The public doesn't care about gun control

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/poll-only-politicians-and-the-media-care-about-gun-control-and-immigration/

In the political realm among the Center-Left alliance there's a raging determination to control guns in America. Harry Reid dropped his proposal to ban assault weapons because he saw the writing on the wall, but Diane Feinstein hasn't seen the light -- she and other Leftists and Centrists are declaring victory, sooner or later. It looks like it's going to be later, much later.

The above link shows a chart listing Americans' priorities, and guns are not a priority. Americans care about jobs and unemployment and a meddling government that's killing jobs and keeping unemployment high. If the Left and the Center spent half as much energy removing all government obstacles to economioc growth as they do trying to "re-interpret" the Second Amendment, they might be popular. As it stands, government is about as popular as jock itch.

Morning Joe 2/4/2013 -- Two Republican Parties

On Morning Joe, Scarborough used a good portion of the first segment to continue the conversation regarding short-term government spending, long term entitlement cuts, picking Republican candidates who can win, Karl Rove's role in electing Republican's going foward and what type of Republican Party should emerge as dominant among the factions.

Centrists like Scarborough are all over the place as they try to answer all criticisms and present themselves as giving everything needed to everyone who needs. When the Centrists are confronted with the problem of national debt and deficits, they say they're as concerned as anyone about spending, but they want to cut spending when we can afford to cut spending, down the road. Presently, the Centrists want to follow the Democratic Party by supporting government spending on education,  infrastructure and R&D. Centrists believe, like Democrats believe, that this type of government spending will create economic growth sufficient enough for investors to invest and businesses to expand and hire, but there's no evidence of this.

Scarborough and John Heilemann both snarked about the stock market being high, thus this disproves Obama is anti-Wall Street and that investors won't invest if taxes are raised. Actually, the informed criticism of Obama and the Progressive agenda is that it's killing small business growth. Yes, Obama and Co. are cronies/protectors of large corporations, but how does that create sustainable economic growth that generates good jobs? Yes, large corporations will make money if taxes are raised, but small business are hurt and they fire workers. So, the joking by Scarborough and Heilleman is not so funny when you look at who's hurt by Progressive policies. A few rich Wall Streeters are getting richer and sitting on their wealth or investing it overseas, and this is good for the nation? This says something positive about higher txes and Obama's policies? I don't get it.

Scarborough said he wants candidates who can win. So this seems to be the main point made by the Centrist/Establishment types -- they want to win and possess power over our statist system. Scarborough says Harry Reid is running the Senate because Republicans have given into the most extreme people in the GOP. Yes, the very moderate, balanced and reasonable Harry Reid won because Republicans are extreme. Got it.

John Podhoretz was on the show, and Pohoretz presented a distinction from the basic Centrist. Podhoretz brought up the fact that Centrists, who Scarborough considers the winners, did not run in the last election because they were afraid of the Obama money machine. This made way for the Herman Cain and Donald Trump show. The Scarborough types sat on the sidelines and made fun of those who ran. Yes, Republicans need to present smart propositions for governance, but the pretend balanced approach of government spending now with promised cuts in the future is the Democrats plan. Podhoretz laid out a good direction -- economic growth through economic freedom, deregulation, and leadership regarding peace and prosperity. Economic growth will answer a lot of our problems -- innovation, productivity, creativity, discovery. As new avenues of economic growth open up, the private sector breaks its dependence on government and moves toward private sector solutions. This is the way out. Centrists seem to believe they can offer Democratic Party lite and this will create wins in the GOP column -- I don't think so.

Statist spending

Those in the political class who believe that talk about debt and deficit is misguided, and that government should use this opportunity of low inflation and low interest rates to spend more on infrastructure and such, are missing something very important. I don't know if they are all missing it, because many of them are educated enough to know better.

There are statists in both parties who think government should not worry right now about spending. Obama doesn't think we have a spending problem, and many other statists have made this claim, while moderates are willing to compromise on infrastructure spending. Statists think we have a problem with demand that government can remedy by spending more money. The Fed obviously believes this because they're pumping around 40 billion a month into the system.

