My Beauty Best Teacher

The title of this post isn't mine- Ralph R. Reiland came up with it in his post which I will talk about. But it's a great title- in my mind, I see the American economy hitting an iceberg around 2007 and start taking on some water, enough that it badly listed by 2008 and went into a recession. The iceberg was too much federal spending that soaked up savings and investments, too many federal government policies that encouraged bubbles in investing and housing, and increasing regulations that choked off economic growth, especially in small businesses, and signaled to business owners that now was the time to play it safe and not take risks and create jobs. The tip of this iceberg of federal policy ripped a large hole in the Titanic of the US economy, and soon the boat started to dangerously take on water.

Although I'm no expert of this, I imagine that once your boat hits an iceberg and takes on water, you have two options. Option one is to continue moving forward and patch the hole- in other words, keep America's booming private economy and remove the harmful regulations and policies that caused the damage. Option two is to stop moving and widen the hole, by which I mean to attack private business and those who are successful in it and put in place more harmful policies. Oh, I guess there was a double-secret third option too, and that is to turn the boat around and try to ram the boat on the iceberg again, this time with the intent on sinking the whole thing. For a while, I thought that Obama and the Democrats were just intent on going with option 2, but it looks like they are honestly considering circling back on that iceberg with the goal of sinking the economy of the United States for good.

President Barack Obama was once named by me as Captain of the US Titanic Spending (see my complete list of Obama nicknames)- and now he's going after that iceberg again!

Here are some parts of the article by Reiland called Obama: Circling back to the iceberg:

Only 26 percent of the public approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the economy in the latest Gallup poll, conducted Aug. 11-14, while a whopping 71 percent disapprove. That's down from Obama's previous low point of 35 percent approval on this top issue.

The public's growing dissatisfaction shouldn't be surprising. Going back to 1890, reports the National Bureau of Economic Research, the only U.S. president with a worse record than Obama in job creation in his first two-and-a-half years in office, measured in terms of percentage change, was Herbert Hoover, presiding over the emergence of the Great Depression.

"Official unemployment is 9.1 percent," stated a New York Times editorial on Aug. 15, decrying the nation's jobs picture, "but it would be 16.1 percent, or 25.1 million people, if it included those who can only find part-time jobs and those who have given up looking for work." "Keeping the economy going and making sure jobs are available is the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning," Obama said back in March. "It's the last thing I think about when I go to bed each night."

Now, nearly six months later, the White House reports that Obama is working on a new strategy for job creation that will be unveiled after he returns from vacation. The task of coming up with a jobs plan that works shouldn't be all that terribly difficult. All Mr. Obama has to do is reverse what he's done and change what he thinks.

First, by the government's own numbers, small businesses have created 64 percent of the net new jobs in the U.S. economy over the past 15 years.

In fact, that understates the role of small business, since the vast majority of America's medium-sized and large businesses began as small businesses. The Heinz corporation began when 16-year-old Henry Heinz grated piles of horseradish at home, using his mother's recipe, and sold the bottled product door-to-door in Sharpsburg out of a wheelbarrow.

Yet since Obama took office, employment at federal regulatory agencies has jumped 13 percent while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6 percent. Second, 39 percent of small-business owners said in a Chamber of Commerce survey in July that ObamaCare was either their greatest or second-greatest obstacle to new hiring....

...Additionally, 84 percent of small business owners in the survey said the economy is on the wrong track, 79 percent view the current regulatory environment as unreasonable, and 79 percent believe Washington should get out of the way of small business, rather than offering a helping hand (14 percent).

In its first 26 months, reports The Heritage Foundation, the Obama administration imposed new regulatory rules that will cost the private sector $40 billion. In July alone, reports Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., federal regulators imposed a total of 379 new rules that will add some $9.5 billion in new costs.

Bottom line: What's required from Obama is a complete about-face, the shelving of his flawed economic philosophy and a reversal of his counterproductive policy prescriptions.

For those who want to see which way the United States is going under President Obama and his progressive policies supported by the new progressive Democratic Party, watch this movie- Titanic (10th Anniversary Edition).

Apoorva Shah asks?

The question is not whether there should be more innovators and entrepreneurs in Africa, but how? What concrete steps must be taken in order to develop the business sector?

He believes that part of the answer lies in building managerial expertise:

The importance of governance, financial institutions, and the overall "enabling environment" has already been proven by the widely referenced World Bank Doing Business Reports. By measuring the difficulty of starting and sustaining business, the report allows for governments to know where to direct and manage reforms. However, an assessment of business know-how and expertise is less frequently discussed, and some over-enthused optimists, especially those on the microfinance bandwagon, insinuate that skills like balancing a checkbook or managing organizational structure are inherent in all entrepreneurs, even budding ones in Africa and South Asia.
Yet studies show that many times it is not the availability of funding or even government reforms that hold back business development, but simply business expertise. Management skills are especially important when entrepreneurs look to scale their businesses and employ more workers

via more business schools

The Association of African Business Schools (AABS), organized by the International Finance Corporation's Global Business School Network, is a quiet but crucial voice in a sector where passions thrive on shirtsleeves and megaphones. The AABS member schools collaborate to improve the standards and increase accreditation of business schools in Africa. Right now, only one school, the University of Cape Town in South Africa, ranks within the Top 100 Business Schools on the 2007 Financial Times Global MBA Index.
But more entrepreneurial Africans in the middle and lower-middle classes should also have the opportunity to attend decent business schools close to home, preventing brain drain and catalyzing larger-scale local business development. As the AABS addresses the quality of business schools, private donors can look to increase the quantity of these schools

When putting together a list of the best Presidents in the history of our nation, that list would likely include Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James Madison, Grover Cleveland, and Ronald Reagan. To that list I would like to also include Calvin Coolidge.

Most polls rank Coolidge somewhere in the middle, but this is because most people rank greatness by the number of actions that Presidents make and the number of policies that they as executives force on the nation that are usually contrary to our Constitution. For example, most lists put FDR at the top of the list, but he pushed through unconstitutional policies, dropped our nation into another Great Depression, didn't respond early enough to the rising fascism in the world, and then did the only thing I'll give him great credit for and won WWII. Oh, some great Presidents had to respond to crisis forced on them by others (like Lincoln), but most other so-called 'great' Presidents simply used the office of the President to jam policies on people that moved power and freedom away from them to the government and supervised a nation in crisis.

