The Fallacy of "Steady State Economics"

A recent letter to the Santa Cruz Sentinel Endless consumption or steady state economics? brought up the term "steady state economics", which is another attempt to re-brand collectivism as a controlled economy that would balance population with available resources;

Patricia Rayne's tongue-in-cheek letter Oct. 11 points out that current economic policy depends on ever-increasing consumption of goods and services. This requires over-population to produce labor and markets for economic expansion. The result is exponential population growth, over-crowding, famine, pollution, exhaustion of natural resources, global competition for remaining resources, climate disruption, species extinction, dangerous disparities between rich and poor.
However, there are other efficient economic models.
Ability to continue our rapacious consumption was doubted in 1798 by Malthus, later by John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes. Economists, including Herman Daly, Goergescu-Roegen, Boulding, Schumacher promote the model of limited economic growth known as "steady state economics." This posits stable or mildly fluctuating population and consumption of energy and materials. Birth rates equal death rates, population migration equals available resources, investment equals depreciation. Too complicated for a letter to the editor, this practical idea deserves examination and perhaps implementation in Santa Cruz, where constant expansion makes developers rich and diminishes quality of life.
— Grace Gerbrandt, Santa Cruz

 Once again, theories based on "steady state economics" requires a closed government controlled economy (the concept of a closed, state directed, quasi-private ownership, economy has it's roots in German fascism) under the umbrella of collectivism (the current terms for this is world governance via sustainable design or sustainable development), that historically implode (collective economies are notoriously inefficient) leaving millions destitute or worse. Karl Marx stated the Bourgeoisie class needed to be, " swept out of the way and made impossible". While he meant this figuratively, Stalin, Mao and Pot did not. The issue with the idea of government economic and population control is how well it fits into the Eugenics theme of eliminating the useless eaters as decided by the political elite. This theory was very popular by the likes of George Bernard Shaw, Teddy Roosevelt, Julian Huxley, Charles Darwin, HG Wells, Woodrow Wilson, George Orwell, Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes (co-founder of planned parenthood with Margaret Sanger).

With capitalism, the reason economic expansion does not requires over-population is because the nature of capitalism is to use the same resources to produce more and with greater efficiency; in other words, true open market capitalism (not the no-fascism we see growing today) does not need more consumers, it creates workers that have more money to continually consume more. OTOH, the current collectivist societies in the world are the worst polluters on the planet. We also know that education and consumerism results in lower population levels, while poverty increases population levels; this with the exception of US Hispanics ( primarily due to immigration), all other races in the US are not reproducing enough to maintain their numbers. It's interesting to note while blacks in the US live in greater poverty than any other race, they still don't reproduce enough to maintain their numbers. This is primarily due to half of all black pregnancies ending in abortions; it's almost as though "steady state economics" and Eugenics zealots (along with Planned Parenthood, whose founder was almost solely devoted to decimate black birth rates) planned it that way.

 FA Hayek's the Road to Serfdom compares capitalism to a planned economy, "The question is whether for this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power should confine himself in general to creating conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully (free market capitalism); or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires central direction and organization of all our activities according to some consciously constructed “blueprint (government planned/controlled economy).” The key difference between the two, is the "law" of supply and demand is instinctual to those that value liberty (a free people have/need a free economy), while forced equality (ie collectivism), is the definition of tyranny, is unnatural and requires decades of brainwashing, class demonisation and revisionist history; but will still fail, as it is inevitable that as the size and power of government increases, corruption and oppression will increase, until it collapses under it's own weight and the people take their country back.

As we have seen, Obama is fully immersed in another concept of central planning, which is enforced government infallibility, "Facts and theories must thus become no less the object of an official doctrine than views about values. And the whole apparatus for spreading knowledge— the schools and the press, radio and motion picture—will be used exclusively to spread those views which, whether true or false, will strengthen the belief in the rightness of the decisions taken by the authority; and all information that might cause doubt or hesitation will be withheld." 

All this was written over 60 years ago, yet reading it is quite chilling.

A Warning to Pope Francis; Socialism is the Tail That Wags the Dog

This a follow-up to my recent article Pope Francis Ignores the Lessons of Collectivism The purpose of this article is to better explain what is meant by my remark that socialism always has unwanted consequences, which is why, no matter how good it sounds, it always fails While Pope Francis may want an altruistic planned economy, what he will get is the unwanted consequences of socialism. In his definitive work on free market economics, The Road to Serfdom: (Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition; The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) Hayek explains that stated goal by Pope Francis of a planned economy to combat poverty, suppresses the wants and needs of the individual in the name of the collective; which by definition is the tyranny the Pope Francis attributes to the free market (or as Hayek would say, "the road to serfdom").

The “social goal,” or “common purpose,” for which society is to be organized is usually vaguely described as the “common good,” the “general welfare,” or the “general interest.” It does not need much reflection to see that these terms have no sufficiently definite meaning to determine a particular course of action. The welfare and the happiness of millions cannot be measured on a single scale of less and more. The welfare of a people, like the happiness of a man, depends on a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations. It cannot be adequately expressed as a single end, but only as a hierarchy of ends, a comprehensive scale of values in which every need of every person is given its place. To direct all our activities according to a single plan presupposes that every one of our needs is given its rank in an order of values which must be complete enough to make it possible to decide among all the different courses which the planner has to choose.

