On corporate welfare

There's been a lot of talk lately about the options of raising tax rates or eliminating subsidies and tax loopholes that benefit the rich in order to raise revenues. I don't buy the premise that government needs more money, but if government is going to raise revenues, I'd rather it be through elimination of corporate welfare -- all of it. The reason for eliminating corporate welfare, though, should be so that taxpayers aren't forced to support corporations who should compete fairly in the market place rather than use government to shield them from competition.

Both parties have to resist the rewarding practice of patriotism peddling, using fear of some vague, perpetual foreign enemy to justify the hundreds of billions over-spent in the defense industry. We need a modern army with superior weapons, and we have that many times over what we need. No one is watching defense spending, and every politician with influence is afraid of being seen as a weak dove in a time when they think the public admires tough hawks. This issue can be addressed reasonably without the advocate for defense  cuts coming across as a naive peacenik -- just show the numbers and facts -- do a complete audit on defense spending and present a full report on the findings. The public can be convinced that corporate welfare in the defense industry is out of control and must be stopped. 

Economic growth or bust

One of the criticisms of the libertarian philosophy is the focus on free enterprise and growth. I don't think libertarians are focused on growth to the exclusion of other concerns, plus, economic growth is about more than the Koch brothers amassing more wealth. This simplistic view of libertarian philosophy and economic growth is more of a political attack than a valid criticism.

Modern liberalism values the State's safty net, environmental protection, unions, safe work places, and other social concerns they feel are more important than wealth creation. Neocons place value on national defense and our ability to defend against domestic terrorists. There are many social concerns and libertarians are not blind to them.

I won't address all the social concerns, but taking environmental protection as one of a few examples -- without economic growth, the environment can only suffer. Our influence in the world is predicated in large part on us being productive, and other nations are influenced by environmental concerns only to the degree that they need something from us. If we decline economically as a nation, we won't have much influence over developing nations, and they certainly won't voluntarily utiliize the necessary resources to reduce environmental damage from production. Also, if we are in decline, there will be less innovation to improve manufacturing processes to reduce pollution. Economic growth and new wealth creation enable the environmental protection efforts that liberals value.

Although libertarians usually disagree with neocons and progressive interventionists about the wisdom of overseas military interventions, if we're going to have an excellent national defense, it will come about through a well balanced manufacturing approach. Gorbachev, upon taking power in the USSR, quickly realized that agriculture and non-military manufacturing were suffering because of an unbalanced economic performance -- capital was misdirected because there was no free enterprise, and therefore very little economic growth and new wealth creation.

We can address higher level social concerns when there's economic growth and new wealth creation, but if we're in decline, soon there's pressure to cut safety net programs, defense spending, environmental protection efforts, as we begin to worry about the basic needs of housing, energy, food and clothing. People from all political stripes should promote economic growth and wealth creation. Yes, yes, yes -- there are other concerns, but unless we're wealthy enough to address these concerns, they will become distant problems of a better time as we focus on surviving. We can address these concerns as we create more wealth, but if anger at capitalism in a free market causes economic stagnation then decline, we can't and won't address these concerns.

Morning Joe 12/2/2011 -- No, I'm the smartest guy in the room, I am!

Joe Scarborough's Gingrich Obsessive Disorder was full blown today after a short remission yesterday. Scarborough is acting like a high school adolescent who thinks it's unfair that Biff is popular when it's so obvious that Biff doesn't deserve it and little Joey does. It's not faaaair!

Scarborough and Michael Steele got into a shouting match when Steele tried to explain Gingrich's rise in popularity with the base. Scarborough took offense at Steele's attempt to help Scarborough understand Gingrich's popularity. Why, doesn't Steele know that the Republican Party is Scarborough's party, and no one konws the party better? How dare Steele disagree with Scarborough! I don't know why these semi-regulars keep coming on the show, really, because it's demeaning when Scarborough's bluster overrides differing opinions, but, it's a gig, I suppose. Scarborough likes to show how he's predicted the fall of each Republican candidate which has made it to the top of the polls ahead of Romney -- Trump, Bachmann, Perry and Cain. Now that Gingrich has made it the top and it looks like he might stay for awhile, Scarborough says he won't predict Gingrich's demise because he's a real challenge. Later on, though, Scarborough did predict that Gingrich would implode. The entire Morning Joe crew laid into Gingrich. It was fun to watch.

Scarborough said Gingrich is not the smartest person in the room, and then accused Gingrich of running for president to sell books. It got ugly. Steele said that the Republican base is tired of faux-elites telling them what they should think. Gingrich has thrown a bomb in the middle of the Pundit Party. Sam Stein and Mark Halperin tried to give their analyses of the Gingrich rise, but they don't really know what's motivating Gingrich's rise.

Sherrod Brown came on the show as the topic changed to supercommittee, debt and unemployment. Brown accused Republicans of obstruction for not agreeing to raise taxes. Scarborough got in a shouting match with Brown when Scarborough accused Democrats of protecting entitlements. Brown gave an example of a 62 year old woman dependent on entitlements. It all turned into a confusion of ideas. Scarborough calmed down and said he does blame Republicans for not making difficult choices regarding tax reform, but this is ridiculous. Republicans want tax reform -- they just don't want to raise tax rates on job producers. Brown's claim was ridiculous, too, because any reform in entitlements wouldn't affect anyone 62 years old. Maybe Gingrich is becoming popular because he can make an argument that's cogent -- Gingrich might not be the smartest person in the room, but he knows enough to make clear arguments.