The best Presidents are those who did very little, ran the executive office smoothly and without problems or corruption, and conformed to the Constitution as closely as possible. Jefferson was President for two terms, and other then the Louisiana Purchase, his administration happily has little to note other than peace and prosperity. James Madison had to respond to the War of 1812, yes- but other than that, peace and prosperity. Calvin Coolidge was like this too- nothing to note during his time in office other than nothing to note- peoples lives were protected, the nation was prosperous, and property was well protected.

Here are some of the reasons that Calvin Coolidge should make the list of one of our greatest Presidents:

1. Coolidge was (for the most part) an opponent of government regulations. “I am in favor of reducing, rather than expanding, government bureaus which seek to regulate and control the business activities of the people,” he explained in the same State of the Union address. During his time in office, he attempted to allow private development of Muscle Shoals, made conservative appointments to federal offices over the objections of liberal Democrats and Progressive Republicans, was opposed to a veterans' bonus, and blocked and to the proposed McNary-Haugen farm legislation.
2. Coolidge criticized the left for its money-spending habits, stating, “Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It doesn’t appear to belong to anyone.” His policies led to a booming economy and increased tax revenues, but Coolidge knew that these additional 'revenues' wasn't the government's money- it was the peoples. So instead of bowing to progressives and liberals and using the surplus funds to create new programs, he put in place tax cuts. His tax cuts targeted largely the wealthy (he believed that the rich would invest their extra funds in ways that would increase production and therefore jobs and wealth at home, and also that American trade would expand abroad which would benefit the domestic economy and help stabilize the world economically and politically), but taxes were also cut on all taxpayers as well, the gift tax was repealed, and the death tax cut in half. These tax cuts led to increasing economic growth in America (and more tax revenues).
3. Coolidge believed that the role of the government was to step out of the way and allow the market and business to prosper. “The business of America is business,” Coolidge famously declared. But unlike many Republicans and almost all liberals, he did not believe the business of government was to control and direct and subsidize business- he believed in the free market and that removing regulations would encourage business more so than subsidies and targeted tax code help.

Coolidge’s tax cuts and deregulations resulted in a budget surplus and the economically booming “Roaring Twenties,” which came to an end during the progressive regulatory administration of his successor President Herbert Hoover. Coolidge said after leaving the White House, "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business"- but this is the very thing that I love about Coolidge, that as President he minded his own business, operated the machinery of the White House with cool and competent handling, and minded his own business as President. No crisis, no television appearances, no major policy changes, no crazy plans, no wild new ideas- simply doing his job, doing it well, and leaving when he was done with the nation in a better place than it was before.

President Calvin Coolidge may be the first U.S. president appeared to also appear in a "talkie" -- a movie with sound.In this four-minute clip (viewable on YouTube), Coolidge says that he wants to

"cut down public expense. I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom. Until we can re-establish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty."

Before we go to the polls in 2012 to pick nominees for political parties and for President, I just want everyone to re-examine Calvin Coolidge and his Presidency and decide for themselves what exactly makes a President great.

UPDATE: The Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation contacted and reminded me of another reason why Coolidge is possibly one of the better Presidents that we've ever had- his views on education. Coolidge believed strongly in education and he often commented on the subject throughout the course of his political career, believing in the importance of having an educated citizenry and impressing on young people the importance of lifelong learning. Here is one of his quotes from a newspaper column in 1930:

"While it is easy to waste money on education, it is the one thing which we cannot afford to curtail. The true ideal would seem to be a system that supplies those in the lower grades with certain basic information and those in the upper grades with the power to think… The school is not the end but only the beginning of an education. Yet its place cannot be filled in any other way. The best thing the millions of our youth can do to assure their future success is to work faithfully at their studies. That opportunity for improvement and discipline will never return.”

For your next vacation, take a trip to Plymouth Notch, VT to see the President Calvin Coolidge State Historic Site for yourself and experience the world in which President Coolidge was born and raised.

For good books about President Calvin Coolidge, check out Silent Cal's Almanack: The Homespun Wit and Wisdom of Vermont's Calvin Coolidge, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, or Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge, The.

The Economist writes:

Ethiopia likes to do things differently. In September it started celebrating the new millennium, more than seven years after everybody else. The country has been out of step in this respect since 1582: while the rest of the Christian world changed to the revised Gregorian calendar, Ethiopia stuck to the Julian. It also still keeps its own time, measured in 12-hour cycles rather than 24-hour ones.

Referring to its comatose private sector:

The reasons for this economic crawl are not hard to find. Beyond the government-directed state, funded substantially by foreign aid, there is—almost uniquely in Africa—virtually no private-sector business at all. The IMF estimates that in 2005-06 the share of private investment in the country was just 11%, nearly unchanged since Mr Zenawi took over in the early 1990s. That is partly a reflection of the fact that, despite some privatisation since the centralised Marxist days of the Derg, large areas of the economy remain government monopolies, closed off to private business.

And its debilitating state-run syndrome

This is where Ethiopia misses out badly. Take telecoms. While the rest of Africa has been virtually transformed in just a few years by a revolution in mobile telephony, Ethiopia stumbles along with its inept and useless government-run services. Everywhere else, a plethora of South African, home-grown and European providers has leapt into the market to provide Africans with an extraordinary array of cheaper and more efficient services, now used even by the poorest of farmers, for instance, to check spot prices for agricultural goods in markets miles away. And the mobile-phone revolution has created thousands of new livelihoods; at times it seems as if every boy on a street corner is hawking a top-up card. Not in Ethiopia.
It is the same story in financial services, where, despite the growth of some smaller private banks, no foreign banks are allowed. Micro-finance schemes have expanded exponentially, but it remains almost impossible to find start-up loans for small or medium businesses.

Via Americans for Tax Reform:

Every year, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and the Center for Fiscal Accountability calculate Cost of Government Day. This is the day on which the average American has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government at the federal, state, and local levels.

