The Growth Agenda and Its Enemies
Even President Obama now seems to realize that rescuing America from its financial crisis requires getting Americans back to work. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that rejigging government spending to promote employment is just an artificial, short-term solution. So-called “green jobs” and other subsidy programs will not help put American employment back on a stable footing.
So what can the government do to promote real job growth? Quite simply, get out of the way. We don’t need to teach the grass to grow; we just need to move the rocks off of it. The rocks weighing down on the economy are government rules and regulations — in other words, bureaucracy and overregulation.
According to the Small Business Administration, federal rules and regulations — from the Fair Labor Standards Act to the Polygraph Protection Act — cost small businesses $10,000 annually per employee in compliance costs. To put that in perspective: That would take a company with 10 employees from making a $100,000 profit to just breaking even.
Take away those rules and regulations and that firm could use those profits to hire another employee and reinvest the rest in the business (in raises or new office space, for example). With the bureaucracy in place, however, you might consider letting someone go in the current business environment.
The mere threat of new regulation — from the EPA’s new emissions regulations to the simple requirement to provide “free” birth control in health insurance plans — is enough to force any prudent business manager to think again about hiring new staff or even retaining all existing staff. The costs from new regulations are just as real as those from new taxes or restrictions on business.
Bureaucracy, literally, kills jobs. Therefore, it is vital that over the next few months legislators work to rein in the size of government. But they should not only focus on spending; they should rein in bureaucracy as well. A good place to start would be by pruning back some of the more egregious regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.
Moreover, reining in excessive regulation can kill two birds with one stone, as it would provide real benefits in terms of government revenue, as increased economic activity leads to greater tax receipts.
For example, allowing more companies to mine vitally needed rare minerals on federal lands will increase not only corporate tax revenues, but also bring in revenues from lease payments and the like. In turn, the miners employed at these facilities will have higher incomes, and will spend more, stimulating local economies. Many people employed as a result will come off the unemployment lines, reducing government costs further.
That all sounds very good, but restraining the growth of government is easier said than done. So how do we get there? For some sound, practical ideas, we need only look across the Atlantic. The United Kingdom’s coalition government has adopted a plan for growth that includes the creation of dozens of “enterprise zones.” These zones have a reduced regulatory burden on businesses and three-year exemptions on all new regulations for “micro-businesses” — firms employing five or fewer people — and startups.
America successfully employed Enterprise Zones during the Reagan era and could do so again. One idea, for instance, might be to establish enterprise zones for mineral explorations on federal lands (with the appropriate environmental safeguards), putting those lands to work for their owners — the American people.
Such a growth agenda will be opposed by corporate welfare addicts who have turned to government rather than the consumer as their source of profits. They will lobby heavily to keep their subsidy programs and regulations that protect them from start-up competition. They will be joined in this effort by labor unions, for whom higher unemployment among non-members is fine as long as they can keep their privileges (and dues).
More than ever before, the current debate over the size of government pits powerful special interests against the people. Those special interests are invested in the status quo, and like the regulatory state and the income streams it generates just the way they are. Change won’t be easy. But if we reduce bureaucracy and move the rocks off the grass, the resulting growth will make future generations wonder why we ever walked down the road to regulatory serfdom as far as we did in the first place.
And Obamacare has not even kicked in yet. If Obamacare is upheld in the Supreme Court (and, God willing, it will not), you will have a veritable tsunami of regulations placed on businesses to comply with this new law. And let’s not even talk about how corporations will have to find and maintain insurance for its employees. Many corporations may find it easier to simply NOT offer insurance to its employees, preferring to pay the modest government penalty instead of paying the literally thousands of dollars per employee for health care. This will, in effect, create the single-payer system which has been the holy grail of liberals for decades and it will destroy health care in this country. Obamacare will create literally thousands of new bureaucrats to implement it and will cost the Federal Government hundreds of billions of dollars to run it. The survival of this nation could all come down to one vote on the Supreme Court, and lets hope that vote goes the right way and destroys Obamacare. Before it’s too late.
Mr. Murray,
We’ve heard this song and dance many times before. The first bush called it voodoo economics. The problem with the lack of growth, is not regulation but lack of demand. Business are not expanding and hiring because consumers are not buying. If economic libertarianism was the answer to the lack of growth, then Mexico should be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Excluding their energy sector Mexico, has one of the most libertarian economies in the world. It hasn’t worked out for the Mexican people. The deregulation orgy that occurred under the Rebs and especially Bush, lead directly to the Great Recession.
Whatever the solution(s) to our countries economic problems are; they will not be found in ‘getting government out of the way’. That experiment has been tried, tested, and found to be wanting in the laboratory of history. Just like communism/socialism, libertarianism has been shown to be nothing but a false religion for fools. Or as better yet, voodoo economics.
BS. You’re ignoring the rampant corruption of Mexico.
(Which is surprising, because rampant corruption is the one thing statism is good at producing.)
Rob Crawford,
Actually no, I’m not. You simply seem to not understand that corruption is a natural consequence of economic libertarianism.
Corruption is far less likely in a libertarian state, because government is so limited that politicians don’t gain anything by corruption and have few ways to engage in corruption.
Corruption is far MORE likely in a mixed economy, where corporations can actually get something useful out of a politician whom they buy off. It’s the ability of mixed economies to dole out favors to favored companies, unions, and pressure groups that leads to corruption.
Compare the level of corruption in American politics (mixed economy) with that of Singapore (freer economy than America’s). Singapore does not have even America’s level of corruption, much less Mexico’s.
sinz54,
If corruption is far less likely in a libertarian state, then why is corruption so high in Mexico?
If corruption is more likely in a mixed economy, why is corruption so low in Canada and Germany?
Compare the level of corruption in Canada and Germany (which are much more regulated than the US) and Mexico (which is much more unregulated than the US).
To Mr Independent:
Why on earth do you keep referring to Mexico as a libertarian state? It is anything but. Their gov policies are redistributionist and socialist. Yes their gov is ineffective and mostly failing, mostly because of their socialist policies, but libertarianism is NOT failed gov, lawless gov, or ineffective gov, it is highly effective but small gov. Think of the US gov in the 1800′s, it was much smaller, but still highly effective and honest for its size. It effectively did what gov has to do, defend the country, protect citizens from violence, and fairly enforce contracts, but did not meddle where it was not needed.
If you want to do valid comparisons on libertarianism today, compare economically libertarian states like TX with leftist states like IL and CA. The comparison is pretty obvious, with TX gaining jobs and prosperity, and IL and CA rapidly losing prosperity. CA is the most striking example, since you can compare its leftist gov of today to the libertarian gov it used to have. In the 40′s thru 60′s CA was a libertarian state, with strong influence from the business sector, that also elected Reagan as gov for 2 terms. Their population and their prosperity grew constantly. But after 4 decades of leftist gov, starting in the 70′s, CA is now a basket case, with both businesses and residents rapidly fleeing, and the only sector still growing the public one, at least until it goes broke.
By the way “Mr independent”, you sound more like a leftist than an independent.
To the misinformed richard40,
First of all I have never referred to Mexico as a “libertarian state”. That was a lie on your part. I referred to the economy of Mexico (excluding it’s energy sector) as libertarian, because it is. The government of Mexico has no or minimal regulation of it’s economy. That’s economic libertarianism.
If the economy of Mexico is redistributive, then why is over 90% of the wealth of that country owned by the top 1% of it’s citizens?
On your comparison of CA and TX you should consider that TX has almost all of the regulatory agencies that CA has. The reason the business community of TX is prospering, is due to it’s low/no corporate tax rates. The citizens of TX are not doing so well though. Over 25% do not have health insurance, more Texans work for minimum wage than any other Americans, public infrastructure is terrible, public education is near the bottom, and crime is much higher.
Finally, the main advantage of being an independent is that I get to think for myself. I don’t have to think what David Koch or George Soros tells me to think. You on the other have sound just like a typically misinformed Fox “News” or MSNBC viewer.
