Cass Sunstein: BO's Regulatory Czar calls for redistribution of wealth and socialism in the US

Cass Sunstein is B.O.'s appointed Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Sunstein authored a book in 2004 called "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever" I've read some sections of the book (online link below). He points to FDR's proposals for a second bill of rights, points out the relationship between the proposal and socialism and communism, expresses regret that America is overly sensitive to adopting socialist policies, and speaks of using the court system and other means as tools for bringing about these policies that he clearly identifies as socialist and to an extent communist. I can't quote the whole book...and to do so would be out of context, but you can read large sections of it via the link below.

Sunstein's FDR book online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cj00Zjh1XIkC&dq=cass+sunstein+second+bill+of+rights&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=mVHySvjhPI2d8AbOvInrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Sunstein co-authored an article called "Climate Change Justice" he calls for laws that would force distribution of wealth/cash from the U.S. to poorer nations:
"Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would cost some nations much more than others and benefit some nations far less than others. Significant reductions would likely impose especially large costs on the United States, and recent projections suggest that the United States is not among the nations most at risk from climate change....On reasonable assumptions, redistribution from the United States to poor people in poor nations would be highly desirable, but expenditures on greenhouse gas reductions are a crude means of producing that redistribution: It would be much better to give cash payments directly to people who are now poor....This claim has general implications for thinking about both distributive justice and corrective justice arguments in the context of international law and international agreements."

Sunstein's climate change article online:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CA8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.georgetownlawjournal.com%2Fissues%2Fpdf%2F96-5%2FPosner-Sunstein.PDF&rct=j&q=climate+change+justice+sunstein&ei=s1fySvTHAoKf8AbzjvHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNHHzcB-B5zKaYyASFLblR7oo5IUJg&sig2=EMLIdDBK4TsXHej9OauDhA

Van Jones: BO's Green Jobs Czar and his affiliation with Communist groups

Van Jones was appointed by BO as the Green Jobs czar on the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Van Jones was a leading member of STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement).

STORM was a left-wing revolutionary organization based on openly communist, Marxist, and Maoist principles and revolutionary practices. Several of STORMS's leaders had pre-existing relationships with self-described Communist organizations. From a self summary of STORM, they write: "We did have a political commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism. We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agreed with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance in the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse-tung and Amilcar Cabral." "All of STORM’s members developed a basic understanding of and commitment to revolutionary Marxist politics with a particular emphasis on the historical experiences of Third World communist movements."

STORM's Self Summation: http://web.archive.org/web/20070719020533/http://leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf
Wiki on STORM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Together_to_Organize_a_Revolutionary_Movement

Jones has been quoted about his time in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of." " I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."
Source: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_face_of_environmentalism/Content?oid=290098&showFullText=true

Ron Bloom: BO's Manufacturing Czar Debunking Commerce Freedom and Agreeing with Mao

Ron Bloom is BO appointed Manufacturing Czar:

Quote from Ron Bloom debunking freedom of commerce and agreeing with Communist Mao:
"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog."

The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvQ8BSUv-g

Mark Llloyd: BO appointed FCC officer revering socialists Hugo Chavez and Saul Alinsky

Mark Lloyd was appointed by BO as Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in July 2009.

Mark Lloyd's quote admiring socialist Hugo Chavez:
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela. "The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country. "

The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYJRtKHthk

Mark Lloyd's quote on inspiration and guidance from socialist Saul Alinsky:
"Too often Americans use the First Amendment to end discussions of communications policy." He continued, "This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of communications policies." “We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork,” “From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”

The written source:
His book "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America."

Anita Dunn: BO Comm Director on Mao and Medial Control

Anita Dunn is BO's Communications Director.

Below are just two quotes and video provided as proof and for context.

Anita Dunn's quote on Mao:
"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers - Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is you're going to make choices."

The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1zg2NOCn8


Anita Dunn's quote on controlling the media:
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control." "One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters." "We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it." "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."