In 2010, Cost of Government Day falls on August 19. Working people must toil 231 days out of the year just to meet all costs imposed by government - 8 days later than last year and a full 32 days longer than 2008.In other words, in 2010 the cost of government consumes 63.41 percent of national income.

Whenever you get into any argument with any liberal or Democrat about tax rates and the size of government and government finances, you need to ask that liberal or Democrat how much of a person's work and labor and investments in time and money and effort (referred to in the future as income) should the government take from them and give to someone else (government bureaucrats, connected interest groups, politically favorable charities, etc)? How much is too much?

You'll get two answers- that we are at the perfect rate right now (as if 63% is some sort of magical number), or that the rate is too high on the liberals and Democrats but not high enough of the conservatives and Republicans (or as they'll call it, the 'government-subsidized poor' pay too much, but the 'working private rich' don't pay enough). The magic number for liberals and Democrats is that they want 100% of your hard work to go to what they want to spend it on- they want to turn you into a slave of their interests and their desires. That shouldn't shock you- out of the hundreds of thousands of years that humans have been around, slavery has existed and thrived all but 150 of them (although slavery continues even today for women in Muslim nations and there is sex slavery in Africa and Southeast Asia). The real goal for Democrats and liberals is to make you a slave once more to the state, and have you work longer than 231 days out of the year for the state's interests.

Myself, I'm increasingly resenting the fact that I work 231 days out of the year for someone else- I consider that a violation of my life, liberty, and protection of property on which this nation was founded. Even if the Republicans can retake the House and the Senate and the state governments and the Presidency, at best they can only hold the line at this point, which is not good enough for me. The Revolution is brewing.

UPDATE: Just to educate some of your liberal rubes who read my blog, the solution to these high taxes on individuals for being productive is not to tax businesses instead. A business has costs to run and sells goods and services, and if they sell those goods for more than they cost to produce, they make a profit. If taxes are increased on businesses, several things could happen; one, the business owner will pay for those increased taxes out of profits that he earned, which will give him less money to buy goods and services from others, will give him less money to reinvest in his business, and will lessen his desire to make profits by being efficient; two, the business owner will pay for the tax by raising the cost of the goods or services, which will cause overall inflation on everyone as goods and services become more expensive to consumers, lowering economic activity and inflicting harm on everyone; three, the business owner will raise his prices to pay for the tax but be unable to have customers buy the goods at the increased prices and therefore will go out of business; or four, the business owner will keep his prices the same, no longer make money on the business, and eventually be unable to pay his bills and his business will go under.

Those of you who see 'increase taxes on businesses' as a solution to tax woes are indeed idiots, or fools with radio shows named Tomm Hartman.

Last year, our nation had a choice for President. On one hand we had a man who sprouted very nice sounding platitudes but lacked experience and had a very extreme voting record. On the other hand we had a man who spoke truthfully about the situation and had a lot of experience and had solid and well thought out policy positions. Sadly, those two were not on the same ballot- the experienced solid conservative lost in the primaries to John McCain. If only we could have had a chance to elect Mitt Romney last election, things might have turned out differently.

That's not to say that there would have been no recession, healthcare would not have been a concern, and Iran would have continued to enrich uranium. If Mitt Romney would have become President instead of Barack Obama, those things would still have happened. But the key question is how would Romney have handled those situations differently than Obama and how those differences might affect our nation.

Some people think there is no difference between the two major parties or think that Romney wasn't really that different than someone like Obama. They are wrong. In many important and key situations Romney would have advocated considerably different policies than Obama, policies that may have led to a shorter and less severe recession, that would have lowered the cost of healthcare, and that would have led to Iran thinking twice about seeking the bomb.

This is not idle thoughts- Mitt Romney wrote an editorial this week in USA Today where he laid out some things he would have done as President differently than Barack Obama. This is why he was and remains my choice for President:

• Repair the stimulus. Freeze the funds that haven't yet been spent and redirect them to immediate, private sector job-creation priorities.
• Create tax incentives that promote business expansion and hiring. For example, install a robust investment tax credit, permit businesses to expense capital purchases made in 2010, and reduce payroll taxes. These will reignite construction, technology and a wide array of capital goods industries, and lead to expanded employment.
• Prove to the global investors that finance America's debt that we are serious about reining in spending and becoming fiscally prudent by adopting limits on non-military discretionary spending and reforming our unsustainable, unfunded entitlements. These are key to strengthening the dollar, reducing the threat of rampant inflation and holding down interest rates.
• Close down any talk of carbon cap-and-trade. It will burden consumers and employers with billions in new costs. Instead, greatly expand our commitment to natural gas and nuclear, boosting jobs now and reducing the export of energy jobs and dollars later.
• Tell the unions that job-stifling "card check" legislation is off the table. Laying new burdens on small business will kill entrepreneurship and job creation.
• Don't allow a massive tax increase to go into effect in 2011 with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The specter of more tax-fueled government spending and the reduction of capital available for small business will hinder investment and business expansion.
• New spending should be strictly limited to items that are critically needed and that we would have acquired in the future, such as new military equipment to support our troops abroad and essential infrastructure at home.
• Install dynamic regulations for the financial sector — rules that are up to date, efficient and not excessively burdensome. But do not so tie up the financial sector with red tape that we lose a vital component of our economic system.
• Open the doors to trade. Give important friends like Colombia favored trade status rather than bow to protectionist demands. Now is the time for aggressive pursuit of opportunities for new markets for American goods, not insular retrenchment.
• Stop frightening the private sector by continuing to hold GM stock, by imposing tighter and tighter controls on compensation, and by pursuing a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Government encroachment on free enterprise is depressing investment and job creation.

These are great points and both Republicans and Democrats should get behind Romney and support his bid for President in 2012.

The President of the United States fills a lot of important roles in our political system- Commander-in-Chief, Chief Executive, Chief Legislator, Chief Jurist, Chief of State, Chief Diplomat, Head of Political Party, Popular Leader, etc- and to the list of these roles we now apparently must add 'Investor-in-Chief.'

Head of executive branches, whether at the state level as Governors or at the national level with our President, increasingly believe that it is part of their job description to take the money that taxpayers send to them to perform important government functions and instead gamble that money away on risky investments- the more risky and uncertain the investment, the more it seems that these executives are likely to dump precious taxpayer money into them.