One avenue often used by those that propose a planned economy is freedom from economic matters. However it is how we approach our economic issues that gives us the freedom to pursue our individual wants and needs. When the government controls these economic issues, they will in essence define what wants and needs you our allowed to pursue.

The so-called economic freedom which the planners promise us means precisely that we are to be relieved of the necessity of solving our own economic problems and that the bitter choices which this often involves are to be made for us. Since under modern conditions we are for almost everything dependent on means which our fellow-men provide, economic planning would involve direction of almost the whole of our life. There is hardly an aspect of it, from our primary needs to our relations with our family and friends, from the nature of our work to the use of our leisure, over which the planner would not exercise his “conscious control.”

While the Pope Francis stated his belief that a planned economy free from global economic system,  would lead politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education and health care." Pope Francis Attacks 'Tyranny' of Unfettered Capitalism, 'Idolatory of Money , it is the individuals dignity that will all but disappear in with the collective state; work, education and healthcare will be one size fits all with the wants and needs of the odd man out is purposely ignored.   

Conditions will be without exception what in some measure they inevitably are in a large organization—or rather worse, because there will be no possibility of escape. We shall no longer be free to be rational or efficient only when and where we think it worth while; we shall all have to conform to the standards which the planning authority must fix in order to simplify its task. To make this immense task manageable, it will have to reduce the diversity of human capacities and inclinations to a few categories of readily interchangeable units and deliberately to disregard minor personal differences.

So much for dignified work, education and healthcare

The Beginning of the End of Personal Sovereignty

On Wednesday December 4th, The UK Telegraph ran one of the most troubling stories I have ever read. It turns out a pregnant Italian tourist had a psychotic attack from not taking her medication for a bi-polar condition. The woman was placed in a  psychiatric hospital, and after it was determined by the Essex County Social Services the woman would not make a good mother, she was drugged and her baby was forcefully taken by Caesarian Section (and is now up for adoption). Child Taken From Womb by Social Services  The idea that the State would have this much power over a personal autonomy defies the morality of any civilized society. While it would seem acceptable in similar circumstances to take the child after it was born, the idea of surreptitiously cutting the baby out of a woman's womb is beyond belief (yes it was done in a medically accepted manner, but again it was done without advising the mother, even if her approval was not necessary!); can you imagine the mental anguish of a mother that has carried a child to near full term and awakening to discover it was surgically removed with no warning or explanation?  In Britain abortion laws are more strict  than the US, requiring a doctors approval; which is rarely denied.And as in the US, pro abortion/ pro-choice advocates base the right to abortion on the woman's right to choose  "Control over whether, when and how many children to have is crucial to control over every other aspect of a woman’s life." The Abortion Law Women Need .

With this understanding, you would think that liberal progressives would be outraged regarding the state taking over complete control of the woman's body and forcefully taking a child that the woman has chosen  to voluntarily carry, but no, there are some on the left that have become apologists for this barbarous act. In a web site  Opinion;Child Taken From Womb By Social Services. Really?  the "Liberal Democrat Voice", the writer Evan Harris attempts to mitigate this violation of a woman's body by questioning the validity of the article! Even though Harris' knowledge of the incident appears to come solely from the article, so anyone that reads the article would be just as informed as Harris, she reasons that the report is not accurate.

Evan Harris: These facts (from the below response Essex County Council) blow a hole in the allegations in the press (it is unclear exactly what allegations the writer is talking about as she has no argument with the facts of the case).

The Essex County Council response: As the mother was deemed unable to consent to that by virtue of being sectioned, then the very least you would expect is for a court order to be obtained before that major surgery was carried out.

Evan Harris: Yet this is exactly what was done. The clinical necessity and the clinical judgement of best interests would have been tested by the courts in this case. As opposed to selected facts being tested by the editor of the Sunday Telegraph.

Again, the writer has no argument with the facts of the case, only that it was supposedly done prescriptively (I say supposedly as there is a serious question as to if a court order was sufficient for such a personal intrusion). One would think that this attack on the most fundamental and basic personal sovereignty would at least warrant a court hearing, so all arguments could be aired out (the reason of course is because it would never have bee sanctioned). Add to this that Britain social services should have no domain over a non-Britain citizen or the child of a non-British citizen, where there is no evidence that the child has been made a British citizen (in these cases the child can only be made a British citizen at the discretion of the British Home Office), the incident can only be defined as a Draconian power grab over a personal autonomy by the State. Further, because the victim is an Italian citizen, this incident  has been elevated to an  international incident.

 The cause has also been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which has questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers. Child Taken From Womb by Social Services

What this  incident shows is the left's promotion of personal autonomy, articulated by the "Pro-Choice" argument, is really a shame. Apparently  "Pro-Choice" only goes as far as the State allowing one to abort a child, not to keep one. This even though one would think that the right of the State to remove a child from the womb is a far greater violation of personal sovereignty, than the "Right to Choose" to abort. As usual with the left it is simply the continued march toward a totalitarian regime.

Pope Francis Ignores the Lessons of Collectivism

When one looks at Pope Francis condemnation of unfettered capitalism and the need for the re-distribution of wealth, it is certainly nothing new coming from a pope; the idea that there is plenty of food and money available to raise everyone to a comfortable level has been the promise of the various forms of collectivism since the days of Karl Marx, while simultaneously condemning the horrors of the collective states of  Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union and the Communist Chinese. The problem of course is once the government has control of  the economy, it also has control of the society itself. While Pope Francis may want an altruistic planned economy, what he will get is the unwanted consequences of socialism. When one looks at Socialism throughout the world today, not only are the countries mired in uncontrolled debt, but there is unfettered abortion, unfettered homosexuality, unfettered euthanasia (in Belgium the"right" to euthanasia now extends to children), unfettered secularism and unfettered control of the populace by an ever intrusive government taking a more and more money from the citizenry to pay for the government, while the leadership lives in unfettered luxury.