Then, later, the very smartest person in the room came on the show -- Mika's dad. The first smart thing Mika's dad said is that Europe will be okay because the central banks are doing something. Andrea Mitchell disagreed and said that the Central bank mini-bailout doesn't touch the underlying problems in Europe. Mika's dad, Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski (ZKB), also said that America is one of the most socially unjust countries in the world among industrialized countries because of income disparity. Scarborough didn't challenge this statement, he just asked for clarification. ZKB also said that Greece is the main problem in Europe, but if this was so, there wouldn't be much of a problem. I'm not that smart, but Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Germany's position as the safety net for these countries all appear to be problems -- that and the fact that the people of these nations are resisting austerity measures.

At the end of the program the conversation turned to defense spending, and the consensus is that we spend way to much on defense and mainly because the hype regarding terrorism has given contractors a blank check and no one in government is auditing what's being spent and who's getting screwed. Now, this is smart.

I'll address some of these issues later. It's just too much right now.

Cutting defense spending is not unpatriotic

Republicans should grab hold of this issue before stupid cuts are forced on us by reality. You don't have to be a peacenik, hippie dove to realize that defense spending is out of control. As far as the conservative position to defense spending goes, the orginal conservative position was to prevent foreign entanglements which require a powerful State and lots of taxpayer money to maintain. America is still paying for protection for countries who can afford their own protection.

No one in government is paying attention to where the defense money's going. Thomas E. Woods writes about this problem in Rollback, a book I've recommended here several times because it's so well-researched and so pertinent to our financial problems. Woods reveals the process whereby defense contractors bid low with the understanding that the costs will be much higher, and by the time it catches the attention of watchdogs, the political pressure to maintain defense against terrorism prevents any close oversight. We are constantly reminded of the threat of terrorism, so that anyone who stands up and questions the waste, fraud and abuse in defense spending faces the charge of unpatriotic blindness to serious threats in a dangerous world.

Defense contractors are the biggest part of the crony capitalism problem, and these companies who've garnered government favor are protected from incompetence and fraud. We're producing weapons we don't need in quantities that are unnecessary. Read Woods' book for examples. I'm not being lazy by not giving examples -- I just think that the book is so important, I want everyone to read it.

Republicans can take defense spending as an issue and ensure that cuts don't affect our preparedness and ability to protect our borders and national interests. But one area that has to be re-assessed is all the military bases which were built during a Cold War that no longer exists. We also need a doctrine regarding foreign entanglements to prevent political excursions which misuse our military and unnecessarily put young men and women at risk. Republicans can call for defense cuts in the name of protecting our military and our nation. Democrats could do this, too, but they had the chance and failed to do anything. If either party will come up with a rational plan, I think the American people are ready  to cut waste, fraud and abuse in order to save our military, not gut it.

Morning Joe 8/1/2011 -- Great deal for Republicans

The buzz on Morning Joe today is that the Republicans have scored a great deal in the debt ceiling battle. Joe Scarborough praised the Tea Party reps for negotiating and getting "practically" everything they want. The Democrats, like John Heilemann, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and Arianna Huffington, are livid because they think Obama gave too much. Barney Frank was on the program and he believes the Democrats will do okay with the deal because they're getting possible defense cuts. Dick Durbin was on, and he said a deal had to be struck for the good of the country. The general narrative is that the Tea Party won politically but damaged the country. Tom Brokaw was on, and he said this is just the beginning, that further negotiations will take place for the next 9 months and we'll have to see how it all plays out. Connie Mack was on, and he said he will not vote for the deal because it doesn't really cut spending -- Joe S. implied that Mack is being unreasonable because he can't get the perfect deal -- David Gregory said that Mack is playing politics because he knows his vote will not count, that the deal will pass without his vote.

Oh my -- what to make of all this. One thing is for sure -- the Tea party has upset the status quo apple cart. But, when all is said and done, government spending will go up 7-10 trillion dollars in the next 10 years, the triggers will be defective, entitlements will not be reformed, the hawks will block defense cuts, taxes will be raised, the balanced budget amendment will fail and we'll eventually cause our creditors to demand more interest on the money they loan us. Too cynical? Well, I have reason to be cynical.

Obama and the Democrats put forth a phony Grand Bargain with no specifics which they eventually sabotaged -- plus, none of the Democrats were ever going to touch entitlements. This whole fiasco was staged political wrangling to create the best image to market going into 2012. Democrats and Big Government Republicans got their debt ceiling increase -- 2.5 trillion dollars.

Statism is safe for a while longer, but public dissatisfaction is building. Practically everyone on Morning Joe gave their version of what the American people want, yet none of them have any idea what the American people want. The American people want many things, but one thing is for sure -- according to the polls, they don't want what we have in Washington DC right now, which is a powerful State falling apart as all statist governments eventually do.