More Stand-Up Economist

Martial-ing the Populace

Jonah Goldberg has a very good article critiquing President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address.

In the address, the president said of the military, “At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach.”

Goldberg responds, “…Obama is upending the very point of a military in a free society. We have a military to keep our society free. We do not have a military to teach us the best way to give up our freedom. Our warriors surrender their liberties and risk their lives to protect ours. The promise of American life for Obama is that if we all try our best and work our hardest, we can be like a military unit striving for a single goal. I’ve seen pictures of that from North Korea. No thank you, Mr. President.”

This is something I see very often, especially on facebook. How great everything would be if we could all agree. But no one really means this. They want agreement without compromise. Because compromise mucks everything up. What they really mean is “how great everything would be if everyone agreed with me.” Obama uses this trope painfully often. And to be fair, conservatives are just as guilty of the same sin but by taking a different tack; if you don’t agree with them, you are simply unpatriotic and hate your country. If you don’t agree with liberals, you are simply a troglodyte who hates humanity.

One can hold the idea that health insurance is a wonderful thing yet also think that state provided or mandated health insurance is an abomination without one’s head exploding.

One can agree that workers are perfectly within their rights to organize and bargain collectively in order to maximize their marginal benefit for their marginal product and yet also think that, say, teachers going on strike because they think contributing anything towards their benefits package is akin to the fabulous images of worker exploitation promulgated by the likes of Upton Sinclair is absurd.

It seems entirely reasonable to me to agree (or disagree) that America was well within her rights to attack Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks and also believe that we had no right or reason to do anything in Iraq, or Libya for that matter. And believing that no government official, including the president of the United States, has the right to detain, much less kill, any human being (and not merely US citizens, which went out the window anyway) with out due process or a proper declaration of war is not treasonous. Nor is it dangerous.

Nor is it dangerous to consider that the constitution establishes and limits the federal government, not lays out which rights are reserved for American citizens in light of contemporary issues or that if you are not an American citizen, all bets are off.

Believing that the government has the authority to tell you what you must do or buy simply because Congress gave the OK; agreeing that the president has the authority to kill anyone he believes might pose a threat to our “security interests;” abdicating the doctrine that a man is capable of and responsible for his own welfare; rejecting the notion that governments exist to protect one’s wealth and not to redistribute it, this is what is dangerous.

Liars

It appears as though the 2000 election was what "radicalized" Paul Krugman. Because George Bush was lying during his campaign and the "media" wouldn't call him on it.

A presidential candidate making spurious claims during his campaign combined with a pusillanimous (and ignorant) press? This is what drove Krugman over the edge?

We are to believe that he was the Big Kahuna of reasonableness prior to 2000?

This after eight years of Bill Clinton, the physical embodiment of pure and puerile prevarication.

This coming from the same man who endorsed John Edwards for president.

The question becomes, which is greater, Krugman's insolence, his naivete, his disingenuousness, his dishonesty or the depths he will plunge to find any sort of ad hominem?

Never Learning

More proof that Republicans are out of their f***ing minds:

Caller: If you’re fortunate enough to be nominated, would you consider having Sarah Palin as your running mate?

Gingrich: She is certainly one of the people you would look at. I am a great admirer of hers and she was a remarkable reform governor of Alaska, she’s somebody who I think brings a great deal to the possibility of helping in government and that would be one of the possibilities. There are also some very important Cabinet positions that she could fill very, very well. I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Gov. Palin, for example. Tell her that she would certainly be on the list of one of the people we would consider.

It is weird enough that Gingrich was, however briefly, a contender to be the nominee this year for the Republicans. But that anyone would consider having anything to do with Sarah Palin? A "remarkable reform governor?" What, precisely, does she "bring a great deal" of?

Why can't anyone on or of the right just be honest and admit that the woman is an idiot? She was out-witted by Katie Couric for Christ's sake.

These people are idiots.

Big Lies

In a post titled "Romney's Big Lie," Paul Krugman places the following hypothetical in Mitt Romney's head:

Mitt Romney believes that corporations are people, and that only corporations and the wealthy have a right to be paid for the efforts. He wants to reduce middle-class Americans to serfs, forced to accept whatever pay corporations choose to give them.

His point being that Romney would be excoriated if he said such things. But the policies Romney favors would actually amount to this statement.

Romney's belief that corporations are people is not quite as nutty as Krugman would have his readers believe. I've asked before, why should a voluntary arrangement of several people have fewer rights than an individual person? At what point, at what critical mass, are rights forfeited? And how does requiring wealthy people to continue to pay more to the federal treasury, just not as much as the Obama administration and Krugman would like, constitute reducing middle-class to serfs? Who has been forced to accept the wages chosen to be given to him? A person may not like the wages being offered in return for his labor, but as far as I can tell these are still voluntary exchanges of labor for wages. If the genius professor has any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

He then quotes Romney directly to contrast it with his imagination and then writes, "But nothing Obama has ever said and none of his actions bear any resemblance to Romney’s portrait."

But Obama did say, "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

This supposes that elected officials and bureaucrats are less self-interested than their private sector brethren. They aren't. It also presumes that the "fair" distribution of wealth that is generated and earned by other people is a legitimate function of government. It isn't.

Beyond being completely wrong about everything, another spot-on piece by Professor Krugman.

When is a Tax Increase Not a Tax Increase

This is something I've mentioned around these parts before. Allowing a law to expire that will result in higher taxes means you are effecting a tax increase. At least, that's what the Democrats and Obama administration are now saying. If Republican intransigence is allowed to continue and they won't budge on increasing taxes on the wealthy (getting the "millionaires" to pay thier "fair share" of Obama's plan), then the payroll tax cut won't be extended. And the middle-class will be hit with a tax increase.

But they weren't saying that last year, when letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire was not a tax increase.

So whether status quo ante is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how much you make.

Are these millionaires really job creators? Would an increase in the highest marginal rates harm the economy?

Stay tuned.

Thank Goodness the Liberals are in Charge

and we got rid of that fascist Bush. Because liberals don't believe in summarily executing citizens without trial (& here); expanding our military footprint or indefinite military detention. You see, because I remember liberals (rightly) decrying the Bush administration for its intransigence regarding the constitution. And yet I have seen no sustained, credible criticism of the Obama administration for not only continuing every single one of those policies, but expanding them and claiming more executive discretion as far as the constitution is concerned.

Where is the outrage?