Morning Joe 7/15/2011 -- Paul Ryan Power!

Wow! On Morning Joe today it couldn't be clearer who is winning the debt ceiling debate -- Paul Ryan and the New Republicans are winning. Before Ryan came on, Morning Joe presented Richard Hass, John Heilemann, Eugent Washington, Al Sharpton, and, of course, Joe and Mika, all of them giving their best analysis of why Republicans should compromise with Obama, accept "closing loopholes" and get what they can from Obama's promises to deal with entitlements. All the pundits sounded authoritative, and compromise was the central good, although none of them showed how compromising would actually be good politically or policy-wise. But they were loaded for Ryan.

When Ryan came on, he was asked why the Republicans would not compromise with Obama and get what they can get -- why not be politically realistic? Ryan proceeded to tear their premises apart, then reconstruct the issue with the New Republican position and an analysis of what is actually good and bad. To summarize, if we allow Obama to have his way, we are headed for a debt crisis similar to Europe -- that's a point Paul Ryan stressed to the Morning Joe crew at least three times. The reason is that Obama's idea of dealing with entitlements is a few tweaks that have a short-term effect but don't address the ponzi scheme structure -- the ponzi scheme has come to an end. The other problem with accepting Obama's original Grand Bargain is that it ends the Bush tax cuts in a couple of years, and if you add this tax increase to Obamacare tax increases and most state taxes, many small business owners would be paying 50% in taxes -- this will continue to kill jobs. The Republicans are okay with ending tax deductions built into the tax code, if tax rates are lowered, and if there are serious cuts in government spending, and there are structural changes to entitlements to prevent the coming debt crisis. The reason the New Republicans want to lower the tax rates is to spur economic growth, create jobs, and raise revenues through this economic growth.

Paul Ryan is one of the reasonable politicians among a bunch of power-mongers who myopically scheme to get re-elected while ignoring the condition of the economy. When Ryan was finished, the Morning Joe crew was speechless -- there was nothing they could say. When John Heilemann asked Ryan a question about compromising for political purposes, Ryan said he didn't care about politics but about good policy -- the camera caught Heilemann's face which showed true shock -- Ryan doesn't care about politics? My God!

This is the problem in Washington, and it relates to my previous post linking to an article by Frank Chodorov about the unusual political mind suffering from a power complex. The political class values compromise over what's best for the country, and to make it worse, they make decisions sometimes that actually hurt them in the long run. A politician making a political calculation right now to get reelected in 2012 might get reelected in 2012, but if the debt crisis hits, the politician could be thrown out in the next election, whereas if the politician has ambitions of making a career out of politics and makes the tough choices now and articulates the reasons like Ryan, they could have a long and successful career in public service and actually do something good for the country. We need more Ryans, and fewer compromise-freaks. The political means have failed -- let's try the economic means with a little wisdon rather than the political cleverness masquerading as wisdom.

Morning Joe 6/6/2011 -- Medicare and wild horses

On Morning Joe, after the obligatory Palin bashing, Joe S., Mika, Mark Halperin and Steny Hoyer discussed the budget controversy surrounding Medicare. Hoyer said that "everything is on the table" -- about 10 times. Our problem is that everything is not on the table -- not even on the menu.

Hoyer was right about one thing -- healthcare costs are out of sight, but this is caused mainly by decades of government intervention in general, and the unintended consequences of Medicare in particular. When Obamacare reduces Medicare reimbursement even more, costs will rise even higher for most consumers, and access to healthcare will be reduced for the rest. No one knows free market healthcare, so it's not even a menu item -- it can no longer be conceived by the public or proposed intelligently by politicians.

If we could put free market solutions on table, we might make some progress, and the Morning Joe crew might have more to talk about and analyze. Paul Ryan's plan is not a free market solution. A free market solution would entail the ability to buy a personal insurance plan that lasts from birth to death. The competition created by hundreds of million of consumers shopping for personal insurance plans across state lines would drive down costs so that the majority of Americans could purchase an affordable plan at the birth of a child -- a plan that is comprehensive and covers education, unemployment later on in life, healthcare needs and retirement. Once opened up to the free market, there would be so much money chasing insurance policies, innovation solutions would proliferate. The money now going toward payroll taxes, and much lower income taxes, or, better yet, abolition of income taxes, could be used to purchase these private plans, and the great majority of Americans would be covered.

For those who live in poverty and can't help themselves, private assistance organizations would develope to take care of these needs, but just considering the present healthcare/Medicare problem, free market solutions should be on the menu and on the table. The issues of healthcare and welfare must be separated -- how the majority of Americans purchase their healthcare shouldn't be complicated by government intervention and considerations of poverty -- the issues have to be dealt with separately because they aren't really related. How to provide healthcare treatment to people who can't afford it is a problem which will require different solutions. Most Americans can afford to pay for their healthcare throughout their lives, but only if healthcare is left to the free market where it belongs. I've written about this more extensively, but I think it's time to revisit the issue, so I will write a few more posts regarding free market solutions and how they might likely come about. 