The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLpmqO4xoHI

Ceding Freedom: US sovereignty, global warming, and B.O.'s red team

I was made aware of this video by Christopher Monckton In it, he speaks of an upcoming international treaty signing that, according to him, would force the US (and thus US citizens) to pay third world and developing countries for US' emissions, and cede US sovereignty vis-a-vis other treaty clauses.

The US Consitution has a clause which states that international treaties made on behalf of the US are in part the law of the land. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have ruled that "there is nothing in the Constitution which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to it do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution". Nevertheless, the treaty apparently may be signed in December by B.O. putting the US on the hook to pay other countries for US emissions. We don't seem to get much in return aside from lost sovereignty, but it warrants some further attention.

It raises the question of motives for a more tyrannical subset of global warming advocates who desire a communist world government. It accelerates the need to understand the problem better. I doubt many really understand it, yet we're possibly going to be paying for it bitterly. Monckton is one to say that global warming is a hoax .

I'm analytical and a scientist, yet I personally haven't been able to figure out the global warming issue to date myself. I know that politicians don't understand it. Which means theirs is a political motive. This is supported by brave scientists who dare to buck the overly-politicized environment such as the case with people who want to not acknowledge the Medieval Warm Period .

If what Monckton claims about the treaty is correct, and if B.O. signs the treaty on America's behalf, then we'll have yet more confirmation that B.O.'s motives are communistic.

Between his policies to date, public statements, and the "czars", people, and organizations with whom he's surrounded himself in the White House that have either socialist, communist, Marxist, or Maoist sympathies, the "red" flags are plentiful at this point. See Van Jones , Anita Dunn , Mark Lloyd , Cass Sunstein , Robert McChesney and the Free Press , Ron Bloom , ACORN , SEIU ...these are people and organizations with whom B.O. has surrounded himself and confers.

B.O. forcing you to pay for health care of foreign citizens

Read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8034937.stm

B.O. is going to try and force each of you to pay about $500/person (my estimate) whether you like it or not to pay for medical expenses of citizens of other countries.

While you or I might sympathize with the cause, do you feel that you should be forced to pay for medical expenses of others in foreign countries...and force your neighbors and friends to pay for it?

The brass tax...and one of many examples. Multiply this by about 100 other causes in the pipeline...and you can see what's happening.

Goodbye to your rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....and the money behind that.

Massive Job Losses since November Elections

The news is coming in that the US has lost 3.3 million jobs in the past five months:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7981607.stm

Couple of things to note. For one, this is not the creation of 3.5M jobs that the stimu-less plan per B.O. claims will happen. But I guess if those 3.5M jobs are regained, will they claim success on that basis or do we now need to regain 6.8M jobs for success to be claimed? Regardless, what I do know, is that no matter what, no one in Washington will be held accountable for the $800 billion dollar stimu-less package. Yet, they cry foul when AIG execs get $160 million in bonuses.

Second thing, is anyone correlating why this sudden accelerated job loss jump started 5 months ago? What happened 5 months ago? An election of B.O. and other socialist cronies perhaps?

As I predicted in an earlier blog, increasing taxes and regulatory costs on companies is going to lead to one of a few things: 1) companies start cutting costs/jobs, 2) companies start raising prices, and/or 3) companies go bankrupt.

Businesses saw the writing on the wall 5 months ago. The stimu-less bill and early actions of the socialist driven B.O. administration and congress are proving their worst fears. Businesses have been reacting by cutting jobs. What's worse, is that prices will also increase now that B.O. and crew are printing an extra $2 trillion in money. Any lessons learned from the Weimar Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic)?

Massive job losses and inflation...direct results of businesses responding to a business unfriendly socialist government and a government that prints money.

Instead of rushing bills through Congress in 'emergency sessions'. Perhaps Americans should hold an emergency 'do-over' election and impeachment? It is clearly time to put some Libertarians on the ticket too.

Inflation in the B.O. Socialist Republic

The Fed Reserve is now going to print $1,200,000,000,000 to pay some of the US debt (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/19/business/econwatch/entry4877724.shtml). This just weeks after the "Stimuless Bill" was passed which will add $800,000,000,000 to our national liability.

Isn't this what happened with the Weimar Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic) which lead to hyper-inflation which helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler to take power?

