Economic patriotism

From NPR:

Given that reality, if U.S. companies and investors choose to invest money abroad or have operations overseas, are such companies and investors betraying American interests because they're not necessarily creating jobs for middle-class Americans?

If Apple Inc. makes its products overseas, and BMW and Honda make their products for American consumers in the U.S., does that make those foreign companies more economically patriotic than Apple?

Perhaps these and similar questions will be asked in the upcoming presidential debates or in interviews journalists have with the president, to understand the ways in which he may define economic patriotism.

This term makes me nauseated. Obama has now used it for his small book outlining his economic plan. Like social justice it's vague, but it appears to relate to US companies in the global economy and how patriotic they are, or should be, according to Obama and the statists who will judge these companies. Obama has already talked about using the tax code to punish companies that "send jobs overseas". This is a dangerous populist message intended primarily to please unions and to give the impression that Obama is a warrior for the middle class. Obama never tires of dividing the country into classes in ongoing class warfare. Obama has written off the rich, except for his corporate and Hollywood crony buddies whose riches are politically blessed -- plus, these rich people are willing and ready to do their fair share for the country -- reporting to duty, sir! Tax me! Tax me! I'm an economic patriot!

Obama is implying that companies with headquarters in the US are beholden to the U.S. government, and if these companies don't do what government decides is their "fair share", and if the companies don't create jobs in the US, then these companies are unpatriotic and deserve punishment. This is scary. Not only is it scary from a libertarian perspective, from a practical perspective, Obama is running industry out of the country, while pretending to bring it back to the U.S. This guy has to be defeated.

Will Republicans actually cut the size and cost of government?

Will Republicans really limit government and eliminate regulations? Will Republicans cut government spending or will they just slow increases in spending? Will Republicans deal with the problem of entitlements?

Let's say that the 2012 elections surprise everyone and Republicans control congress and the presidency, and they have a large enough majority to pass whatever they want to pass -- will they cut government programs, repeal Obamacare, deal with entitlements, eliminate regulations, open up drilling and production of natural gas, reform and simplify the tax code, lower business taxes, allow construction on more nuclear plants, and, in general, truly cut the size and cost of government, including national defense expenses?

We might never know, but if they have a good showing in 2012, we'll be able to tell how serious they are by how hard they fight to match their present campaign rhetoric. As much as I'd like to see a new, fire-breathing, free market, limited government Republican Party, I have serious doubts. The way Ron Paul is marginalized and ignored by the Republican Party tells me they aren't ready to stand tall.

Ron Paul and America - Part III

It's a little depressing to watch the Right, one by one, reject Ron Paul. Future generations will read the history of American intervention in foreign countries, especially the mideast, and statist manipulation of our economy, and wonder how we could make the same mistakes over and over. Ron Paul will be seen, if he's not wiped out of history by present efforts to make him invisible, as a visionary. By then we'll have already gone through the big crash, and our form of statism will appear as ancient and rigidly unworkable as 20th century USSR communism appears to young people today.

Paul has sounded the warning about the Fed for years, yet people are only beginning to pay attention. The mystery surrounding the Fed has to be removed if our economy is to ever recover. Daily you hear the Left rant about corporations and the wealth divide in America, yet hardly any of them see a free market which eliminates the Fed as the solution to corporate/government collusion. From the very beginning when Hamilton had his way and we created a merchant-State rather than a truly free market, government and Big Business have rigged the game -- now it has reached proportions which can be described as criminal. I have nothing against Big Business, of course -- jobs are created and wealth is created through large enterprises as well as small and medium size businesses, but the advantages bestowed on connected corporations through regulations and the byzantine tax code are anathema to a free market and fair competition. Paul has been sounding this alarm, also, and yet not even the Right fully accepts his warnings. But, it's the Left who ought to realize that the great difference between the protected rich and the poor can be ameliorated if all unfair advantages are removed and a free market is established. All the Left can do, however, is allude to how kooky they think Paul is and how unrealistic his ideas are in a modern economy.

Ron Paul for President -- Why not?

The media have almost completely ignored Ron Paul's candidacy in spite of the fact he's doing well in the polls. This might be the best reason of all to vote for Paul -- if the media is against Paul, then he's probably the right candidate for the country.

A Paul presidency would rock Washington DC by bringing the subjects of limited government and a free market front and center. Paul is a serious man who isn't afraid to say what he means -- in other words, Paul has integrity, and we need a President with integrity. He would still be up against a powerful State machine, but he could work with limited government reps in congress to make significant changes to the tax code, and he would shine a needed light on the Fed. He would also work to end our interventions in the Mideast. If these things can be accomplished, we could turn this country in the right direction.

David Brooks and his ongoing struggle to transform Barack Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

Brooks wants so badly for Obama to be the hero he has envisioned, that he continues to create scenarios in which Obama acts in accordance with Brooks' fantasies. In the above article, Brooks envisons Obama proposing a major reform to the tax code and finally cornering those limited government conservatives with their obstructionist principles. Brooks wants compromise and bipartisanship, but so far a good compomise hasn't been found between the Democrats with their progressive agenda and the Republicans who have been forced by a rebelling public to stop the spending, regulation madness, bailouts and stimulus waste. So, Brooks has created a fanatasy compromise that should work -- the only problem is that Obama will have to actually propose reforming the tax code to remove loophoples which will hurt his wealthy backers and lower rates.