Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Election 2014, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Health Care, National Security, Regulation, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Big-Tent Conservatism, Free Markets / Free People, United We Stand
[American Elephant adds: While I wrote the paragraph quoted from our "About" page, I did not write this post and do not agree with the insulting characterization of the Tea Party.]
If you have ever clicked on the “ABOUT” line in the sidebar, it says :
American Elephants is the internet home of big-tent conservatism — black, white, brown, gay, straight, Christian, Jew or Hindu — it takes elephants of all persuasions, united, to beat back the liberal clowns and lead the circus of politics. So, ladies and gentlemen! Children of all ages! Step right up and come on in under the Big Top!
I have no story about my magical conversion from a youthful romance with the Democratic party, I have always been a Republican. In fact, I’m a 4th generation Republican, one of my great-grandfathers wrote around 1860 that he “was a quiet but interested member of the Republican Party.”
“Republican” is a term in current disfavor, Liberals have gone to great lengths to call us racist, bigots, mean, uncaring, racists, and now “conservative” is the preferred term. My party registration remains the same. The “Big Tent” part has lapsed into disfavor among many Republicans as the Tea Party people are furious with the Republicans in Congress because they haven’t taken down the Democrats, impeached the president, and denied funding to ObamaCare. Business interests are furious with the Tea Party because of their encouragement for shutting down the government, and opposition to increased immigration. Libertarians keep complaining about the regulatory state, and want more conversation about liberty — personal and economic. Republicans disagree about a lot of things, but they also agree about most of the really important ones.
Democrats apparently agree about everything, They even agree in exactly the same words, so one must assume that “the words” are passed down from a particular source, probably the Center for American Progress, the home of those who now want to be called ‘progressives’ instead of ‘liberals’ because ‘liberal’ has become somewhat out-of-favor word. Since they are well-informed by the left-wing media, they scrupulously avoid anything that might question their certainties, which makes it hard to find ways to compromise with opponents.
There is a lot on which Republicans agree. Free markets, free people, respect for the Constitution, support for the military, small government, avoiding over-regulation, low taxes, balanced budgets, fiscal conservatism — a very partial list. But some are neglecting what is meant by a big tent. The Founding Fathers put together a government where the process was meant to be slow so that all sides could be heard and disagreements fully aired. Individuals have their own opinions. Expecting everyone else to agree, or attempting to drum out of the party those who do not agree is a recipe for disaster. Concentrate on the areas of agreement, and support those who agree most of the time.
I agree with the Tea Party. I think the Obama administration is the most incompetent and corrupt administration that we have ever had. I agree with the Libertarians that big government and the administrative state are way out of control, and that Americans are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs without government interference. I agree with business that over-regulation and uncertainty are devastating to business; and if we want a recovery we need to remove the barriers we put in the way of business. There is no reason in the world why America should have the world’s highest corporate tax. Corporations don’t pay taxes, they pass them through to consumers in the price of their goods. No candidate is going to be perfect. We are human, a quarrelsome, flawed species, and we are not going to agree on everything. Don’t expect perfection. If we are going to win, we need everybody in the big tent.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Freedom, Law, Politics, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: Democrat Control Freaks, Free Markets / Free People, Unchanging Upward Mobility
The upward path of income mobility is not always smooth, and not always easy, but for anyone who is determined, it has changed little in the last 50 years. You may get lots of help or have to do it all on your own, but the path is there and open. Freedom is the key.
This year Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “War on Poverty” is fifty years old, and a failure. Unlike today’s Democrats, Johnson was quite explicit on what he intended. The purpose of the “war on poverty” was to make “taxpayers out of taxeaters,” and the slogan was “Give a hand up, not a handout.” He declared “The days of the dole in our country are numbered.” 50 years and trillions of dollars later, there is more dependency than ever. Ironically, dependence on government had been declining since 1960 and was only half of what it had been in 1950. It started up again with the War on Poverty.
In the State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama is expected to make income inequality— as measured by the Census Bureau— the centerpiece of his speech. He is unlikely to mention that income inequality has increased more on his watch than it did under any of the three previous presidents. The policies that he is pushing have provided few benefits to those they are supposed to help. Redistribution, raising taxes on the rich would seem like it would help, but Clinton raised taxes and inequality went up. Bush cut taxes and inequality was unchanged during his term in office.