Carole King was on talking about wild horses and how ranchers lobby government to enforce destruction of the wild horse population, and this was framed as a Republican/Democrat difference of approach. Actually, King should become a libertarian -- this is a statist vs anti-statist issue. I'm on the side of the wild horses, and I'm against ranchers lobbying for government favor, but I'm not a Democrat, because that certainly doesn't address King's problem. I'm sure people like Carole King and the ranchers could come up with much better solutions than government will enforce.

Paul Ryan's confused foreign policy ideas

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ryan-embraces-exceptionalism-rejects-isolationism-foreign-policy-speech_573194.html

In the article, Ryan is quoted as saying:

"A world without U.S. leadership will be a more chaotic place," Ryan said. "A place where we have less influence, and a place where our citizens face more dangers and fewer opportunities. Take a moment and imagine a world led by China and Russia."

What does Ryan mean by "leadership"? Who decides who leads and who follows? Is a lot of this some mental construct that has no validity in reality. I'm sure China influences many nations, as well as Russia. What does it mean to compete with China and Russia for a global leadership position. If it means war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, military bases all over the world, wasting money on the IMF, The World Bank and the UN, giving aid to countries in which the Head Thug steals it before it reaches those in need, then, yes, let me imagine a world led by China or Russia and find it unthreatening. We wouldn't be led by China or Russia. Which nations would Russia or China lead and how would they lead them?

I believe all this talk about allies in the world, and prevention of China/Russia leadership, is just a rationalization for the perpetual expansion of the military/industrial complex. I believe Ryan has bought the narrative developed decades ago by the power elite which needs an imminent threat to justify its power and control. I think Ryan is probably a good, patriotic man, but this type of rhetoric shows he hasn't thought very deeply about foreign policy, or very creatively. Later Ryan says we have to be careful and realize that our involvement can do only so much, so I know that he intuitively realizes that foreign intervention has caused problems.

America is a powerful nation, and in reality no nation can successfully subdue us, and neither China nor Russia can create any stable alliance of nations to threaten us. The real global action is economic, and this is where we're retreating and declining into has-beens. Ryan needs to trust his first instincts and accept that bringing our military home is not "isolationism" and "decline" -- it's a principled strategy to prevent coercive intervention abroad and economic collapse at home. Unless there is an issue of genocide which calls for all civilized nations to act, the internal squabbles within nations or between nations is none of our concern, and fighting terrorism will never be successful by putting military troops on the ground in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan -- terrorism is mobile in cells and is not the threat it's made out to be. Yes, a few radicals can kill Americans, but being in Iraq and Afghanistan can not prevent this, and any country that harbors terrorists will not actually terrorize America, because they know a truly terrorized America will destroy that country. The Terrorists are playing on our fears and pin-pricking us, and now they are draining us financially and taking way too many young lives needlessly placed in dangerous situations.

From the article:

Ryan spoke at length about American exceptionalism as it relates to America's role in the world. "America is an idea," he said. "And it was the first nation founded as such. The idea is rather simple. Our rights come to us from God and nature. They occur naturally, before government."

Our Founders warned against foreign entanglements. If America is great, then this is by actions, not through grand rhetoric and puffery. If America becomes the free and properous nation we can become, then so be it -- intervening in the affairs of others to get them to become like us is futile and immoral. Attraction rather than promotion is a much better principle. We have lessened our greatness through foreign entanglements, enriching brutal dictators, invading countries to stop communism when it wasn't our place to decide which nations should become communist nations. We found out later, that Russia had no imperialist ambitions, except in Eastern Europe, which had an affinity for communism, as a buffer from the West.

Any form of statism/socialism, including Islamist statism/socialism, will fail on its own -- we don't have to get involved and try to prevent it from rising. Dictators will be overthrown when the people become hungry and tired of being used.

The article goes on:

This belief in the American idea, Ryan said, should inform the nation's foreign policy. "Now, if you believe these rights are universal human rights, then that clearly forms the basis of your views on foreign policy," he said. "It leads you to reject moral relativism. It causes you to recoil at the idea of presistent moral indifference toward any nation that stifles and denies liberty, no matter how friendly and accommodating its rules are to American interests."

Ryan squarely rejected the position of increased isolationism. "Today, some in this country relish the idea of America's retreat from our role in the world," Ryan said. "They say that it's about time for other nations to take over, that we should turn inward, that we should reduce ourselves to membership on a long list of mediocre has-beens."

He continued, "Instead of heeding these calls to surrender, we must renew our commitment to the idea that America is the greatest force for human freedom the world has ever seen."

Who says we should "reduce ourselves to membership on a long list of mediocre has-beens"? Again, a policy of non-intervention doesn't mean that we accept decline and hide within our borders. We can be economically vibrant and globally open, but be militarily neutral regarding matters of civil wars and regional conflicts, unless we are threatened, or unless we are called on to stop another holocaust. We definitely have no business nation-building or "spreading Democracy" through military means. We can full-throatedly take stands on right and wrong and explicate our principles, but we can do it without military bases all over the world.

More from the article:

Regarding the recent civil unrest across the Middle East, Ryan spoke clearly about America's role and human rights. "We have a responsibility to speak boldly for those whose voices are denied by the jackbooted thugs of the tired tyrants of Syria and Iran," he said. He later continued, "What we can do is affirm our commitment to democracy in the region by standing in solidarity with our longstanding allies in Israel and our new partners in Iraq."

