My Beauty Best Teacher

Domestic policy results are a mix of both Congress and the President, and so Obama supporters can attempt to say that the reason why domestic policies have failed so badly over the past years is because of the Congress (House under Democratic control 2007-2011, Senate under Democratic control 2007 to today). But the results of foreign policy decisions are almost always the result of actions made purely the President, so these results can not be blamed on former President Bush (2001-2009) or the Republicans in Congress (House 2011+). President Barack Obama is responsible for foreign policy actions of the last several years.

And the latest news from Egypt is that Obama messed up badly and in so doing has led to the people of Egypt being less free, less prosperous, and private property rights being less protected. Via the New York Times:

Egyptian authorities confirmed Saturday that a political coalition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the 84-year-old group that virtually invented political Islam, had won about 47 percent of the seats in the first Parliament elected since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. An alliance of ultraconservative Islamists won the next largest share of seats, about 25 percent....

...Parliament the authority to choose the 100 members of a constitutional assembly, so it may shape Egypt for decades to come, although the military council has sometimes tried to influence that process...

...The Brotherhood has said it intends to respect personal liberties and will focus on economic and social issues, gradually nudging the culture toward its conservative values. By contrast, the ultraconservatives, known as Salafis, put a higher priority on legislation on Islamic moral issues, like the consumption of alcohol, women’s dress and the contents of popular culture.

Among the remaining roughly 30 percent of parliamentary seats, the next largest share was won by the Wafd Party, a liberal party recognized under Mr. Mubarak and with roots dating to Egypt’s colonial period.

It was trailed by a coalition known as the Egyptian Bloc. It included the Free Egyptians, a business-friendly liberal party founded by a Coptic Christian businessman, Naguib Sawiris, and favored by many members of the country’s Coptic Christian minority, about 10 percent of the public. The Egyptian Bloc also included the liberal Social Democratic Party, which leans further to the left on economic issues.

A coalition of parties founded by the young leaders of the revolt that unseated Mr. Mubarak won only a few percent of the seats, as did a handful of offshoots of the former governing party....

There is no way to spin this. Mubarak gave a speech where he said that he would transition power over to groups that were business-friendly, were supportive to liberty and freedom, and would not be radically-intolerant Muslim, and President Obama went on TV and gave a major speech demanding that "Mubarak must go now."

"An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must peaceful, and it must begin now," Obama declared in his address, and he got his wish- Egypt has now gone from being a moderately bad regime to putting in place a coalition of radicals that support terror and the destruction of Israel- and it happened in under a year. He got his meaningful change for the worse pretty quickly- and it was all on him, the blame was exclusively on Obama, and the results of his actions were bad for millions of Egyptians and America.

Obama said that he turned on Mubarak in order to support the young leaders of revolutionaries in Egypt- the group that won the least from this revolution. The group that got the most out of the Egyptian revolution was the groups that we supported the LEAST- the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists.

Obama messed this policy decision up. Hold him responsible.

My stances on this issue are also on the record- see my posts Obama is Picking Worst of Bad Options in Egypt: Is Obama Getting Advice from Jimmy Carter? and Obama's Egypt Policy Was a Failure?.

Today let's learn about our Science Czar, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren.

As the United States of America continues its descent under President Obama and his New Democrat Party into a third-world dictatorship, I still find myself unfamiliar with the overlords who now control my behavior and distribute to me gifts and favors. Oh, I know who is elected into office, and being a teacher of this sort of stuff I understand the bureaucracy and how it works. But who the heck is John Holdren, what role does he play in our political system, how did he get that role, and what sort of a person is he to be controlling me?

It's tough to keep all these czars straight, you know, since under Obamathe number of unelected, unconfirmed offices who go by the old imperial Russian title of Czar has gone up quite a bit (although to be fair, the number of people who have been considered czars under Obama is still just under the number of people who were considered czars under Bush, a two-term President roundly criticized by both the right and left as being undemocratic and statist). Still, I'm determined to get to know all of them- from Kenneth Feinberg, Head of the Deutsche Arbeitsfront and Pay Czar who although being a long-time Democratic operative and chief of staff for Democratic Senator Kennedy was put in charge of determining how much CEO's should be paid in once-free America, to Gary Samore, former US Communist party member and current WMD Policy Czar, to Ed Montgomery, auto-worker czar and distributor of gifts and favors.