Raising the minimum wage is popular with those who believe that the minimum wage is just not enough to support a family — but that’s not what the minimum wage is supposed to do. It is supposed to be a beginner wage where inexperienced people can learn how to work. It is often called an Unemployment Act for young people — who are usually the ones who get minimum wage jobs. It does not reduce inequality. The minimum wage climbed 21% under Clinton, and inequality also climbed. The unemployment rate among black youth is a disgraceful 60%.
Obama has proposed setting up “Promise Zones” in economically distressed areas that will get federal help and some tax breaks. This is not new, but a variation on the enterprise zone program which had no effect on job or business creation. Obama’s favorite is college aid, but federal aid has exploded in recent years, and encourages increases in tuition. Business wants more immigration, but increased numbers are not good for those struggling at the bottom. The CBO found that the Senate immigration bill would depress the overall average wage for the first ten years.
If there is one thing that most defines the Obama administration, it is the push for control. New regulations are pictured by the large stacks of paper that represent new pages in the Federal Register. The most obvious difference between Democrats and Republicans is the degree of control imposed on ordinary Americans. Republicans believe firmly in free people and free markets. They assume that ordinary people are mostly perfectly capable of managing their own affairs.
Democrats believe that people need to be managed. It’s more that they believe that the wise people who work in government are much more capable of doing the right thing, and telling others what to do. Ordinary people cling to their bibles and guns (yes he actually said that), and need regulating. It can be called the totalitarian impulse. It begins with banning Big Gulp drinks, banning trans-fats, banning incandescent lightbulbs, and extends to managing your health care, your communication, and soon to extend to managing the energy you use. Progressives believe that the world can be improved if they just control every aspect of your life. It’s not meant to be really noticeable. A ban on plastic bags here, a fee to visit a park, you cannot see your usual doctor — he’s not on the list, The little annoyances mount up until one day you wake up and realize just how intrusive the government has become.
Upward mobility is still there. The one thing you need to remember when presented with scary statistics about unemployment, inequality or economic mobility is that these are not the same people over time.
“Income inequality” sounds bad, but how do you make people equal? And is that a good thing? I don’t think so. The control freaks in government decided that we should not have electricity produced by coal-fired power plants. That has added thousands of people to the unemployment rolls. The government has invested millions in favored businesses like solar panels and wind farms, and the few that have not faced bankruptcy have only raised the cost of our energy. Government efforts to pick winners and losers result in failure. The American people are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs without government help. If the government would just stop “helping”, things might turn around.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Freedom, Politics, Regulation, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Economic Freedom, Free Markets / Free People, The Business Roundtable
Randal Stephenson is chairman and CEO of AT&T Inc, and the new chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies. He wrote, in the Wall Street Journal today:
No matter the topic, the debate in Washington often comes down to whether we need more government funding for social programs or less spending to reduce the debt we leave our children. But this win-lose framing completely misses the one thing required to achieve both objectives: robust economic growth.
The simple fact is that if we want to control the deficit, preserve key entitlement programs, educate our children, grow jobs, and offer upward economic mobility for everyone, we have to get our economy growing faster.
To that end, the Business Roundtable, whose member companies generate annual revenues of more than $7 trillion while employing 16 million workers, is embracing an agenda for 2014 centered on one thing—encouraging public policies that will return the U.S. to its full growth potential.
We need four basic elements, he says: Fiscal stability. Stop stumbling from one fiscal crisis to another. Uncertainty. Nobody can plan. Will U.S. default on its debt? Interest rates? Budget deal is a step in the right direction. Other three elements are 1) Tax reform. 2) Expanded trade. 3) Immigration reform.
A study in American Economic Review shows that a one-percentage point decrease in the average corporate tax rate would result in an increase in real U.S. GDP of between 0.4% — 0.6% within one year.
Today, one our of every five U.S. jobs is supported by international trade. NAFTA has been a dramatic success in our hemisphere.
They support immigration reform with a larger pool of visas for high-skilled workers, and new visa system for lower-skilled workers. I’ll go for that when a goodly percentage of the 91 million workers who have dropped out of the labor participation force. find work. These are people in the working age group, not retired or disabled, but simply working age people who have given up. They do not count as “unemployed” and receive no unemployment compensation.