"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote. Pope Francis Attacks 'Tyranny' of Unfettered Capitalism
 
One might agree with the Popes condemnation of unfettered capitalism, as capitalism only works with a free market and the current market is fettered by crony capitalism, but the term itself has no meaning as it was an invention of the left to describe a free market they have no control over. What the Pope Francis chooses to ignore here, is socialism does not have an economic engine, while supply and demand in a free market does and more people have been raised out of poverty by capitalism than any other economic system ever used. And the end result of a collective/ socialist society has always been a slow slide into insolvency; or worse, starvation on a massive scale. Further it is the very nature of a collective society to try and fund itself through financial speculation. As I have mentioned in other writings, the "law" of supply and demand is intuitive to the human condition, where collectivism must be forced on the people. Collectivism only works for a short time, usually as a result of the people (or nation) being threatened by an outside force, so the people are willing to sacrifice their individual freedoms for the sake of survival. However, if the collective state is allowed to continue too long, it will eventually collapse under it's own weight.

This is already occurring in the third world, and the cause is the non-autonomy of markets through world governance, the UN, World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund). Here you find massive starvation as third world countries are denied the industrial advantages to bring them out of extreme poverty, through the auspices of Global Warming and carbon credits. International Global Warming talks have repeatedly broken down as the IMF wants to control the Carbon Credit Exchanges that were supposed to redistribute wealth to non-industrialized countries. In the name of low carbon development, the Carbon Credit exchanges are already creating pandemic starvation, as farm land is being seized or nationalized and industrial agriculture is growing bio-fuel crops, such as oil palms, or food crops specifically for export. Further the high demand for bio-fuel has also caused the price of food stables such as corn, to levels unaffordable by the poor. 'Biofuels a big cause of famine' In Africa tens of thousands of the poor are being forcefully evicted from their homes and land to "protect the environment and help fight global warming...The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.In Scramble for Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out. The end result of replacing food crops with cash crops and/or exporting the high value food crops industrialized countries, has led to a huge increase in pandemic starvation in Africa; this is the effect of the world government control of markets that the Pope believes will help end the structural causes of inequality.

In the final analysis Pope Francis seems to want socialism on his terms and it just doesn't work that way. Socialism always has it's own agenda and as mentioned before and it is always the opposite of the tenets of Christianity and Catholicism. Consider the fact that a government that can force equality, also believes it will better decide what to do with charitable donations, rather than religious organizations (the Obama administration has already suggested doing away with tax deductions for charitable donations). If one looks at the nature of socialism, it's is immediately apparent that charitable donations are almost non-existent, as the government takes so much of the citizens money money that is supposedly re-distributed to the poor. So  one wonders if the Catholic church is willing to acquiesce it's ability to feed and clothe the poor as it's tax exempt status would be eliminated also in the name of government redistribution. The end result is always a secular society that has no room for religion.

National Socialized Healthcare Based on Medicare? Welcome to Hell

While Medicare is generally  looked upon favorably by your average American,  many liberals have voiced the opinion that Medicare should be the model for a National Single Payer; ie socialized medicine.

 In an earlier post I discussed The Real Cost of Medicare this included the fallacy that government administers Medicare is much cheaper than the private sector when it comes to administering their companies (20% vs 3%). The truth is the Federal government farms out the administration of most of Medicare (referred to Medicare Service Contracts) that are usually not counted in the official Administrative costs; Cigna is a major player in Administering Medicare Cigna Government Services Awarded Medicare Contract... The government "stated" administration costs only cover an annul report  assessing the financial health of the program,  while the private sector service contractors are responsible for processing claims and payments, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation. So the truth is the Administration of Medicare are at least the same and probably more than private healthcare companies.Then you have to add to the equation that some where between 10 to 20% of Medicare funds are lost to fraud every year; that's $50 billion to $100 billion.

There is also the issue of the doctor fix; this is a $300 billion Medicare shortfall that the Democrats want hidden.   "In 1997, Congress created a new formula called the Sustainable Growth Rate, or SGR. Using Medicare spending in the 1990s as a baseline, the formula factored in overall economic growth to create the annual Medicare budget. The goal was to control Medicare spending by tethering it to the rest of the economy’s growth. And, for a few years, this worked fine; the equation pretty accurately predicted how much Medicare would cost. But, as health care costs outpaced the economy, it has stopped working, leaving the entitlement with a multi-billion-dollar shortfall." Doctor Fix FAQ.

Total Medicare spending is projected to increase from $523 billion in 2010 to $932 billion by 2020. From 2010 to 2030, Medicare enrollment is projected to increase from 47 million to 79 million, and the ratio of workers to enrollees is expected to decrease from 3.7 to 2.4  Medicare Statistics. 

