Dangerous Rhetoric

The NYT has a piece about the new strategy for Democrats. This new strategy was highlighted by the way (and who delivered) the response to the President's State of the Union. Jim Webb used his platform to cite his favorite populists, Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt. He also repeats John Edwards ridiculous claim of two Americas with the following:

"When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times."

While I agree that not all CEOs deserve the pay they get. However, who are we to judge other people. The people who lose when CEOs have big pay days are stockholders. Why should we care if stockholders lose? We should not be fooled by populists who think poor people would be paid more if CEOs were paid less. Next, Mr. Webb cites inequality:

"Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them."

Here, Mr. Webb uses the old labor economist's argument of stagnating wages. But even the NYT cites that real average hourly pay rose by 1.6%, one of the highest increases in the past 30+ years. But, the problem with using stagnating wages as a measure of the American worker's prosperity is that is incomplete. Over the past thirty years, prices of goods have fallen considerably. For example, a worker at an assembly plant can easily afford a flat screen TV and a new bicycle at Wal-mart. This was not the case thirty years ago. Also, the wealth of lower class workers has also increased dramatically due to two recent phenomenon: the appreciation of homes and the record amount of the American public owning their own home (70% in 2004). Next, Mr. Webb shows his ignorance:

"Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace."

Jobs are disappearing. That is funny. Actually, employers can't find enough people to work for them. We are almost at full employment. The 4.5% unemployment rate is almost as low as it was in 2000, which was the lowest rate of unemployment since 1969. As for globalization, the only way that the American people would be hurt by it is if the government tries to shield the American people from it. We should all take note. The Democrats want to retreat from globalization while the Republicans (at least most of them) want to embrace it.

The next time you think of voting Democrat just think about what one of their icons says in the NYT:

“In the past, the attitude was, ‘Get government out of the way.’ And now it’s, ‘Gee, I may need it.’ ”

Lord save us if they keep this rhetoric up.

Democrats Win means America Loses!

Free trade is under attach as I predicted it would be if Democrats regained power. Read the following stories:

Financial Times Story
Wall Street Journal Editorial
Washington Post Story

So why is free trade under attack? Well, the Democrats are about to lead the Congress into rejecting a FTA with Colombia and Peru. This is bad news for the poor in those Andean countries and all Americans. Free trade brings more competition to both countries, it widens the marketplace for more businesses to operate and to reach more people. It lowers prices for the consumer and ensures that the most efficient companies survive. It also weakens the federal government by taking away a source of income. Lastly, the economies of the countries that liberalize their trade policies ALWAYS will be better off. These are basic economic principles that apply to all countries.

However, Democrats want to add in labor rights side agreements to these deals. To do so would dilute the freeness of the free trade deal. The essence of free trade is that it frees business from constraints that governments imposes on them (which will lower prices for all).

But why are these labor side agreements pushed by Democrats? Is it because they are worried that poor Colombians and Peruvians (who need jobs desperately) will be "exploited" in their NEW, HIGH PAYING jobs? Even if they were, they would be misguided. However, their real goal is to protect the Labor movement in the US. American Labor is worried that FTAs will ship jobs overseas and they are correct. It will ship the jobs that we are doing inefficiently, allowing Americans to move to higher paying service sector jobs. Labor does not want this. The AFL-CIO is one of the leading lobbyists behind the Democrats push to stop free trade. The AFL-CIO does not like competition, low prices, or capitalism. They want secure jobs such as the ones that the Soviet Union gave to their citizens.

So the question all Americans should ask? Do you want to live in a world of prosperity for all or do you want inefficiency and mediocrity to reign all for the sake of equality? I hope to help the American psyche by quoting Milton Friedman:

"A society that puts equality -- in the sense of equality of outcome -- ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests."

Post-mortem: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The election has passed and the Democrats are now firmly in power (at least in the House). I am deeply upset to see the country vote in the wrong direction. When in 2004, Bush was reelected after making the wrong decision to go to war in Iraq. And now in 2006, the Democrats were elected telling the politicians that they want out of Iraq at a time when Iraq needs us the most. It seems that the US electorate is always wrong. But here is the good, the bad, and the ugly...