A business’s requirement for demand is directly related to its requirement to pay overhead, of which the regulatory burden is a part. If the overhead is less, demand can be less and yet the business can thrive- or at least not cut staff in the case of a recession. In most industries whole departments are devoted to doing nothing but ensuring regulatory compliance, which diverts funds away from R & D, expansion, or simply just lowering the price to consumers, activities which all drive demand directly by improving the product and indirectly by employing people productively.
“In most industries whole departments are devoted to doing nothing but ensuring regulatory compliance…”
this is really “it” in a nutshell
daxypoo,
Actually no. The crux of the matter is: if eliminating regulation was the silver bullet for improving an economy, why hasn’t it worked in Mexico?
To Mr independent:
You keep telling the baldfaced lie that Mexico is a libertarian state. It is NOT. It has always been a leftist redistributionist state, that is now turning into a lawless failed state, like CA and IL are becomming. Libertarian gov is small, but lawfull, effective, and honest, MX gov is huge, and corrupt and ineffective.
If you want REAL examples of libertarian gov look at Hong Kong and TX today, and CA back in the 40′s thru 60′s. All of them brought prosperity and growth. CA is especially interesting because you can compare the huge prosperity brought by their libertarian gov from the 40′s thru 60′s with the economic basket case they have become once their gov changed from libertarian to leftist.
To the misinformed richard40,
Once again I did not state the Mexico is a “libertarian state”. You’re lying again.
Mexico is not a redistributive state, otherwise 90% of the wealth would not be owned by only 1% of the population.
Mexico is a failing state because of it’s libertarian economy not socialism.
The regulatory portion of the Mexican government is not huge as you stated. At the local, state, and federal level, there are less than 40,000 regulators in Mexico. Compare that to the 1.4 MILLION in the U.S.
If you consider fascist ruled (by the Communist Party of China) Hong Kong libertarian, you really need to open a dictionary and learn what these terms mean.
Dana,
Your last post reads like to direct quote from some clown on Fox “News” or MSNBC. Obviously, you’ve never run a business. I have; and until a few years ago, I had offices in Mexico. Regulation is just the cost of doing business. Corporate taxation is much more burdensome to my company than any US regulations. But for the sake of your argument; if eliminating regulation was all it took to improve an economy, why hasn’t that worked in Mexico?
Actually if you look at MX closely, you will find they have regulations on all kinds of things, but none of them are effectively enforced. That is not libertarianism, but corrupt socialism.
I noticed the same thing when I lived in Italy for 2 yrs. They had laws on everything you could imagine, but none of the Italians ever obeyed any of them. That is NOT libertarianism, that is socialist anarchy.
To the misinformed richard40,
I take you’ve never actually looked at Mexico closely. Mexico has a tiny fraction of the laws and regulators governing it’s economy that the U.S. does.
And by it’s definition, the natural conclusion of libertarianism is anarchy.
Tsk tsk, such arrogance Mr. Independent. I have in fact run a business- in health care. Considering the extraordinarily highly regulated nature of that industry, could it be that perhaps my experience differs from yours? Since my company is an S-corp and I have been chairman of the board of a non-profit hospital, taxation is clearly not the issue that concerns me the most. However, in other related industries in which I have worked, there is no question that government regulation is what can make or break a company in an extremely effective manner.
You might do well to consider a simple difference in experience, education and environment before you disparage another’s point of view offhand.
Dana,
Pointing out that someone is wrong not arrogance, it’s called being correct.
Also, you’re not ‘in business’ if you work for a non-profit. No more so than someone who works for government is ‘in business’. The whole point of business is to make a profit. Non-profits and governments do not create wealth, they can only spend it(hopefully to protect the creation of wealth). The suggestion that taxing profits are not detrimental to creating wealth is not a position anyone who has ever created wealth could ever take.
Finally, I do consider everyone else’s unique experiences (or lack thereof). In the future you should try explaining your point of view instead of just repeating talking points from Fox”News” or MSNBC.
I think we should charge Mr. Independent $100 per post (tripe surcharge tax) as well as have him complete his “idiocy impact statement” before being able to post. That should have no effect on his proliferation of posting.
holmes,
If you’d rather make childish remarks instead of engaging in intelligent debate, perhaps you’d feel more comfortable posting on the DailyKos.com. BTW, I noticed that you didn’t dispute anything in my posts. Was that a tacit acknowledgment of their accuracy?
My post was a refutation of your basic point, puerile though it was.
holmes,
Actually, no. Your post was just a childish comment devoid of any substance.
apparently Mr. Independent is proving that he is actually independent of rational/factual thought …. reduced regulations has hardly been disproven, in fact it was what Reagan did and it worked … your ability to ignore facts is breathtaking …
JeffC,
Actually, what Regan did was triple the national debt, raise taxes to pay for it, increase regulation, nearly destroyed organized labor, and decimated the middle class.
It is you who is ignorant of facts.
Libertarianism is not a synonym for “no regard to the rule of law.” Mexico is a economic basketcase. Remove the cronyism, corruption and onerous regulations that impede investment and free trade there, and you’ll that country thrive.
Hal Crawford,
Libertarianism is “the belief that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government”.
The Mexican government’s regulation of its economy (excluding their energy sector) is either non-existent or a joke. With only a tiny fraction of the laws and regulators of the USA, there is little need to flout the law in Mexico.
Regan once said “government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem”. If all it took to build a strong economy was to ‘get government out of the way’; then why hasn’t that worked in Mexico?
Because that’s not “all” it takes.
A free economy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for economic progress.
You need a few other things, most important of which is the rule of law. Civil order has broken down in a large part of Mexico. The crime rate is just ridiculous.
I mentioned Singapore in another post. They have a free economy, with lower taxes and less bureaucratic interference than America. But they also recognize the need to run a tight ship where the rule of law is concerned. In Singapore, if you commit anti-social acts like violence or even spray-painting graffiti, you can be flogged. Literally.
And every time you see the scars of that treatment in the mirror, it will remind you to be a good citizen from now on. It’s a more humane system than our “Department of Corrections” which makes hardened criminals out of first-time offenders.
sinz54…good evening!
But for the decades of ever increasing individual irresponsibility of the people, we would be a nation of few laws and regulations.
sinz54,
Thank you for making my point for me. We agree that that the rule of law is necessary for prosperity to thrive. And the rule of law cannot be imposed by corporations but by government. Another term for that is regulation. Your mention of Singapore also supports my position. The economy of Singapore is regulated (not macro-managed) which is part of the reason why that country is thriving.
T. T. Thomas,
The problem with your theory is that as regulations and laws have been created to address specific problems, crime has decreased and (until Regan) prosperity has increased.
To Mr Independent.
I love how you set up your own self serving straw man definition of libertarianism, and then say how bad it is. Libertarianism is NOT “doing whatever you wnat with no restraint from gov”, that is either anarchy or a failed state, like MX. Libertarians support strongly enforced laws to prevent people harming each other with violence theft or fraud, and to strongly enforce compliance with contracts. But libertarians do not support gov performing charity, gov taking money from one person to give it to another, or gov regulating things that can be self regulated by a compeditive market.
To the misinformed richard40,
Actually, I’m using the Webster’s dictionary definition of libertarianism. Which is “the belief that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government”.
If you support “strongly enforced laws to prevent people harming each other with violence theft or fraud, and to strongly enforce compliance with contracts” you’re supporting regulation. Which is a major part of Keynesian capitalism.
Mexico’s unemployment rate: 4.9%
USA’s unemployment rate: 9.8%
Mexico’s deregulation IS working. Despite the violence, despite government corruption by cartels, despite all of that.
seguin,
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the economy of Mexico is secretly awesome? That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this website; and that’s really saying something.