So when one contemplates a Socialized Healthcare based on Medicare, there would be little chance of a private sector administration (a Socialized Healthcare system would be designed to eliminate the private sector), so expect the IRS will be tasked with the administration, something no government agency has any experience doing. All these issues are the result of some of the basic failures of socialism. First, you can not legislate market factors; the mere existence of a mandate rarely results in cost reductions. Second, the larger government grows the more corrupt it becomes. Medicare is now more corrupt than ever and the corruption is growing the more Medicare expands. The  primarily reason is due to doctors over billing for services as they try  to compensate for cut backs in reimbursement rates; it is estimated that in order for a Medicare doctor today  to make a modest $200,000 gross annually, they would have to see 35-40 patients a day for a year. If we continue in this direction will will experience the same level of healthcare they are experiencing in Britain where doctors  have started seeing patients via SKYPE. As the old saying says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Welcome to hell

Obama and His Economic Fairness

Four years ago the President Obama based his election on a promise of hope and change. Interestingly enough no one in the liberal media ask then candidate Obama what he planned on changing. Today there is little doubt that the American people feel more hopeless than they did four years ago. The change seems to be the consolidation of power for the executive branch, ignoring and actually voicing his disdain for the constitutional  separation of powers. While the huge deficits brought on by President Obama are certainly nothing new,  the rapid increase of governmental spending and debt has been mind boggling. Another issue totally ignored by the liberal media was candidate Obama's call for a “Civilian National Security Force;”   “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.”No one even bothered to ask  why the US would need a federal civilian army that is as big and well supplied as the US Armed services,  yet the size of Homeland security continues to expand exponentially.

Now we have the President running on Economic Fairness. Most believe that this is a plan to raise taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth down to the poor, but as Charles Krauthammer explains,  "The tax plan on which the President is basing his economic strategy is a 4.6-point increase in the marginal tax rate of 2 percent of the population". The President has admitted in one of his more candid moments, that raising taxes on the rich is only for fairness not help the economy. This is the same as when candidate Obama said  for the purpose of fairness, he would raise the tax on Capital Gain even though it would reduce the amount of revenue collected in taxes,.

What can not be disputed is Economic Fairness is a brain child of Marxist communism; it is a call to end capitalism and the free market by using draconian economics to force equality. What made the US the success is what has been coined the Protestant work ethic (which has no real connection the Christianity); the Protestant work ethic  is based on hard work, thrift, and efficiency in one’s worldly calling and the lack of a work ethic has economic consequences. Economic Fairness says success via the law of supply and demand is simply not fair, so the government needs to mandate wages; not a Living Wages, which is only a minimum wage on steroids, Economic Fairness would determine the fair wage of every worker is only possible in a socialists society. Calling someone a socialist is neither a pejorative or a conspiracy theory, it is simply the belief in a certain world view of Economic Fairness.

Obama's War On the Middle Class Is Real

It is time that the American realize that Obama’s war on the middle class is more than just hyperbole. While President Obama continues to voice a need to protect the middle class, the results of his policies produce the opposite. First he defines the rich as making $100-200 thousand. Perhaps in Chicago this seems like a lot of money, but not in California where the housing market averages continue to hover around $450 thousand. Further he uses the similar figures to tax small businesses, seeming oblivious to the fact that a $300 thousand grossing business is one with 2-3 employees. During his time in office gasoline prices have doubled from $2.00 @gal to $4.00 @gal and gas prices are particularly hard the middle class and small business; big business and agriculture can simply increase prices to account for higher transportation prices but it will be up the middle class to pay these prices. Further Obama’s major claim that medical insurance cost would be reduced with Obamacare, but the opposite has occurred with insurance costs to the middle class increasing 50%-60%; when asked about this disparity the white house said we will have to wait until 2023 to see the reductions. Does anyone really believe that medical insurance costs in 2023 (long after Obama is out of office) will be lower than today?

So I guess one has to ask, why the President of the United States wants to gut the US economy of it’s greatest money producers. Well the reason is simple, President Obama is a socialist; and in socialism there are only two classes, the lower collective class with no individual rights and the upper class that rules with totality. In the United States it is the middle class that ended any hope of a socialist takeover, so President Obama continues to lay the ground work by raising prices and subsidize the unemployment of the middle class, by extending unemployment insurance indefinitely, until a majority of the citizenry is dependent on the government and middle class autonomy becomes something viewed by the majority as unobtainable. The President has also tried to show that it has been government that is responsible for the gains of the middle class with his infamous, “You didn’t build that” comment, as if need follows infrastructure and not the other way around. And how does the President’s agenda jive with the weakest post-recession "recovery" in more than 100 years? " The President has recently said, “We tried our plan and it worked."

The Left's Book Burning Party

MoveOn. org has a interesting video titled This Is How You Beat The Tea Party . The video is smug in its message but clearly shows how the left has embraced the "end always justifies the means" approach, voiced by their mentor Saul Alinsky,  “do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”. The video is about a Library in Troy, Michigan. The city needed money so they decided they would either have to close a library or raise taxes. An initiative was placed on a ballot to see if the residents wanted to raise taxes on themselves to keep their library. The Tea party in the area organized the no argument wanting no new taxes. The yes argument was the tax would be small in comparison to the cities need for the library; but it appeared the tax initiative would go down in defeat. Then suddenly these bizarre signs signs started to appear all over town and there was even a Facebook page for touting the burning of the library books.