It's going to be important for all of us to become more familiar with how things work in America now- after the change- we'll need to know how to curry favor with royal envoys, how to avoid being intimidated and bullied by bowing low and saying the right things, and how to bow get gifts from to our new overlords, who now tour around the land giving gifts to favored people.

So today let's get to know a little bit better our Science Czar, John Holdren. From Who Runs Gov:

Holdren is a powerhouse in the world of science and public policy. As director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), he is the top adviser to President Barack Obama on science and technology, issues that are increasingly relevant to homeland security, energy and the environment. Holdren casts all of the above as priorities.

He also leads interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets, and works with the private sector, state and local governments, the science and higher education communities, and other nations to advance his policy initiatives.

Although a lot of conservatives may focus on other aspects of John Holdren- for example, in a book he published in 1977, he wrote about and appeared to be supportive of forced abortions, mass sterilization, a "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens, populations that would be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food, and other similarly frightening ideas. This research is important and should be realized, but I want to focus instead on another aspect of Holdren- his belief in a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite that will forcibly transfer wealth for some reason or another.

Holdren is a believer in the so-called Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes. This theory is that all left wing causes- including global warming, global cooling, overpopulation, endangered species, poverty, diversity, and many others- can all be solved by a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite that will force others to live their lives differently and will redistribute their property as they see fit.

Basically, Holdren is a run-of-the-mill tyranny supporter, and was appointed to his position by tyrant-in-chief President Barack Obama, and he is to be opposed by all freedom and liberty loving patriots out there.

The worst part about Holdren, aside from the fact that he seizes on the left wing cause of the day to push his tyrannical beliefs, is that his ideas and theories about everything are wrong. From Forbes:

....In keeping with his dogmatic limits-to-growth convictions, Holdren joined his frequent co-author, eco-doomster Paul Ehrlich, in a famous bet against cornucopian economist Julian Simon. In 1980, Holdren, Ehrlich and Stanford colleague John Harte picked a basket of five commodities--chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten--that they were sure were going to rise in price as they became increasingly scarce. They drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Holdren, Ehrlich and Harte the same quantities of five metals that could be purchased for $1,000 10 years later at 1980 prices.

If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990. Simply put, the combined real prices of the metals selected by Holdren and his colleagues fell by more than 50% during the 1980s, confirming cornucopian claims that the supply of resources over time becomes more abundant, not scarcer.....

...Holdren introduced in 1971--with his colleague and perennial population-alarmist, Ehrlich--the concept of the I=PAT identity. Human Impact on the environment is equal to Population x Affluence/consumption x Technology. All of which are supposed to intensify and worsen humanity's impact on the natural world.

History shows that the I=PAT identity largely gets it backward. Population is at worst neutral, while affluence and technology actually promote environmental flourishing. It is in the rich, developed countries that the air becomes clearer, the streams cleaner and the forests more expansive....

...Holdren doesn't appear to have an adequate understanding of the economic process through which these technological advances are achieved. He seems to think new technologies arise full-blown from government agencies and university laboratories....

This is the general flaw to the Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes- that bureaucrats like Holdren know what they are doing and if they are given more power over others- power that those free people once exercised- and are given more resources- resources taken from the labor of once-free people- that these bureaucrats will make the world a better place for us all to live- a more prosperous, free, and happy place. It turns out though that he is wrong in almost all of his theories- from bets he placed to equations he invented to his general understanding of economics. He is a failed person- perhaps no more failed than the rest of us, but yet given more power and authority and wealth over the rest of us by a government not in any way empowered to do so.

People are not completely 'benelevent', and neither are the governments they create, and there are no 'enlightened' people in charge of our government today, either Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative. Whatever the cause that you believe in or support, the answer is never the Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes, and yet the Obama administration has appointed as Science Czar one of the greatest believers in this theory- a guy who is supposed to be a scientist actually at his heart a firm believer in a theory that is demonstratively wrong.

John Holdren is yet another example of a failed administration based on failed theories and ideas putting in placed failed administrators who implement failed policies- and we can see the results of this failure in America today.

Over and over liberals and progressives argue that the recovery of the US economy is being held back by the lack of investment by those in society with money- and they are right. There is a lot of money being sat on in our nation right now- record amounts which are just being held rather than invested, and this is a large reason why the US economy has not recovered.