Just out of curiosity, if the Mexican economy is so great, why are hundreds of thousands of Mexicans attempting to legally and illegally immigrate here?
actually, yes…
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/28/3799513/improving-mexican-economy-draws.html
daxypoo…let me throw some corn flakes in the mix. There’s actually three(3) components to the ‘Mexican’ economy for which folks can dertmine what we Amwericans would determine a healthy economy. 1) Energy. 2) Criminal
3) What we would recognize as a domestice economy of goods and services commerce. I think I have them in the right order though I may have #1 and #2 confused.
daxypoo,
And yet poverty is epidemic in Mexico.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/MEXICOEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20233967~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:338397,00.html
“Whatever the solution(s) to our countries economic problems are; they will not be found in ‘getting government out of the way’. That experiment has been tried, tested, and found to be wanting in the laboratory of history.”
Au contraire, that experiment has been wildly successfull the few times it has been tried. It gave us the industrial revolution, which pulled millions out of poverty and created previously undreamed of wealth. The most recent lab I can think of in which government got out of the way to let people live their lives and keep their wealth is pre-1997 Hong Kong — another amazing success story when you consider that it had no natural resources other than a nice harbor.
Dana H.
Oh really. Then why hasn’t it worked in Mexico?
Your argument is the same one that many baby-boomer fools of the left try to make about communism/socialism. The USSR proves that collectivism does not work. Likewise Mexico proves that libertarianism doesn’t work either.
Mexico proves that corruption on a monumental scale does not work. In a land where mordita is king nothing will prosper except the most corrupt.
Michael,
What you don’t seem to understand is that corruption is a natural consequence of libertarianism.
Actually libertarianism reduces corruption, since with less dependence of business on gov, they have less incentive to boost profits by bribing gov, and have to make money the old fashioned way, by satisfying customers.
And once again you wrongly say that MX is libertarian, when in reality they are a failed socialist state, that is heading toward anarchy.
No, corruption is the natural result of excessive government. You see, people are the real problem. Government is infested with people. Big government gives people/crooks more latitude and more authority. Big government fixes nothing because big government attracts those who want control of others and those who want to aggrandize themselves, hence the need for limited government as small as it can be. Government has its place but it is no better than the people and businesses it serves. No better. Not one bit.
To the misinformed richard40,
If libertarianism reduces corruption, then why hasn’t that worked in the economy of Mexico?
Michael,
You’re partially correct that excessive government (like socialism) can lead to corruption but what you fail to realize is that a libertarian economy will always lead to corruption.
Just has our government has separate branches to act as a check and balance on each other, business must also have the check and balance of labor and regulation.
As for your talking points about “big government“ (that you probably heard off of Fox “News” or MSNBC), have you heard of social security? Before it’s enactment over half of all seniors lived in poverty. Now it’s less than 9% and dropping. And before you make the predictable argument about it’s impending insolvency; you should know that those problems can be fixed by simply raising the payroll tax by 1.5% and the retirement age by two years.
As I said, there is a reason for government. A small amount of regulation is needed because, HEY, businesses are run by people, the same trouble that governments have. The problem today is that government has about 75% too much regulation (and especially when the president can exempt 1000 + businesses because they contribute to reelection campaign funds). So yah, govenment could trim 50% of personel and departments and it would benefit the average person in the US.
Labor definitely is an important leg in the triad in a right to work state with secret ballots. The main problem with unions is that they are infested with people and even worse, the people at the top haven’t worked in jobs like they represent if they ever actually did.
Michael,
So we agree that government must engage in economic regulation. Good. That a major part of Keynesian Capitalism BTW.
However you’re wrong that “government could trim 50% of personnel and departments and it would benefit the average person in the US”. Contrary to what you may have heard on Fox “News” or MSNBC, over 75% of government employees are public safety workers. So-called conservatives are always screaming about the need for a strong national defense. That’s the majority of what government does. At the federal level, over 3/4 of government employees are military, law-enforcement, or intelligence professionals. At the state level, over 2/3 public employees are correctional, law-enforcement, or state security professionals. And at the local level, over ¾ of public employees are police, fire, and EMS professionals. We already don’t have enough public safety workers as it is. Do you really want to cut their numbers by half?
On your comments about unions, you really need to learn to research topics for yourself and stop quoting talk radio or cable TV. All states allow secret ballots in union elections. Contrary to what was reported in the Media, the proposed card-check bill would have allowed (not mandated) that prospective union members could decide if they want to have secret ballots. Right now businesses get to make that decision on their own. And if secret ballots are so important, why do so many GOP primaries not allow them? Furthermore, your contempt for people in general is a big part of the problem with the right in this country. The USA is a country of people. All people. We are free to peacefully associate with whoever we want. Just like with political parties, city councils, state legislators, and congress, we elect others to represent us. You’re not suggesting that legislatures be outlawed are you?
Not contempt exactly but more a healthy regard for a certain percentage of people being nasty pieces of work. If this were not so then history would be a tale of sweetness and light. To think otherwise is foolish since it evinces a belief that the right form of government will fix everything. Government has no intrinsic benevolence, only what people bring to it.
The research I have done about unions has been first hand in several unions in several industries. Unions are as nice or as terrible as governments because hey, they are manned by people. Again, the higher ups have only self aggrandizement in mind, many having not been at a place the union members work in years, decades or never. One memorable case is where the union officials in offices in New York instructed the union stewards to vote on a strike instead of the rank and file because the stewards had informed them that the members would not vote for it. That put half the work force out of work, permanently. The union officials never lost their jobs.
We do agree on one thing. That is that we must have checks and balances and that is the genius of the US Constitution. You know, the one that a good handful of government employees and elected officials are so irritated by because it is couched in what the federal government shall not do.
And no I didn’t get my ideas from any media outlet or political party. I got it from experience and voracious reading of history. All of which started a number of decades ago.
Michael,
You appear to have fallen for one of the oldest wing nut fallacies. I never state the “government by itself is intrinsically benevolent“. Nor did I state that “the right form of government will fix everything”. What I have stated, is that there is a role that government must play. Additionally, if our government wasn’t superior to those of say Latin America, then why has our country been so much more successful than their‘s? It can’t just be the people. After all, in my experience Latinos have a stronger work ethic and superior family values than most Americans.
On your misconception about unions, I would first like to point out that that issue is not what this article is about. However, since it is a interesting topic I would like to continue to discuss this if you have nothing further to add about the failure of economic libertarianism.
Concerning the ‘research’ you’ve done about unions; I’m curious what that has been specifically? I ask because your comments read as an almost verbatim recitation of Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh talking points. I agree that unions can be as good or bad as governments. For example, the Reb Congress under Bush brought us the Great Recession and the Dem Congress under President Obama has failed to end the Great Recession but previous Congress brought us the prosperity of the 1990’s. Likewise, organized labor since Regan has failed to maintain a strong presence in the workforce but in the past was responsible for creating almost all of the good things about your working life. For example, the 40 hour work week, the outlaw of child labor, workman’s comp, health benefits, pensions, and the GI Bill.
On the specific example you cited about official union misconduct; can you provide any links to the occurrence? If you’ve never been in a union, it will probably seem strange to you that it’s members vote on it’s actions. Union members elect to join, choose their leaders, and vote and on their agendas. Unlike in right-wing activities, where you are told what to do. As for the motivations of those union leaders, it’s irrelevant. They were elected by their members. It’s no ones business but the members of that union. I know that the right has made it a point to demonize union leaders in an attempt to make a false equivalency to those on the right who have done so much damage to our country but its still just a false equivalency.
Finally, if you are not getting your comments from Fox “News”, MSNBC, or their mouthpieces; then why do you keep using their talking points?
You keep on tying to put me into a little box of your own choosing. You say I must be a wing nut by association and I can only be getting talking points from the right leaning media boogey men. Well I listen to very little of the Fox news or talk radio. Of the time I do watch or listen is fairly evenly split with left leaning offerings. My point is that I don’t agree with the conservative point of view because I watch or listen to conservative programming. I came to these views on my own before there was talk radio or Fox News. I am not spouting talking points I am giving my own personal opinions.
I have no misconceptions of unions. I have been a member of three different ones. The particular situation I cited was the mine workers strike in the copper industry in the mid 1980s. This one I was not a part of but I talked to friends and relatives on both sides, including union stewards. It happened exactly as I stated. Half the union members walked out because the union had given them good service in the past and that’s all they needed to know. The other half saw an industry that couldn’t survive as the copper values were at the time if they acceded to the union demands and couldn’t survive if the mines shut down. So they worked to preserve their jobs, especially since they, the rank and file, never got the opportunity to vote for or against the strike.
