Blogs For Victory

Then follow along with Obamunism…which is just warmed-over New Dealism:

If anyone in Washington were to be so wacky as to seek to extend the pain of a recession, what course would they follow? On Page 26 of “America’s Great Depression,” Rothbard presents that very catalog of idiocy.

“Here are the ways the adjustment process can be hobbled:” he writes.

“1) Prevent or delay liquidation. Lend money to shaky businesses, call on banks to lend further, etc.

“2) Inflate further. Further inflation blocks the necessary fall in prices, thus delaying adjustment and prolonging depression. Further credit expansion creates more malinvestments, which, in their turn, will have to be liquidated in some later depression. A government ‘easy money’ policy prevents the market’s return to the necessary higher interest rates.

“3) Keep wage rates up. Artificial maintenance of wage rates in a depression ensures permanent mass unemployment. Furthermore, in a deflation, when prices are falling, keeping the same rate of money wages means that real wage rates have been pushed higher. In the face of falling business demand, this greatly aggravates the unemployment problem.”

In addition to “minimum wage laws,” don’t we now have “living wage” ordinances, “project labor agreements,” and, for our unionized government employees, “automatic step and seniority raises” in addition to cost-of-living adjustments that boost the pay of government employees as well as welfare recipients … even when the cost of living is falling?

“4) Keep prices up,” Rothbard continues, cataloguing precisely the wrong things to do if you want a recession to end. “Keeping prices above their free-market levels will create unsalable surpluses, and prevent a return to prosperity.

“5) Stimulate consumption and discourage saving. We have seen that more saving and less consumption would speed recovery; more consumption and less saving aggravate the shortage of saved-capital even further. Government can encourage consumption by ‘food stamp plans’ and relief payments.”

Note that “America’s Great Depression” was published in 1963. How’s Rothbard doing at predicting Obamanomics, so far? (About the only thing he seems to have missed are “Cash for Clunkers” and the fledgling “green jobs” boondoggle.)

Government “can discourage savings and investment by higher taxes,” Rothbard continues, “particularly on the wealthy and on corporations and estates. As a matter of fact, any increase of taxes and government spending will discourage saving and investment and stimulate consumption, since government spending is all consumption. …

“6) Subsidize unemployment: Any subsidization of unemployment (via unemployment ‘insurance,’ relief, etc.) will prolong unemployment indefinitely, and delay the shift of workers to the fields where jobs are available.”

We got in to this mess because of massive government interference in the market – by direct subsidy of failure, or by setting up the regulatory system in favor of a few, large corporations with strong political connections. We can’t get out of this mess by the same means – in other words, what government corruptly created, government cannot corruptly cure.

There is, though, a government effort to be made, here: we can eliminate taxes and regulations which hamper new start ups or the expansion of existing firms…especially in mining, farming and manufacturing; we can provide credit for people who are willing to put their own sweat equity in to such start ups; we can allow the “too big to fail” concerns to fail, as they deserve; and if anyone really has a hankering after government spending, then we can use it to do things like finance the building of high speed rail, improvement of ports and other such hard infrastructure programs which are not bridges to nowhere of Congressional pork. Finally, and most importantly, the government can balance the budget – regardless of how much alleged pain it costs: we cannot afford any longer to steal from the future to buy votes in the present.

Our economy is not the failure of the free market – its the failure of a Big Government which has interfered in one stupid way after another…which has injected purely political considerations in to areas where economics and/or morality are supposed to rule. Government’s job is to protect us from invaders, defend us from domestic criminals and ensure that each American gets a fair shake – anything out side those areas is fraught with risk and should be avoided. If it is felt to be unavoidable, then when government does go in to matters of economics or morality, it should farm out the execution of the effort to private entities (so, government paid health care should be handled by charity hospitals; government aid to education should go directly to parents and students to spend as they see fit; etc, etc, etc).

We can keep at this, and continue to flounder, or we can change course – and become prosperous, again.

