Morning Joe 3/14/2013 -- Populists who ignore the public will

Joe Scarborough referred to his type of politician as a Populist. Scarborough was talking about how it's silly for Constitutional/Limited Government Conservatives to cling to principles when they should compromise and get things done. Scarborough talked about the extreme elements of both parties who stand on principles, then he basically described such stances as politically cute but not politically useful or realistic. According to Scarborough,  GOP representatives in DC, like he was in the 90s, come to the table fighting against deficits and debt while the Democrats come to the table fighting for taxes and spending and saving entitlements, but it's all a show, because when they get behind closed doors they start bargaining these show principles with one another to reach a deal. Scarborough says that the current Republicans are protecting rich financiers, and that he thinks all rich people should pay at least 30%, never 15% or so. This means Scarborough is promoting at least 30% taxes on capital gains and no "loopholes" at all that would reduce a rich person's tax rate below 30%.

Scarborough says he talks with many Republicans who share his "populist" view. I never knew this is what populist meant -- the politician pretends to support what his constituents say they want him/her to represent and fight for, but then behind closed doors the politician ignores the constituents and makes a deal which violates the principles of the constituents. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Tim Huelscamp, and the other "Tea Party" candidates which Scarborough thinks are extreme, stay loyal to the Constitution and their constiuents who elect them to stop the out of control spending and expansion of power in DC -- Scarborough says these reps should stop representing their constituents and make deals like good populists. This is incredible.

If Scarborough is right that many Republicans think like he thinks, and I'm sure they do, then the GOP is finished. Scarborough lives in a world of political pragmatism, flip-flops and manipulation. He's the type who admires the arm-twisting and hard-ass deal making of a LBJ, and he loves the power that the statist system provides. Scarborough would say that deal making is necessary to get things done that are good for the country, and that the people don't always know what's good for them. Only politicians looking at the Big Picture can make the deals that help everyone (collective, as the left would say). Scarborough would say that the rich and powerful are hurting the middle class, and that if he has to compromise and make deals, then that's how the game is played, but it's all done to protect the middle class and make the rich pay their fair share. He said as much this morning. This is what Obama says. It's what all statists say to justify their protection of the status quo in DC against extremists like the Tea Party faction. If the people aren't quite as mad at the rich as they should be, I suppose a good populist gins up class warfare to properly reveal the true enemy of the poor and middle class. It's for their good.

These ideas promoted by Scarborough are what's caused all the problems he now says politicians have to fix. This game has been going on for decades as government creates problems through central planning, then has to create more regulations and fixes to deal with the unintended consequences of their meddling, until now government has created such a mess of regulations and financial manipulation, the economy is frozen, unemployment is around 14%, minorities and the middle class are suffering, cronyism is rampant in political power circles, the military/industrial complex has us bogged down in the mideast as our soldiers are misused because the President is afraid politically to make a decision to end the futile military pursuits in this region. The military aspect is one valid duty of goverrnment, but statism has corrupted government to the point that political concerns pervert pure national defense concerns so that actions actually needed to address national threats are not priorities. 

Government interventions have brought us to this point with Obamacare stumbling through the economy like a violent drunkard striking out at everything in the way, with Dodd-Frank throwing out half-baked regulations contorted by special interests to protect the Big Banks and screw everyone else, and with potential jobs in energy blocked by a government-sanctioned religion of environmentalism that sees Satan in every energy source that's not an economic loser.

It's this long history of insider political wrangling, compromising and central planning in our statist system that Scarborough says we have to protect and make whole by bipartisan cooperation. Even at the level of political realism and sophistication, Scarborough's position is foolish, unless his real purpose is Democratic party control over the House, the Senate and the Presidency. For Republicans, Scarborough's prescription is suicide. Obama is hoping Centrists follow the Smart Government philosophy, reject their base and start wheeling and dealing, thinking the public will reward them for their political maturity, because if the Centrists do so, and if they push the division in the GOP deeper, then 2014 will go to the Democratic Party. Constitutional Conservatives and Libertarians will not vote for a party that promotes taxing and spending like the Democratic Party. Why? Democrats are better at it, so why even bother with Republicans?