For all that I know unions are essential. I know well the good they have done in the past. I belong to one now even though I believe their politics are misguided. I also know that unions can get too big for their britches and cause a lot of their members to loose their jobs. I make no false equivalencies, there is a reason that the mob has been so deeply entrenched in unions in the past and that certain union’s lack of foresight helped lead to Detroit as it is today and that is money and people who love the money and the power that comes with it. The left has done at much to damage this country as the right and I think I am being generous with that assessment.
If you look at the constitutions of many of those Latin American countries they can be very similar to ours. The difference is the societies there, the poverty and their lack of education. That makes the corruption so evident there possible, indeed likely. That is in large part why so many Americans citizens that come here legally from south of the boarder are vehemently against illegal immigration. They want others to follow them and integrate, take up the values of America. They do not want the society that exists to the south now to take hold here. I have known many of these citizens since I was a teenager. I can’t think of one that didn’t think of themselves as Americans and not as hyphenated Americans.
Also, if you see only the right as terrible and the left as wonderful why do you call yourself Mr. Independant? Your points seem to me just as much talking points as you claim mine are. Just curious.
Michael,
Actually, no I’m not. What I am doing is allowing you to explain yourself and your beliefs. If those beliefs put you into a “little box”, then that is of your own choosing. I did not state that you are “a wing nut by association”. What I wrote was that you appear to have been duped by “one of the oldest wing nut fallacies”. There is a significant difference. On your response to my comments about your talking points from Fox “News” and talk radio, it’s very interesting that you wrote “Of the time I do watch or listen is fairly evenly split with left leaning offerings”. That is a direct quote from virtually every Fox “News” personality. I watch Fox “News” almost every day. The suggestion that Fox “News” is “fair and balanced” is absurd. If you don’t believe me, just watch MSNBC. You may believe that you are not “spouting talking points” and are “giving your own personal opinions” but those opinions are almost 100% GOP/Fox “News” opinions as well. When I was a police officer, a former supervisor once told me, “one suspicious action is a coincidence, twice is a possibility, thrice is a pattern and more than that is a near certainty”.
On your comments about your research of unions, it’s curious that you never mentioned in your previous posts that you’ve been a member of a union. You did state “research I have done about unions has been first hand in several unions in several industries”. Most people when asked if they have knowledge or experience in a certain field do not say that they have done “research” in that field. Your comments appear to be inconsistent.
On the mine strike that you referred to, I asked if you could provide a link to any documentation supporting your comments. Since you were unable to do that, could you provide the name of the company and union involved? You stated that you “talked to friends and relatives on both sides, including union stewards”, so you should be able to get that information.
On your comments about unions in general, you stated “unions can get too big for their britches and cause a lot of their members to lose their jobs”. That is not only a misguided belief, it is also factually (i.e. historically) inaccurate. Judging by your comments (correct me if I’m wrong), it sounds like you’re a boomer. When you inherited the economy, over 1/3 of everyone in the private sector was a member of a union; now its 6% and shrinking. The more organized the workforce, the better the economy is for everyone. The less organized the workforce, the worse the economy will be for everyone (except to the top 10%). That is a historically provable, indisputable, and statistical fact.
{if you weren’t refereeing to organized crime in your last post then disregard the next paragraph}
Another misconception that you have made about unions is their past infiltration by the mob. The false equivalency on that issue is that the mob attempted to infiltrate almost everything, including business. Have you ever commented on the corruption of business by the mob? If you haven’t then you’re not just misguided, you’re being hypocritical.
Also, Detroit’s auto industry faltered not because of unions but because of poor business management; management that was probably all Republican. Americans didn’t stop buying U.S. cars because of unions; they stopped buying those cars because they didn’t want to own those cars. The management of those companies did not prepare for the future of the auto industry. That was not the fault of their labor unions.
On your comments about Latin America (and their American immigrants), don’t be shocked but it sounds as if you’re completely agreeing with me. The one thing I would add is that one of the things I think most Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) are running away from is the failed libertarian polices the Mexican economy has made that country people so poor.
Finally, I think you last comment illustrates the need for conducting personal research and not forming opinions based on what you’ve heard on cable TV. I have never stated that “only the right as terrible and the left as wonderful”, not do I believe that. When I criticize you and others for failing to think for yourself and instead are using talking points from Fox “News” or MSNBC; do you understand that MSNBC is not a mouthpiece for the right? An independent doesn’t believe in ideology, we believe in science. Which is why I criticize both the right and the left when they’re wrong.
ThE GOP/TP aren’t promoting NO regulations! Your either-or argument is, as are all such polarizing arguments, invalid.
They are promoting deregulation, which removes the massive centralist microeconomic overseeing of all facets of the economy in a nation. Such microregulations, besides requiring a tremendous waste of taxpayer money in an overseeing bloated bureaucracy, stifles and smothers all capacities for economic flexibility and adaptation to local production and consumption realities.
As for Mexico – heh, their ‘low unemployment’ is because they have exported the majority of their unskilled workers to, guess where, America. That means that Mexico doesn’t have to use their own taxpayer money to provide any employment infrastructure for this class! And no schools – that all comes from the US taxpayer! And no health care, no hospitals, no homes, no roads..nothing! Whew, what a saving when you can fob off millions of your population on to another nation.
Oh – and they send billions back to support their impoverished relatives back in Mexico! So, whew, that relieves the Mexican taxpayer of having to provide welfare and social services and….. Neat, eh?
By the way – have you ever heard of the booming Mexican economy in drugs? Bet you haven’t.
ETAB,
Actually many TPs are advocating for there to be no regulations. And the GOP in general rejects governance.
Also, I’m not making an either/or argument. I’m simply asking that if libertarianism is the answer, why hasn’t it worked in Mexico?
Additionally, I must confess to being immensely amused at your last post. It’s not every day that someone makes my argument for me without even knowing it. You wrote “their low unemployment’ is because they have exported the majority of their unskilled workers to, guess where, America”. Ask yourself, why are Mexican citizens immigrating here? It’s not because the Mexican economy is secretly awesome.
To Mr Independent.
Read my above comments. MX is NOT libertarian, they are a failed socialist state. And libertarians do NOT support no gov, they support small effective gov, confined to areas where gov is really needed, like stopping violence, theft, fraud, and enforcing contracts.
To the misinformed richard40,
Read my above comments. The economy of Mexico is libertarian. Q.E.D.
Exactly – government intrusive regulations destroy an economy.
The economic triad of: investment, production and consumption begins with the most important realm: investment.
Investment is wealth put into businesses. It’s derived from profits. The left views wealth as ‘sinful’ and insists that it must all be removed and given to the ‘poor’. This ideology of taking wealth from the productive sector and redistributing it to all is: consumerism.
Heh. This ‘poor class’ is a myth, a strange myth, because under a socialist-left regime, it explodes in size. More and more of the population become dependent on government funding. The dependent unionized public services expands; benefits and pensions explode in size; more and more healthy become defined a disabled and needy. Indeed, those on government handouts receive more than the employed laborer. A new massive class of dependent-consumers is created.
And all, all, their income comes from the productive class, the taxpayer, which shrinks in size as more and more move onto the govt payroll.
What has a consumer economic mode missed? Investment and production. The wealth produced MUST be, not re-distributed to all, but re-invested in production. More factories, more equipment, more workers. That technique and that alone, creates more wealth. And leads to higher govt revenue.
But, an economy must reduce the size of the population dependent on non-wealth producing income. Reduce the bureaucracy, reform and reduce the entitlement economy. Increase the productive economy and the number of producers. All more and more investment funds to remain in private hands and thus, re-invested.
Investment and production is just fine! Americas wealth holders across the board, are investing billions…that with a “B” in foreign emerging markets and…. the production from those investments are seemingly supplying the demand regardless of the level of anybody’s domestic economy. Whats to complain about?
