will explain how a strong American State with firm and fair management is necessary to avoid socialistic extremes. They will play to the right and deal with the left, just as Democrats, under normal, non-crisis conditions, play to the left and deal with the right.

In other words, the current progressive push for huge socialistic advances is an anamoly which will soon be moderated. If the public punishes the Democrats, we will be back to centrism making slower advances to socialiistic, statist policies. If the American people are truly learning the game of State power for the sake of State power, they will resist Republican statism too.

The Tea Party Convention is not the opposition movement -- it's mostly, from what I can tell, a gathering of like-minded conservatives who are a part of the progressive/Obama opposition. I warned way back to not concentrate on the conservative vs progressive battle, because it's misleading, and much of that battle is simply over political power and conflicting uses of State power.

It's the libertarian/limited government influence within the opposition which is the underlying power of resistance to State encroachment. No small convention in Nashville can represent the opposition to statism. I'm not talking about card-carrying, Murray Rothbard-libertarians, just libertarian-minded Americans whose libertarianism has been passed along from the beginning of the country -- many who don't really know what "statism" means, or they don't use the word in ordinary speech, but know statism, and dislike it, when they experience it -- libertarianism simply runs in their blood, if not philosophically worked out in their intellect.

For years we've known that half of the eligible population don't vote. There's a tendency among the political class to dismiss those who are not active politically -- they don't count if they don't vote. Well, the other half might start voting. I believe the other half represent those who are averse to government-type matters -- they'd rather be left alone and do their own thing without being concerned with politics, politicians and bureacracy.

For decades, there has been an unhealthy focus on government, and especially since the 24 hour news cycle. We've been bombarded with speeches, charges of corruption, pundits discussing political strategy as if something grand was happening, all the in and outs and detalis of political life, every economic number or burp in the system, every overseas trip for yet another wasted meeting with a another pretentious leader, treating every word spoken in Washington DC as if it's of cosmic importance.

The other half zoned it out, instinctively suspecting something unsavory and unproductive about it all, just pomp and circumstance, a useless game played by those who overestimate their importance. The other half trusted the American system to keep politicians under control so that they don't do anything too stupid. Now, with information running 24/7 everywhere you turn, the other half has been stirred from their apathetic disgust, and they are paying attention. I truly believe that a large portion of our society is just beginning to see how convoluted our political system has become.

These people in the other half aren't dumb, although I'm sure, just like in politics, there are dumb people among them, but, in general, they are no more or no less intelligent than those involved in politics and who keep up with political events. Actually this other half probably represents over half of the eligble voters, because many people who have voted, voted out of rote, superficial partisan distinctions and family tradition rather than informed interest.

Just as many professional politicians, political junkies, professional political activists, pundits, bureacrats and political journalists are ignorant of what goes in the private sector work-world and regional cultures across America, the other half has been ignorant of what goes on insde the Beltway. But this is changing because the two worlds are colliding in the information age -- plus the State has become so powerful it has infiltrated the private sector in intrusive ways which can't be ignored.

The other half is on a steep learning curve. The political class should be on a learning curve attempting to understand the other half, but they've always thought they knew enough about sheep to control them. Placing the other half and the changing paradigm under the umbrella of "tea-baggers" is not really a smart move. As the other half wakes up and begins getting involved, the last thing the State should do is dismiss them, smear them or attempt to suppress their interest or involvement. The other half are like absentee owners returning to a property they thought was being kept up by care-takers, only to find out the place has been looted and turned into crack-house -- all the valuable antiques in hock. 

Washington DC is going to change. America is going to change. This is much bigger than a convention in Nashville.

The free market needs to be free in order to function. All the burdens placed on American industry which are hampering our ability to compete globally need to be removed. We need to be building things and building them efficienctly so that we can sell them at competitive prices and create wealth. It's not just about creating jobs.

The real unemployment rate is alarmingly high, and using the monthly ups and downs for political puposes is a stupid diversion. The fundamental problem is a government which is shackling enterprise.

The shows I watched this morning were shameless -- they know the real story is that jobs are still being lost, yet they are actively pushing a positive spin. This is propaganda, not reporting.

Let me try to clarify my position, which I don't think is all that different from much of the opposition. Now, there seems to be questions regarding a distinction between anti-left/progressivism and anti-statism, but this is, for the most part, a distinction without a difference. There are anarchists who propose a stateless society -- I understand this position and wouldn't have any problem with a stateless society if the problems of protection of individual rights, national defense and courts could be solved. 

However, I believe a minimal government is necessary -- a government limited to police, national defense and resolving disputes in courts of law. I believe a government such as this could be very effective, earning respect and support from all, with national elections to determine which party and which individuals would do the best job performing these duties. Whatever other duties are assigned to this government should be assigned with the greatest of care, with everyone assured that it's the proper use of government.

Wiki says this about the state:

A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. In Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". It thus includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police.

In my view, the powers of the State must be limited to the legitmate use of force as I described above. The State should not control the economy, education, industry, etc. -- it should be limited to clearly defined duties of protection bound by the rule of law. Statism is defined as follows, taken from the online dictionary:

statism [ˈsteɪtɪzəm]

n

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government