Democrats work overtime to transfer more money from private to public sector

Centrist and Leftist pundits are still claiming there's a widespread problem regarding rich business owners who  pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. It's unbelievable that grown, educated professionals are still making this claim like brain-dead propagandists. You would think that they would go on to another line of propaganda -- pundits aren't very creative with propaganda, I suppose.

I'm not someone who obsesses over spending, because spending is a symptomatic problem. Spending is a problem, but it's not a fundamental problem, so claiming we can reduce spending and this will improve our situation is a bogus claim. It will take more than a responsible budget to make things better.

If we address the fundamental problems of central planning and government interventionism, then spending will take care of itself. Spending is out of control because government is out of control. Government has made promises it can't keep, no matter how much money government transfers from the private sector to the public sector. We have government programs which have become protected, bureacratic fiefdoms, and they must be dismantled. Congress can't even agree to eliminate obvious waste, fraud and abuse, much less eliminate programs and transfer some responsibilities from government to the private sector.

Our system of government is so convoluted that it can't be controlled -- it can only control and mislead. Leviathan now stretches out in all directions around the world. We're paying for military bases and defense in countries who can provide their own military and defense. SS and Medicare has to payout to a huge number of retirees as the birth rate is slowing and retirees are living longer than ever before. Medicine is finding new ways to extend life, so retirees are receiving way more in SS and Medicare than they paid in -- the system is geared toward collapse.

Centrists say we have to make long term spending cuts in entitlements -- most of the Left say that we don't have to address entitlements until we know for sure they've become problematic in real time. Politicians are blind to our problems as they focus on maintaining power. Maintaining power is a fulltime job for most politicians. They have to constantly deal with lobbyists and donors in order to fund the maintenance of their power bases. Politicians pretend to help their constituents, but in most cases the politicans are only offering benefits as payment for support. This is creating dependence on government as government interventions stall economic growth and throw people out of work. Even many who have a job are working in jobs below their skills and capabilities, thus requiring government benefits to supplement their pay.

Centrists and Leftists are asking for more government spending, on educational schemes, infrastructure, research, transportation, etc so that jobs are created and these jobs will jumpstart the economy. It's just the same old Keynesianism we're accustomed to from government. The difference now is that the natural strength of the American economy is not overcoming government interventions and central planning. Government has gone too far, and investors don't have to invest in the US, so investors are sitting on cash or investing somewhere overseas that is not America.

Fundamental solutions involve changing the statist system, but this is a tall order, a herculean task and other such cliched terms that speak to how damn hard it'll be to change this system of government. It might take economic collapse before this nation is willing to limit government power, but if we collapse people will likely cry for government protection -- that is how politically sick the nation has become. If we can't limit government power, develope a non-interventionist doctrine regarding foreign policy while building the most sophisticated defense known to man, and allow a free market, then I don't know what we'll do except slowly churn, squirm and grind under government control, as one gang comes in with the same old statist solutions as the gang that's leaving. All the while with government transferring more money from the private sector to the public sector. 

Political class scorecard on Fiscal Cliff

Now that I've seen analyses of all the winners and losers, according to various pundits and experts from both sides of the political divide, I'm convinced that America as a whole lost and will continue to lose until enough people learn enough about political philiosophy to know that this government has to be either reformed or, if that's impossible, shut down due to lack of consent from the public, which is as unlikely as the first option. There has to be a withdrawal of consent to be governed by this system of government. A new government should be put in place that is limited to the basic duties of government as understood by classical liberals.

Of course, this will not happen, so we're in for a series of "fiscal cliffs" that keep industry confused as to what the rules are and what the cost of doing business will be going forward. Progressives like to ridicule the idea that business is basically stagnant because of uncertainty caused by government interventions, or that businesses are worried about higher taxes, but progressive ridicule doesn't change the reality that statist interference causes economic stagnation and eventual collapse. Maybe the US has further to go than Greece because we built up a greater economy to begin with, but the interventions that destroyed Greece are the same interventions that are destroying our economy.