Liberals and progressives believe that the reason why businesses and individuals are sitting on massive amounts of money range from racism to a desire for Obama to fail to greed to selfishness to a desire to just swim in their loot and not use it. When they talk about these rich people and profitable businesses sitting on their money they are angry, because they want to use the power and force of the government to make them invest the money. They don't understand what motivates these people and businesses, and it frustrates them, so they attribute their behaviors to irrational or evil motives.

But the truth of the matter is that the reason why individuals and businesses are sitting on cash rather than investing it is because of the policies, positions, rhetoric, beliefs, and desires of liberals and progressives. Progressives and liberals have created an environment of fear and uncertainty, and few are willing to invest in an environment such as that.

Under Obama and the modern-day Democratic Party, regulations and rules and barriers to profitability are being forced on businesses, costs of engaging in business is increasing with new mandates such as Obamacare, taxes are continually talked about increasing (even if they haven't really yet in reality) and every speech by every major politician in the Democratic Party promises to go after the very people who have money, profits are attacked and those who make profits are increasingly viewed as people to exploit and whose wealth the government should take, free trade is hurt by lack of free trade agreements and union kickbacks and increased tariffs and an overall hostile environment to free trade, and individuals are reluctant to engage in investing when the government is picking and choosing the leaders and has demonstrated contempt for well-established bankruptcy laws designed to protect investors (GM bailout).

It will not be until President Obama and the liberals and progressives who have achieved influence and positions of power in his administration are gone that the US economy will recover and businesses will begin to invest again. Even if the moderates and liberals who once were in control of the Democratic Party were in office, perhaps under a President Clinton, then our nation would be growing again and people would have jobs- but there is no moderate or Clinton on the ballot for the Democrats, only a progressive Obama at the top of the ticket who intends to double-down on his policies, especially when he will be a lame duck if he wins re-election and no longer have to worry about putting in place policies that get America back to work.

Do not forget either that Democrats in Congress supported President Obama's policies and put them into legislation and passed them, usually with no bipartisan support and a great many of which were strongly opposed by large numbers of Americans. They had an option to oppose the President, to moderate his policies, and to attempt to reach out for bipartisan consensus to create an environment more friendly to businesses and more encouraging to investors. But they didn't- in many cases, radicals like Pelosi and Reid led the charge to create more fear and uncertainty in doing business and investing in America, and for that they need to go.

Republicans should be the ones to benefit from the suicidal march of the Democratic Party in recent years, not because they necessarily are putting for brilliant ideas and are the best party in the world, but because under a Perry or Romney with a GOP House and Senate at least businesses will not be afraid any more, will feel like they can once again invest and make profits and provide jobs, and not be considered evil or wrong because of this success.

For more information, check out the post on Carpe Diem called We've Got a Sub-Par Recovery Because of Weak Investment Spending, Consumption Has Recovered.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article last week that was powerful and insightful called America in Decline? I have pondered on it over the last couple days, and think that the most important piece of the article was the reasons why America is declining and whether or not this will continue. Read the whole article, but here is the part to ponder the most:

Consider the following areas in which America is said to be in trouble, but in fact could easily surmount the present difficulties.

Debt. In 1999 Americans worried about the specter of paying off the debt and transmogrifying to creditor status. There are trillions of dollars produced annually in this country; it is a matter of redirecting the economy from consumption to savings, and to wealth creation from redistribution. The years 2004-2005 seemed bountiful when the federal budget was a mere $2.3 trillion. Go back to those spending levels and the administration could more or less balance the budget. If we had a leader willing to cut expenditures and ignore the furor, we could pile up surpluses rather quickly. The present fiscal policy is a choice to embrace redistribution and decline, not a result of innate unproductivity, resource depletion, strikes, and factional strife.

Energy. Known reserves of natural gas just keep getting larger. The amount of oil in the Dakotas, in Texas, in Alaska, and offshore climbs too, even as cars are getting more efficient and new hybrids become more practical. There is enough natural gas (and its derivatives) to quite easily power a quarter of our fleet for a century or more. Should Americans have a president who wished to drill, utilize natural gas as a transportation fuel, and downplay subsidizing "millions of green jobs," the nation could do wonders on the energy front. Each barrel produced here rather than imported from Saudi Arabia means more money, more jobs, and enhanced national security. Asking other governments to pump more oil, whether Brazil or Saudi Arabia, even as we insist that drilling and supply have no effect on prices, shows that Americans prefer to become more indebted and dependent. Again, that is a choice, not a fate.