The Good
-The Republicans will go back to what they should be: hard-nosed, true-blue fiscal conservatives. The fiscal spending is one of the reasons they were kicked out of office. The formation of a more fiscally conservative Republican caucus is one positive that will come out of this election.

-Pay-go - As long as this is on the spending side only, the Democrats can actually HELP reduce the deficit. However, if they include tax hikes in the pay-go plan then the economy could be headed for a recession.

-Oil subsidies - The Democrats are intent on killing these subsidies. HOORAY for this part of the agenda. Unfortunately, the subsidies will simply be passed to another industry that doesn't need them. Probably, the ethanol industry might get them which will make the ethanol industry even more regulated and less efficient. The end result - ethanol NEVER getting off the ground as a viable alternative to oil.

The Bad

-Minimum Wage Hike - The Democrats will pass it but hopefully Bush will veto it. This is another populist/leftist policy that is created to "help" poor people. However, the real result is less jobs for the least paid (companies will simply fire workers that don't merit $7.50 an hour) and could even create inflation.

The Ugly

-Speaker Pelosi - Her record below (very ugly)
* NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization)
* NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent
* NO on eliminating the marriage penalty
* NO on eliminating the death tax
* NO on creating Health Savings Accounts
* NO on CAFTA
* NO on US - Oman Free Trade Agreement
* NO on Fast Track Authority
* NO on Normal Trade Relations with China (goodbye cheap Wal-mart goods that make the poor better off)
* YES on Steel Tariffs
* YES on the Bloated Highway Bill
* NO on the Line Item Veto
* NO on DC Vouchers
* YES on No Child Left Behind

-Socialist Bernie Sanders is now a Senator. This man sponsored a bill that would make the US withdraw from the WTO. This man is economically incompetent. And he is a socialist!

In conclusion, I am no die-hard Republican. But they ARE the lesser of the two evils. They believe in Free Trade (more so than the Democrats), low taxes, limited government, etc.

A Voter's Guide!

Tom Kean/Michael Steele/Rick Santorum (The Republican Stance)

Economy

-Taxes in New Jersey–Republican Kean Supports Tax Cuts – New Jersey “gets the worst return on its federal taxes of any state in the country: only 57 cents of every dollar we send to Washington comes back to New Jersey in federal spending.” Lower taxes mean more money for New Jersey residents to spend on New Jersey.

Some more facts about the Bush Tax Cuts that Kean/Steele/Santorum support…

FACT: The 92.1 million taxpayers with annual incomes of less than $50,000 in 2003 saw a 47 percent reduction in their average tax bill from President Bush's 2001-2003 income tax relief. ("Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income," The New York Times, 4/5/06)

FACT: The 26.9 million taxpayers with annual incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 in 2003 saw a 20 percent reduction in their average tax bill from President Bush's 2001-2003 income tax relief. ("Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income," The New York Times, 4/5/06)

These low taxes have produced the following…

FACT: Last year, the economy grew at a healthy 3.5 percent rate – faster than any other major industrialized country.

FACT: The unemployment rate is at 4.8 percent – lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

FACT: The tax cuts have actually created a boost in tax revenue which resulted in a reduction of the deficit of at least $70 billion.

Bob Menedez/Ben Cardin/Bob Casey (The Democrats’ Stance)

Bob Menendez/Ben Cardin/Bob Casey are against the above tax cuts and if re-elected would vote to NOT extend these tax cuts. You might be worried about the deficit and the effect that tax cuts have on the deficit. However, the truth is that lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenue in the near future (more money in your pocket leads to more investment in the economy – this increased investment leads to higher revenue and therefore higher tax receipts). We have seen this fact in 2005 by witnessing the fastest growth in tax revenue in over 25 years. The problem that still needs to be resolved regards spending. While the Republicans have not controlled spending like most would like to see, the Democrats would spend even more. For example, the Democrats’ Alternative Budget for 2006 put forward in the House of Representatives was to increase government spending by $177 billion.