["But, an economy must reduce the size of the population dependent on non-wealth producing income."]
Thats really interesting! Are to elaborate on that?
Nobody really says bluntly what the problem is.
Business is scared shitless of the government. So are consumers for that matter.
There is NOTHING this administration can do to revive business because you can’t reverse 3 years of relentless demagoging, toxic regulation, incessant threats of confiscatory taxation in one year. Nobody will believe little Johnny, surround by the cookie crumbs and mouth covered with chocolate when he sweetly promises that he will never never be bad again.
Think about it. The rhetoric is bad enough, but the actions are even worse:
- increasing government spending for discretionary programs by 1/2 trillion annually in only 3 years sucks that money out of the public sector
- increasing the debt by 5 trillion in 3 years puts a headlock on investment capital
- blocking any energy production other than the fantasy green energy is on the verge of destroying the energy industry
- everybody knows that QE infinity equals raging inflation infinity in the near future
It’s not about tweaking policies. It’s about visceral fear.
And for that reason, there is almost sure to be an amazing boom when the Republicans win in 2012. If it looks like a sure thing, the markets will soar months before the election.
But there is a downside as well. Since the structural problems caused by the marxists are so profound, the boom is almost certain to be an over-reaction, and there will be another market collapse within a few years to level unreasonable expectations.
Not only are business scared of the government, they’re scared of a government that has no plan. Businesses understand that the current administration is hostile to them, however, they don’t know how that will be manifested. Even in a bad environment businesses can make plans to move forward if they know what they’re up against, but why invest in new initiatives if those same goods or processes could be illegal tomorrow? This is why Obama’s tax credits to hire vets is going to have no impact. Why on earth take the chance of hiring if your KNOW the business environment will be bad for the foreseeable future but the tax credit might be taken away next year?
Bill Gross, CEO of PIMCO,
“Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) — Bill Gross, manager of the world’s biggest bond mutual fund, said Standard & Poor’s showed “spine” by cutting the U.S. debt rating, contradicting Warren Buffett and Legg Mason Inc.’s Bill Miller, who said the rating company erred. ”
Gross said if the U.S. wants to revive the economy by using government spending, it needs to target investment, not consumption.”
Exactly. Meanwhile, Obama is invisible; no comment. Oh, he’s fundraising for his re-election. And his minions are blaming, not themselves and their policies, not their refusal to deal with the problems…but..heh..S&P.
What is not being said is that the debt limit was raised for political reasons. Obama needs a slush fund to buy more electorate votes and he needs it to last until after his re-election. He has no interest in the real economic infrastructure of the US: the problem with entitlements which need reform, tax reform (not raising taxes but reform of loopholes so people like Geithner and Kerry pay their taxes). And..above all, the leftist ignorant focus on Consumerism rather than Investment-Production.
If you can imagine the height of stupidity, Krugman is actually blaming, not the Clinton administration, not the Democrats in control of Congress in 2006 on, for the housing debacle. But, S&P!
Krugman writes: “America’s large budget deficit is, after all, primarily the result of the economic slump that followed the 2008 financial crisis. And S.& P., along with its sister rating agencies, played a major role in causing that crisis, by giving AAA ratings to mortgage-backed assets that have since turned into toxic waste. ”
Wait – he says that an external evaluator caused the Democratic Congress to insist that banks give mortgages to risky borrowers????? He’s absolving the Congress and Clinton and Barney Frank and Dodds and Fannie/Freddie and etc?
Meanwhile, Obama parties and fundraises…
The AAA rating on the mortgage backed securities was actually pretty accurate.
The primary culprits are all still in business and making enormous profits: Citibank, Goldman Sacks, AIG, Fannie and Freddie. The only ones that have been hurt are the ones that hadn’t the foresight to sufficiently bribe the politicians.
So although it’s easy enough to condemn S&P for their rating (I do it myself), when you step back from it, they properly assessed the risk to the major players at zero.
["Gross said if the U.S. wants to revive the economy by using government spending, it needs to target investment, not consumption.”]
Amusing how Obama has been perpetuating the ‘same premise’ which has been the cause for much ‘personal’ demonization by the TeaParty gang.
Even more amazing, is how the private sector wealth holders failed to care, much less invest in anything domestic, for the past two plus decades, when they were flying high, drinking champagne and dancing to the fiddler on the hoods of their luxury cars parked out infront of their new custom built mansions…..as their common consumers were ‘investing’ crazily in them; lining their pockets which they invested in foreign markets of luxury real estate and manufacturing.
Taxes for corporations vs. individuals as a share of GDP a problem? Check this:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=205&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21
For the economic theorist experts; chew on this bit of data:
["An apparent problem with deficit reduction/surplus generation is that every time government deficits are reduced, private-sector wealth also falls."]
There’s more: S&P has just downgraded Fannie and Freddie. Heh. Krugman was blaming the WHOLE housing fiasco, not on the Democrats who set it up, but on S&P for not downgrading Fannie and Freddie. Hmmm.
Now – they have. What will the Democrats say? After all, they are trivializing and rejecting the S&P downgrade.
What we see happening is that the Obama administration cannot govern itself. Its focus is purely political, focused on increasing its own power and reducing the power of Americans. Obama cannot handle ‘others’ who are equal to him or have power. As such, this administration has crippled Congress. Obama simply ignores the laws it passes and/or bullies and threatens them to pass the laws he wants.
Since the Obama administration’s decisions are political (for their own power agenda) and not governmental (for the people), then these decisions must be evaluated not by itself but by an external agency.. Obama’s reaction? Well, he’s invisible but his minions are saying: ‘how dare an external agent evaluate us, us!!!! And the Obama administration simply smears and devalues..and ignores the external judgment.
Ahhh…but since Obama lives in a virtual bubble of his own words and refuses contact with reality, and since he has crippled the Congress, and enabled the MSM to function only as his propaganda voice…and smeared and rejected all dissent and questions within the community..then, it has to be an External Agent who voices reality.
99% of Obama’s constituency doesn’t know what S&P is and they don’t know the meaning of a bond rating.
All he has to do is, as you say, use the new $2.8T the Republicans gave him to buy enough independent votes to eek by. He doesn’t need to waste it on the base, since they can’t count anyway.
Surely you realize that Obama was willing to allow a default in order to get that 2 Trillion? He wants that money as his election slush fund. And, if it wasn’t coming,..and he knew the GOP would cave because he’d use that to destroy the Tea Party…he’d blame his new Evil Agent, not Bush, but The Tea Party. You know the history of the debt ceiling.
Remember, Obama has put through no budget since he began as president. He offered a fraud one for 2011-12 which didn’t deal with the debt reduction but instead, increased the debt! Rejected 97-0 in Senate.
The Democrats could have dealt with the debt ceiling a year ago when they held Congress. They didn’t. They didn’t want to ‘spook the voters’ in 2010; they lost the House anyway. They could have dealt with it in the lame duck session; they didn’t. Instead, they decided to use it as a key sword against their new Evil Enemy: the Tea Party.
Obama ignored the recommendations of Bowles-Simpson to deal with the debt. It included entitlement reform – and Obama/Democrats won’t touch that because their focus is POLITICAL. Keep the ignorant voting masses enthralled with govt money coming into their pockets. [Ignore that the economy can't sustain this debt]. He rejected the GOP similar Cut/Cap/Balance. Rejected Boehner’s plan. BUT offered NO PLAN of his own. None. None.
Again, Obama has no interest in the economy. Or the well-being of Americans. Indeed, his pathology requires that he reduce American’s freedom and power to make wealth – and increase their dependency on Him. And his government.
And the Democrats and Obama won’t deal with the real economic problem: the entitlements. That’s because their focus is political: GET VOTES NOW. That means: BUY VOTES..by means of massive trillions in debt, by means of disabling the investment-productive capacity of the people; by means of strangling regulations within an exploding bureaucracy; by means of smearing and disabling all criticisms.
Another poster (on PJM, I think) has pointed out another likely reason for Obama’s approach to the debt ceiling negotiations.