National security. Despite all the talk of al Qaeda, the Bush anti-terrorism protocols—derided and then embraced and expanded by Obama—coupled with the terrible toll we took on Islamists in Anbar, Iraq, and in Afghanistan, have meant that radical Islam is far weaker than it was in 2001, and we far stronger. Osama bin Laden is now dead; and his organization in disarray. We are still spending less than 5 percent of GDP on defense. If we were to develop a strategic, consistent policy of bestowing our alliances and friendship on those who shared either our values or our notion of security, we could easily regain our strategic preeminence, rather than "leading from behind."

Immigration. Close the border, before addressing other immigration issues. We should institutionalize employer fines, finish the fence—and predicate legal entry into the US not on race, nearness to the border, or the number of relatives in America, but on skills and capital. America would experience a renaissance if it were to end 500,000 illegal entries and replace them with 250,000 legal entries based on education and expertise, not national origin, proximity, or family connection. Immigration could be one of our greatest strengths, rather than a continual effort to bolster political constituencies. Apparently, self-supporting, highly educated, confident immigrants from all regions of the globe are not this administration’s natural constituents, and therefore of no value politically.

Entitlements. Whether we adopt the Simpson-Bowles commission’s analysis, raise the retirement age, or follow Rep. Paul Ryan’s recommendations, there is a little discussed truth: with reasonable reforms, we can make Social Security solvent and still support retired citizens in finer fashion than was true ten years ago. Borrowing to spend is a mood, a state of mind, not a death sentence.

Victor Davis Hanson may be an expert with a slew of degrees and be a member of the Hoover institution, but you don't have be a genius to see his point- that policies that liberals, Democrats, progressives, 'moderate' Republicans, and others are pushing on debt, energy, national security, immigration, and entitlements are bad DECISIONS- they are policies that are based on false assumptions regarding human nature and the role or abilities of government and they are policies based on theories of economics (Keynesian) or the environment (AGW) that are unproven at best and dangerous at worst.

But these policies had real effects, bad effects that have weakened our nation and moved us closer to tyranny and father from liberty and freedom. The road to bad policies are always paved with good intentions, so those who are pushing these policies are not bad people and those who are opposing these policies are not necessarily good people- but the point remains that society is not advanced when power and authority and responsibility is moved away from people to a far-distant bureaucrat who is given wealth and sustenance by taking it from the labor of others through taxes or fees or whatever.

But these policies can be reversed by other policies, policies that emphasize life, liberty, and the protection of property. These sort of policies are usually pushed for by Republicans, particularly libertarian and conservative members of the Republican Party, who are aided and supported by other Republicans and moderate or conservative Democrats. It is to the Tea Party or right wing of the Republican Party that our nation must look to for leadership, to their policies, however imperfect they are, to overturn the bad policies of the past.

On debt, energy, national security, immigration, and entitlements, the Democratic Party is pushing for the wrong policies and the Republican Party is pushing for the right (or the less-wrong at least) policies.

Read the whole article- it is very good, and I have only touched on a portion of it.

In the NYTimes Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE on "making" i.e. manufacturing:

“Many bought into the idea that America could go from a technology-based, export-oriented powerhouse to a services-led, consumption-based economy — and somehow still expect to prosper,” Mr. Immelt said in a typical speech last year before the Detroit Economic Club. “That idea was flat wrong.” He added: “Our economy tilted instead toward the quicker profits of financial services.”...[continue reading]

Global Warming Believers from around the world met for another conference designed to close ranks, discourage critical thinking, improve groupthink, and provide more evidence to one another backing up their already reached assumptions and theories. These 'scientists' are a real threat to your life, liberty, and property, but don't take my word for it.

Via memeorandum comes this story from the Telegraph called Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world. Here are some interesting parts...

...In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years...


....Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods. He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This guy looks back for inspiration on how to solve what he sees as a crisis to the command and control economies of World War Two, believing that people need to be persuaded by governmental power to adopt living standards below what they can achieve just so that some people can feel like they control the temperature of the entire globe. This professor of course would be directing these standards from his plush university, controlling who gets how much power in society, while armed men in gray uniforms controlled by him roam the streets beating down freedom-loving patriots who turn on lights to read at night, drive safe cars, operate dishwashers, and fly around to visit family and friends.