Long ago Ludwig von Mises wrote about the reasons why government interventions into economic matters lead to stagnation, decline and economic collapse -- the interventions eventually make economic calculations impossible, and when government increases the interventions in attempts to ameliorate the previous interventions it only makes things worse. Government doesn't and can't possess enough information to run an economy, and especially now in a global market that demands free trade and free market principles if companies are to be successful long term. Short term, State capitalism like in China can appear successful, but China will run into the same information problems -- it's impossible to centrally command an economy and sustain growth. From the time of Rome's fall on to America's present crisis, government interference is the main cause leading to the effects we are witnessing as we stumble foolishly into 2013.

If things get bad enough, maybe enough Americans will demand that government get out of the way, but when power reaches a certain point, it's not likely that power will be surrendered, not is it clear that citizens who are receiving benefits from government want government power limited, even if the rest of the country is receiving no benefits from the interterventionist government but are, instead, paying for the interventions.

Ron Paul's Libertarian Revolution

Some Republicans understand and are open to Paul's influence, but many aren't. Grover Norquist says that Paul's endorsement will be Romney's most important endorsement. On Brett Baier's Fox All-Stars, Charles Krauthammer gave an analysis in which Paul and Romney are left standing, and Paul's support will be critical, thereby forcing Romney, if he becomes President, to make some libertarian concessions. Paul's influence and accomplishments can't be overstated -- the Republican Party needs this influx of new blood and new ideas. The GOP had become just one part of the whole statist machine, barely opposing the liberal march to central planning and social engineering, and often joining liberals in this march.

Now, the ideas of limited government, economic liberty and non-interventionism are front and center. Bill Kristol reacted viscerally to Krauthammer's analysis and said the conservative/anti-Romney candidates have to stay in and fight, because we can't allow Paul to gain so much power. As someone at Reason Mag said, Paul is the only anti-Romney. It's against the Kristol types that Paul's fight is best served in regards to the future of the GOP. The neo-con influence on the GOP has to be eradicated if the GOP is to have any relevance in the future. Social conservativism has faded in political influence, as should be the case, because social concerns are matters for the market of ideas. The private realm is where social reformers have to make their case and generate voluntary change, if their ideas have merits. Kristol could care less about the "real conservatives" -- he just wants Santorum, Perry and Gingrich to stay in the race to offset the influence of Paul.

The neo-con and social conservative resistance to Paul is reactionary, and this tells us a lot about the condition of these two political forces. Their main gripe is in foreign policy, but I haven't heard any positive justifications for our current interventionist policies -- all I've heard is hyperbolic claims that Paul will endanger our national security. They can't make the case for our mideast interventions, because the situations are so shaky in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Pakistan, than it could all implode in the near future, if the implosion hasn't already started and we're just not informed of how bad it is.

If the GOP is not a party in opposition to statism and foreign interventions, then it serves no purpose. Ron Paul represents a new GOP that can oppose statism and disengage us from destructive foreign entanglements -- I expect conservatives to continue fighting this change, but they'll do so at their own political peril.

More fact-checking on Big Government claims

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/12/manufacturing-consensus

Matt Welch addresses with facts some of the "facts" put forth by statist apologists, blame-shifters, spinners, progandists and excuse makers who can't face the fact that statism has failed. Perhaps Big Government proponents are right that more government intervention is needed, but I'm going to say that this proposition is not all that credible.

On a side note, when government interventions like the trillion dollar stimulus are criticized for not working as promised, statists like Paul Krugman say that the stimulus was simply not big enough. On the other hand, Krugman says the Bush tax breaks failed to create economic growth -- can we say, then, following Krugman's logic, that the tax breaks were simply not large enough? 

Seriously, though, from a libertarian viewpoint, in order to escape the current economic stagnation, we need to do more than lower taxes and decrease regulations. We need a total transformation of the Big Government mindset and a rebirth of dynamism in the economy. Never before has the opportunity been greater, except maybe after WW1, for one country to attract so much investment and talent as America has right now in the shaky global economy, but it will take much more economic freedom and much, much less Big Government planning and scheming.

Good article on Solyndra -- failure of central planning

http://cafehayek.com/2011/09/solyndra-coverage.html

Cafe Hayek points us to a good article on Solyndra as a failure of central planning. This is a good example of how market changes confound government agencies.