Starting Somewhere

CRDaily
One example of a job-killer

One example of a job-killer

WHEREAS:  The University of North Carolina system is already a system of socialized education, Students with children are presumably pursuing education in order to sustain their families, and $10/student of welfare now in form of socialized child care might mean less welfare later should childcare costs force some students to drop out . . .

. . . I think that $10 isn’t really a big deal.  If students want to pay for other peoples’ childcare, then they can vote to force other people to join in on the fun.  The real trouble lies on the federal level.  Congress and the President are currently stealing the keys to the economy and turning them over to unelected bureaucrats.  These bureaucrats send “mexed missages,” as former President Bush put it, on what the private sector can expect the next major government action to be.

These mixed messages send private capital into hiding.  Private capital can read the markets to a certain extent, but not the whims of clueless senators and congressmen.

Each hour, the federal government forces workers to pay the IRS the dollar equivalent of between 10 and 25 minutes’ worth of productivity.  Much of the revenue collected from these taxes is lost in bureaucracy, and much of the money that is actually spent goes towards creating economic inefficiencies via increased government interference in price signals.  Subsidies for inefficient technology, de-facto excise taxes on domestic automobiles (via CAFE standards), and socialized health insurance for people who already have good insurance – these are all products of left-leaning politicians’ insatiable desire to get the government involved in everything.

Each of these inefficiencies has a special-interest group lobbying senators and congressmen to give them special treatment and to shut out the competition.  Unions often push for tariffs that help their workers at enormous cost to society as a whole.  But special interest groups get their way in Washington, and they will as long the federal government has the broad authority that it has created for itself over the years.

I envision lightweight government welfare programs that rely on tax-deductible vouchers for most and time-capped subsidies for those who really need help.

My road to a capitalistic society includes the elements of the European model that have been most successful, such school vouchers and privatized airports.  I’ll eliminates deadbeat federal agencies like FEMA (the ineffective monster that bought thousands of trailers filled with formaldehyde) and leave emergency management to state National Guard commands.  I’ll push against special interest like teachers’ unions who seek to deny school choice to poor, inner-city kids so that a few teachers can keep public-school jobs.

We can achieve full (~ 96% +) employment, a more stable money supply, reduced poverty and higher standards of living.  We can achieve retirement security for workers.  But because government messed things up along the way to this stable society, we’ll need to lend a helping hand to those who government shut out when it stood athwart progress.  We can help those cast aside by government in such a way that they are not dependent on the government forever.  This kind of help will face opposition from those who (seemingly) want to keep people poor in order to keep the poor as a voting block.

States and municipalities can run the competition-based welfare programs that will accompany us on our transition to a society where welfare won’t be needed as much because we’ll all be more prosperous.  I like keeping things local.  Just don’t ask me to buy from your local farmer – I’d rather support the much-poorer workers in Mexico.  That’s more efficient.

What was truly unique about America was our limited government.  It was limited because when do-gooders are severely restricted, they are unable to accidentally destroy the economy or implement policies that accidentally kill jobs, punish productivity, or hurt workers.

When Republicans hold the majority, they overspend.  When Democrats are in office, they overspend and create idiotic protectionist trade policies.  Both parties (though mostly Democrats) implement policies that badly distort price signals, decreasing economic efficiency.  Both parties will do this until the end of time – it’s the nature of politics.  So, here’s the key:  reduce the power and influence of the federal government.

Specifically, federal legislators should phase out all laws that don’t have everything to do with keeping commerce regular between the states (almost all inefficiency-creating bills – which includes almost all bills passed by Congress recently – are justified under the Interstate Commerce Clause).

Let’s focus our energies on developing the leaders that will effect the change we need – that is, a shift toward economic freedom and efficiency.

3 thoughts on “Starting Somewhere

  1. Your breakdown of Republicans overspending and Democrats in turn overspending and then creating “idiotic” protectionist policies is close. However, the most recent attempt by the Federal government (stimulus) to overstep its bounds, and constitutional authority, is best explained as a reaction to Reagan’s successful strategy of a budget deficit. Reagan left a budget deficit to prevent Democrats from expanding the federal government; now Obama has done the opposite and has in fact expanded the federal government, which will require significant tax increases to fund its operations.

    A side note; how do you figure we can secure retirement for citizens upon reaching full employment? Social Security Administration is reaching a deficit in 2017 at the latest, and reforms for privatization are impossible in the near future with the Democratic majority in Congress?

  2. “is best explained as a reaction to Reagan’s successful strategy of a budget deficit. Reagan left a budget deficit to prevent Democrats from expanding the federal government; now Obama has done the opposite and has in fact expanded the federal government, which will require significant tax increases to fund its operations.”

    Right, because the government has the same permanent-income requirements that the private economy does if it is truly going to patch this “aggregate demand hole” of $1 trillion (calculated by the Obama team using very, very rough numbers). In order for production to ramp up and not just drop off again, tax increases will be needed to sustain the spending; we cannot suck the economy dry of private capital or inflate our way to prosperity. I suppose you’d have to believe in the Keynesian multiplier effect, too… and the idea that govn’t spending is more efficient that private spending.

    Remember also that Reagan engaged in deficit spending in a legitimate area of government that produced a very high rate of return and that was just about as close to efficient use of public money as one can get: military production spending.

    On social security: I have yet to concoct a class-A plan. I will say that the new system must be de-socialized and centered around individuals. This is necessary in order to avoid the demographics problem we currently face and the fact that if government controls the system, they will likely overspend on a per-retiree basis. To soften the landing of the current system, people must get out only what they put in plus interest (i.e., returns must be similar to what one would achieve in the private market, and not several times greater). We have to stop accepting people into the program, because we’re fighting a losing battle against demographics. Our irresponsible predecessors have, it may turn out, committed us to budget-based spending to pay retirees.

  3. “Right, because the government has the same permanent-income requirements that the private economy does if it is truly going to patch this “aggregate demand hole” of $1 trillion (calculated by the Obama team using very, very rough numbers). In order for production to ramp up and not just drop off again, tax increases will be needed to sustain the spending;”

    Exactly; this is a cyclical Republican vs. Democrat response strategy where Republicans ensure smaller government by creating the deficit and Democrats respond by raising taxes. Don’t you understand this $2.4 trillion deficit (the real figure after interest) was deliberately created by Obama so that he can cut it in half? After he cuts it in half he’s achieved two priorities: 1. Raised taxes and redistributed wealth 2. Created and solved his own chaos that appears to be a solution to our economic problem. Also, are you trying to make a comparison to the war in Afghanistan/Iraq with the Cold War? The increase in military spending was a direct strategy of perception and attempt to flex at our soviet opponents not an ingenious idea of where to put our tax money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s