It is my hope that the United States is only minimally supporting a conference like this, and that our elected leaders stay away from this situation because, while the goal of protecting the environmental is moral and the desire to create a better society for our future is a good one, the methods that they advocate to achieve these goals and desires runs counter to what America has shown to be successful. Only by supporting and celebrating life, liberty, and property protection can any real and lasting gains be made in making our future and environment a brighter and healthier one.

For those interested in learning more, check out Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam or The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD).

John Githongo on corruption and the poverty equation:

There's a sense in which corruption is the No. 1 manufacturer of poverty. In particular, it is the No. 1 engine of creating inequalities in developing societies -- which is worse than poverty in and of itself. It's one thing having high levels of poverty, but it's a completely different thing to have stark inequalities caused by corruption and the conspicuous consumption that comes with it. [The latter] leads to political contradictions that can destabilize a nation or at the very least undermine democratic progress.

More here

Over the last several months, I bravely snuck into Michigan Congressman Gary Peters office and filmed some video. The Democrat's office was littered with stacks of miniature Constitutions (Congressmen get a certain amount to give to constituents, but Peters just uses them as recycled toilet paper), with piles and piles of literature extolling the virtues of recycling and lowering consumption, and with giant statues of our Dear Leader. I shot two video's, possibly more, while I was in there, and captured Congressman Peters talking with his staff about how to avoid showing up at townhall meetings and about how to hide his votes on spending spending bills. Here are the videos:


Just kidding- these aren't of Gary Peters, although they might as well be, since he has run his campaign the same way he ran away from his constituents all summer- by running away from his stance and votes on major issues. They are from Heritage for America. Peters is a tax-raising, energy-destroying, job-killing, regulating Democrat, and yet is trying to run from that record this election. We'll throw the bum out.

Suggested book to read related to this post: Heritage Pocket Guide to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States

Bombastic Element on art ecosystems and markets in China and South Africa:

It is apparent South Africa, in terms of the push-pull tensions of its post-Apartheid society and emerging middle class, occupies a unique nexus of culture and politics that's boon for artists and art consumption...while in China It is very simple. You have a society [exemplified by] rapid consumerism and a system that's authoritarian. The 2 co-habit, mingle, co-exist in each other...

More here

Last year, as my wife, five kids, and I were all wandering around Washington DC, I though the following (from Deep Thoughts on DC Trip- LaHood, Palaces, Rainbows, Washington, and Lincoln):

Washington DC is booming. I think it is one of the few states in the nation to actually have increasingly employment, job growth, and GDP growth. There are signs everywhere of prosperity and building- roads are being repaired, monuments are being revamped, buildings are adding on, and fresh paint and plaster is in abundance. On a guidebook of DC I read that our capitol was designed to look like the capitols of the Emperors and despots of Europe, but it was okay because we lived in a free nation that celebrated liberty and property. Well, as our country becomes more despotic and tyrannical, it is going to look increasingly like those capitols of the old days, when the Emperor took money from the countryside to build himself new statues and bigger palaces.

A new POLITICO poll proves that while the countryside is being plundered, the Democratic lords and Emperor Obama are living in a different world based on luxury, hope, and change. In Washington, Obama is far more popular than he is in the rest of the country, while Palin, the former Alaska governor, is considerably less popular in DC than in the rest of the country. To the vast majority of D.C. elites, the tea party movement is a fad, but for the vast majority of Americans, the Tea Party is a revolutionary phenomonum.

From the Politico story on the poll:

According to the poll, roughly 45 percent of “Washington elites” said the country and the economy are headed in the right direction, while roughly 25 percent of the general population said they felt that way. Seventy-four percent of those 'Washington elites' surveyed said the economic downturn has hurt them less than most Americans.

Sixty-five percent of the general population views Social Security as “very important,” compared with only 41 percent of Washington elites. The same goes for immigration — 53 percent of the general public says it’s very important, compared with 36 percent of Washington elites — and family values — 62 percent versus 23 percent, respectively.