A word of warning about socialism:

Yet let no one think that all the socialist groups or factions that are not communist have, without exception, recovered their senses to this extent either in fact or in name. For the most part they do not reject the class struggle or the abolition of ownership, but only in some degree modify them. Now if these false principles are modified and to some extent erased from the program, the question arises, or rather is raised without warrant by some, whether the principles of Christian truth cannot perhaps be also modified to some degree and be tempered so as to meet Socialism half-way and, as it were, by a middle course, come to agreement with it. There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity. – Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno

But don’t get too cocky, Capitalists – while making money is fine, you have a moral obligation to (a) make it by licit actions (so, no, its not ok to invest in pornography and abortion mills) and (b) share your surplus with those who have less (for the super rich, this might mean a mere million dollar yacht, rather than the ten million dollar one..and you give the rest away; you get the picture).

After this battle:

It began before dawn — a devastating, well-planned attack. About 300 insurgents swarmed out of a village and mosque and attacked a pair of isolated American outposts in a remote mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan with machineguns, rockets and grenades.

They first stormed the Afghan police post at the foot of the hill in the province of Nuristan, a Taleban and al-Qaeda stronghold on the lawless Pakistan border. They then swept up to the Nato post. The battle lasted all day. American and Afghan soldiers finally repelled them, with the help of US helicopters and warplanes — but at heavy cost.

Eight American soldiers and two Afghan policemen were killed, with many injured. It was the worst attack on Nato forces in 14 months, and one of the deadliest battles of the eight-year war. The insurgents seized at least 20 Afghan policemen whose fate last night remained unclear.

In this type of warfare, it becomes a test of will. The enemy likely knows at least some of our hesitancy regarding the future of Afghanistan. Given that everyone on earth has learned the lesson of Vietnam – America can only be defeated in Congress and the White House – what the enemy is doing is upping the ante. They are expending lives and resources on a lavish scale in a strategy designed to make Obama unwilling to risk political capital on further escalation – and thus set the stage for our withdrawal.

The only way we can now win this war in Afghanistan is to send sufficient forces to demonstrate to the enemy that their current expenditure of blood and material has only resulted in more Americans to fight than before. There is nothing quite so disheartening than to fight your hardest and only come out worse off than when you went in. Additionally, a vigorous counter-offensive will show the Afghan people that we simply will not quit – and it is this conviction, once placed in them, which will lead to some Afghan version of the “Anbar Awakening” which crippled the terrorists in Iraq.

If we do something other than strongly reinforce, then we risk ultimate defeat – defeat in little driblets as more Americans and NATO forces die; more Afghans conclude that we’re the losers; more hedging and weakness by an Administration which fears to lose but lacks courage to win. The hardest part is the first part – making the decision to fight. I’m sure it tortured President Bush when he considered that after years in Iraq the only way out was to send more and have more people die in the short term…but, he did it; and victory was our reward. This will not be an easy decision for Obama – no decision which will result in certain death for some can be, and I pray I’m never in such a position – but it is a decision he must make. And he must make it now.

“Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent but by compulsion, when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing, when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods but in favors, when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you, when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice, you may know that your society is doomed.”

– Francisco d’Anconia
“Atlas Shrugged” 1957,
by Ayn Rand
via Capitalism

In the matter of ACORN, and other things:

Evidence continues to accumulate from far and wide that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is lousy with corruption. The latest revelations come from Louisiana and Oklahoma. In the former, the local ACORN Housing Corp. office received contracts worth a combined $625,000 from the City of New Orleans for repairing existing low-income housing and developing new units in poor neighborhoods. The contracts were paid for with funds from federal Community Development Block Grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. An investigation by the Pelican Institute think tank of New Orleans, however, found that no work was actually performed to fulfill the contracts…