On the American military efforts both in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ryan said the United States can and must "remain committed to the promotion of stable governments that respect the rights of their citizens and deny terrorists access to their territory." Failure to win, he said, "would be a blow to American prestige and would reinvigorate al Qaeda."

Ryan also called for China to liberalize and become "integrated into the global order." But, he said, Chinese leaders should not count on the decline of the United States as a great power. "We must demonstrate that planning for the post-American era is a squandered effort on their part and that America's greatest days lie ahead," he said.

Yes, we can stand with Israel in spirit and principle -- we've been doing this for decades -- yet remain militarily neutral in conflicts. Israel can defend itself, and if for some reason they can't because a concerted Middle-East effort is over-whelming Israel, then we can decide based on this situation, but to have a military bent up-front, sitting on ready to intervene at a drop of the hat, is what gets us in futile entanglements.

When Ryan talks about Afghanistan and Iraq, I have to wonder what he sees that I don't. I don't see any way for these two countries to achieve and maintain stability -- we would have to be there for 100 years in order to see a real change. We need to leave Iraq, Afghanistan, the whole Middle-East, and if China and Russia want it, then they can have it -- they don't want it.

We don't need to be drastically anxious about terrorism or China or Russia -- we need to heed Pogo -- "I have found the enemy, and he is us." If America pulls in and limits our State machine, and if the American people are allowed to utilize resources without government siphoning off such a large chunk, the idea of America will be a good idea once again. Ryan is part of the way there, but he's on the wrong foreign policy track.

Morning Joe 5/24/2011 -- Backpedaling on Medicare

As I've said before, what fascinates me about Morning Joe is how it reflects the flaws in our political class. Joe Scarborough started off ranting and raving at the idea that the public will turn against Republicans because  Democrats will spin Medicare reform as extreme and the end of Medicare as we know it. Joe made a big stand regarding how someone with spirit could convince the American people that entitlement reform is necessary. Harold Ford said he believes the public will be scared and turn on Republicans. Joe appears to suggest he's the man to do the job, and if not then someone like him. Joe pilloried Gingrich for saying Ryan's plan is "extreme", but at the end of the conversation this morning, Joe was agreeing with Pat Buchanan that Ryan's plan is extreme. Where Joe differs from Gingrich is that Joe would have thanked Ryan for starting the conversation -- actually this is what Gingrich said. Both Gingrich and Scarborough think Ryan's plan is extreme.

What's wrong with our political class are people like Scarborough who say things for perception's sake, but when it gets down to the prospect of action they backpedal and tweak and obscure and never stand for major change. As a nation we can't go on with politicians failing to limit their own power, and refusing to tell the American people that we're really broke and that we can't continue the same programs we've had in the past. Our creditors will have to tell America enough is enough.

Oh yes, there was the obligatory conversation about insufficient Republican candidates against the charismatic Obama -- that has to be mentioned on every news show.

Meet the Press 4/17/2011 -- more budget madness

On Meet the Press, David Gregory started out interviewing Tim Geithner. I don't know why these shows bother interviewing the President's toadies, because all they're going to say is what the President wants them to say, and we've heard plenty from Obama. Geithner dimissed all criticism of Obama and his speech attacking Republicans as political gamesmanship, then assured everyone listening that Obama has the perfect approach to getting the deficit problem under control. I also wonder why Meet the Press producers think we're interested in hearing what Geithner has to say about solutions to the budget problem when he was instrumental in creating the problem by supporting bailouts and stimulus, plus the fact that Geithner has been a part of the Federal Reserve mindset that misdirected capital and manipulated the economy into a crisis.

The roundtable discussion presented the same problem with Alan Greenspan being asked questions about problems he helped create during his long stint at the top of the Fed. You would think that Meet the Press would have guests on who didn't help create the problems we're now addressing. Of course, not one person suggested the Fed is responsible in large part for high deficits and debt, high unemployment and economic stagnation. Tavis Smiley probably made the only honest point, aside from Mike Lee, that judging each problem the nation faces by how it affects the coming 2012 election is not really pertinent to whether government officials do what they think is right.

There was a statement made by one of the guests, and I can't remember which, that the "free market" has not been sufficient, and that now government must do great things, or something to that effect. Mike Lee disagreed and promoted the private sector as capable of achieving great things if government gets out of the way.

Regardless of Obama's political game of progressive dressed up as a moderate, Lee is right that the issues boil down to the conflict between these two visions -- statism or limited government -- and that Democrats are supporting statism, while Republicans, at least some, are supporting limited government. Statism brought us a housing bubble and financial collapse caused primarily by the Federal Reserve centrally planning the economy through monetary policy, helped by government social engineering aimed at increasing home ownership for those with lower incomes and not so good credit. The problems are much wider and deeper, but this basic misdirection caused by statism, stacked on top of decades of statist schemes, has perverted the market and led us to the brink of collapse. And, guess what the political class blames -- the "free market". Holy Orwellian crap, Batman!