Mrs. Clinton’s “Economic Action Plan”

Well, the South Carolina debate sure was a hoot, wasn’t it? I just love cat fights. But before the real fun began, Mrs. Clinton laid out her “economic action plan,” which consisted of the following six points.

• “I would have a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days…”
• “I want to have an interest rate freeze for 5 years…”
• “Then I think we need to give people about $650, if they qualify, to help pay their energy bills this winter….”
• “I want to put money into clean energy jobs, green collar jobs,”
• “and also make sure we have a fund that will help communities deal with the consequences of the home foreclosure crisis,”
• “and make sure the unemployment system is up to the task.”

Sounds like she’s really thought this through, doesn’t it? But, let’s take a little closer look.

What good will a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures really do? How many of the people who are unable to pay their mortgages today will suddenly get a huge promotion, a new job, or win the lottery within the next three months? Realistically, if their house is about to be foreclosed, delaying it for 90 days is not going to keep them from losing it. What it will do is give them 90 days free rent, where they can stop paying their bills because they know they’re going to lose the house anyway. And, during those 90 days, the house is no longer an “investment” for them, so they have no particular motivation to keep it up. In fact, many people in this situation feel a certain resentment toward the financial institution that’s “kicking them out of their home,” and some may even take it out on the property to get back at the villains who are “doing this to them.” I don’t see how this will help either the economy or the people who can’t pay their debts (beyond giving them 3 months free rent at the expense of the lenders).

And how will a five year interest freeze ultimately help the people who irresponsibly overextended their credit on homes they couldn’t afford? What happens when the freeze is lifted? Are we expected to anticipate that people who had to get sub-prime loans because they had bad credit to begin with will become any more financially savvy or fiscally responsible after having been bailed out for five years? What happens in five years when their interest rates jump up? They’ll be back in the same situation they’re in now. A problem deferred is not a problem solved.

And how exactly will this fund “help communities deal with the consequences of the home foreclosure crisis?” And who’s going to pay for it? We, the taxpayers, of course. The people who manage our finances responsibly will once again be asked to pony up for those who didn’t. No, not asked — the money we earned and saved and managed wisely will be taken out of our pockets to bail out the ones who figured they might as well risk it all because, if worse came to worst, the good old Fed would surely come to their rescue. The fiscally conservative individuals who decided the risk wasn’t worth taking are the ones who’ll get stuck paying the cost of the risks that others took.

Remember the story of the grasshopper and the ant? Well, the ants are tired of storing up food all year only to feed the grasshoppers when the grasshopper party is over. Grasshoppers, get a clue! The ants are fed up. Sometimes I think, instead of a donkey and an elephant, the party symbols ought to be a grasshopper and an ant.    

---

Rate this post:

Paraphrasing Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said:

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

NotYourDaddy says:

“Get your hand out of my pocket and leave me alone!”

---

Rate this post:

Which America Do You Believe In?

Conservatives believe in smaller government, more personal responsibility, an individual’s right to self-determination, and the inviolability of private property.

Liberals believe in bigger government, government assuming responsibility for the welfare of the people, and the “equitable” redistribution of private property  (e.g., higher taxes, social welfare programs, land use regulations).

Conservatives see Americans as strong enough, resourceful enough, and intelligent enough to forge their own destinies, viewing hardships as challenges and taking pride in overcoming them.

Liberals see Americans as hapless children who can’t be expected to take responsibility for their own welfare, or that of their families, who must be provided for and sheltered from hardship and privation.

Conservatives believe Americans are generous enough to give a hand up to those who are truly in need, of their own volition, out of a spirit of genuine altruism.

Liberals believe Americans are greedy and uncaring, and that the government must extract money from those who have it to bestow upon those who need to be preserved from hardship and the struggle for existence.

Conservatives believe the fundamental role of the government is to protect the citizens from each other, from external enemies, and from abuse of power by the government itself.

Liberals believe it’s the role of government to protect the people from themselves, and from their own bad judgement.

Conservatives believe each individual is responsible enough to make their own choices and live their own lives with minimal government intervention.

