Who is John Galt?

"To Spend is to Tax"

Milton Friedman rather famously proclaimed that "to spend is to tax."  If the government is paying public sector employees -- regardless of where the government got the money -- then the fruit of workers' labor is being consumed by those who are doing the government's bidding.

Thus, even if someone "lent" the money to the government, the process of disbursing it -- spending -- taxes producers.  In other words, capping borrowing would bring immediate tax relief to the private sector.

It boggles my mind that Republicans could conceivably cave on the debt limit.  The party of limited government is actually worrying about, well, placing limits on government.  Even more unusual, they are attempting to sweeten the pot in order to get the left to accept additional government growth.  Just whose side are these Republicans on?

It's a bizarre premise.  The right should be looking forward to a government shutdown.  Especially if they are concerned about "taking the blame" for the disruption of government services.  The reality is that this is the easiest government cut Republicans will ever get to make.  All they have to do is draw the line in the sand, and all the hard choices fall on someone else. 

The real problem with reducing government has always been choosing which programs to keep, and choosing which sacred cows to slaughter.  But this time it's different.  This time, Obama has to make those choices.

It doesn't matter what Obama does.  If he cuts social programs and keeps the constitutional ones, then that's a choice he'll have to explain to the beneficiaries of those programs.  If he cuts constitutional government in order to save social programs, then he'll have to explain that choice instead.

The only challenge for Republicans is to stay on message: If Social Security Checks Stopped Coming It Would Only Be Because Obama Decided Not To Send Them.

 The bottom line is that there is more than enough funding to run the government at 2005 levels (plus some growth of entitlements).  We can fully fund Social Security and Medicare, and even make military payrolls.  But we do have to cut $100 billion a month in unfunded spending.  American Thinker shows what this would really look like, done right.

The question is whether Obama wants to do it right, or whether he wants to try blaming his worst possible choice on Republicans. From RedState: The President Declares He Will Shoot His Hostages.

 From Doug Powers, writing at michellemalkin.com:

Hopefully Social Security recipients are familiar with chess, because they’re now officially pawns in the president’s debt ceiling game.

Sorry, but this President's decision-making has not impressed me.  He's not "shrewd" -- he's somewhere between evil and incompetent.  Let Obama demonstrate the choices he would make when forced to choose, and I believe he will fall on his sword.

Republicans just need to stay on message.  These are the easiest spending cuts they'll ever have to make.  It has to stop somewhere.  If not here, then where?  If not now, then when?

identity theft

Suppose there was a person who took out credit cards and loans in your name.  He buys whatever he wants, and all the bills come to you.  Would you pay them?  I'm thinking you wouldn't.

Yet the government does exactly that.  Every day, the government borrows money -- often from sources who would like nothing better than to have influence over you -- and it borrows it in your name, with the understanding that it will make you pay it back.  Are you planning to pay it back?

I'm thinking you aren't.  Even if you support big government, my guess is that your support relies on a condition that you should only have to pay your "fair share," and that the really big bills will go to someone with the "ability" to pay them -- someone whose "fair share" is considerably bigger than yours.  If you support big government, you're probably demanding that Washington get its books straight, starting with tax increases on "the rich."

There are only around 100,000,000 -- 100 million -- people actually paying income tax in the U.S.  There are eight zeros in that.

The problem is that the credit card balance is 14,000,000,000,000.  With twelve zeros.

If you're counting on the rich to knock enough zeros off of that balance so that you and all the other "non-rich" people can divide up your "fair share," you're seriously overestimating how much the rich have.  Part of the definition of being that rich is that such people are somewhat rare.  There simply aren't that many of them.  Furthermore, being really rich -- with a few extra zeros, like Bill Gates -- is exquisitely rare.  Bill Gates' entire fortune would only run the government for days.  Would you really give half of Microsoft to the Chinese for another week of federal government?

I have a hard time imagining any distribution of the national debt which doesn't work out such that every American basically owes an entire house.  If you're a "poor" American, it may be a small house, but it's still a house.  (Seems ironic, when you consider that this crisis basically started with an initiative for everyone to own a house, doesn't it?)

A lot of people think it's important for the government to have good credit.  Not me.  I want its credit revoked.  I want the cards cut up.  I'm not seeking to bankrupt it, though that's tempting.  But the federal government does need to live within its means.  Our means.  Your means.  We've bought it enough houses.

Grover Norquist once said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." 

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I can tell you one thing: I'm sick of the damned thing taking out mortgages in my name.

welcome!

Folks, I'm writing this post because the movie is generating a lot of traffic.  (Saturday, April 16: Today is shaping up to be this site's biggest day ever.) 