Here in Michigan, we had a Governor that won a second term of office believing that she was a good Governor because she dumped taxpayer money into 'green energy' and 'cool cities' and the movie industry; upon further review and looked at with a true eye for costs and investment gains, these investments all turned out to range from bad to poor to horrible. Taxpayer money was distributed in a corrupt manner based more on political favors and little to no lasting gains came from these investments, certainly not enough to justify calling these schemes 'investment' in the private marketplace.

At the national level, Barack Obama believes that one of his major roles as President is to direct investments for the future, in spite of his lack of experience, training, or record of success in investing. No one would ever hire him to direct their personal investments, and yet as President he is doing just this with our public money at a time when public money is in short supply and needed ever more vitally. And the process that these investments are awarded are corrupt, filled with political considerations and backroom deals that would put any private businessman in prison for their actions.

The Washington Post writes about this role of the President in its article Barack Obama, investor-in-chief. From the article:

Would you buy a used car from Barack Obama? Or would you want him managing your 401(k) investment retirement plan at work? The president, of course, isn’t in that business specifically, but in a larger sense he’s been investing our money, picking the businesses he thinks will fuel economic expansion, new jobs and the technology of the future, and rebuild the nation’s fraying infrastructure.

All it takes is money - ours - he says, and he’s been spending it as fast as he can in a failed attempt to get the economy growing again. The economic policy term for this is “central planning,” wherein the government tries to pick the winners and losers and dumps hundreds of billions of dollars into various business sectors in the belief that it will pay off in the long run.

The government isn’t very good at this business, as we’ve seen in the disastrously ineffective $825 billion spending stimulus plan that President Obama and the Democrats shoved through Congress in 2009. Much of that money went into the budgets of countless federal departments, agencies and other programs that spent it. Still more went to states, counties, cities and towns for infrastructure programs or to keep public workers employed. A lot of the money was given to businesses that Mr. Obama thinks will be good for the environment, though his investment decisions didn’t always work out the way he hoped.

Consider the White House-backed solar energy firm Solyndra Inc., which declared bankruptcy this week after pocketing a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. Critics called the deal a “stimulus black hole.”

When Mr. Obama visited the Solyndra factory in May 2010, he called the company a success story that was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”

He was quite proud of his investment, boasting at the time, “Less than a year ago, we were standing on what was an empty lot,” but now here was this shiny, new factory that “is the result of those loans” backed by his administration.
It was later learned that the White House fast-tracked Solyndra’s loan application, rushing Mr. Obama’s pet project through without a lot of serious checking. Federal investigators said that the administration had bypassed procedures to safeguard the taxpayers’ investment.

Mr. Obama is big on the solar-panel industry and under his policies, the government has dumped a lot of our money into it in the past three years. But it turns out that the U.S. industry has not turned out to be the bonanza that he sold to the country. Prices for solar panels have fallen because of strong competition from China, making the fledgling industry precarious at best without heavy federal subsidies.

Evergreen Solar Inc. filed for bankruptcy last month after being forced to close its plant in Massachusetts that was built with state and local government subsidies.

Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat, says the loan guarantee program “has not worked as well as we had hoped.” Sounds like a Wall Street investment banker defending a fat bundle of subprime real estate securities that went bad.

The solar-panel industry is not the only “investment” Mr. Obama has sunk a lot of our money into. While the plants build with his loans make for great campaign photo ops, the costly reality is that government is trying to pick the winners and losers in our economy instead of the private sector.

But Mr. Obama thinks he’s good at this investment business and now he is trying to convince us to buy into to a new federal “infrastructure bank” that will make off-budget grants and loans to rebuild “roads, bridges and ports and broadband lines and smart grids” with $30 billion of our money.

The bank would put “all those [unemployed] construction workers” back to work, he said. And it would provide Mr. Obama with lots of photo ops at jobsites, saying “look what I’ve done for you.”

If this sounds familiar, it was sold to us in the guise of the 2009 job stimulus bill that was supposed to put the construction industry back to work. Some short-term jobs were created but when the building projects were completed, the jobs ended. The construction industry today is in a recession.

Making Mr. Obama the investor-in-chief, deciding how and where the nation’s capital resources should be spent, hasn’t worked and isn’t going to work. Ask Japan, which has gone on a public-works spending binge though its economy has been in a slump for two decades.

Better to shift federal public-works spending decisions to the states, along with the gas tax money for highways, and let them - not remote federal bureaucrats - set their own priorities. Broaden the tax base by eliminating dozens of loopholes, then cut business and individual tax rates, and slash the capital gains tax to unlock needed, job-creating investment capital.

Let the marketplace make the investment decisions that have made America the largest and most successful economy in the world. Mr. Obama has got better things to do with his time, like trying to figure out why his job approval polls have fallen to 39 percent.

Reason.tv has some interesting videos on its site. The one that I found the most fascinating is called "Food Fight." In this video, which is hosted by Drew Carey, we a battle between private businesses and government officials. In what is only to become more common with the passage of legislation giving more government power over controlling the health care and energy industries, the video shows how public officials paid for by citizen taxpayer dollars spend their time going around Los Angeles seizing bacon-wrapped hot dogs.

Yes, amid the hustle and bustle of downtown Los Angeles, there exists an underground world of illicit trade in bacon-wrapped hot dogs. The Department of Health has made it illegal to sell a hot dog wrapped in bacon, and if they catch any street vendors doing so, they will use their police powers to hassle these private businesses, shut them down, seize their goods, or even destroy their businesses. It is all seen on the video- there is actually camera footage of government thugs confiscating a food cart and dumping the bacon-wrapped hot dogs into the trash.

"Bacon is a potentially hazardous food,” says the LA County Health Department. Personally, I think a government that can throw a food vendor in the in the slammer for 45 days for selling bacon dogs is a bigger threat to our lives, liberty, and property. Which do you want- a dangerously powerful government or a street vendor who pays taxes and sells consumers products they want?

