Chamber of Corporatism - Ryan McMaken - Mises Daily: 'Recently, the US Chamber of Commerce claimed through its spokesman that it supports candidates who support "free enterprise policies that will fuel America's economic recovery."'
'The chamber was a major supporter of SOPA, which gives governments the ability to seize private property without any due process whatsoever, and it supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which stole about a trillion dollars from the taxpayers so that the US government could buy up huge portions of the financial sector.
It also supported No Child Left Behind, Obama's "stimulus" program, and the auto bailouts.'
'The US Chamber of Commerce has issued its 2009 congressional scorecard, and once again, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex. — certainly one of the two most free-market politicians in Washington — gets the lowest score of any Republican.
Paul was one of a handful of GOP lawmakers not to win the Chamber's "Sprit of Enterprise Award." He scored only a 67%, bucking the Chamber on four votes, including:
Paul opposed the "Solar Technology Roadmap Act," which boosted subsidies for unprofitable solar energy technology.
Paul opposed the "Travel Promotion Act," which subsidizes the tourism industry with a new fee on international visitors.
Paul opposed the largest spending bill in history, Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill.'
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Don't Retreat, Re-aim | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Don't Retreat, Re-aim | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Obamacare is as unpopular as ever, with polls showing that large majorities favor its repeal. Yet Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has announced that he will not bring any repeal efforts to the floor until after the election.
Republicans appear to be abandoning other winning issues as well. They so mishandled the debate over the payroll-tax cut last December that they ended up agreeing to a compromise that added billions to the national debt. And speaking of debt, the Republican leadership is trying to push through a transportation bill that would add still more debt. Meanwhile, House Republicans are reportedly split over whether their newbudget should include spending cuts that go beyond last year's debt-ceiling agreement. That agreement would allow the national debt to increase by more than $7 trillion over next ten years, and Republicans can't decide whether spending should be cut further?'
'a USA Today Gallup poll last month showed that 92 percent of voters thought that the economy was important to how they voted, while 82 percent were interested in jobs. More than 70 percent agreed that taxes and Obamacare were critical issues.'
'according to a Rasmussen poll released this week, by a 52–36 margin, likely voters thought government would do too much rather than to little in fixing the problems we face today. Similarly, a January Gallup poll found only 29 percent of voters were satisfied with the current size of government.'
Republicans appear to be abandoning other winning issues as well. They so mishandled the debate over the payroll-tax cut last December that they ended up agreeing to a compromise that added billions to the national debt. And speaking of debt, the Republican leadership is trying to push through a transportation bill that would add still more debt. Meanwhile, House Republicans are reportedly split over whether their newbudget should include spending cuts that go beyond last year's debt-ceiling agreement. That agreement would allow the national debt to increase by more than $7 trillion over next ten years, and Republicans can't decide whether spending should be cut further?'
'a USA Today Gallup poll last month showed that 92 percent of voters thought that the economy was important to how they voted, while 82 percent were interested in jobs. More than 70 percent agreed that taxes and Obamacare were critical issues.'
'according to a Rasmussen poll released this week, by a 52–36 margin, likely voters thought government would do too much rather than to little in fixing the problems we face today. Similarly, a January Gallup poll found only 29 percent of voters were satisfied with the current size of government.'
Washington's Fading Faith in Deterrence | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary
Washington's Fading Faith in Deterrence | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Deterrence and containment were the twin pillars of U.S. security policy in the decades after World War II. Containment eventually played out much as the doctrine's principal author, George Kennan, believed that it would, with the transformation or collapse of the Soviet Union. And despite a few perilous moments, especially the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, deterrence also worked.'
'Yet while U.S. leaders seem hyper-confident about the continued relevance of deterrence in Europe — and in East Asia where Washington still provides security guarantees to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other partners — the opposite attitude has taken place regarding the Muslim world. There, American officials and much of the political and policy elites appear to have little confidence that the principles of deterrence (or containment) have any validity.'
'Yet while U.S. leaders seem hyper-confident about the continued relevance of deterrence in Europe — and in East Asia where Washington still provides security guarantees to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other partners — the opposite attitude has taken place regarding the Muslim world. There, American officials and much of the political and policy elites appear to have little confidence that the principles of deterrence (or containment) have any validity.'
Just War - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
Just War - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily: 'In a theory which tried to limit war, neutrality was considered not only justifiable but a positive virtue. In the old days, "he kept us out of war" was high tribute to a president or political leader; but now, all the pundits and professors condemn any president who "stands idly by" while "people are being killed" in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, or the hot spot of the day. In the old days, "standing idly by" was considered a mark of high statesmanship. Not only that: neutral states had "rights" which were mainly upheld, since every warring country knew that someday it too would be neutral. A warring state could not interfere with neutral shipping to an enemy state; neutrals could ship to such an enemy with impunity all goods except "contraband," which was strictly defined as arms and ammunition, period. Wars were kept limited in those days, and neutrality was extolled.'
'I have always believed that when the Left claims that all sorts of entities — animals, alligators, trees, plants, rocks, beaches, the earth, or "the ecology" — have "rights," the proper response is this: when those entities act like the Americans who set forth their declaration of rights, when they speak for themselves and take up arms to enforce them, then and only then can we take such claims seriously.'
'And finally, does anyone seriously believe for one minute that any of the 13 states would have ratified the Constitution had they believed that it was a perpetual one-way Venus fly trap — a one-way ticket to sovereign suicide? The Constitution was barely ratified as it is!
So, if the Articles of Confederation could be treated as a scrap of paper, if delegation to the confederate government in the 1780s was revocable, how could the central government set up under the Constitution, less than a decade later, claim that its powers were permanent and irrevocable? Sheer logic insists that: if a state could enter a confederation it could later withdraw from it; the same must be true for a state adopting the Constitution.'
How important/necessary did they consider the reason for dissolution?
'I have always believed that when the Left claims that all sorts of entities — animals, alligators, trees, plants, rocks, beaches, the earth, or "the ecology" — have "rights," the proper response is this: when those entities act like the Americans who set forth their declaration of rights, when they speak for themselves and take up arms to enforce them, then and only then can we take such claims seriously.'
'And finally, does anyone seriously believe for one minute that any of the 13 states would have ratified the Constitution had they believed that it was a perpetual one-way Venus fly trap — a one-way ticket to sovereign suicide? The Constitution was barely ratified as it is!
So, if the Articles of Confederation could be treated as a scrap of paper, if delegation to the confederate government in the 1780s was revocable, how could the central government set up under the Constitution, less than a decade later, claim that its powers were permanent and irrevocable? Sheer logic insists that: if a state could enter a confederation it could later withdraw from it; the same must be true for a state adopting the Constitution.'
How important/necessary did they consider the reason for dissolution?
Unjust Wars, Then and Now - George F. Smith - Mises Daily
Unjust Wars, Then and Now - George F. Smith - Mises Daily: 'Using recent history as a guide, the total financial cost of the Iraq invasion, including veterans' support, is expected to reach $4 trillion. Yet in 2002, Bush economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey was fired for saying the Iraq war could cost as much as $200 billion, which was 3–4 times the Department of Defense estimate. Even if someone knew how much an Iran war would cost, no one would believe him.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)