Alinsky’s view of negotiations is that the purpose isn’t to “win”; the purpose is to inflame one’s supporters. So if the other side makes an offer that would meet your current demands, then you have to increase your demands. Ultimately, the deal must be infuriating to your supporters, because the other side can never meet the latest demand.
So, Boner agreed to 800B in “revenue enhancements” which met the demand of “balance”. Obama, in the Alinsky tradition, increased the revenue demand to 1.2T. Boner then had to rescind that element entirely to placate his supporters. A deal was struck with no immediate new taxes, and voila, Obama’s supporters are furious.
Ahh, yes. I see. Very astute.
And that also shows that Obama’s agenda is always and only: political. He has no interest in the economy, no interest in the well-being of America and Americans. It’s all about Him. And his Power.
Of course I and others know who Standard and Poor is, as well as Moodys and some of the other rating agencies that fell flat on their face in rating the CDOs and other mortgage backed securities while collecting fees in a blatant conflict of interest.
What I don’t understand is how people on your side keep pointing to the CRA and trying to pin the economic mess on a piece of legislation that didn’t apply to over half the subprime paper out their and certainly didn’t mandate that Countrywide and Ameriquest and their ilk give people “liar loans” and any other number of new financial “innovations” that made sense when no one thought the housing prices could go down.
Pay attention to the AIG civil suit and the fraudulent robosigning that servicers have resorted to and you might get a better picture about how unregulated businesses can crash an economy.
Citibank, Bank of America and others still have these toxic assets on their balance sheets and would be deemed insolvent if forced to take a haircut. The economy will not get better and institutions will not lend until these assets are dealt with and that is a huge mess because they can’t dump them all at once in foreclosure and they can barely get them to foreclosure because the paperwork is so screwed up.
Even if you blame Dems for less than half the subprime paper, it doesn’t explain the crap job Mortgage companies (which almost all went immediately under) and the banking industry has done in managing risk which is what they receive multi-million dollar salaries to do.
Whatever, just keep yelling for your tax cuts I guess.
uh, I don’t blame the Dims for half the crisis, I blame them for 100% of the crisis, including pricking the bubble just in time to get the Moron elected.
Because mortgage bankers, who were traditionally the most conservative financial people in the universe, didn’t wake up in unison one day and say to themselves, “hey let’s go loan trillions to people who have never paid a loan off in their lives”. Oh no. They did that, gradually over a 20 year period because the Dims and their brown shirts in Acorn held a gun to their head. And the bullets were threats to put them out of business.
But you know, they were smart guys, and again at the direction of the Dims in government, they figured out a way to hide the toxic loans in packages (i.e., “derivatives”) with good loans. They, with the 100% compliance of the Dims and regulators, got away with it for many years, including with the additional gasoline of artificially low interest rates from noted biglib Greenspan. So when the shit totally hit the fan, it looked like other stuff was included in the problem, so that morons like you can lie about it more easily.
Like I said. 100% the creation of marxists (i.e., the Dims) and all coming out of the CRA.
There isn’t even any doubt about it.
Alan Greenspan, “liberal”? You mean the guy who was on a first name basis with Ayn Rand? The guy who complained that Bush didn’t do enough to keep spending under control?
Here is where it just gets weird, because you, Mr. ProReason have this amazing ability to look past reams of facts, like the nearly 290% increase in subprime mortgages between 2003 and 2007 and draw the conclusion that mortgage lenders (lenders who weren’t even required to comply with CRA) were being strong armed into making lots of money.
I never heard Countrywide say, “Help us, oh help us! Who will stop the big bad Democrats from forcing us to make billions of dollars and become America’s largest lender!!!”
Did Lehmann Brothers call Fox news and tell them, “Please stop government from requiring we make billions of dollars by packaging bad loans into CDOs and labeling them AAA!!!”
Didn’t happen. In the end there were a lot of greedy people. Greedy borrowers, who wanted more house than they could afford, greedy loan brokers who wanted the inflated commissions, greedy mortgage lenders who got better returns etc.
Nah, it’s just a Democratic conspiracy. Like I said, have fun with your tax cuts.
Try listening to something other than the Kos Kids, lefty. It will do you good.
Faced with the certainty of being driven out of business by being forced to lend money to people who would never pay it back, the mortgage industry rationally decided to dance with the devil and make hay while the sun was shining. So they, under government fiat to “spread the risk”, invented the mortgage backed securities, which were simply vehicles to hide the bad loans in a mix of good loans to keep the scam going, and armed with AIG’s gold-plated “insurance”, sold them for a premium to unsuspecting investors, who had every reason to believe AIG’s bogus rating, since AIG hadn’t yet been revealed as a co-conspirator of liberal political criminals. Citibank and the ilk made a fortune. AIG made a fortune. The taxpayers got stuck with the bill. All, repeat 100%, due to government intervention in the mortgage market.
btw, lookup Greenspan’s wife on the internet. Most of the big money guys are liberals. Fascists, actually. Greenspan shares equal blame with his fellow democrats for holding interest rates artificially low in the 2003-2007 period you write about. Gasoline on the fire.
Instead of listening to the “experts” in the Beltway, maybe we should listen to people who actually hire people out in the real world. Here is a great rant from a beautiful woman who is trying to run a company: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/017454.html
To me, as a member of the finance committee of a medium-sized non-profit hospital in the Midwest, this is so painfully obvious that it hardly bears discussing. Health care is second only to nuclear energy in terms of its regulatory burden. While some of it is necessary and helpful to the consumer, much of it isn’t, simply because of the unforeseen consequences and diverted resources that accompany any new regulation. And the price the consumer pays is just staggering- which then comes around to depress other industries as explained so well by others on this page.
The regulatory burden truly is the weighty, thick miasma that’s holding this country down, the sludge in the economy that can’t be quite pinpointed or summed up in a neat example or catchphrase. To be honest, overhead cost analysis is boring and not easy to understand. Examples of over-regulation that might pop up in the newspaper- such as the recent brilliant move to require farmers and ranchers who move their equipment around on public roads to have long-haul trucker licenses- are too narrow to illustrate the breadth of the problem.
I can see the attraction of regulation if one is a lawmaker. I think that in most cases they really are trying to do something good- but a good idea should not rise to the level of law in every case. TO every new regulation must be added the unintended costs- but by definition no one knows what these are until the regulation is already in effect. Take, for example, the over-the-road license requirement for farmers. The licenses require DOT physicals. Who will pay for that? In the short run, it’s the farmer. In the long run, it’s all of us. (It’s ALWAYS all of us, for every law). But what if the farmer can’t pass the physical- which many can’t because among other things, diabetics can’t hold a long-haul-trucking license- then what? A farmer or rancher loses his livelihood because he can’t hold a little piece of paper no one has EVER required before, because it sounded like a good idea to someone in some agency somewhere. Who probably never drives on rural roads.
Multiply these “little” bits of dirt grinding through the gears of the world’s biggest economy by the thousands of laws we have, and it’s a wonder that the economy operates at all.
["brilliant move to require farmers and ranchers who move their equipment around on public roads to have long-haul trucker licenses.']
Farmers and ranchers have, for more than two decades been dealing with catching up to modern vehicles and equipment. We have been generoulsy pre advised each step of the way. Long story short, most farmers and ranchers are well ahead of the regulations. ALL of our ‘equipment’ operators have been CDL since 1989. Operating our equipment of today requires some maturity, specialized training and and above all safety knowledge on our roadways and highways. Our operators and equipment can KILL! Not to worry, there will be ‘exemptions’ contained in the regulations ….should….they become full force implemented as is proposed for public debate. Afterall…farm status was only a special ‘exemption’ from the historical DOT standards to begin with. All will survive without any of the forcasted doom when it gets all worked out!
Of course farm equipment on roads can kill. As I said, the intent of regulations is almost always laudable. But it’s this attitude of acceptance of regulation because it sounds like a good idea that’s slowly strangling the economy. Is there even any data that shows that it saves lives? We have no idea.