A government bureaucrat, supported by no data at all, feels personally that bacon-wrapped hot dogs are not safe, and put in a rule that makes it illegal to sell them. Apparently he feels he is the business of stopping people from doing what they want because he doesn't agree with it- sounds like more government officials in the business of tyranny.

Be prepared for more of this- is your home or business going to be up to the new Green Codes or the new Health Codes that government officials come up with every day? With Democrats in office, you really need to ask yourself- are you really living in a free country any more?

If you thought I was joking, you should have been paying more attention to the news- Government tightens food standards is only the beginning. Obama and the Democrats have just decreed that the bureucratic agencies that rule us now have more power over private businesses and can decide what temperature eggs must be kept at and who you are allowed to buy chickens from.

This new system for 'monitoring eggs' was coupled with 'other steps' gives federal monitors more authority and more force with which to respond when you break their rules. These new powers are designed to combat salmonella in eggs, but are only the first step- the Department of Agriculture is soon to be created similar powers to those who raise cows for meat and milk, and the FDA is developing ways to control those who grow tomatoes, melons and leafy greens.

Democrats, liberals, and Obama are only about one thing- controlling your life. Now they are even trying to control what you eat! Will the attacks on property, liberty, and life never end?

Today I read a great article in National Affairs called "Capitalism After the Crisis." It discusses what is happening to the idea of capitalism after the recent economic crisis, and makes some very important points. One of the most important ideas is that the idea of capitalism is dying today, but not because of it's failures, but instead because we are turning away from capitalism:

When the government is small and relatively weak, the way to make money is to start a successful private-sector business. But the larger the size and scope of government spending, the easier it is to make money by diverting public resources. Starting a business is difficult and involves a lot of risk — but getting a government favor or contract is easier, and a much safer bet. And so in nations with large and powerful governments, the state tends to find itself at the heart of the economic system, even if that system is relatively capitalist. This tends to confound politics and economics, both in practice and in public perceptions: The larger the share of capitalists who acquire their wealth thanks to their political connections, the greater the perception that capitalism is unfair and corrupt.

Under Democratic-control and influence, America is increasingly becoming less a company where your fortunes are defined by what you do, and is increasingly becoming a nation of who you know- who your political connections are, who is giving you grants of taxpayer money, who your parents are, etc. If you have a million dollars now, the best way to turn it into two million is not to work harder and develop a better product- it is to lobby government to have government help protect your product from competition, or to give you a government contract, or to help you in some other way. Our nation is becoming corrupt under Democrats and corruptible Republicans.

Think about what is going on today, especially in the debates regarding healthcare and energy. Supporters of government control of these areas of the economy talk about all the failures of these 'private capitalist systems'- but over the past decades, energy production and healthcare have become amoung the most non-private non-capitalist systems in our economy. The soda-pop market or movie business does not have the same problems as transportation, energy, healthcare, etc- and the difference is not that these problem areas are more capitalist, it is that they are less capitalist.

The problem with healthcare is not not enough government, it is too much government. The problem with energy is not not enough government, it is too much government. The problem with transportation is not not enough government, it is too much government. The problem with education is not not enough government, it is too much government.

The sad thing is, America might have turned the corner towards statism and corruption, and what once made us exceptional may have been lost forever:

Once economic and political systems are built to reward relationships instead of efficiency, it is very difficult to reform them, since the people in power are the ones who would lose most in the change.

One way to possibly make America exceptional again is to remember how we got here. When your children read stories or watch movies, what sort do they read or watch?

The image many Americans have of capitalism is therefore that of Horatio Alger's rags-to-riches-via-hard-work stories, which have come to define the American Dream. By contrast, in most of the rest of the world, Horatio Alger is unknown — and the image of social mobility is dominated by Cinderella or Evita stories: fantasies more than plausible dreams.

Are your children taught to win the government lottery? To win riches by being a professional athlete? To go to Hollywood and star in movies? To marry someone rich? Or are you teaching your children that the way to success in life is hard work and a good attitude? And is our society still reinforcing those teachings by rewarding hard work and a good attitude more so than luck and connections?

Read the whole article- I'm only pulling from a tiny portion of it, but the whole thing is indeed a good read.

On the north end of Democrat Gary Peters 9th District, the story of two different Americas is clearly visible for everyone to see. One America is the America of capitalism and private-sector jobs, and the other America is of corporatization and public-sector jobs. One America is the bankrupt ruins of a $2 billion shopping and housing development, and the other America is the road construction workers dutifully ripping up and rebuilding a major road right in front of it.

Democrats like Peters believe that the best way to lead our nation back to growth and prosperity is to have the national government lead the way by having the national government borrow money from banks in the US and from lenders like China abroad and then use that money to build roads, bridges, schools, and public buildings. In this America, there is job growth and pay raises, assuming that you have the correct political connections to get the jobs and you belong to the labor unions that do business with the state. In this America, there is little accountability to customers and little money to be made by taking risks, increasing efficiency, or cutting costs- in the Democrats America, there is always a job for everyone willing to do the bidding of the state.

This America is the road construction that you see in the pictures and videos, and is something that Democrats like Gary Peters can rightly take credit for.

But there is another America out there, an America where jobs are increasingly scarce, investment funds are nonexistent, and pay cuts are the norm. In this America, increasing taxes, increasing regulation, and increasing uncertainty caused by a growing state presence in the marketplace has caused it to be less profitable to do business, has scared customers and investors, and has led to high unemployment and low job growth. The government is borrowing funds for their projects, and so businesses find it increasingly difficult to borrow money for their projects. Efforts to cut costs and increase efficiency are met by political leaders publicly speaking ill about your company, and it becomes increasingly difficult to meet the bottom line when the government forces the bottom line up and talks profits down.

This America is the abandoned and bankrupt building project that you can see in the pictures and videos, and this is also something that Democrats and Gary Peters can take credit for.

The two Americas meet at the 93-acre site on Telegraph Road near Square Lake Road in Bloomfield Hills. Bloomfield Park was once the symbol of booming private America- a place where citizens could work, buy products, and live. It now lies abandoned, naked steel girders and half-built looming structures, some seven stories tall, crumbling and rusting in front of construction work to rebuild the public road that goes past it. Its marble foundations and ambitious scale are the risks that America once took on itself, but at its feet now scurry the workers of the America that now safely puts its power in the hands of government officials.