Taxes are another issue where Washington does not appear to have its finger on the pulse of the country. Fifty-three percent of the general public ranked taxes as a “very important” issue, while 37 percent of elites said the same.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is viewed favorably by 45 percent of Washington elites but by only 23 percent of the rest of the country. When asked which party they would vote for if November’s midterm election were held today, the general population is split among Democrats and Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent. Washington elites however, chose Democrats by 53 percent to 26 percent for Republicans.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Washington DC, the home of the imperial palaces of our rulers, is living large on taxpayers money and enjoying doing so. Therefore it isn't surprising that the lords and ladies that inhabit our nation's capital-of-consumption have different views than the rest of the reality-based Americans out of DC.

In a recent address Thabo Mbeki stated:

As with material goods, Africa is a primary producer of intellectual resources, and also a consumer of finished intellectual products, but makes little contribution to the value that is added in between. Much (perhaps most) African intellectual production occurs under northern (American and European) contracts. Consequently, Africa’s intellectual agenda is set outside the continent, with African scholars are co-opted as consultants and primary researchers, while the ablest of them are provided with careers in western universities, research institutes and policy institutions. The final product is then re-exported, its value having been multiplied many times over, to Africa for consumption by African people, governments and institutions.

More here

Bright Simmons writing in Ashoka Tech:

Africa has been consigned to the passive consumption of technology rather than the latter’s utilisation for transformation in view of this “charitisation” of tech transfer. Such a pattern of appropriation is inert, and, by so being, also an added drag on a continent buffeted by retrogressive currents. Technology is disseminated in the same design that other commodities are distributed, thereby entrenching patterns of underdevelopment. In the past 50 years, matters have steadily become worse.

Continuing he asserts that:

Technology is not merely a catalogue of tools. It is a culture and a mindset. It is an approach to getting ahead, taking over, making do, reaching out, and thinking through. A worldview animated by technology is a counterpoint to one decorated by mythology. No one argues that mythology can’t be beautiful. Mythology requires as much creative and persuasive power to get right as technology since it also requires social buy-in. But where we are interested in poverty-busting development, I bet you, dear readers, that in any prudent society technology must come up tops.

More here

Via the New York Post:

The VAT is a type of national sales tax, levied on the value-added at each stage of production. Consider a piece of furniture: The VAT would be imposed when the raw timber is sold, when the sawmill produces lumber, when the manufacturer builds a chair, a tax at the wholesaler level and then when a retailer sells the chair to a consumer.

To avoid double taxation, each seller along the way gets a credit for taxes paid at earlier stages of the production process. So the final tax to the consumer, at least in theory, is the same as a retail sales tax of the same amount.

The VAT has its virtues: As a single-rate, consumption-based system, much like the flat tax or national sales tax, it would introduce far fewer economic distortions than today's income tax -- and a heckuva lot less paperwork.

That would be a persuasive argument -- if proponents wanted a VAT to replace the Internal Revenue code. But that's not what's intended by Volcker -- or Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who've also been chatting up the VAT. The politicians want a VAT, and they want to keep the income tax. (To be more accurate, they want a VAT and to raise other taxes as well.)

They want the cash, of course, so they can continue buying votes by spending other people's money.

The VAT is "on the table," according to Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (source here). One of Democrat President Barack Obama's top economic advisers suggested that it's time for America to adopt a VAT. And President Obama's new debt commission, which will meet for the first time just before the elections and after Obama has added trillions in debt, was rumored to be looking strongly at suggesting that the US adopt the VAT. And although the Senate just voted Thursday to say they don't want to create a new value-added tax, 12 of the 13 senators who voted to support the possibility of a VAT were Democrats. Democrats are working today on how they can make my children pay a VAT.

The state of Michigan once used a form of VAT known as the "Single Business Tax" (SBT) as its form of general business taxation. It was the only state to have used a VAT, and it sucked. Voters voted to replace the SBT with the new MBT, which was expected to be more fair and less of a jobs and economy killer than the SBT ended up being.

One other note on the VAT. While most Democrats and liberals want a 'small' VAT, most tax rates start small and then end up going up and up and up (except when you vote Republican, then they go down). When the income tax was first put in, the highest marginal income tax rate in 1913 was only 7%, but only 5 years later the highest rate to 77%, and by the 1940's, the top rates in the US were above 90%. Expect the VAT to follow a similar trajectory- if passed by Democrats it will start small, but eventually will be a massive jobs and economic killer.