However, there is no doubt that it is an obstacle to business and a drain on taxpayers. The possibility of exemptions or that some operations have been able to adapt doesn’t take away from the fact that time, effort and money is wasted dealing with regulations like this. And although your operation (whatever that is- you didn’t define “our” and “we”) could take it in stride it wasn’t done at zero cost or effort- the cost and effort might not be so small to another outfit. From a government standpoint, every law also requires personnel to enforce it. Laws always cost money. There is no exception.
Dana…with all due respect you’re obviously not a farmer or rancher. The first and foremost responsibility of a legitimate farmer and or rancher is ‘stewardship’ of the land and environment and their livestock. You most likely wasn’t around for the largely agri created Dust Bowl of the 30′s were you? You probably wasn’t around when we, through no knowledgable fault of our own, was using toxic chemicals that leached to surface and aquifers…..and on down a long list. There is no shortage of data concerning farm accidents and farm related accident statistics on the highways especially during harvest season when the common practice was using young kids to operate and drive farm equipment and trucks to the elevators. Today, we have big sophisticated toys…not the little toys of yesteryear. We operate very diversified agri operations in five states and we do quite well no matter what taxes or government regulations are thrown at us. Whether a line cook or a farmer we’re regulated because of some/mosts irresponsibility. Wasn’t for that we’d be a nation of few laws and regulations.
Be responsible…be safe….manage well!
Ordinarily, you’d be right, Mr Murray, but we now have a structural problem that will need to be addressed in a major way as part of any jobs recovery. In a nutshell:
Back when Kennedy took office and signed an EO permitting govt workers to unionize, 1 person in 19 worked in the public sector. For five decades the left has been growing the public sector (at the expense of all the productive sectors) as fast as it can (the better to offer cushy jobs to their loyal foot soldiers) to the point that we now have 22 million govt workers and 8 million in public education out of a total workforce of 150 million (although that’s been slipping since the Congress went Dem in 07).
The problem is that all jobs are not the same. All pay taxes, but jobs in the public sector get their salaries, taxes and benefits covered by tax revenue–they are tax consumers. Ultimately, workers in the private sector are the only true taxpayers–they have to earn a salary to pay the taxes to pay the salary to pay the taxes of a public worker.
Back then, we needed the taxes of 2 earners to cover the public employee. That left 16 out of 19 taxpayers to pay for everything else–Social Security, schools and libraries, satellites, highways and so on. That’s sustainable.
Now it’s down to 1 in 5, but public salaries and especially pensions are way up. Now it take 3 earners to cover the non-earner. That leaves 1 taxpayer in 5 to cover everything else, and it simply cannot be done. That explains how and why the Dems have saddled us with this enormous debt while feeding us the fictions that the size of government is nothing more than a matter of taste and that a job in the public sector helps the economy rather than burdens it.
What we must do: Drive public-sector employment down around 10 million using cuts and privatization while following Murray’s plan to rev up the economy to cover those 20 million jobs in the private sector plus another 5-7 million to cover the unemployed. A tall order but our only hope for long-term prosperity.
Charlie, you’re exactly right. That’s precisely why I wrote “Stealing You Blind: How government fatcats are getting rich off of you.” I talk about ways to reduce the burden of public sector employment in the conclusions. Thanks for making the point!
yes, you can see it in the raw dollars as well.
Current GDP is 15T, but the government spends 3.8T, leaving the remaining 11.2T to support the 3.8. That puts a 30% or so burden on the private sector, which doesn’t even include state and local services, and is in addition to the debt, and doesn’t include the onerous burden of frivilous regulations.
And a good bit of that 30% burden is merit-less. You can justify the military, basic operations of governement, SS, and medicare, but that still leaves well over a trillion of toxic overhead. It simply can’t be sustained.
The systemic problems are crushing.
But not to worry…your government overseers will do quite well for themselves, thankyewverymuch.
Thanks, gentlemen… turns out to be nice to find that you are preaching to the choir every now and then.
I have challenged liberals to explain why the private sector can invest heavily in new technologies and methods to improve productivity to make do with fewer workers, but the public sector can’t.
They won’t answer, but you can infer what they have in mind from their various statements: They want to use the public sector as a source of make-work jobs for the unemployed (“the employer of last resort”). That can’t happen if the public sector’s productivity improved to the point that they could deliver needed services with fewer workers.
So as I’ve pointed out to them, this puts liberals in the odd position of wanting to keep government unproductive and inefficient–so it remains labor intensive and hence a source of make-work jobs.
As someone who has actually worked in real manufacturing operations, it’s pretty obvious that the problem isn’t regulation per se, it’s the content of the regulations. When the brainboys who write these regs and devise these schemes have never had real jobs in their lives, they’re not going to have any concept of what’s destructive and what isn’t.
Because of this, we not only have businesses hanging on to their investment capital because the current regulatory schemes, but for fear of what the brainboys will spring on them next. The way to cause businesses to freeze is to pull arbitrary and capricious stunts like the Gulf drilling ban. That kind of thing terrifies businesses, because nobody knows what monkey wrench is coming next, and at whom.
We need some regulation, but it needs to be implemented by knowledgeable and responsible adults. There are no such people in the Obama administration.
I agree somewhat with Mr. Iain Murray. Some government regulations are good. For instance forcing cars to comply with clean air regulations. If there were no regulations for clean air would car companies really create a “clean” car. I sincerely doubt that. Would pharmaceutical companies really follow safety regulations? If a 100 people die due to an unsafe drug, that’s just the cost of doing business and you can hire a bunch of lawyers to tie it up in court. That’s just the cost of doing business isn’t it. I believe Johns Manville tried that tactic successfully.
There is such a thing as too much regulations of course. You don’t need to teach the grass how to grow, you need to teach it where to grow. There are new technologies and processes that need regulations (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology) and unfortunately that is the government’s purview.
What has Obama done to indicate that he cares about jobs in the private sector? Certainly not any of his administration policies, ranging from the various drilling bans to the Boeing matter with the NLRB and the upcoming ozone regulations.
Contrast his solicitude for public employees with his interest in the private sector.
I’m happy to see an article focused on the destructive effects of regulation. The regulatory state is far more destructive of business today than is taxation. I can’t understand why no one on the Republican side takes this issue and runs with it. If you want to stimulate the economy at no cost to government, roll back the regulatory state. Repeal Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, and Obamacare. Dismantle the EPA and NLRB. Watch the economy take off.
because the republicans are constantly on their heels
the debate between free markets and central planning happens on the collectivist’s terms– usually by focusing on 1 element of “capitalism” at a time and, therefore, the “totalitarians in our midst” can easily “isolate- divide- conquer”– (for example, the constant beating of the “bush tax ‘cuts’ not creating jobs talking point)
the issues of not only tax rates but: regulations, true competition, creative destruction, central planning, public sector monopoly, crony capitalism/corporatism, tax code reform/ending government subsidies, minimum wage, tenure, etc etc are what need to be “debated” simultaneously–
i hate to sound like a broken record but there is more substance and explanation of the “debate” in milton friedman’s “the pencil” than what is currently discussed today — mainly due to both party’s desire to belong to the ruling class (where 99.9999% of dems and at least 50% repubs seem to exist)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8
it is the concentration of near limitless power which is the mortal enemy of liberty while free-market capitalism is the only mechanism discovered by human beings that diffuses/disperses this power
“I can’t understand why no one on the Republican side takes this issue and runs with it.”
Reducing regulation has been a part of the Republican platform for ages. The problem is, there are two kinds of Republicans. There are “moderates”, who are big-government Repubs (left of center), and there are Conservatives, who are small-government Repubs (right of center). The Republican Party has become defined in the public eye as synonymous with the “moderates”. Thus does it have such a bad name. We have had a choice in elections between left-of-center Republicans or lefter-of-center Democrats. Ptui!
Thanks to the Tea Party movement, the right-of-center Conservatives are regaining their voices. Now we are hearing the talk of the problem with over-regulation once again. We hadn’t stopped talking about it. It is just someone had hit the ‘mute’ button on the remote.
Whoooaaaa kemosabe!
