Regulations and Taxes

Heritage did a study of the poor economy in August of 2012, and the results are still pertinent. The biggest problem with unemployment is the suppression of small businesses due to taxes and regulations.

The Left is fond of pretending that the claim made by Libertarians and Conservatives regarding the negative effects of taxes and regulations on small businesses is a myth, but it's the Left who ignores the evidence.

Liberals have to wake up and stop the unthinking support of Progressive policies. If Liberals truly care about the poor and middle class, then Progressive policies are not to be embraced.

Up with Chris Hayes 11/24/2012 -- David and Goliath

On Up with Chris Hayes this morning during the first segment there was a panel discussion which addressed Black Friday, WalMart, workers' rights and the whole concept of David versus Goliath. Last week Hayes had on CATO civil libertarian Julian Sanchez, and this week Hayes had on Reason Magazine libertarian-type Peter Suderman. I like this trend as it helps counter the strong progressive/statist themes on Up.

One guest was a small business owner -- she owns an independent book store that has been in business now for three years, and according to the owner the business is successful is spite of the Big Box stores gobbling up competition in many other areas. Progressives on the panel criticized WalMart for not paying decent wages, but Suderman pointed out the fact that WalMart's low prices help the poorest among us who benefit greatly from prices 30-40% or more below other retailers. A WalMart associate was on the program for a short interview, and he said that the protests were successful, although from all reports very few, relatively speaking, WalMart employees participated in the protests.

The protests are union motivated and part of an ongoing effort to unionize WalMart, which WalMart has successfully resisted so far. One part of the converstaion was interesting to me, and that was whether there is a fair playing field when it comes to WalMart versus a small business operation.

Almost every major battle in my life has centered around the David versus Goliath theme. I've always pulled for the underdog, and I've mostly been the underdog. If I was a small retailer, I'd be thinking of innovative associations that small retailers could form to compete with WalMart along the NAPA auto model, rather than protesting about wages, but that's me. I was raised in poverty, and I fought my way out of poverty with the help of a lot of good friends and people who believed in me. I don't hate Big Business or Rich Bastards. I don't experience the type of envy which wants to destroy those who found success in much easier ways. I do however believe in competition and a fair playing field. By fair I mean without government favoritism. One reason I find the libertarian philosophy appealing is that it champions the underdog, despite the superficial criticisms that frame libertarians as shills for the Koch brothers.

In a free market with a limited government there will be no favoritism given to large corporations which government shields from competition. I've never understood how progressives never connect the rigged game they demonize with government over-reach and the lack of real limits that should be placed on government power. Leftists don't seem to realize that if government is unlimited then these types of power alliances are inevitable, and all those who aren't connected in the rigged game are at a disadvantage. It doesn't matter what motivations were part of the genesis that created government subsidies, tax breaks, favorable regulations and such for some businesses that gave them advantages over their competition, because once it happened then all businesses have to play the game to survive, so whichever companies can play the political game best and spend the most money on rigging the game in their favor wins. This rigged game blocks most small businesses from succeeding as they should through better products and services, and it stops many from even trying to start with. If we had a free market, there would likely be a boom of small businesses that would give more avenues to those who are trying to escape poverty. I've succeeded in my small business so far, but I could have done much better in a free market.

This is a complicated subject and progressives like Hayes will come up with myriad justifications for regulations and preferential treatment of some businesses or industries, but this is a subject that needs to be dealt with in the political realm. Kudoes to Hayes for having the conversation.

Up with Chris Hayes 10/7/2012 -- No, government doesn't need to help small businesses

Government should leave all businesses alone unless they are violating someone's rights. On Up with Chris Hayes the panel started with the topic of small businesses. Hayes is tired of hearing politicians (see mainly GOP politicians) praise small businesses, so he felt it necessary to deconstruct and re-define the concept. I don't think any of the guests ever owned a legitimate small business or know much about the various business structures across the country -- one guest said he and his brother opened a business but it was soon shut down for some reason (see, government is not helping, dude). The guests discussed how small businesses are defined and how it doesn't make sense to consider a local baker as the same as a hi-tech company with 450 employees. Very true. Hayes and his guests were describing the insanity of statism, actually. It's government which has to make all these meaningless distinctions for the purposes of policy and regulation. In a free market there would be business, just business. Hayes might become a libertarian yet, except that Hayes is only pissed that this issue of small businesses being stomped on by government policies, which usually favor large corporations that are cronies and partners in State power, helps Republicans who are calling for limited government. Hayes has to deconstruct the concept of small businesses and, like Obama, associate them with Donald Trump.

Hayes and guests then discussed how social issues are economic issues. Very true. This is another reason why the invasion of the political realm into the private sector has destroyed the economy. Social problems should be handled in the free market just as all economic matters. If the ideas promoted have merit, then they will be successful, but when government enforces social legislation as a way to socially engineer the nation, then the social is no longer economic -- it's political. Yes, Hayes is getting close to earning his libertarian badge.