But work continues on Telegraph road. Signs boldly advertise that the project was paid for by stimulus dollars voted for and signed into law by Democrats. Democrats like Peters point to this as a sign that his plan is working, and wants to be returned to office based on public works projects like these. That's the America that Democrats ultimately want- an America that is dependent on the state for jobs and income and growth while the private sector dies.

All video and picture was taken by me from my camera phone, after I snuck past security and risked my life walking through the dangerous ruins of America's once glorious past (pre-2008).

UPDATE: Thanks for linking!

Government should do a few things, and do them well. Government should not try to be all things to all people. Oakland County (MI) government needs to wake up and realize this.

If you need a marriage license, a death certificate, or a birth certificate, you should go to Oakland County Government. If you pay your property taxes or get a map of the county, you should go to Oakland County Government. If you need to pay a ticket, find out about the court systems, or look through campaign finances of local elected officials, go to Oakland County Government. If you want a county park or recreation area, go to Oakland County Government. Oakland County Government should be in charge of sewers, elections, roads, libraries, jails, morgues, and children's services.

But, Oakland County should not be manage an airport. It should not be in the movie making business (Office of Arts and Film). It should not be helping to sell industrial or residential properties, or listing foreclosed homes. It should not be speculating in business ventures, gambling on what kinds of industries to support with investments or tax breaks, and should not be picking and choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. Oakland County Government should not be running job placement services, or teaching people how to use a computer, or providing charity for veterans.

These are all worthy and noble efforts- but Oakland County Government should not be doing them, private businesses or private charities should, as they are better able to, provide better services, and do so more efficiently.

And Oakland County Government should not be in the business of providing healthcare to citizens. This is important, and one would hope that an employer would provide this to its employees or the healthcare would be priced so that an individual could afford it, but it is not the business of county government to provide these services.

Government should do a few things, and do them well. Government should not try to be all things to all people.

The British PM Gordon Brown, seems to have changed his position on Aid.In a speech on international development he stated that:

Some argue that it is the presence of big international corporations that is the cause of the problems in developing countries, but I disagree. Indeed, I believe it is the absence of business - and not the presence of business - that blights the lives of poor people, leaving them dependent on aid and denying them the opportunity to work, denying them the chance to support their families and denying them the means to ensure their children get the chance to succeed.
Economic growth alone has lifted more than 500 million people out of poverty over the last 25 years, accounting for over 80 per cent of poverty reduction.
And the countries whose economies are growing fastest, like Rwanda and Ghana represented here today, are those that are making progress on the Millennium Development Goals - with countries whose economies are growing more slowly falling behind.
So we need to fully acknowledge the critical importance of the private sector in driving development - focusing our attention not on an old one-dimensional welfarist approach but on enterprise, on free and fair trade and open markets, and on harnessing the power of innovation -- the building blocks of growth.
Developing countries - including Ghana and Rwanda - are already working hard to put in place the macroeconomic stability, supportive regulatory environment and measures to tackle corruption that are necessary for business and trade to thrive.

He expands on this and urges the strengthening of successful methodologies:

Today we need a new approach --- moving beyond minimum standards, beyond philanthropy and beyond traditional corporate social responsibility - important though they are - to develop long-term business initiatives that mobilise the resources and talents that are the central strengths of global business...From delivering financial services via mobile phones so that millions of people have access to basic bank accounts for the first time; to providing rural farmers with electronic price and weather information so they can decide when best to harvest and sell their crops; to sourcing ingredients from local supply chains to develop the base of the local economy --- each one of these initiatives is providing innovative solutions to the problems we face and spreading enterprise and opportunity across the developing world.

From the CIPE Blog:

In Ghana, rural entrepreneurs are gaining presence as a political constituency...With a greater political voice for rural entrepreneurs, the people in poverty can lead the charge to eradicate poverty.The Private Enterprise Foundation (PEF)has several programs designed to bring rural entrepreneurs into the political process.

• With proper resources and training, farmer-based associations can become an effective voice for rural entrepreneurs.
• Engaging the private sector in the legislative advisory process provides a vital opportunity for dialogue on reform issues with policymakers.
• Private sector associations are important for improving Ghana’s business climate and making the broader business community a part of democratic decision-making.

...[continue reading]

In June 23, 2009 I wrote a post against attempts to regulate smoking, but apparently at that time I did not write a post stating my views on the local Michigan smoking ban. I did call in to some local radio shows then and express my view that the smoking ban would likely lead to less patrons visiting bars and resulting less tax revenue and more unemployment, but most of the radio hosts and other people in the state ignored that sort of advice, and so our Democratic Governor and Democratic Legislature went ahead and passed a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

One year later the results are coming in, and like most attempts by Democrats to govern our society, the result is a society that is less richer, prosperous, and free (and although the data would be hard to come by, I would also contend that since smokers now are forced to smoke in their own homes now, there are more home fires caused by smoking and so more losses of life). And as business has fallen and sales of food and liquor have fallen due to this smoking ban, that has meant less revenue to the state to support police, fire, education, and libraries, all things that liberal Democrats pretend that they support.

From story Bar Owners Plan Smoking Ban Protest -- With Taxes:

...the group Protect Private Property Right in Michigan is proposing some pretty drastic measures to get lawmakers to take a second look at it. They want bar owners to stop paying taxes completely until the smoking issue is brought back up. And some bar owners TV5 spoke with didn't think that’s a bad idea...

“It's hurt us. I don't know anybody in the small bar industry that it's helped,” said (Co-owner of the Red Horse in Saginaw Chris) Adams. Just down the street from the Red Horse, bar owner Jerry Baleck at Patty Flemings feels the same way.


“I’m against it. I think it's private property here, and I should be allowed to say whether I want to smoke or not,” said Baleck.

That’s why a growing number of business owners are taking matters into their own hands. They love their bars and hate the smoking ban law, so some are trying to get Lansing’s attention where it hurts -- right in the wallet. A group of Michigan bar owners said they'll set up private escrow accounts and hold off on paying their taxes. “Maybe they ain't got enough money to pay their taxes in the first place with the smoking ban,” said Baleck.