["There are “moderates”, who are big-government Repubs (left of center), and there are Conservatives, who are small-government Repubs (right of center)."]
I’m betting (hoping) you would want to re-read what you wrote and revise.
In the GOP, there are only moderates and and two (2) extreme elements….Libertairian/Anarchists and the Christian Coailition/TeaParty.
In the Democrats side, there are only moderates and a unified composition of caucuses that represents their extreme element of socialist progressives.
The Moderates of the GOP and the Moderates of the Democrats are the ones who go to Washinton to govern on behalf of the nation. Everybody else represents the radical special interest extremes.
Moderates ARE the center…not left or right of anybody or anything….just the rational center governing on behalf of the nation as a whole. The extremes are the only ones left or right of anything.
Sadly, the extremes of both side have the majority of seats in congress now thus, the nations government is dysfunctional and in gridlock. No moderates left to send them to detention or the rubber room.
The nation has serious economic and jobs problems and now isn’t the time for the Bloods and Crips gangs to be having social ideological turf spats.
There is an elephant in the room that I haven’t seen widely discussed. If (when) we actually manage to shrink the bureaucracy, there will be a large number of unemployed bureaucrats looking for work. As a small business owner, I can say right now that previous employment in the government sector will be a major disqualifier for anyone applying for a job at my company. I’m sure they are individually fine and upstanding people, but I am not going to risk polluting my own workforce with the habits and expectations of a government employee.
if mcdonalds (as an example)could sell their regular happy meals and use salt they, as a result of needing to expand again– because of demand–, could hire 1/2 of these public workers and other entry level positions and the economic +/- in the positive would be trillions of dollars
http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/09fedfun.pdf
You bring up a good point. However, I’d almost be willing to pay lifetime unemployment benefits for bureaucrats forced off of the public payroll. That’d cost less in the long run than leaving them in place to keep creating new bonehead regulations.
Bureaucrats pass a lot of regulations (over 500 in July alone) to protect their jobs. It doesn’t matter to them the economic damage they do as a result or how ignorant their new regulations are, all they’re interested in is protecting their phoney baloney jobs.
As an aside, could “Blazing Saddles” even be made today?
It won’t be a problem. Few will be severed. It’s more likely their pay will be frozen and the positions eliminated after the person leaves or retires.
I don’t think useless federal employment is as great as people might think anyway. After excluding the military, national defense, post office (?), and people working in retained functions like SS, medicare, and supporting the branches, the number of actual employees who ought to be severed is probably in the very low millions.
Basically, what we want to eliminate is paper shufflers, regulators and bean counters. The count of those poeple is almost certainly a small fraction of the people currently out of work in Obama’s depression.
The situation in the states is probably even better. Since police, emergency workers and teachers are such a large % of the whole, unemployment from thinning the ranks problably wouldn’t be much at all.
The greater waste in the federal government is pure redistributive money.
Government should be like the umpire in baseball; arbitrate/settle disputes, ensure the rules are applied fairly to all the parties but not pick the winners and losers, but instead let their performance, talents and efforts decide that. We need government to ensure our streets and borders are safe, enforce binding contracts that are freely agreed to, in short, to create a safe, predictable fair environment where business can do what it does best, create products, wealth and jobs. We do NOT need government to decide we oughta be buying health insurance or decide what coverage we need, to decide we should be buying electric cars or CFLs that official cronies wish to promote, or decide that we are eating too much transfats. And we definitely don’t need them to “perfect” us since they are FAR from perfect themselves.
Good analogy. Who would go to see a baseball game where the ump decided ahead of time who was going to win, by how much, and in which innings? Which btw, kind of reminds me of this debt ceiling deal. Ever get the sense that the fix was in weeks ago, and the political theater was just a bad soap?
Why trust our future to either of the parties when both have expanded government, both threatening our freedom and destroying our fiscal well-being? Ron Paul time!
#15, Good for you, Buck. Is it the purpose of government to equalize the distribution of runs or to apply the rules of the game equally to all?
How about a moratorium on new regulations, and if the new proposed reg was intended to modify an old one, the old one is nullified.
Pretty hard to get out of the way of something you’re propping up…unless you want to fall it an destroy it.
The government has long been propping up America’s economy and jobs….and it was in the end, unsustainable but for, a couple of manufactured ‘bubble economies’ that crashed. The older prop throuh NASA has even deflated,
Maybe this could be worked from a different direction–make blighted inner cities economic free zones. Businesses there would have a very limited amount of regulations (no slave labor, no press gangs; it’d be nice to figure out some way to keep companies from blackballing employees so there was no implicit threat to keep working if you didn’t like the conditions at one place), income from those businesses would not count either towards the IRS or towards welfare (you could still collect welfare and work at the businesses). No EPA regulations, no OSHA, no minimum wage, no racial quotas, no zoning, no taxes. If this turned out to be productive then there would be a lot of pressure to extend the zones.
No one’s going to read this ’cause this thread’s too long, but I can’t resist: it is irrelevant whether deregulation will benefit or hurt the economy in one sense; it is irrelevant whether Mexico represents a true example of a more ‘libertarian’ system that we can look to for guidance. What is relevant is this: EPA/OSHA/Depts of Labor, Education/HHS/FDA/ATF/etc etc are all grossly unConstitutional. A simple reading of the text of the document is sufficient to prove that. Therefore they should be abolished. If a state wants to try to replicate them, they are free to do so. Citizens and businesses are then free to vote with their feet.
I happen to be convinced that doing so, which is admittedly a more ‘libertarian’ approach, the Constitution being a deeply libertarian document (remember that ‘reserved to the States respectively, or to the people’ bit?), will result in a massive economic boom, which is the only thing that can keep this nation from disaster. Cutting spending and/or raising taxes won’t do it. Only creating wealth will do it. Gov’t can’t create wealth, it can only move it around, usually ruining it in the process. Gov’t can protect private property and help to maintain civil order. That’s it. Everything else is tyranny.
So even if you think all this gov’t regulation is a good thing, quit breaking the foundational Law of this nation! If the EPA is such a good thing, I’m sure you’ll be able to get a Constitutional amendment passed authorizing it. In the meantime abolish it and every other unConstitutional agency!
Completely agree on returning the USA gov to constitutional limits. A big start would be to reexamine the commerce clause, which clearly is confined to INTERSTATE commerce, not activity occurring within a state. The supreme court case that said if intrastate activity had an effect on interstate commerce, then the fed gov could regulate it was deeply flawed. Thus I would allow an EPA, but they could only intervene if pollution from one state was harming another downwind or down river state, and the state gov of that downwind state complained, and could show actual damage, and their activities should be carefully limited, definitely no BS regs on global warming.
And dont let Mr Independents strawman on Mexico fool you. MX is NOT a libertarian state, they are a failed socialist state. Libertarianism does not mean anarchy, it means gov doing what it must, things like stopping violence theft, fraud, and doing those limited things effectively and economically.
When we had constitutionally limited gov in the US, before the supreme court caved to FDR, we were a libertarian state, and were at the hight of our prosperity compared to the rest of the world.
richard40…certainly agree in part re; commerce clause!
However, may I suggest a refresher course in Libertarian history and its movement.
["....before the supreme court caved to FDR, we were a libertarian state..."]
Not so much fact in that comment!
To the misinformed richard40,
You’re lying again. I’ve never stated that Mexico is a “libertarian state”. What I have stated is that the Mexican economy is libertarian. The Webster’s Dictionary defines libertarianism as “the belief that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government”. In economic terms, that means the less regulation of the economy, the more libertarian the economy. That’s Mexico (excluding their energy sector) and their economy is a failure because of it.
doc,
Regulation and deregulation do matter. They matter because too little or too much of one or the other will hurt the economy. The laboratory of history has proven that. The overregulation and over governance of collectivism was shown to be a failure by the USSR. The under regulation and rejection of governance of libertarianism has been shown to be a failure by Mexico.
Finally, if we were to take your juvenile view of the Constitution seriously, than law-enforcement agencies would be unconstitutional. That’s absurd and so is your argument.