Radicalism breeds radicalism. Tough times ahead?

"The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance." - John Maynard Keynes, economist, commenting on Inflation in the Weimar Republic

America's Passing

I was thinking that one of the fundamental things behind the Stimuless Bill and some of the verbiage behind the representatives behind it are that it puts money in the hands of consumers. It's consumer focused. That is, put money into the hands of consumers, they spend, and that puts the economy back on track.

Such a stance has both blinders on to other real economic side effects of such a focus and blinders to the side effects on liberty and rights of others.

For one, yes...you can put money into the hands of consumers who spend it. But to do that, you take money away from consumers AND take money away from investors/savers/producers. The former reduces the net positive effect and the latter actually more dramatically affects the economy even more. You take money away from those who produce for the economy, invest in the economy, and provide cash for the economy....and instead give it to some who may have no capability to know how to manage money in the first place. I've heard alot of political wind about how some of their "economists" are on board with this, but I haven't seen ANY analysis about this. And the obvious side effects I see and that I know others see, need to be explicitly addressed in that analysis. Instead, we just leave it up to representatives who we for some reason think are experts on money and business. With such a huge amount of money being spent as part of the bill, that we're forced to pay, we have a right to expect some serious analysis. And if we have a transparent government process, where is it. We also have a right to expect that the analysis be provided on multiple levels, in laymens terms, and in rigorous detail for the interested. Where is it?

Secondly, even if this analysis were provided, the policy basically says the government has the right to TAKE money from others who would otherwise save, invest, and produce, and GIVE to those who consume. Now we all know there are more consumers than investors/savers/producers in the world...and especially the U.S. these days. But this policy basically says that these consumers somehow have privilege to this money over the minority. But in the Consitutional republic in which we live, over government was set up as a "government of laws, and not of men" per John Adams. As an "attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify."

Now, the President swears during the oath "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and our representatives swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." Because the constitution requires that they "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution".

But today, this very day, it is common and unchecked practice, and as directly reflected in the Stimuless Bill, to FORCE a minority of people (e.g. savers, investors, and producers) to pay for other people's causes and to TAKE money from these savers/producers/investors and give this money to consumers. And while this power is a power of government that the Constitution attempts to limit, it is seemingly without limit, to the current tune of $800 Billion and more on the way, that the representative who've sworn to uphold the Constitution, now ignore and flex power in the face of the Constitution and basic individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And it is with this complete disregard of the Constitution and oath, that these representatives commit an act of treason against the United States in plain sight and complacent compliance of the American public. America has died in our lifetime.

Letter to Wired Magazine Editor

Recent letter to Wired Magazine editor:

As a new Wired subscriber, my first introduction to the magazine left me shocked and offended. Honestly, Wired's January 2009 article "Science We Can Believe In" by David Goldston read more like an editorial from a communist Chinese or Russian newspaper, than something I was expecting from a forward thinking technology magazine in the United States of America. Goldston makes the base assumption that U.S. government policies that force it's citizens to pay for other people's causes such as science and research funding, is widely desirable. While I might agree with many of the causes, we live in a constitutional republic with basic rights for which presidents and politicians swear to uphold. Forcing its citizens to pay for other people's causes and special interests is not an assumed role of government with which I or many Americans feel comfortable, let alone feel is constitutionally acceptable. The second base assumption by Goldston is that presidents and politicians somehow know how to better finance and manage (via policy) technology companies than the inventors, investors, innovators, employees, and managers of those companies. As an inventor, investor, and technologist, I find this implication offensive. When the topic of politics and technology comes up, I'd like to see much more information on how technology can free itself from government controls and financing, and relegate the radical beliefs expressed by the likes of Goldston to the 1% occasional rant. Granted, I'm a new reader. I'm just hoping I didn't pick up a subscription to a tech magazine sympathetic to socialist and communistic diatribes.

B.O.'s Hypocrisy and Rabid Socialism

B.O. recently was quoted w.r.t. business executives: “There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them.”