Now of course the Tea Party had no idea where they were coming from nor did the city. But the postures went viral, all accusing the Tea Party of wanting to burn the library books; finally just before the vote a young group of socialists took ownership of the postures. They said they wanted to get attention in an audacious manner to swing the election to force a new tax, so they decided to put a vile face on the Tea Party and came up with the idea of portraying the Tea Party as NAZI’s. Well the tactic worked. By the time the true nature of the signs had come to light the vote was over, with most the voters voting for the new tax solely because they did not want to be associated with book burning even if it was a fallacy perpetrated by the left.

But there is nothing new here. The left can never present a true accounting of their agenda to destroy capitalism, so instead of presenting their socialist agenda, they demonize their opponents, usually using rhetoric that more closely resembles their actions than that of their opponents. Typical is the left crying racism any time someone disagrees with President Obama’s socialists policies. This of course continues a false paradigm ignoring the facts that it was the Democrats who initiated a Welfare scheme that subsidized poverty by making the blacks and poor completely reliant on Government handouts and the destruction of the black family by only paying unwed mothers or families that the father had abandoned. That's right, nothing to see here just MoveOn.

Defining Fascism in America

When the Tea Party says they see our Constitutional government sliding into fascism, most believe they mean the Nazi Germany form of fascism, however that is far from accurate. Fascism is a form a government that was embraced by the National Socialists (Nazis) and tailored to their needs. However, fascism is a robust governmental format, based on the pillars of combining Socialism, Capitalism and property ownership, and would look quite different in America then in Nazi Germany. So lets look at some of the pillars of fascism and how it would change the United States.

1. A reactive government led by a charismatic leader who has the final say so on everything (this could also be a committee). This would allow the government to address the serious problems facing the country such as global warming and unemployment; when a problem crops up the government reacts with a solution that is immediately put into place. This does not do away with congress, but it delegates our representatives to an advisory role.

2. A fair redistribution of wealth; fascism believes in hegemony over big business and the treatment of workers. In trade with big business for reactively removing the impediments to production, the government would dictate a livable wage for all workers and a cap on profits. Labor unions would be incorporated into the government, as it would be government’s job to settle all worker disputes.

3. Care of the collective. The US Constitution is based on individual rights over the rights of the collective. Fascism would allow the government to care for the collective in more equal manner. A singlepayer high quality health plan will be a available (and mandatory) for all citizens. Since a living wage would also be mandatory, poverty as we no it would disappear.

4. On a conservative note, a fascist state would have secure borders and strictly enforced laws. There would be no question as to liberal interpretation of the Constitution or liberal judges, as the leadership of the country would be the sole arbitrator of what is right and what is acceptable. Unlike the Communist concept of, “to each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”, the fascist motto starts out the same, “to each according to their ability,” recognizing that everyone has abilities that would benefit the state and collective, the second half of the motto is, “to each according to their contribution.” In other words, fascism recognizes that ability does not necessary equate to action. In order to be supported by the state, you would need to contribute.

So fascism seems to have something for everyone. The only caveat is the end of individual rights in the name of benefiting the collective. This however this already exists in almost all governmental programs, for almost by definition government support programs paid through the distribution of wealth, support the collective not the individual. Even, so called ObamaCare, would be facilitated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has the final say so on approving medical procedures. While this approval system is advertised to “ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best,” it is in actuality a ration system, designed to lower medical costs and favors the collective or the needs of the individual.

In a recent exchange on Fox news stemming from the Hoffa comments about taking the SOB Tea Party "out", Robert Beckel was enraged that someone would call President Obama a socialist; an insult he called disgraceful and disgusting Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling Get in Heated Argument Over Hoffa Comments. Righfully Eric Bolling asked Beckel if he even knew what socialism was, to which Beckel blew up and the show took an unscheduled cut to a commercial. What is obvious from this exchange is the continuing intellectual dishonesty of the left. Beckel rightfully knows that President Obama leans toward socialism, however to allow that to be even discussed is simply to damaging to the left, so like fascism, any discussion of the President moving the country toward socialism is now labeled a pejorative by the left, so the issue can not even be discussed.

The reason the secular progressives must be intellectually dishonest, is because they know the citizenry is by definition ignorant and would never accept the principals of socialism/fascism. However, secular progressives know that socialism is what’s best for the ignorant collective, even if they don’t know what’s best for them. Therefore they must convince the citizenry that they are not socialist/fascists as the incrementally move the country in that direction. ObamaCare is a major step forward, for designed into ObamaCare is the next all encompassing government program that forces the entire population to view themselves as a collective under the care of the government.

Redistribution By Any Other Name

On the pages of the Santa Cruz Sentinel Opinion section a local World History Professor and unsurprisingly a progressive David Sweet, tries to reintroduce the liberal argument for the redistribution of wealth by simply using different terms. Instead of the old "social justice" terminology he discusses "Defining-and achieving-the Common Good". Here is a small sample.

Without a serious and sustained commitment to achieving and maintaining the common good, Lincoln's quaint notion of a government "of the people, by the people, and [especially] for the people" is nothing but a mockery.
The argument for electing candidates with a well-articulated and reliable commitment to the common good such as several of those we've been fortunate to have the opportunity to vote for in Santa Cruz County over the years becomes much less airy-fairy if we recognize that the common good is synonymous with any genuine "homeland security." The only secure country is one in which there is a broad consensus that government does its best to see to the well-being, not primarily of corporations or the rich or powerful, but of all of the governed.The problem with this argument is by definition it is an overreaching government that has all but obliterated any sense of the “common good”. The reason it is not included in the Declaration of Independence nor is it in the US Constitution, is because, like social justice, the common good, when applied to government is simply another euphemism for redistribution of wealth. The concept of a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people," has seen its death knoll, as government has become a separate entity, not of (and certainly not for) the people. The true common good is the result not of “the people” but as individuals freely giving in support of their neighbor based primarily on religious beliefs and reciprocity. The farther this giving and support extends beyond a neighborhood, the more demanding and tyrannical it becomes. We are left with the fascist like ravings of Jim Wallis who teaches that true Christianity is forced re-distribution of wealth through a supposed benevolent Marxist regime.