The “shortage” of people trained in science, technology, engineering and math is largely a myth, and there are far more graduates than openings. I have read that business is reluctant to hire people who have been out of work for some time, on the assumption that if they were qualified they would not be unemployed. This may be true.
Business has little idea how to sort through job applicants, and high-tech companies have devised all sorts of elaborate tests to try to sort out those who will fit in. Anyone who has worked in business has met people who make you wonder how they possibly got hired. Unfortunately they sometimes occupy important positions, but that is true of any large organization, the larger, the worse the problem.
Economic growth is the remedy for poverty, inequality and unemployment. Growth fosters innovation and creativity, and the fuel for economic growth is freedom. Countries that pursue economic freedom get prosperity as a bonus.
According to the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, just released by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, after seven straight years of decline, the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 most economically free countries.
Filed under: Politics, Economy, Freedom, Capitalism, Law, Regulation | Tags: Free Markets / Free People, Federalism: States Rights, Local Control
It is easier to change regulations imposed by a community, a county, or a state than it is to deal with the federal leviathan. Not that it always works, but it is easier to see the results of regulations locally. And if the imposition of regulation is too dire, you can pick up and move to another state where the market and the people are more free.
The free enterprise system is the on-ramp to economic progress and rising incomes. A Heritage Foundation study on economic progress around the globe finds clear and compelling evidence that the poor are always and everywhere better off in those countries that are economically free countries than in nations that are not free. If we judge society by how well it serves the poor, then free enterprise is far and away the greatest anti-poverty program known to man. (Stephen Moore: Who’s The Fairest of Them All )
Filed under: Australia, Canada, Freedom, History, The United States, United Kingdom | Tags: Free Markets / Free People, Individual Liberty, The Anglosphere
In “Inventing Freedom”, Daniel Hannan reflects on the historical origin and spread of the principles that have made America great, and their role in creating a sphere of economic and political liberty that is as crucial as it is imperiled. Hannan argues that the ideas and institutions we consider essential to maintaining and preserving our freedoms — individual rights, private property, the rule of law, and the institutions of representative government — are the legacy of a very specific tradition that was born in England and that we Americans, along with other former British colonies, inherited.
Filed under: Politics, Economy, Conservatism, Energy, Freedom, Taxes, Capitalism | Tags: the American Economy, Free Markets / Free People, Economist John B. Taylor
High unemployment. Business in the doldrums, the recovery that Obama keeps promising remains elusive, in spite of his claims. Many small businesses that are the usual engine of growth are struggling. The elephant remarked yesterday that the only business that seems to be visibly expanding is the gun range.
The business organizations, the Chamber of Commerce and Small Business Association and others readily say that uncertainty is holding them back. To open and run a business is a risk. There are all sorts of uncertainties that affect your bottom line. Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. The actions of this administration have been to increase uncertainty across the board. Will taxes go up? Are energy costs going to rise and by how much? What new regulations are going to be issued? Have I broken any regulation that I don’t even know about that will have an armed swat team breaking in my front door? What crazy new environmental regulation is the EPA going to come out with tomorrow? John Taylor explains.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Freedom, History, Taxes | Tags: Consumer "Demand", Free Markets / Free People, The Party of Handouts
Democrats will not consider reform of entitlements. They have achieved what success they have found by being the party of handouts. Everywhere, it is entitlements of one sort or another that are destroying economies. California cities are going bankrupt right and left, largely because of entitlements — overly generous pensions promised, and overly generous pay packages that they can no longer afford. The state of Michigan is about to dump Detroit’s city government and install a manager with the power to try to rescue the city.
At the federal level, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all destined to go broke sooner, rather than later, but Democrats will not consider reform. All three programs are rife with fraud and waste. Vastly increased life-expectancy has played hob with the original assumptions behind these programs, and on the other end is a birth-dearth which leaves more older people to be supported by ever smaller numbers of working people. Throw the retiring baby boom into the mix, and all three programs are in deep, deep trouble.
Democrats have long-expected to be reelected by claiming that Republicans want to take away your Social Security, deprive you of care in your old age (“Throw granny off the cliff”), and to take away all the benefits that Democrats have promised. If they cannot depend on scare tactics, what do they have to offer?