The statists are fond of pointing to inflation and saying, see, there is no inflation. Then they point us toward historically low interest rates and tell us there has never been a better time to spend and boost the economy. The ignorance of the statists, and their policies so far, have caused high, long-term unemployment and high underemployment. Fed policy of keeping interest rates artifically low are  hurting the savings plans of seniors. The statists don't mention this.

Statists also don't mention that the reason we don't see widespread inflated prices, although gas and food prices are up, is that economic players are not taking the statist bait. Investors are waiting until they know what the costs of doing business will be -- they are not counting government spending as sustainable economic growth, and neither are consumers, home-buyers -- no one is fooled by government spending, so the money is not circulating in the economy. Corporations are sitting on cash. Banks are not even fooled by government spending -- they're tighening up on loans, not loosening up.

If all these economic players took the statist bait and acted as if government spending equals sustainable economic growth, we'd see run-away inflation and interest rates so high that our economy would likely collapse. Statists are playing with fire, sacrificing the unemployed and the underemployed as they play their power games, telling us that nothing's wrong with government spending and that we should do much more. This is insanity, and the unemployed and underemployed had better wake up and act -- statist policies are not going to improve anything -- they will only make things worse.

Progressive Conundrum

The head of the Chamber of Commerce was on Bret Baiers' special today, and he reiterated what many of us have said for a long time regarding this down economy. He said that the fiscal cliff deal didn't help, but we also have a regulation cliff. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, which is only 25% completed, and all the EPA regulations add to the market uncertainty. He said if government can get its act together and provide some sense of stability regarding regulations, taxes and costs of doing business associated with all government interventions, we'd see economic growth like the world hasn't seen in a long, long time. We would attract foreign investment, and the economy would boom. The Progressive conundrum is that they can't provide the welfare state they want to provide without healthy economic growth, but in order to allow economic growth they have to stop intervening in the economy, and they haven't been able to do this.

I don't know if Progressives/Statists really believe that government interventions are necessary to spur economic growth, or whether they're afraid of losing control if they allow more economic freedom. I believe economic freedom is the only path to real, sustainable economic growth which creates new wealth. The problem for Progressives is that even if they relax on regulations and stop interventions for awhile, they don't have the patience to wait for economic adjustment from non-productive activities to productive economic activity, plus, they wouldn't likely appreciate the direction growth takes, such as booming energy production.

Another problem is that public education isn't preparing enough young people for the difficult brain work today that pays the highest wages, so the recovery will be uneven as educated workers make a lot of money and the poorly educated make next to nothing. Progressives will not allow this inequality -- they will have to intervene by raising taxes and redistributing the wealth, thus creating the problems of uncertainty again. If Progressives don't allow economic freedom sufficient for economic growth and wealth creation, they can't fund the government they desire, and, if they allow economic freedom, they lose power and control and are forced to accept inequality, or allow education reforms that are comprehensive enough to meet the demands of the 21st century labor force. Progressives will not even much think in terms of education preparing young people for work, much less will they allow the types of fundamental solutions, including private solutions, that are necessary for lower class advancement.

Progressives can tax present wealth only so much, and then they run into a wall. Sustainable economic growth and new wealth creation are vital to the Progressive agenda, but their "investments" won't do the trick, and they can't allow a free market, so they're stuck in stagnation until they can think of more interventions that will work -- good luck with that. Progressives would no doubt accept stagnation, if we could fund welfare solutions to give each person a decent living, but this is not possible -- it takes new wealth creation to keep a large welfare state functioning, and stagnation in a global market will not create new wealth. In the meantime, the unemployed and underemployed will have to wait until enough people, often including themselves, realize the Progressive agenda is a systemic failure.

Political games

I don't know what political games are being played behind the scenes during this "fiscal cliff" nonsense, but if we had serious people in DC they would all sit down and figure out a way to deal with entitlements, limit spending and reform taxes to simplify the code and foster economic growth.

Both Democratic and Republican leaders could form a plan to limit government power and reduce economic damage by giving the private sector confidence that stable rules are in place. Instead, we have a political battle over control of an interventionist government which is spending the country into economic stagnation and long term high unemployment.

At a time when America could lead the world in energy and agricultural production and manufacturing, thus creating close to full employment, we have a political class that's actively fighting against economic growth, either intentionally or unintentionally -- it doesn't matter if they are planning the demise of our economy, it only matters that their actions are destructive.