One either believes that the people will define the common good as the need arises, or government will become their master as it defines the common good as it’s need to acquire more authority. According to President Obama if the Constitution "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and [the] Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." The document, he argued, "Says what the states can't do to you, says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf." That remark and David Sweet defining the common good as the job of government, shows a shocking ignorance of the purpose of the United States Constitution. By definition a socialist defines not the actions of the people, but the actions of government as the common good; so the common good simply becomes serfdom to the government. It is the continuing attack against our founding fathers belief that a people can truly govern themselves.

The End of Truth in Politics; The Road to Serfdom

This article uses excerpts from FA Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". The book is the definitive work on the human effect on economic theory by demonstrating time and time again there can be no freedom without economic freedom and vice versa. Further, he explains the causal failure of all collective or planned economies, which is the human condition; that freedom and free market capitalism is the only economic theory that recognizes and rewards truth, hard work and the dignity of man.

The White House and the powers that be seem to have the belief they can sell the American people state guaranteed economic security (the new freedom) and without loosing political freedom, even though historically the two have always been mutually exclusive. In order to do so they must refine "truth" as expediency. The word “truth” itself ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in particular instance the evidence (or standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it. (The Road to Serfdom)

Since the first victim of this new freedom is the truth, it is important to remember that a tenet of this form of economic freedom is to promise more than can ever be delivered. Since they know the American people are politically astute, and that they will eventually be legislating against the will of the people, they will therefore create a state of exigency, touting every new governmental program or authority being necessary for the very existence of the state. Since the American people are also wisely suspicious of "socialism," euphemisms will be crafted for what they know would be unpopular policy; socialized medicine becomes “Affordable and Quality Healthcare” or "The Public Option"", Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants becomes "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" and The Cap and Trade or redistribution of energy tax, becomes "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs" or the “Green Jobs Bill”. In a society used to freedom it is unlikely that many people would be ready deliberately to purchase security at this price (socialism). But the policies which are now followed everywhere, which hand out the privilege of security, now to this group and now to that, are nonetheless rapidly creating conditions in which striving for security tends to be stronger than the love of freedom. The reason for this is that with every grant of complete security to one group the insecurity of the rests necessarily increases… the essential element of security which the competitive systems offers, the great variety of opportunities, is more and more reduced. (The Road to Serfdom)

The only tool that the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress has to create the illusion economic security is the re-distribution of wealth, i.e. social justice. In order to make this work, much has been said if the community organizer tactic from Saul Alinksy’s "Rules for Radicals". "Whenever we think of social change; the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issues of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms." However, when means and ends are viewed from a collectivist government, they take on an even greater importance. “The principle that the ends justify the means, is in individualist regarded as the denial of all morals. In the collectivist ethics, it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves “the good of the whole,” because the “good of the whole” is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. The "raison d’etat*", in which collectivist ethics has found its most explicit formulation, knows no other limit than that set by expediency.” (The Road to Serfdom)
*raison d’etat- the justification of overriding state power for nation interests or security.


When the Healthcare Bill was being presented, President Obama was indignant that it was being called a tax.



However Rep Debbie Wassermann Schultz, trying to circumvent the Obamacare's mandatory purchasing of private health insurance, tells the patronizing lie (as if she is so much smarter the American Citizen) that it is nothing more than a Federal Income tax status, like Married or Single;



When this finally ended up in a State court challenge, Obamacare was defined as a tax.

President Obama and Rep Debbie Wassermann Schultz also colluded in the big lie that Obamacare would not add to the deficit by "one dime". This video contains information that will be corroborated in the next video by Rep Paul Ryan.



Again you have Rep Debbie Wassermann Schultz parroting the CBO numbers promising ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. But the congressional leaders, Schultz, Reid and Pelosi purposely left out federal obligations, the CBO's cost analysis was purposely was manipulated to lie to the American people.



When Obama was a candidate for President he ran on hope and change. After President Bush, the American people wanted two things, transparency and honesty.



Almost from the beginning the pundits have commented on the "disconnect" that exsists between the President Obama and the American people. It's as if the White House and Democrat leaders have taken on the behavior of sociopaths.This has been explained as Obama's unemotional nature. The real disconnect however is between what the President says and what he does. While the President has said he was going to concentrate (like a laser beam) on American joblessness, he has practically ignored unemployment for an entire year to pass his terribly flawed and unpopular heathcare reform bill. His response? "I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are" America Knows It's Core Values, as if values are to be directed by the state.



When confronted with this obvious lack of transparency, the President expects the American people to respect the "new truth", previously explained in "The Road to Serfdom", it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.


The "new truth" is the end of truth.

All I have discussed in this article is known to the President. He has studied Marxism, Socialism and Saul Alinsky, but somehow missed the individual liberty that is the life blood of every American; something he really doesn't seem to understand. These lies have purpose; they are designed to make us feel powerless and lead us the collective nightmare in which "no avenue to wealth or honor would subsist save through government*." But Americans are not yet ready to turn away from truth. Not yet..