One last note: if Democrats were put in power, they would not pass bills supporting free trade. In fact, they would pass bills restricting trade (such as the Schumer bill that would put a 27.5% tariff on Chinese goods). The Schumer Bill would make most of the things you buy 27.5% more expensive. This does not sound like good economics.

So on November 7^th, remember vote Republican if you want to have a prosperous economy for the next two years.

Who are the extreme politicians?

It is usually claimed that the Bush Administration has polarized America like no other administration has. However, I would like to point to an Economist editorial from its September 23rd edition to prove that this is far from the truth. In fact, it is the current Democrats in politics that have polarized America by being a far left political party.

First, the editorial

Plea (continued)

One more thing. Check out the record of Senator Menendez:

Voted NO on the following:

-Oman Free-Trade Agreement (FTA)
-CAFTA
-Singapore FTA
-Fast Track Authority (essential for multilateral trade negotiating rounds)
-Repealing the Death Tax
-Reducing Capital Gains Tax
-Tax Relief
-Eliminating the Marriage Penalty on your taxes
-Bush Tax Cuts
-Tax Cuts for Small Business

Do not vote Menendez!!!!

A Plea to New Jersey Friends and Family

Dear Friends and Family in New Jersey:

I recommend that you all vote for Tom Kean. Check out his stance on economic issues here. He is a perfect 10 on economic issues: lower taxes, lower spending, free trade, less regulation.

If you want better paying jobs, cheap goods at the store, and a great economy, vote for this man!

-Jared

Defending the President

I used to be quite anti-Bush. However, this was before I read anything by Milton Friedman and before my newspaper of choice became the Wall Street Journal. Now when I go out to parties or meet new people or hang out with friends, I try to tell them why outright hatred of the president is unmerited. In a bid to convince more people of this fact, I have created an easy to follow guide to why George W. Bush is not the worst president:

1) Supply-Side Economics – Conventional wisdom and many economists have scoffed at the concept of this theory. However, Art Laffer provided economics with a great theory for taxation (the Laffer curve – cutting taxes can bring in more revenue). His wisdom has found its way into the Bush administration who has lowered taxes considerably. These lower taxes have actually brought in MORE tax revenue (as the theory would predict). In fact, growth in tax revenue (11.4%) is at highest level in twenty-five years. Add a booming economy (2005 GDP growth – 4.4%) and you have a President who has helped move America more in the direction of economic freedom.

2) Israel – Unlike Clinton, he knows that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. This was a hard one to swallow for me because I believe diplomacy is essential between democracies. However, the world is facing a big threat in the Middle East. Clinton's assumption for negotiations was that Arab anger was over occupation. However, today's events where Hizbollah and Hamas have attacked from unoccupied land disproves this assumption. These groups are committed to the destruction of all Western interests. The only response should be self-defense; this is why Bush has allowed Israel to do just that.

3) War on Terror – While I believe that the invasion of Iraq was misguided, I understand why Mr. Bush went there. Iraq supported terrorism in the Middle East. My belief was that the costs outweighed the benefits of an Iraqi invasion. I think today's events are proving this. With that said, the Iraq adventure would be worth it if we continued the fight with a war against Iran and Syria. It would show the world that we are serious in our fight against terrorism. This fight would be a lot easier if Europe was behind us.

4) Stem Cell Research – The debate of stem cells has been incomplete. Most people who talk about this issue do not realize that stem cell research is legal. The only thing that Mr. Bush has made sure of is that FEDERAL money is not used for this research. I understand this especially considering, as a libertarian, the government should stay out of the business of most things. Many Americans believe stem cell research is immoral and while I disagree with them, I understand them. Furthermore, considering that government spending is the spending of every Americans' hard-earned money, Mr. Bush is telling his constituents that he will not spend their money on things that they see as immoral. So where do I believe stem cell research should go? The private sector. The Cato Institute put it best with the following: "By its very nature, government politicizes everything it touches. Science is no exception. Stem cell research needs neither government money nor politics. It is better is to get the government out and let the private sector continue its good work. Those people calling for increased funding could take out their checkbooks and support it. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research would not be forced to pay for it."