…Meanwhile, in Oklahoma City, documents found in a recently vacated ACORN office included a detailed memo titled “Power Plan” for a five-year effort to elect supportive legislators and transform Oklahoma to a progressive state “in the way it was 100 years ago.” The man in charge of the office left town without paying back rent or utility bills, according to OklahmaWatchdog.org. Also found in the documents was a script for a Houston ACORN-directed recruiting campaign for “hiring Outreach Workers to remind people to get out and vote for Barack Obama in the upcoming election.” As a tax-exempt nonprofit, ACORN is barred from participating in partisan election activities…

A Congress which had any respect for law; any sense of morality; any understanding that they government only with our consent would be on this issue with furious resolution. But, of course, our Congress is mostly silent on it – likely because they know that very large numbers of prominent Democrats and associated leftists are hip deep in ACORN. Start a real investigation, and a lot of people are going to go to jail…and it will be very hard to find a Republican or a conservative among the guilty (though I’m sure the Democrats, if pressed to it, would dig up at least one…so they can call it a “bi-partisan” scandal).

What we have to watch out for are Democrat attempts to white wash the issue – cut off some funding, hold a couple friendly hearings, throw one or two ACORN-ites to the wolves and call the issue solved. But ACORN is just the tip of the iceberg – this sort of corruption we’ve seen is endemic on the Democrat side of the aisle. Corrupted by money – and now by money and power – the Democrat left has succumbed to an amorality in government not seen since “robber barons” bought and sold legislators in the 19th century.

We have to really hammer this stuff – because until we do, Democrat rank-and-file people will just continue to put up with it. To this point, no Democrat has ever been forced to resign due to corruption, in and of itself. All the few resignations which have happened have all been the result of party bigwigs forcing out a man who might lose an election…as long as your seat isn’t at risk, Democrats simply will not call you to account. Contrast this with how fast we bounced Foley once it was discovered he had written some dirty e mails. Neither side is innocent: but only one side has been held to account.

For the sake of our country – and, even, for the sake of the Democrat party – we need to hold the left responsible for the rampant corruption. This Congress won’t do it – perhaps the next one will.

Mark Steyn states:

..After pleading guilty, the non-non-rape-rapist skipped to Paris and took up with Nastassja Kinski, who was then 15, which in Polanski years puts her up there with Barbara Bush…

Remember what Polanski did: he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in his home. I don’t know about you, but 13 year old girls don’t just show up at my house – and I’ll bet they don’t just show up at Polanski’s, either. He had to go get the girl, or have her brought to him. He had to have on hand, prior to the girl arriving, the supply of drugs necessary to incapacitate her. And then he raped her. Doesn’t this strike everyone as precisely the way all the other child molesters out there operate? Plan it out, grab the victim, do the deed.

I don’t have proof on the Kinski story, but Steyn is very reliable in his assertions, so I have no particular reason to doubt it. And it fits a pattern – Polanski’s apparent pattern taking off after young girls. It has been my understanding, as I’ve watched the parade of perverts over the past few decades, that the child molesters don’t do it just once, unless they are fortuitously captured right after the first event. Most of the time, there is a long trail of violated children – and all too often a trail lengthened when the criminals are let out: even after jail time, they simply aren’t deterred from going where their inhuman lusts lead them. Are we, with this experience, to assume that Polanski only did it this one time?

It stretches credibility to think so. It would have been different if, at one of the orgies of depravity current in Hollywood in the 70’s, Polanski had just happened to wind up in bed with a young girl. It still would have been horrific, but it wouldn’t have been pre-meditated…it wouldn’t have been an indication that Polanski has a serious problem with identifying what sort of people he’s supposed to have sexual attraction for. Polanski did this after careful planning – and then fled the country rather than face the music. Since then, he’s been protected by various government authorities against being returned to the United States. Is that all they protected him from?

It is known these days that rich men go on “sexual tourism” – trips to places where they can obtain a wide variety of sexual experiences…including sex with children, if they are so inclined. We can use the Polanski case to open up a full investigation in to this – first to see if Polanski was doing anything of the sort, secondly to expose the whole, nauseating practice and bring the “customers” in the ranks of the rich to justice. Some times, an accident exposes a long-standing injustice – Polanski’s arrest is just that, and we must press the matter.