*Benjamin Disraeli

America Will Defeat Socialism

It's been 30 years since I bought my first house in Tujunga, CA, a small suburb on the edge of the San Fernando Valley. Several months after the sale, my real estate agent called me on the telephone and offered me a position near the top of “pyramid.” I said no. Rather than deter him, he countered with, he was going make his pyramid scheme better than the others by keeping the membership small. For those of you that don’t know what a pyramid money scheme is, it’s a scam that had a short, but very popular life back in the 1980’s. It was presented as a club, where you would invest $100 for a position in the pyramid. The $100 would go to the members in the level above you in the pyramid, where they would keep $50 and send $50 to those on the level above them. Obviously nobody is going to make money unless you’re near the top level, but a lot of people lost a lot of money, thinking the scam would make them rich, without really thinking it through. This is much the same argument for socialism.

As marxists, past and present, have tried to make socialism work, it continues to fail, generally degrading into violence and death. Still, the so-called Intelligentsia keeps trying to re-package socialism, hoping this time they’ll get it right. Socialism always sounds like the right thing to do. Socialism is based loosely on “to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. It’s the belief that every job in the collective is equal and necessary and anyone who raises himself above the collective, is doing so on the back of the common worker. So, the money of the rich is re-distributed through the government. The government takes that money, along with a large portion of the workers income, and re-distributes it back in the form of entitlements. The entitlements of socialism are food, housing, employment, healthcare, and education. While the Declaration of Independence states that government shall not deny a person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, socialism demands they are the responsibility of government. To many, this sounds to good to be true, which it is. The problem with socialism is it sounds good, but it never works. Like the pyramid scheme, it has fundamental flaws. The most basic flaw is socialism does not take into account the human condition. First and foremost entitlements are very expensive and socialism has no economic engine to pay for them. So, like Greece, the state runs out of money to re-distribute and the workers face crippling debt and fiscal austerity.

Still, those that espouse socialism believe themselves on a higher intellectual level. President Obama's statement “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”, shows the elitists attitude of all socialist; The message is pretty straight forward, the American people are stupid; they’re stupid and racist; they’re a bunch of stupid, racist hillbillies, clinging to their guns and religion.. ; and we hear this mantra over and over. It’s the Bill Maher syndrome, “You can’t get Americans to agree on anything. Sixty-percent? Sixty-percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid”, and racist, Bill, don’t forget racist. The truth of course is nothing is farther from the truth. The mere fact that the left is using race to try and silence dissent, shows how sensitive the American people are to the issue race, but the Obama administration continues the baiting unabated.

There is one area where the Left is correct, many Americans are ignorant; but ignorant of socialism. This is the result of the Progressive Left hiding their agenda from the American people. They know that if the American people really understood socialism, they would vote it down into oblivion like they did the progressive agenda in 1940’s. President Obama in a recent statement, described his political reality saying information is now a "distraction" and “putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.” Really? And all this time I thought information and knowledge was good for our democracy. Failing that, the Left attempts to frame socialism as a bastardized version of Martin Luther King Jr's fight for “social justice,” but rather than justice they offer an overreaching government, seeking equality using the re-distribution of wealth. But the good thing is, Americans do not need to know about socialism, because they already know that freedom and liberty are god given rights. Unlike any other country, Americans define themselves by their Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Despite the revisionist history currently taught in our schools, the American people believe in freedom beyond all else. We maintain the freedom to protect the possibility of becoming successful, at the risk of failure, as the rest of the world resigns itself to mediocrity. Americans believe not only in their exceptionalism, but in the exceptionalism of the individual. We are not part of the collective, we are Americans and we know tyranny when we see it. We may not know the genus or species of the tyranny, but we know how to kill it.

ObamaCare; Why America is in Trouble

Healthcare in the US is in trouble. ObamaCare as it now sits will probably bankrupt the United States, without really making quality healthcare more available. ObamaCare has been structured more like fascism than socialism. In this case, Socialism probably would have been better; at least we would have had more available healthcare; that is until the money ran out. Unfortunately, what we ended up was Healthcare through the same Healthcare providers that caused the country to focus on healthcare reform in the first place. Another reason is the Republicans also ignored the problem for 8 years. The American public will now be forced to buy Health Insurance from these same Insurance providers with few price controls and still no competition. It turns out Senate Bill was written by a Insurance provider former vice-president, Elisabeth Fowler, now a council for Sen Baucus, so it’s no wonder many have come to the realization that ObamaCare is a bill that was written by the Insurance providers for the Insurance providers; take ObamaCare, remove the public option, and you have a Healthcare Insurance bailout.

There are many, including myself that believe that, the nature of how Health Insurance evolved, is the basis of the problem. Originally, Health Insurance worked like most Insurance. It was like Auto Insurance, you paid in case you had an accident and the Insurance companies made money because more money was paid in than needed to pay of claims. However, in the 30’s, when single payer first showed it’s head, the Insurance companies took notice that health insurance could be treated more like a business then a relationship between doctor and patient and the HMO was born. “Health Maintenance”, Healthcare Insurance is now the equivalent of an auto maintenance and extended warranty plan. You pay more because the maintenance service is expected, but the warranty company still makes money because again more money is paid in than needed to replace the more expensive major components. That fact is very few auto maintenance plans are purchased because they are prohibitively expensive. The reason is simply, the 60,000 mile maintenance on a Honda Accord can cost over $2000. Because car owners have to pay cash for this, they usually don’t go full boat on vehicle maintenance, knowing periodic oil change and tune up (maybe a timing belt) and the car will usually last over 100,000 miles. So a service maintenance plan usually results in higher maintenance costs overall.