Morning Joe 2/11/2013 -- Medicare and tax hikes

On Morning Joe today, aside from the discussion regarding the Pope's resignation, the topic during the first segment was related to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats claiming Medicare is not a problem and seeking more tax hikes. Between their denial of Medicare as a problem and their insistence on more taxes, Joe Scarborough believes they're giving Republicans a chance to get back in the game.

They played a clip of Eric Cantor saying that we can't keep raising taxes every three months -- this is a popular stance among people who are suffering financially and who just found out that their payroll taxes went back up. Also, gas and food prices are rising, or simply staying high. Even those who have jobs are working below their training and education, so even if the proposed tax hikes, achieved through "loophole" closings, apparently effect only the rich, it's not too difficult to figure out that if rich business owners have less money they will need fewer employees, or they won't give any raises. The country is not in the mood for more taxes, even on the rich. Democrats have played the rich card until it's just a tired populist ploy. The American people want economic growth. The change part of Hope and Change has become an endless series of interventions coming out of DC causing anxiety, especially when things seem to stay the same or get worse with each intervention. Obamacare is slowly morphing from a grand government response to rising healthcare costs and lack of access to treatment and coverage into a nightmare of confusion and higher costs -- this is just one example.

Unfortunately, Centrists and Leftists in goverrnment have convinced a large part of the population that government can create economic growth, although I wonder why people think government hasn't done so already with the trillions spent so far on stimulus schemes. It's a shame that statists have influence over media and that the message sent out 24/7 is government can solve economic problems. As Reagan said, government is the problem, when that government is interventionist, meddling in the economy and spending billions overseas in failed adventures. Even when Republicans talk about spending cuts, this is just talk if the statist system is not dismantled. The political class calls this type of talk extremist, anti-government rhetoric, but it's really pro-government, limited government focused on its core duties that are vital to rule of law and rights/property protection. Government is needed for protection against coercion so that the private sector can go about its business and create economic growth without fear of violence, theft, or forceful takings, but the government we have is using coercion to control the private sector and centrally plan the economy -- we now need protection from the government. We must throw off the statist system and develope a limited government responsive to the protection needs of the private sector. Morning Joe is not talking about this, but it would be helpful if they did -- then I could believe Joe and others like him when they talk about "small" government, and maybe rather than "small" they'll begin talking about a limited government. Yes, it will be helpful.

Democrats work overtime to transfer more money from private to public sector

Centrist and Leftist pundits are still claiming there's a widespread problem regarding rich business owners who  pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. It's unbelievable that grown, educated professionals are still making this claim like brain-dead propagandists. You would think that they would go on to another line of propaganda -- pundits aren't very creative with propaganda, I suppose.

I'm not someone who obsesses over spending, because spending is a symptomatic problem. Spending is a problem, but it's not a fundamental problem, so claiming we can reduce spending and this will improve our situation is a bogus claim. It will take more than a responsible budget to make things better.

If we address the fundamental problems of central planning and government interventionism, then spending will take care of itself. Spending is out of control because government is out of control. Government has made promises it can't keep, no matter how much money government transfers from the private sector to the public sector. We have government programs which have become protected, bureacratic fiefdoms, and they must be dismantled. Congress can't even agree to eliminate obvious waste, fraud and abuse, much less eliminate programs and transfer some responsibilities from government to the private sector.

Our system of government is so convoluted that it can't be controlled -- it can only control and mislead. Leviathan now stretches out in all directions around the world. We're paying for military bases and defense in countries who can provide their own military and defense. SS and Medicare has to payout to a huge number of retirees as the birth rate is slowing and retirees are living longer than ever before. Medicine is finding new ways to extend life, so retirees are receiving way more in SS and Medicare than they paid in -- the system is geared toward collapse.

Centrists say we have to make long term spending cuts in entitlements -- most of the Left say that we don't have to address entitlements until we know for sure they've become problematic in real time. Politicians are blind to our problems as they focus on maintaining power. Maintaining power is a fulltime job for most politicians. They have to constantly deal with lobbyists and donors in order to fund the maintenance of their power bases. Politicians pretend to help their constituents, but in most cases the politicans are only offering benefits as payment for support. This is creating dependence on government as government interventions stall economic growth and throw people out of work. Even many who have a job are working in jobs below their skills and capabilities, thus requiring government benefits to supplement their pay.