“If we're not making money, why should we give them money?” said Adams. At least 200 bar owners have pledged to stop paying their taxes. It's a drastic step and owners TV5’s Liz Gelardi spoke with aren't sure if they're ready to go that far. “I don't know. I’d have to know the ins and outs and know all the particulars before I would jump in and do something so drastic,” said Adams. “But yeah, I probably will consider it.”

“Are you going to keep paying your taxes?” Gelardi asked Baleck. “Well, yeah, [I] don’t need no tax problems,” responded Baleck.

“Hopefully we can get more numbers,” said Adams. “Hopefully we can double that, you know, so we can get twice as many people together and make a statement to the state and tell them we're tired of being pushed around.”

On one hand, you have someone who provides a service to society (a restaurant or bar where people can smoke) that people freely engage in and harms no one except others who freely choose to go to those bars and restaurants. This person works hard and pays your taxes. On the other hand, you have a government official, usually a Democrat or liberal, who wants to control this person and make him make his bar or restaurant non-smoking so that he can go with his happy rich family and not have smoke in their faces, and so passes a law that results in a society that is less prosperous and free. That's the story of Michigan's smoking ban in a nutshell.

UPDATE: Thank you The Daley Gator for linking to this story!

Until now, I haven't really commented on the FCC's latest ruling granting it control over the internet. For those of you who don't know, last week citizens for the first time got federally approved rules regulating what they view on the Internet. These rules are not based on any sort of constitutional provision and clearly do not fit with our tradition of a limited and defined national government. The new regulations will likely lead to future regulation, control, censorship, and taxes of companies and citizens that use the internet. The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday voted 3-2 (3 Democrat appointments vs 2 Republican appointments) to back (Democrat appointed) Chairman Julius Genachowski's plan for what is commonly known as "net neutrality," or rules prohibiting free companies from deciding how they run their businesses in an environment of competition and openness. Democratic President Barack Obama, in classical double-speak, said that having a limited number of unelected rules control our behaviors in a free society will "help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet."

The move to take freedom and future property from free citizens was prompted by liberal groups that love power and authority over freedom. Recently private companies have begun to experiment with ways to handle the growing problem of network congestion. But the Chairman of the FCC felt that instead of having private industry experiment with the best way to run its business that he wanted to instead control that business, even though he lacks the long record of experience and accumulated wisdom of being in business of all of those trained professionals whose whole life is running internet companies. In politically-appointed Mr. Genachowski's opinion, instead of selectively slowing certain traffic to cope with congestion he thinks providers could consider charging consumers for how much data they consume, but no one was listening to him, so he issued a royal decree to make people listen to him. He doesn't have to live with the consequences of that decision or have thousands of employees salaries be dependent on that position, and is unaccountable to voters, and thus this move marks yet another way that our nation slips into tyranny and oppression.

Our elected branch of officials, who are given the just and moral power to make decisions such as this, decided not to give this power and authority to the FCC. But the FCC didn't like that, and so unjustly and immorally seized this power and authority. A tyranny is marked by such behavior and such decisions. Decisions that were made by Democrat appointments. Vote appropriately next election, and for fun, read this book: Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the FCC and Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm.

Via American Thinker:

President Obama stated in a Presidential Memorandum last month:

the Federal government...has a responsibility to... [r]econnect Americans, especially children, to America's rivers and waterways, landscapes of national significance, ranches, farms and forests, great parks,
and coasts and beaches.

Obama's response to this crisis is to create another of the government programs that seem to be spun out of the White House at a rate of two or three a week. This one is called "America's Great Outdoors Initiative." It calls on no less than three Cabinet Secretaries (Interior, Agriculture and EPA), plus the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality to develop "A 21st Century Strategy for America's Great Outdoors." According to the Memorandum:

The Federal Government, the Nation's largest land manager, has a responsibility to engage with these partners to help develop a conservation agenda worthy of the 21st Century. We must look to the private sector and nonprofit organizations, as well as towns, cities, and States, and the people who live and work in them, to identify the places that mean the most to Americans, and leverage the support of the Federal Government to help these community-driven efforts to succeed. Through these partnerships, we will work to connect these outdoor spaces to each other, and to reconnect Americans to them.

These "public/private partnerships," and "leveraging" mean one thing: the Federal Government is expanding into yet another part of our lives. It's going to cost us some money, but connecting outdoor spaces and reconnecting Americans to them is vital work that can only be done by the Federal Government. As Obama reminded us at his recent speech to the Business Council, "no business, no individual is going to provide [public goods] on their own."

Hmm... perhaps this 'federal responsibility to reconnect America with nature' is somewhere in the list of delegated and lawful powers of the federal government... I'm looking... Article I, Section 8.... don't see it in there. Perhaps the Necessary and Proper clause can be used... is it 'necessary' and 'proper' for the national government to have the power to 'reconnect America with nature' in order to exercise the power of... regulating interstate commerce... promoting science... establishing post offices... probably it is part of the general welfare clause....

Or perhaps it doesn't matter if this is a lawful power of the federal government, because President Obama believes in rule of men, not rule of laws, and decided to operate our federal government in an unlawful manner fitting of tyrants and dictators. Perhaps it doesn't even matter anymore what is delegated and proper and constitutional, because we now live in a tyranny where power over others is exercised by those who have political connections (public-private partnerships or individuals leveraging the power of the federal government).

Personally, I don't know what the heck President Obarfo is talking about- I'm not disconnected with nature at all- I fish, I hunt, I go outside, my five kids go outside, and I even take my dog for a walk every day, and I live in an apartment in the middle of the city! Leverage the power of the state all you want, Obarfo, but the only way I can spend more time connecting with nature is if you follow through on your plans to destroy all energy production in this country and tax and regulate me out of a job.

Happy Lenin’s Birthday! Oh, is it just a coincidence that Earth Day is the same day as former Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin's birthday? I don’t think so. Earth Day arrives on the exact same day as Lenin’s Birthday. In fact, the very first Earth day celebrations took place exactly on the 100 year anniversary of Comrade Lenin’s birthday. Many former communists saw Earth Day, with its goals and interests, as being very similar to the goals and interests of the great communist Lenin. So, are you convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot, or do you need more evidence?