The same goes for Health Insurance. If you only go when it’s necessary and pay cash the price would be less. But Health Insurance hides the real cost of healthcare and as the saying goes, “if something is very free, it has no value” or in this case, if healthcare prices are believed to be the deductible or co-pay, then it’s true value is hidden. Many doctors say they could charge much less, if they didn’t have to deal with insurance or Medicare. The other problem is those who have insurance, pay for those that don’t. In the United States, healthcare is not a right, but it is an obligation, so no one is denied medical care for lack of insurance or money. But, when an un-insured person is treated in a hospital, the hospital needs to charge more for medical care paid for by Insurance to pay for it. Further, since the States regulate Healthcare Insurers, the Insurance companies can not sell popular plans, such as catastrophic medical. The Insurers are also forbidden to sell across state lines, which diminishes competition. Another poison pill is that lack of tort reform. While not a major medical expense ($10 billion), it is another hindrance to the quality of care a doctor can provide, as it is an additional barrier between the doctor and patient.

As I mentioned before, the problem with Singlepayer, or socialized medicine, is socialism has no mechanism for generating capital, beyond taxing the public. What has become apparent in every singlepayer system in the world, is the cost of socialized medicine’s never stops increasing and without restrictions leads to tax rates that are so high that business can not survive and/or the country will become insolvent. The answer to this is rationing care, known in ObamaCare as Comparative Medicine. The reason Comparative Medicine does not appear in the ObamaCare bill recently signed into law by President Obama, is it was signed in earlier as an attachment to the stimulus bill. Like Britain’s N.I.C.E, Comparative Medicine is Health Care based on a cost analysis pitting cost against effectiveness and age. NIH Chairman, Ezekiel Emanuel writes, “When implemented, the "complete lives" system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”. In other words, if a costly procedure will not result in a significant extension of life, it will be refused and according to the most recent HealthCare bill (now law), the Comparative Effectiveness Panel’s decision is final and un-appealable.

One of the most cherished and repeated lines from the Declaration of Independence is, We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The concept that is most misinterpreted is “the pursuit of Happiness”. When Thomas Jefferson wrote these words, he was borrowing the heavily from the English Philosopher, John Locke’s writings such as, "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”. The concept of the “pursuit of happiness”, does not obligate the State to do anything, but mandates the State get out of the way and not hinder the right of man to improve his station in life. As I said before, Healthcare is not a right, because a right, according to our founding fathers come from god, Healthcare is rather an obligation of the State, but unlike a right, can be given or taken away by the whim of the State. What really needs to be looked at is how this obligation can be fulfilled without standing in the way of the American people. In my next blog I will discuss some options.

The Boston Massacre and Socialism

With the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, many of the old arguments regarding healthcare and socialism have been coming back, as the American people one again see the prospect of real bi-partisan heathcare reform, less the special deals and bribery that have part and parcel of Obamacare. If there is one question that continues to resonate over and over it's Rodeny King's, “Why can't we all just get along?” Why not indeed. Some of the reasons are as basic as perspective and decisive as the belief the Bourgeoisie continue to hold down the Proletariat and neither are capable of governing themselves. The primary argument though, tends to center around freemarket vs socialism. While the term socialism is still, not well tolerated in arguments in healthcare, they usually try to redefine socialism as any and all government services. First, lets not forget that by definition the government is “We the people”. But, our founding fathers were not so deluded, that they believed that government would always be the people. In fact, they foresaw the “government” becoming the tyrannical entity that it has become today. Our government was designed to work from the bottom up. The power and influence was to be delegated to the individual states and limited central of federal government have only those powers that were delineated in the Constitution, and there was even added a list, or Bill of Rights to further protect the individual from the federal government. There can really be no tyranny without a far reaching federal government , which our founding fathers attempted reel in at every step. There was even an argument that the United States should have no standing army, as a standing army is the most common vehicle used to overthrow a free people. In what is probably the strongest argument for an armed citizenry, James Madison (the primary author of the Constitution) said that he felt the states had nothing to fear from a standing army due to the existence of state militias (an armed citizen army).

The reason I have spent so much time is the tyranny of collectivism (the needs of the masses over the rights of the individuals; socialism, communism, fascism), relies on a strong central government. As I said before, there are those that would argue that local and state services are a form of socialism. This is either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Socialism is a system of government, in which a central government controls the means of production and all social services. Compare that to the citizens of a city or county, empowering a police force or paying for a fire department.. These services are paid for by local taxes and are directly accountable to not only a local board of supervisors or city council, but to the average citizen himself. Compare that to a federal bureaucrat, who sits on a board deciding how much your doctor will be paid for services or what services are eligible to a person your age and physical condition. In the first case the citizen dictates the type of police or firefighter they want and are directly accountable to the same citizens. With socialism there is no accountability, because the rights and needs of the individual has been abrogated for the needs of the collective. With socialism there is no room for exceptionalism, as the collective dictates demands that the quality level of service is always lowered, so there is the illusion of equal care; I say illusion, because there is always an elite requiring something better for “expediency” sake.