5) Social Security – Mr. Bush is trying his best to remedy the coming doom of the Baby Boomer's retirement effect on Social Security. However, Democrats have blocked any attempt to fix Social Security. Social Security is a policy that destroys economic freedom. It forces everyone to give money to the government who will save it for them in low-yielding bonds until they are 65. It also gives politicians access to raiding social security to pay for other things. Mr. Bush proposes that workers be given the CHOICE to put money into an account that will yield returns that mirror such devices as the US stock market. For example, "For the 129-year period of 1872 through 2000, average real return on the S&P 500 was 8.8 percent per year." This means that the money you contribute to your personal retirement account (if it was linked to S&P growth), would double every eight years. Not bad!

"I believe the best way to achieve this goal (of fixing Social Security) is to give younger workers the option, the opportunity if they so choose, of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account."- George Bush, April 28, 2005

6) Affirmative Action – The Bush administration is against and this is a simple issue. While, I used to support it, affirmative action is the ultimate policy that strips citizens of its freedom (to hire and admit who they want). Can we not trust people not be racist? Are we creating a racist society by telling people that they MUST hire black people? The government has done enough harm to the black community in the past, it should leave them alone from now on. Frederick Douglas put it best with: "What shall we do with the Negro? I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us! Do nothing with us...just let him alone! Your interference is doing him a positive injury!"

There are definitely things I do not like about the president but there are also many places where we agree. I think the American public would do a great service to the country by looking at all the issues and not just say, "Bush is a terrorist!"

New York Times Friday

I took a look at the NYT editorial page today to look at Tom Friedman's article regading the war in Israel. However, what I got was a barrage of articles of which I had comments for each. But let's first look at Friedman's.

Ever since my conversion to libertarianism, I have started to distance myself from Tom Friedman's economics. However, his view towards the Middle East still lies deep in my heart. Today is no different.

In his piece entitled, "The Kidnapping of Democracy," he discusses the failure of democracy in three places, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. While he acknowledges the great strides the world has seen in Middle Eastern elections, he also looks at the problems that still exits:

But the roots of democracy are so shallow in these places and the moderate majorities so weak and intimidated that we are getting the worst of all worlds. We are getting Islamist parties who are elected to power, but who insist on maintaining their own private militias and refuse to assume all the responsibilities of a sovereign government. They refuse to let their governments have control over all weapons. They refuse to be accountable to international law (the Lebanese-Israeli border was ratified by the U.N.), and they refuse to submit to the principle that one party in the cabinet cannot drag a whole country into war.

While there are elections, there is no order and a tyranny of the minority is created AFTER the elections:

Boutros Harb, a Christian Lebanese parliamentarian, said: ''We must decide who has the right to make decisions on war and peace in Lebanon. Is that right reserved for the Lebanese people and its legal institutions, or is the choice in the hands of a small minority of Lebanese people?''

Ditto in the fledgling democracies of Palestine and Iraq. When cabinet ministers can maintain their own militias and act outside of state authority, said Mr. Ezrahi, you're left with a ''meaningless exercise'' in democracy/state building.

Friedman continues to acknowledge the fact that people within these countries don't stand up to these thugs because they will either be called "Infidel Backers" or killed.

However, this is where I start to disagree with my friend, Mr. Friedman. Personal responsibility should be brought into this discussion. We should not provide excuses for the failures of Arab countries around the Middle East. They must reign in the terrorists and thugs among them. If not, the victims of their attacks (Israelis) will be forced to (and should) attack back until these thugs are eliminated.

Tom Friedman ends with pondering whether the skeptics of democracy-promotion are correct:

It may be the skeptics are right: maybe democracy, while it is the most powerful form of legitimate government, simply can't be implemented everywhere. It certainly is never going to work in the Arab-Muslim world if the U.S. and Britain are alone in pushing it in Iraq, if Europe dithers on the fence, if the moderate Arabs cannot come together and make a fist, and if Islamist parties are allowed to sit in governments and be treated with respect -- while maintaining private armies.