Centrists and Leftists are asking for more government spending, on educational schemes, infrastructure, research, transportation, etc so that jobs are created and these jobs will jumpstart the economy. It's just the same old Keynesianism we're accustomed to from government. The difference now is that the natural strength of the American economy is not overcoming government interventions and central planning. Government has gone too far, and investors don't have to invest in the US, so investors are sitting on cash or investing somewhere overseas that is not America.

Fundamental solutions involve changing the statist system, but this is a tall order, a herculean task and other such cliched terms that speak to how damn hard it'll be to change this system of government. It might take economic collapse before this nation is willing to limit government power, but if we collapse people will likely cry for government protection -- that is how politically sick the nation has become. If we can't limit government power, develope a non-interventionist doctrine regarding foreign policy while building the most sophisticated defense known to man, and allow a free market, then I don't know what we'll do except slowly churn, squirm and grind under government control, as one gang comes in with the same old statist solutions as the gang that's leaving. All the while with government transferring more money from the private sector to the public sector. 

Dealing with Taxes

Democrats now want to use "loopholes and subsidies" and such to raise more revenues, but this is a just another tax hike if they don't lower the rates. The purpose of reforming the tax code should be simplification and to put an end to tax schemes which favor large corporations or government's pet projects. The tax rate should be lowered after simplification and the end to favoritism.

If taxes are simplified and the rates are lowered, this will allow the market to grow, thus increasing employment. If we want to attract investment in the US, we have to deal with our crazy, convoluted tax system.

Morning Joe 1/7/2013 -- Budgets, spending, taxes and neocons

On Morning Joe today Mark Halperin, John Heilemann, Andrea Mitchell, Willie Geist, Chuck Todd and others discussed the failure of Democrats to pass a budget, the fact that Obama and Pelosi don't think government has a spending problem and would rather raise taxes, and the controversy surrounding Chuck Hagel's likely nomination by Obama to the position of Defense Secretary which is opposed by neocons who dislike his stance on Israel and Leftists who think he's anti-gay.

So, the crew reluctantly agreed that it makes no sense Democrats have not developed and passed a budget in the last four years and that MSM say nothing about it. This is the political environment in which we live, biased toward the Democratic Party, yet most of government's problems have been caused by Democratic Party policies. Republicans are also to blame for not really opposing Democratic Party policies and actually putting forth some of the same policies, but mainly it's the Progressive worldview that's caused  economic problems which have caused economic stagnation, high unemployment, high debt and trillion dollar deficits.

The idea that government can manage the economy is an old, discredited idea that doesn't die in DC, it's revived over and over, until now the consequences are too great to ignore. The Democrats can attempt to ignore the economic problems and debt, and MSM can ignore the fact that Democrats are ignoring the economic problems, but this doesn't solve the problems which are getting worse as time goes by, and time's running out. Obama told Boehner, according to Boehner in a WSJ interview, that he's tired of Boehner saying we have a spending problem. I sort of agree, because spending is a symptom, and it does no good to focus on symptomatic problems offering symptomatic solutions. We have a statist problem, a fundamental problem of government interference in the economy. The fundamental solution is to strictly limit the power of government and bring the State down to size. Fundamentally, the private sector is managed and controlled by government through political means and this is killing the economy. If the private sector is not allowed to operate on free market, economic principles, we'll eventually collapse the economy under the weight of government interventions and redistribution of the nation's wealth.

Interventions in the affairs of foreign countries, especially in the mideast and northern Africa, are also bringing our nation down and pushing the slide to collapse. The idea that Kerry, Hagel and Brennan will bring about a new era of non-interventionism is not a likely scenario. Obama is consolidating a private foreign army of quiet, secret interventionists who will simply have a different agenda than the neocons. The neocons sense they're losing control of foreign policy to Progressive interventionists softer on organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. The Progressives are winning this war because the neocons are complete, interventionist failures. Never before has America needed an intelligent doctrine of non-interventionism and superior defense, but no one in the military/industrial complex is developing this doctrine. Not only are the crony defense contractor relationships a problem, but a powerful State has to maintain an active military presence abroad in order to justify civil liberties' violations and control of citizens who without fear of foreign threats will become way too independent and unruly.

It's time for grownups to move beyond fear and bring about an era of peace and prosperity, all with our eyes wide open and our defense systems ready to meet any real threats. I hope Obama suprises me, but I don't see any evidence he's willing to give up interventionist strategies overseas or at home.