Biden said that he, like the president, was outraged by reports of large bonuses going to Wall Street executives. “I’d like to throw these guys in the brig,” he said. “They’re thinking the same old thing that got us here, greed. They’re thinking, ‘Take care of me.’ ”

This was stated just a few short weeks after a $170,000,000 inauguration and a few short days after pushing for $900,000,000,000 in increased government expenditures. $3,000,000,000 of which is targeted for the state of Virginia. Virginia's guv just spent $500,000 to pay for bus rides for people to/from the inauguration.

So in the midst of an economic crisis, $500K bus rides for an event is not accountable, turning us into a socialist nation impacting civil freedom is not accountable, spending a trillion of someone else's money is not accountable, spending $170M on a party is not accountable....but B.O. and Biden are outraged by executives being paid money by the companies and shareholders who decide to pay them that money.

I was wondering if B.O. would have Clinton-esque restraint and moderation, but his introductory actions and words reveal exactly what I feared: a rabid and radical socialist.

The Obama Biden Communist Health Care Plan

Here's the Obama Biden Health Care Plan (I doubt many people even read any of it):

* Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

Forcing insurance companies to provide additional coverage. Companies will either raise overall prices or go into debt or go out of business. The government required mortgage lenders to also provide home loans to distressed lenders. And we see the ramifications of that now. Also, aren't insurance companies already stressed financially?

* Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.

Tax credits (ala child tax credit and earned income tax credits) can result in money being paid to such companies from the tax payers. Thus, we're being forced to provide this money to such businesses whether we want to or not. Supports someone else's cause...but I doubt it's what most people would want to do. But if they want to...great, hold a "make a donation to your favorite insurance company" telethon.

* Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.

So, the tax payers are being forced to pay for health costs...whether they like it or not. Again, being forced to pay for someone else's cause.

* Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.

Dictating pricing and charging policies of insurance companies...a further stress on their already stressed situation.

* Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.

Forcing companies, in a down economy, to pay out more expenses will result in either layoffs, offshoring, more debt, or going out of business. GM is a large company. So is Ford. Do we want to force such companies to pay out more expenses and further stress their operations? It's no wonder large companies offshore work to China...they don't have to pay for their additional health care costs.

* Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

Oh boy. It's "lets create another unaccountable government sponsored enterprise" time. That worked out well for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Can't wait to see this exchange burn our tax dollars. Maybe we should call this new agency Burny Mac.

* Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.

Same issue with tax credits...when it results in a drop below 0 in taxable income, it results in income actually to the tax reporter. So it is a welfare handout. So the actual tax payers are being forced to pay for someone else's cause and needs. We're not asked like a charity. We're forced. Biden doesn't mind because he doesn't contribute to charities. He'd rather force others to pay for his causes.

* Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market

One sound/kind principle amongst a Communist Health Plan.

* Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data

More expenses on hospitals. Will stress them out. Hospital workers might start job hunting now.

* Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.
* Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.

Too tired to respond to the last two.

Current Case Study: Why Communism and Regulation Don't Work

The other day, after the market tanked, the newspapers were reporting that US congress passed the $700B bailout bill due in large part to the fact that the market tanked after they didn't pass it the first time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7652112.stm.

Now today, after the bill passed on Friday, the financial markets are in turmoil despite the bill, and as some theorize, because of the bill being passed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7654025.stm

So a $700B taxpayer funded bailout involving communistic state ownership of private assets, and added regulation measures were put in place in a hurried fashion in part due to a market panic. Yet the market panicked anwyay. And yet we are now stuck with the tax burden, increased levels of communism in America, and more regulation.

If any case is a good example for why using legislation and regulation to try and manage a complex market system doesn't work...this is it.

Can we get our money and freedom back now?

The Burden of Pelosi

In May 2008, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, sponsored this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3221
which forced tax payers to insure up to $300 billion of refinanced loans for "distressed borrowers".

In January 2008, Pelosi sponsored this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5140&tab=summary
which imposed additional regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Then today, Pelosi said this shortly before the vote on the bailout act:
“Madam speaker, when was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion? It’s a staggering figure. ... But only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness. ... And now eight years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.... No regulation, no supervision, no discipline."