With increased life-expectancy, people should be able to accept a gradual increase in the retirement age. Working one more year before retirement shouldn’t be that big a problem. Many people don’t want to quit working anyway. Those who are not required to retire at 65 often choose to work for many more years.
One must assume that Democrats are just naturally bad at math, or math avoiders, or unfamiliar with cost-benefit analysis, or their thought processes naturally turn only to emotional content. What is the matter with these people? Do they just assume that these programs are destined to always survive? Or like Scarlett O’Hara— they’ll think about that tomorrow?
In the years since the end of World War II, from 1945–2008, the number of jobs grew in 86% of the months, or 640 out of 744. The Reagan recovery produced job growth in 81 out of 82 months — twenty million new jobs in the first seven years alone, increasing the federal work force by 20%. That grew into eight million new jobs after 2003 — with capital gains and dividend tax rate cuts. History.
Some states and cities are learning that they can no longer afford the generous promises they have made. The federal government is approaching that tipping-point.
President Obama believes that consumer “demand” drives economic growth and prosperity. If he just puts money into people’s pockets, consumers will quickly spend the money and the economy will recover. That was the flawed notion behind the cut in payroll taxes. Didn’t work. Observing hard times and uncertainty about jobs, people saved the extra money in their paychecks, and cut back on spending as well.
The benefits provided by government largess are never enough for a comfortable life. Food stamps (without cheating) don’t provide gourmet meals. Social Security alone is not enough to retire on. Welfare doesn’t move you up in the world. The more government largess is distributed, the fewer people there are to support that largess. It is inevitably a downward spiral for everyone. When the government provides a bad example of crony-capitalism or dishonesty, soon more people follow the example set.
Government doesn’t have any money of its own. It only acquires funds by taxing the people. The more government grows, the more revenue it needs; the more revenue they get by taxing the people, the more the economy declines and the fewer working people there are to pay taxes. Why is that so damned hard to understand?
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Education, Freedom | Tags: Capitalism, Free Markets / Free People, How Does an Economy Work?
Economist Walter Williams has a special genius for explaining complicated things in simple terms. He is a renowned Professor of Economics at George Mason University, and in this interview he takes on the free market. Good video to share with your high school and college students.
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Economy, Education, Election 2012, Freedom, Heartwarming, Politics | Tags: A Hand Up--Not a Hand Out!, Dependency Destroys, Free Markets / Free People
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Freedom, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Free Markets / Free People, Individual Liberty, Risk & Reward
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Freedom, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Free Markets / Free People, Freedom is Essential, Regulatory Excess
Istria Cafe is a small business in Chicago, one of the most over-regulated cities in America. PJTV’s Alexis Garcia interviews the Pribaz brothers, the owners of Istria Cafe, to show you how regulations are destroying businesses and jobs. Would you believe that it is almost impossible to run a business in Chicago without violating rules and regulations, and paying extraordinary fines? From utilities, to health care Alexis Garcia tells you why some businesses might not survive in the down economy.
Businesses, small and large keep telling us, their representatives in Congress and the administration that excessive regulation is a problem. The administration not only doesn’t get it, they deny it absolutely. This is one of those spots where a lack of business experience tells. Someone who has never held a real private sector job cannot understand why “profit” is not something evil that only the greedy pursue.
And they cannot understand the extent to which regulation interferes. For example, Congress may decide that it would be a good thing if the signs in fast food restaurants contain calorie and nutrition information. This has happened. Such a regulation should begin with a study to see if the presence of such information has any effect on customer behavior, results in different choices, or does anything to control obesity. If all those factors are negative, then the regulation is a dumb idea.
Aside from that, the nature of the restaurant makes a difference. Pizza places and Chinese take out places have literally hundreds of ingredients and choices. Often impossible to convey on a sign. Can be done extensively on a menu. The ‘fast’ in fast food comes from people able to quickly scan a large sign and indicate their preference. Such regulation may accomplish nothing except kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Governments that believe they are smarter than the people and can make things better with more regulation cause more problems than most lack of regulations could. We do, of course, need basic safety regulations, but it’s easy for regulation to form such a network of good intentions that the regulated business must give up.