The group that founded Earth Day was a group called Friends of the Earth. This group also promotes socialism- just as strongly as it does environmentalism. Some of its stated goals are economic redistribution of wealth, government regulation of nearly all aspects of peoples' lives, communal land ownership, and control of production in the hands of the masses. According to its website, its main bogeymen are: “evil” corporations (especially the Fortune 500 companies,) Big Oil, Wall Street, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and (naturally) George Bush. It is not far-fetched to think that by promoting and celebrating Earth Day, perhaps some of the other aims of Friends of the Earth will be advanced. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

The symbol of the first Earth Day is a circle with a broken cross, with the bars pointing downward. It is a New Age symbol meaning the rejection of Christianity. The goal was to replace the worship of the Christian religion with the worship of Mother Earth. Communist ideology demand you worship the state and not a Christian god, and so communists frequently also attack the church. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

According to some, the goal of Earth Day is to push for: Total state control of society, especially businesses and industry (to help the environment, I guess), recognition of the sacred nature of Mother Earth, including an almost reverent worship of anything ‘green’ (to help the environment, I guess), the use of force to change people’s behavior (to help the environment, I guess), and stopping or slowing ‘development’ or ‘progress’, to return to a utopian world of equality (to help the environment, I guess). Sounds pretty communist to me- and not the version of communism that naive college students practice- no, this stuff is right out of the Soviet Union. But you say you are still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Here are some of the goals, issues, and beliefs on http://www.earthday.net/- the official Earth Day website. Those who most support Earth Day want you to “Join the Revolution” and pass laws that give more power to the government in order to ‘stop global warming’, stop building any new energy producing plants of any kind, and “Protect the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of climate crisis” by increasing taxes on the rich and redistributing that money to the poor and middle class. Also you are encouraged to unite all religions in the name of global warming and teach children in schools less about rights and more about the environment. Somehow fighting poverty is also central to Earth Day. You're still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? You're kidding me! You need more evidence?

As a teacher, I looked for resources out there for teachers to teach about Earth Day. One of the first searches turned up a group called The Wilderness Society. Here are some of the resources that they provide to teachers and that teachers use in the classroom to teach about Earth Day- they provide a coloring book for 3rd graders with the theme of “Stop drilling in ANWR”, a timeline that 7th graders can construct of all the laws controlling society and business that government passed to see the “progress” of government in 'fighting' global warming, and they publish stories to read about ‘environmental heroes’- also (coincidentally) all good revolutionary communists- that 10th grade English classes can read. Sounds pretty communist to me!

Of course, the official government version of Earth Day is a bit different. According to the EPA website (under President Bush), Earth Day was more about celebrating the gains we have made in protecting the environment, achieving meaningful results in protecting the environment, encouraging volunteer efforts to save energy, reduce or recycle, and educate yourself to be more friendly to the environment, and taking pride in America by maintaining our public lands. This is the official version, and what most people think they are observing. But that's like saying that Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus and is all about Santa- you can't separate Earth Day from its founding and biggest promoters, and all of those clearly are communicating that Earth Day is a big communist plot, and don't kid yourself otherwise.

Oh, I just took a peak over at the new EPA website, where there is a video from a speech by Obama's choice for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, in which she promises to have the government seize control over production and private business in our nation in order to build a more fair and equal centrally planned green economy. Apparently she wants to make Earth Day into Earth Month, and then Earth Year, and then you can spend every waking moment worshipping the state and giving all of the political and economic power to the state in order to 'protect the Earth.' What a watermelon- green on the outside, but red in the middle! Looks like Obama is unaware that Earth Day is a communist plot- or is he?

Happy Lenin's Birthday everyone!

The dwindling funding for Tertiary Education in Sub-Saharan Africa has reached crisis proportions .The challenge is for institutions to formulate alternative sources of income so as to reduce their almost complete reliance on state funding. Makere University's successful Private Students Scheme implemented is an example of one such creative partial solution.M. K. Mayanja wrote:
"...Makerere University formulated its first strategic plan (1996-–2000) to promote this new entrepreneurial approach and adjust its administrative design to enhance the innovative process. The admission of private students, which started in a tentative way, was followed by initiatives such as the introduction of the semester system and an updated curriculum to make courses more marketable. Other changes included the decentralization of authority—including the area of finance...The private students scheme has regenerated Makerere University in record time about 10 years. In order for this process to continue, the university should move quickly to implement the new Universities and Tertiary Education Act, which enhances its autonomy and puts it in control of its own affairs. Furthermore, the university as a whole and the schools, institutes, colleges need to become more cost conscious and adopt a business planning approach in course design and determining fees...",Boston College.

The Economic Commission for Africa reports "...The private sector only gets a brief mention in the Millennium Development Goals. Yet it is business – entrepreneurs, employers, investors and workers – who are best positioned to help Africa achieve the Goals...One area where private sector intervention could really make a difference is boosting the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as proposed in Goal 8...ICTs are crucial for developing countries. They help reduce costs, improve productivity and increase access to domestic and international markets, thus contributing to economic growth and competition in the global economy...It’s indisputable that the private sector has played a major role in the evolution of ICTs, particularly in the mushrooming mobile phone networks. Nigeria has the world’s fastest growing mobile market, increasing by about 143 percent in 2003. That’s the kind of growth that will bring the MDGs within reach...So why is Africa finding it hard to achieve the necessary growth rates? Tariff barriers and border restrictions, heavy and indiscriminate taxation, complex, time-consuming regulations and bureaucracy have all played a part.Vigorous entrepreneurship can be seen in the informal sector all over the continent but these constraints, as well as disincentives discouraging investors, prevent small operators from thriving and expanding their businesses to become energetic - small and medium-sized enterprises and the engine of African growth.Africa does not just need growth per-se, but specifically growth in labour-intensive sectors that leads to job creation and wage improvement. This link is vital because the fastest exit from poverty is through employment and higher salaries..."

The aims of the Private Sector Foundation Uganda, are "...To promote private sector influence for business growth and competitiveness through policy advocacy and capacity building in a sustainable manner...To strengthen private sector capacity for effective policy advocacy and market competitiveness..."