And after it didn't pass she said:
"We must work in a bipartisan way in order to have another bite at the apple in terms of some legislation,"

Is this lady a burden on our economy or not?

Extremities, Existence, and Safety: Worrying Themselves to Death

Another retort to a questioning of whether or not taxation is necessary, is that it is an extreme viewpoint.

Ask yourself this in considering that position: Are the "liberals" who claim that George Bush is evil or that Republicans are selfish espousing extreme viewpoints? Are the "conservatives" who claim that Barrack Obama is evil or that Democrats are too loose with other people's money espousing extreme viewpoints?

If you only surround yourself with straight Democratic and/or Republican party line viewpoints, then indeed other viewpoints will seem extreme. But isn't banging your head against a wall doing things the same way over and over again a bit extreme?

Another retort to a questioning of taxation is that we're asserting that government should not be allowed to tax its citizens at all (and presumably therefore cease to exist).

The government does not exist solely to tax. We didn't have required Federal income taxes prior to the early part of the last century, and the IRS was even formed until the 1950s. Yet, the US government existed from 1776 through the 1800s and early part of 1900s...largely without personal income taxation.

The bottom line retort to a question of taxation's necessity is that the people who advocate it, state that they're willing to give up some of their income for safety assurances.

Which hits straight to the point of my position on taxation. They want other people (be it strangers, their family, their friends) to pay for their causes because it makes them feel good. They feel that this is ok. That selfishness, self-centeredness, and imposition of their will on others....is ok.

Which means that they must feel it is ok for other people to assert their selfishness, self-centeredness, and imposition of will on the government even if it affects them adversely.

Do you see any long term (or even short term) issues with this on the state of the union?

What about the roads?

A common argument for taxation is that because someone uses the services put forward by someone else's cause, that someone should pay for them. However, in this case, we are forced to use the services.

The roads and national defense argument is a common retort. Throw on to the pile other causes like forcing people to pay for the health care of others, and forcing people to pay welfare for others, and forcing people to pay for military offensive measures, and forcing people to pay for educating other people's kids, etc....and you should see where the dead end and cyclic cock-fighting takes you.

But addressing roads and military "defense" (not offense). I admit those are thornier issues. However, for roads, I can see why in the earlier part of the century, the short sighted approach was to make these Federal and State roads. While the option to privatize many roads would be nice, why not simply require people who want to drive on Federal or State roads pay for those services if you need/use them? You then get a voucher or ticket to ride as it were. Maybe even call it a "license". We already have DMVs in place to enable this. Want to drive on a road, pay for a license to drive on that road. I prefer the concept of tickets and vouchers. If you don't want to drive on those roads, don't pay for them. If you're caught driving on the road, you get fined or charged by the authorities (either private or government financed) policing the road. The important thing is, that you don't pay for the road outright through taxes.

As for those poor people who can't afford to pay for the road, well the taxes they don't have to pay for the road will be added income they can use to buy their license. And I'll make bet that many employers would include getting licensed for specific roads as part of a benefit.

Defense is another issue, will address that later.

Raising and Cutting Taxes - The Wrong Question

The recent Democratic National Convention featured some talk about raising and cutting taxes for people of different economic status.

Rather than ask the question, should we raise or not cut tax for the wealthy, the middle class, the poor, etc, I think people should simply ask, is it right and OK to impose their wills and agendas on other people and force them to pay for their causes?

We have to pay taxes for government spending. Government spends money on things that are driven by people's causes and political agendas. Everyone pig piles onto this spit fire jockeying for their own cause to be paid for, which means forcing other people, likely even your friends and family, to pay for your cause, if your cause is one of the things funded.

That is one of the most selfish, self-centered, mean, manipulative, and evil things an individual can do. Force someone else to do something against their will. It flies directly in the face of liberty, and it is morally wrong and a despicable trait.

If a friend, through their manipulative ways, forced you to pay for some work to be done on their house or one of their family members' house, how would you feel about them? Would you want to keep them as a friend? Or would you think it fair?

This is what's involved with trying to get representatives of government to manipulate the purse strings of a centralized legally-enforced tax system and manipulate a central bank to do their bidding. Do you think that's ok? Or do you think it's selfish, manipulative, and evil?