The blog hasn't been active in quite some time, but there are plenty of informative posts featured in the left margin.  If you like what you see, please post a comment, or send a link to a friend.

 

She was looking up at the face of a man who knelt by her side, and she knew that in all the years behind her, this was what she would have given her life to see: a face that bore no mark of pain or fear or guilt.

                                       --Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Who is John Galt? The answer is here.

If you want a taste of what John Galt believes, try this.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?..."

Want more?  Go here.

fred barnes likes atlas shrugged

From The Weekly Standard:

The villains in movies and television shows are often businessmen or anyone involved in making money. It’s a giveaway when these folks appear on screen. You know right away who the bad guy is. The role reversal in Atlas Shrugged may shock viewers. Unless they’ve read the book, they won’t be expecting a businessman and a businesswoman whose for-profit endeavors benefit society. In movies and TV, that role is usually played by the altruist, the liberal, the government employee, the inspector, the high-minded professor--the do-gooder, as we used to refer to them.

In Atlas Shrugged, those folks are the villains. They regulate. Rather than generate wealth, they redistribute it. They’re the crony capitalists, corrupt scientists, well-connected lobbyists, and union officials who seek special privileges while demanding “fairness.” How often have you seen such a group of characters cast as this in a movie or television show? Probably never. But we see them in real life. And in that sense, Atlas Shrugged is realistic. It’s closer to the way the world works than almost any movie you might see. 

understanding class warfare

When we think of class warfare, we think of a political effort to pit the poor against the rich.  The premise is that someone who has more than you is your enemy, which I suppose would be correct if you intend to satisfy your own needs by means of "might makes right" -- by taking from them through force or coercion.

But, assuming that both you and he are capable of producing, free trade holds that someone who has more than you should be your friend.  They say that you can't get a job from a poor person, and it's hard to imagine a better relationship with a rich person than one which makes both of you richer.  It's certainly more productive than a relationship which seeks to make you richer by making him poorer.

An interviewer once asked Ayn Rand if it was okay for some men to have caviar while other men want for bread.  (For some reason, such questions seem more valid with a Russian flavor.)  If we know that caviar costs a hundred times as much as bread, then we can imagine that a hundred poorer men could buy bread with the money a single rich man might spend on caviar.

But money, bread, caviar -- even men -- do not really work this way.  A price is a balancing point between supply and demand.  While bread and caviar have their own balancing points -- prices -- which can be compared to each other, there is no direct translation between bread and caviar themselves. 

I am so looking forward to this.

Scheduled for four screens within a reasonable driving distance of my home. How about your town?

indispensable Christmas music

Ed Morrissey seeks the must-have Christmas recordings.

My nomination? Michael Crawford does for O Holy Night what Bing Crosby did for White Christmas.  On second thought, he outdoes Crosby.  With this recording, Crawford officially owns this song.  Here he is with TSO (2001), though he recorded similar performances with David Foster in 1993:

Trans-Siberian Orchestra - O Holy Night from Baluman on Vimeo.

 

fixing the 17th amendment

Ed Morrissey analyzes a proposed constitutional amendment allowing states to repeal acts of Congress.  Morrissey correctly notes that at the heart of the problem is the 17th Amendment, which effectively disenfrachised the states in the US Senate.

Those who want to see government restrained by the states would do better to repeal the 17th Amendment.  Instead of requiring popular votes for Senators, go back to the original purpose of the Senate and let the states choose how to pick their Senators instead.  Some might keep the popular vote in place, but those states concerned about federal encroachment on state sovereignty might return to having appointments made by the state legislatures, or governors confirmed by the legislatures.  That would make the state itself the constituent of each Senator, and they could overrule the populist inclinations of the House by thwarting encroaching legislation.

Unfortunately, we are well beyond repeal of the 17th Amendment.  People simply like "democracy," at least in the sense that they prefer direct election of senators.

However, there is a viable amendment that would fix the problem at its source without disenfranchising voters: A Senate Recall Amendment.  Under such an amendment, states (or state legislatures) would able to summon their senators, during which time the senator would be deemed absent by the Senate.  This would effectively modify Article 1, Section 6, which prohibits members of Congress from being detained from congressional business.

The Senate Recall Amendment is a very workable idea to restore states' representation in Congress without jeopardizing popular election of Senators.  And in the wake of Obamacare, particularly after the Republican sweeps of 2010, both the states and the public could easily get behind it.

Imagine what would have happened to Obamacare if every Democrat senator from a red state had been called home before (and during) the cloture vote.

who is john galt? the answer is "you."

Finding John Galt.

where's the oil?

As this Time article points out, only Limbaugh predicted this.

Yes, the spill killed birds — but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins — but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes — a real slow-motion ecological calamity — but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year.