The whole democracy experiment in the Arab-Muslim world is at stake here, and right now it's going up in smoke.

While I agree that democracy is at stake with these recent developments, skeptics of democracy-promotion are seriously misguided. While democracy will be hard in the Middle East, it must be promoted. Promoting dictators never worked very well for the United States anyway.

Demagoguery and Incompetence - The Democrats' Strategy

Nancy Peloci unveiled to the Journal what the Democrats would do if they took over the House...

The California Democrat anticipates some resistance from within her party, but
returned to the theme of fiscal prudence in an interview with The Wall Street
Journal. When asked to outline the Democrats’ agenda, she listed initiatives
that she said wouldn’t strain the government’s coffers: cutting interest rates
on student loans, raising the minimum wage and demanding higher royalties from
oil companies.

Add raising taxes (she would rescind the Bush Tax Cuts) to that agenda and you have every reason to vote Republican in 2006!

Governor (Corzine?)

A great song is "Governor" by Robert Bradley's Black Water Surprise. But is also a great song that speaks of how big government HURTS poor people. It might be my campaign song when I run for president...

I wish the governor would just leave the poor man alone
He's messing up my home
I wish the governor y'all would just leave the poor man alone
He's screwing up my home

You know my taxes
Are gettin too high
I can't pay the rent
Oh Lord how can I make it by
My woman wanna leave
They cut off the phone
Now I got to spend all of my nights alone

I wish the governor would leave me alone
He's messing up my home
I wish the governor y'all would just leave the poor man alone
He's messing up my home

I went down to the grocery store
They got a food tax
I got to sleep on the floor
Tired of workin three jobs but I know the governor he ain't got it so hard, so hard

I wish the governor (oh Lord)
would just leave me alone (I'm doing alright out here by myself)
I wish the governor (would get his hands out of my pocket)
would just leave me alone I ain't bothering nobody (here we go)

I wish the governor all you folks down there in Washington DC
I wish you would just leave me alone you know
I need to go to work and get some money for the baby
I wish the governor
All y'all up on capitol hill I know you gettin your thrills but I just want you to leave me alone
Me and my cat and my dog and my car in the garage
Just leave us alone
You know I get nervous hey hey hey hey
Leave my mother and my brother why don't you just leave us alone
I'm gonna say goodbye now

Why leftists think the way they do?

It has been only a year since my conversion to enlightenment. During my college days I thought socialism was good and America was bad. But why did I feel this way. I always said that the only reason I have the stuff I did was due to the fact that I was LUCKY to be born in America. I felt bad that not everybody could be so lucky. However, you could be born anywhere and succeed as long as you are given the freedoms that we enjoy in America. I also felt bad for the sins of the Western World's past. I felt the only way to rid myself of this guilt and to be righteous was to be Anti-American. Shelby Steele recently wrote in the Journal about this white guilt.

Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. (The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.) Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be "good," in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America. (People as seemingly disparate as President Jacques Chirac and the Rev. Al Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in anti-Americanism.) This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism. And it is all the more appealing since, unlike real virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort -- only outrage at every slight echo of the imperialist past.

George Shultz on Economic and Political Systems

Karl Marx viewed that the world would inevitably move towards communism (as the working class united and took over the bourgeois). However, Francis Fukuyama recently articulated in "The End of History" that the move towards global capitalism and democracy is inevitable. He stated that this was documented by recent history (the US winning the Cold War, Capitalism growing popular in the world and Marxism/Maoism/Communism's popularity declines). In today's WSJ, George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State, articulates this move in describing "neoconservatism."

"I don't know how you define 'neoconservatism,'" he replied, "but I think it's associated with trying to spread open political systems and democracy. I recall President Reagan's Westminster speech in 1982 -- that communism would be consigned to 'the ash heap of history' and that freedom was the path ahead. And what happened? Between 1980 and 1990, the number of countries that were classified as 'free' or 'mostly free' increased by about 50%. Open political and economic systems have been gaining ground and there's a good reason for it. They work better. I don't know whether that's neoconservative or what it is, but I think it's what has been happening. I'm for it."