We're in a Recession! (of useful information about the economy)

So, a recession means, per the National Bureau of Economic Research's definition, that there is a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months". Yet, when I venture out of my home, be it in Virginia, Kansas, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey, as I have recently; or as I drove across country from California to Virginia last November, restaurants are always packed to the gills with people, people are out buying things at stores, shopping malls are packed, and most everyone I know is gainfully employed. And as a business owner, its damn near impossible to hire people, people are demanding higher rates, and people are negotiating versus just clamoring for jobs. Furthermore, my company has more and more work coming our way than we can handle.

None of these observations are indicative of a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months". And I don't live an isolated life. I venture out of the home and socialize with friends and family. I travel frequently for business so I get to see other parts of the country. I had the unique opportunity to take a long and leisurely drive across country from California to Virginia last year to see close up and personal how people were living. And I run a business that works with other businesses in a technology field, and thus I have a day-to-day up close and personal view of what the economy is doing at a micro-economic level for business. In other words, I'm not reading in a book or newspaper somewhere about what the economy is doing, I'm living in it.

Yet, I will occasionally hear that we're in a recession. Who's conveying this message? Most of where I hear this is coming from mainstream media. Is it true? An ivory white tower organization and bunch of pinheads can say we're in a "significant decline of economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months". But as I live and participate in this economy, it seems to me to be a bold faced lie. You can paint a picture however you want with facts and figures, but when it doesn't jive with reality of day to day life, you have to wonder about the source of this information.

I guess if stated enough times, people will start to believe it, and we'll start to behave as if we are in a recession. But then again, remember, it's an "election year". Come November, after the election, depending on the results, we'll magically have been transported into a new economy. And everyone will forget the dire straits we were in leading up to that day we all went into a building, pulled a few levers, and collectively erased from memory the fact that we were ever in a recession.

Turn off, tune out, and drop in

This past week, as I traveled across country and back for a project, I was walking through airports, stopping at gas stations, and watching TV in the hotel room and at restaurants, an image was impressed upon me. Really, the proper word is 'forced' upon me. I usually avoid watching mainstream TV and avoid looking at mainstream magazines and newspapers. But with the boredom that comes with travel, I'm inevitably taken with picking up a magazine or newspaper, or turning on a TV. And each time thereafter, I remember why I tend toward avoiding current mainstream venues for information. Mainly because it isn't information, rather it's a force-fed message from organizations focused more on influencing political opinions or simply entertainment. No news. Just agendas and entertainment.

This time around, the image I was being force fed was that of Barrack Obama as a statesman and President. I caught myself thinking that he was already elected President of the US. Between the frequent shots of him shaking hands with dignitaries around the world, to dramatic close-ups of him praying on the cover of Newsweek, to everything else, it seems mainstream media this past week was manufacturing the image of Barrack Obama as our elected President. Maybe this image is what is conveyed on a daily basis when I'm not traveling, but I only was slapped with the image this week.

It's telling of a contrast. I get my daily dose of information when not traveling from words. Usually from sources like the BBC and a more broad source of information from the Internet. I purposely avoid most mainstream US media sources. I occasionally peruse mainstream media sites, but I give them no more or less time than other sources. However, during travels, I'm usually only blasted with their info hoses, and usually in visual form. Whether I want to hear it or not. It's kind of like cigarette smoke. I'm in a restaurant, bar, or hotel...a TV is on somewhere, and its blowing smoke my way. Or I'm in an airport or gas station, and the news stands have their dramatic close ups of their pre-elected official.

While I'm hit with the temporary suspension of reality and think that Barrack Obama was already elected President of the US. Reality sets in fairly quick and I realize the source. It reminds me, counter to Timothy Leary's suggestion, to "turn off, tune out, and drop in". That is, turn off mainstream TV, tune out of mainstream news and magazines, and drop in to reality. Seek real information from a broader source, less affected by political agendas and the need to entertain. Unless of course you simply want to march to the tune of the political drumbeats because it's in step with your own beliefs. It's comforting and entertaining, but not even remotely informative.