Finally, Hayes wants to eliminate the word illegal when talking about immigrants, because it labels human beings as illegal. This might be Haye's final step to supporting a free market. If we had a free market, we could also have free borders. It's only when a welfare state becomes overwhelmed by un-approved immigrants in need that immigration becomes a huge issue and the system is over-whelmed -- otherwise, in a free market, immigrants would come and go as the opportunity to make a living waxes and wanes, then Chris and his buds woouldn't have to worry about desinations such as illegal immigrants. I would like to be the first to welcome Hayes and his guests to the brotherhood and sisterhood of libertarians.

Obama disappointment

From the beginning when Obama spoke at the national Democrat convention and received the blessing of Ted Kennedy, I said I didn't get it. The first time I heard Obama speak, I knew he was clever and polished, but there was a superfical confidence which I took as lack of depth. Presidents don't have to be Great Wise Men or Women, but they should have depth. The last three Presidents have lacked the X factor, but Obama in particular has been a disppointment. Obama is educated, and he's clever, but his performance is marked not only by inexperience but by a lack of gravitas. This was a historic event, but Obama is a not a historic character. In fact, Obama is fairly banal in his constant partisan hackery, and no matter how he tries to hide the partisan hackery behind big ideas, his ideas are small. There's nothing original about Obama and much that's unbecoming of a President -- plus, Obama doesn't even try to resist the status quo.

I've never seen more of a President on tv and received so little in substance. Obama had a chance to face big challenges, but over and over Obama has taken a partisan, small, statist route, determined to pass a progressive agenda and willing to sell his integrity to maintain power to finish the few items left on the agenda -- most of the agenda is just favoritism to the Democrat base which appears strategical for long-term Democrat dominance. From the start of his administration, Obama had the opportunity to advance race relations and has failed. Obama had a chance to take on DC connections with favored corporations, yet he has Immelt as an advisor, and his economic team was a crony-fest of big bankers. Obama could have been a champion for small and medium sized businesses against entrenched power, thus inspiring a new generation of black entrepreneurs to enter a market in which Obama battles to even the playing field by ending all corporate welfare and unfair advantages through the tax code and costly regulations.

Obama could have fought to end the mideast wars and developed a doctrine of non-intervention, thus creating a vision for America's role in the world going into the 21st century -- he could have challenged the military/industrial complex to justify its expenses and outdated defense contracts which crank out obsolete weapons through political engineering.

Obama could have faced the financial crisis and transcended failed Keynesian policies by challenging the private sector to create and innovate and move forward. Obama could have resisted the tired, old attempt to nationalize healthcare by allowing the market to develope innovative solutions to healthcare. Obama could have refused to follow the progressive script written for him by the Left, and he could have been a great, transformational President. There is no longer any question that statism has failed, yet Obama doubled down on government intevention. A little foresight and understanding should have told Obama and his advisors that it's only a matter of time before the statist system implodes in a global meltdown, so this would be a great opportunity to take the lead and end the Left/Right divide and simply rely on good economics,  American ingenuity and the much-needed transition from Global Militarism to Global Free Trade with America leading the way, and, in the process, attracting investors from around the world.

Even if it's too much to expect Obama to abandon the welfare state in favor of private solutions, the welfare state will be much stronger in a healthy, growing economy with new wealth created than in a declining statist system drowning in debt.

Ron Paul and America - Part II

The Republican candidates, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Pawlenty, Huntsman, etc., all of them except for Ron Paul, have not put forth a consistent limited government message. They appear concerned that the change in the public mood regarding government actions calls for a limited government posture, but none have a record of being champions for a truly limited government and a true free market. If the wind changes and it appears the public's demanding a jobs program and more economic intervention by the government, each one of them will develope a statist plan to intervene and "create jobs".

Ron Paul is consistent, even when he appears inconsistent, as with abortion. Paul believes in the right to life which calls for government to perform one of its legitimate duties which is protect the right to life. I happen to disagree with Paul on this issue because of the special biological situation of the fetus being in the woman's body, but I respect Paul's consistency. Abortion in America is a settled issue, and this part of Paul's philosophy will have nothing to do with his ability to govern from a limited government perspective.

Perhaps from the beginning of America the country has been split between limited government and a statist, central approach, but the inspirational idea of America has been limited government and a free market, and to the extent America achieved this, the world has witnessed the greatest economic growth and advancement in prosperity ever known. Even though government interference in the economy has created an advantage for powerful, rent-seeking companies, the idea of innovation and creativity and relative economic freedom has also produced true achievement and a statdard of living for the majority that decades back would seem like luxury.

What's missing in today's statist-shackled and crony-infested market is the diversity of small enterprises and individual effort to find innovative niches. Regulations have made it difficult for the individual to creatively find his or her way to make a living and really enjoy the effort to make the living. Ron Paul talks about the folly of government intervention in the economy, yet pols like Mitt Romney posture as King CEO of America, and many talk about America competing with China as if each are giant corporations competing for sales of the most global widgets. The idea of better State Capitalism is not what America needs, and that's why America needs to listen to the ideas Paul is espousing.