Pajamas TV has the story on video here.

By using legislative sleight of hand – attaching the Senate’s Obamacare bill to an entirely un-related House bill as an amendment. As usual, trying to prevent the American people from actually reading the bill before it comes to a vote.

Why are they doing it this way? In order to get Obamacare through (placate the kook left base) while maintaining electoral viability (“I didn’t vote in favor of Obamacare, I just voted on a procedural issue.”).

The Democrats ran on this in 2006 – and turn about might be very fair play for the GOP in 2010:

For nearly two years, economic issues have held the top spot in terms of importance among voters

But the latest national telephone survey shows that 83% now view government ethics and corruption as very important, placing it just ahead of the economy on a list of 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. Eighty-two percent (82%) of voters see the economy as very important.

Back in 2006, the Democrats were being absurd – while there was corruption in the GOP, it was nothing compared to the Democrats’ corruption while they were the minority party. As Matt and I detailed in Caucus of Corruption, Democrats make corruption par for the course in their actions – this is different from the GOP which just has the more normal run of moral failures common to any group of human beings. One example from Caucus will suffice: Nancy Pelosi was fined early on in her political career for failure to report an in-kind donation – the fine was far less than the benefit received. Lesson learned: its ok to cheat, because the benefit outweighs the cost…and thus it was perfectly natural for Nancy to break campaign finance laws to purchase House Democrat support for her elevation to then-Minority Leader. This means, of course, that we have Speaker Pelosi because she illegally bribed members of her own party for her position…and there’s not a Democrat out there who will even mention this fact.

Because Democrats use corruption as a matter of course, it stands to reason that once in power, they’d just go even more wild with it than they did as the “out” party. And so they have – with people like Jack Murtha, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and many others breaking laws faster than people can count. And now its looming as an issue – likely because of Breibart’s expose’ of ACORN. For the past few years, ACORN and the Democrats have been identified in the public mind – especially with ACORN-in-Chief sitting in the Oval Office (when he’s not busy begging foreigners for favors in Copenhagen). The nauseating stew has been made, and now the Democrats are going to have to eat it.

As an aside, this will only work well, in the long run, for the American people if we GOPers become pretty darn good in such matters – and thus people like John Ensign (a man I’ve voted for three times) should step down…as should any other GOPer out there under such a serious moral cloud for actions while in office. Perfection is not possible, but we can certainly be better – and just being a bit better than the Democrats is too low a bar.

Another Friday passes, another set of banks fail:

Regulators have shut Warren Bank in Warren, Mich., and two small banks in Colorado and Minnesota, boosting the number of failed U.S. banks this year to 98 as loan defaults rise in the worst financial climate in decades.

What will it be by the end of the year? 120? 130? Back in 2007, it was 3 for the whole year.

Yep, plenty of green shoots out there…

Isn’t working out too well – from an NRO reader:

There’s actually something worrisome about this whole Chicago fiasco, and it goes back to President Obama’s inexperience. Diplomacy 101 tells us that your head of state only shows up on the high-profile stage when a deal is complete. The lesson that most politicians learn well before they gain positions of power is that diplomacy is done by diplomats, professionals who work through all the negotiations and the hardball tactics and the carrot/stick combinations. The principals in the matter gather to discuss high-level topics and to smile for the cameras as the agreement is being signed. Heads of state do not conduct diplomacy, they ratify it, and surprises are entirely unwelcome at those summits and signing events…

I could not have said be better, myself – the failure in Copenhagen is bad enough, but the worst aspect of it is the clear fact that Obama hadn’t done any advance work on it. He was counting on his prestige as The One to carry it off. Is Obama also counting on this to untie the knots vis a vis Iran? If he is, we’re in for a bad time.