Abhay Abhay (Advisor to the EFCC of Nigeria) on building local financial crime fighting resources:

“To investigate a case of inexplicable wealth, an investigator needs to know laws, rules and practices, not only when it comes to corruption and crime, but also in a number of other areas – the purchase and sale of property and vehicles, establishing and dissolving companies, dealing on the stock exchange, the code of conduct for public officials, income tax and so on.”...investigators must also learn cultural and social practices that affect consumption, spending, investment and the presentation of gifts.

More here

Conspicous consumption and its corrosive effects arrive in South Africa, William Gumede contends:

It is one of getting rich quickly, using shortcuts. Once one has made it, one feels entitled to live lavishly – the ‘bling’ lifestyle. This ‘bling’ lifestyle has now become the new standard for achievement: A sign that one has made it.
These shortcuts could be attaching oneself to a sugar daddy, or in politics to a political party boss, or attaching oneself to a crime boss....Black economic empowerment has also helped along this ‘bling’ culture. The downside of black economic empowerment as it is practiced now is that one does not need to build a business from scratch – which demands entrepreneurial acumen. One can secure a tender through political connections. This is possible even if one does not have a clue about how to deliver the services promised.

More here

Codrin Arsene reviews Ethnicity INC by Jean and John Comaroff:

What if, the authors ask, the future of ethnicity lies in its capacity to incorporate identity (incorporate as in creating a legal corporation based on ethnic grounds) and couple this normative shift with the progressive commodification of one’s ethnic group culture? The authors think that the new product could efficiently represent the interests of its members. They argue that the commodification of culture doubled by the branding of the newly marketed entities could trigger the formalization and the institutionalization of the consumption of culture in ways that would be beneficial to those creating and generating culture in the first place.

More here

Related articles by Zemanta

• "Ethnicity INC: or why ethnicity is not the bogeyman we were told it is" (loomnie.com)

As the children play in the White House, the adults in Iran are up to no good. Victor Davis Hanson keeps our attention on this important subject in his article Voting Present on Iran:

Iran just announced a radical expansion of its uranium-enrichment facilities. The news followed the recent disclosure of the country's previously secret nuclear facility near the city of Qom -- and came just two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency's censure of Iran for its failure to halt enrichment.

In other words, instead of complying with international requests to stand down, Iran has decided to step up efforts to enrich uranium, which, despite the government's denial, is all but certainly intended for a bomb.

Iran's theocratic leaders promote its pathological hatred of Israel. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust. He periodically threatens the Jewish state with abject destruction, calling Israel "a dead rat" and "a stinking corpse." At best, his nuclear missiles would be a permanent sword of Damocles over Israel's head. At worst, in apocalyptic fashion, he could claim for Persian Shiites the primacy of radical Islam by destroying, once and for all, the "Zionist entity."

Iran also gives billions in aid to murderous organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. Their clout would grow exponentially if they could scare Western allies with the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Apparently Iran has watched this new kindly American approach -- and come to a few dark conclusions: namely that a handful of nuclear bombs will give Iran political leverage, and that, in this new climate, it is well worth the (decreasing) risk in getting them. Rightly or wrongly, it seems to assume that the new repentant American administration is more interested in reaching out to prior adversaries than pressuring them to respect the current global order.

President Obama's serial deadlines and hope and change rhetoric have had no effect on the Iranians. Obama can either accept that the theocracy will go nuclear and live with it, or he must take graduated steps to stop them.

Lost amid all the debate about Obama's domestic policies like socialized medicine, nationalizing companies, massive debt-fueled pork give-aways, and the capping and taxing of America's energy consumption is that Iran is getting closer and closer to obtaining a nuclear bomb. Iran getting the nuclear bomb would be very bad for the world. They will use it to blackmail our allies and expand their control over the Middle East, they might use it to murder millions of Jews, or they could sell it to terrorist groups who would unleash it on an American city. This is a big deal.

As big a deal as it is, what has Obama's response been? Offering to talk to Iranian officials? Backing the Iranian government as it killed and terrorized pro-democracy groups that tried to rise up in freedom and liberty? Issuing declarations that are ignored? Those aren't very strong steps and are not having a positive effect on the situation. Different steps need to be taken and different messages issued. Perhaps Obama can do these things, but I'm pretty sure that we are going to need a different Congress and different President or else Iran will mushroom cloud an American city.