Liberals believe Daddy knows best.

---

Rate this post:

There Ought to be a Law! — Or Ought There?

Our prisons are full to overflowing. We don’t have enough prison space to lock up people who prey on society, so criminals get plea bargains, probation, suspended sentences, or serve a fraction of the time to which they’re sentenced. Yet, we waste law enforcement, court, and prison resources on arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating people for crimes that are not predatory, and only present a danger to the perpetrators themselves.

What is the ultimate purpose of the criminal justice system? Is it to protect society from predators? Is it to protect people from themselves? Is it to punish immoral or irresponsible behavior? If the purpose is to protect society from those who prey on others, that is where we should focus our law enforcement efforts. We do not have sufficient resources to prosecute every crime or lock up every criminal. So lets make sure we spend our limited resources where we get the highest return on investment.

It isn’t that I don’t care if people who are weak, ignorant, irresponsible, or naive play havoc with their own lives. I just don’t believe it’s the role of government to protect them from their own bad judgement. The role of government is to protect me from you, or vice versa, and to protect both of us from a common enemy. Any law that does not serve that purpose not only goes beyond the legitimate authority of the government, it’s a waste of the taxpayers’ money.

The arguments supporting laws against “victimless crimes” are that drugs, gambling, and prostitution do have victims, indirectly, because they fund organized crime and because people commit crimes to support their habits. Some people also believe that decriminalizing these activities would encourage more people to engage in them. I’ll address these points in order.

If drugs, gambling, and prositution weren’t illegal, they wouldn’t fund organized crime. Instead, they would be taxed to help fund law enforcement and criminal justice. Decriminalizing victimless crimes would also reduce the burden on our criminal justice system and free up more law enforcement resources to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate real criminals who do prey on society. Reducing funding for organized crime, increasing funding for law enforcement, and freeing up resources in the criminal justice system would significantly increase our capacity to effectively deal with real criminals.

Addicts resort to crime to support their habits because illegal drugs are so expensive. The cost of producing these drugs is no greater than the cost of producing tobacco or alcohol. If they were legal, they would be no more expensive than cigarettes or booze. Nicotine is as addictive as any known substance, but how many people commit crimes to support their cigarette habits? If drugs were legalized, addicts who are not otherwise criminally inclined would not be driven to crime. This would have an immediate impact on increasing public safety. 

The final argument is that, if drugs, gambling, and prostitution were legal, more people would engage in those activities. I personally don’t believe that to be true. Most people who want to take drugs, gamble, or frequent prostitutes do so in spite of prohibition. Most people who don’t indulge, don’t refrain only because it’s illegal. There might be a few who would try it out of curiosity if it were legal, but that’s a question of personal accountability and individual choice.

It isn’t the role of the government to intervene in any individual’s pursuit of happiness, no matter how misdirected it may be, unless it violates the rights of other people.

---

Rate this post:

Will or Happenstance?

In the age old question of nature vs. nurture, where does free will come into play? Clearly, we can’t choose our genetic, biologocal, or physiological characterisitics. Nor do we choose our early childhood experiences. But we choose our jobs, spouses, friends, and how we spend our time. Our choices are not unlimited, but conditioned, among other things, by other choices we’ve made.

Some people would blame a person’s moral shortcomings on an unfortunate childhood or a miserable job or an unhappy marriage. However, regardless of what experiences may have influenced one’s present state, every individual is ultimately responsible for their own life. That’s what it means to be a human being.

If only we could fashion ourselves out of pure will, we could be whatever we want. But we don’t create ourselves in a vacuum. Like water running over rock, every day of our lives, every experience we have, contributes to shaping who we are. When we allow ourselves to be molded by experiences that are not of our own choosing, in ways not conditioned by our own will, we end up becoming someone we never intended to be.

We can’t choose every experience that happens to us, but we can choose how we respond to it, and what we learn from it. Sometimes it isn’t possible to walk away, and an experience must be endured. Enduring a devastating experience can make a person either stronger or weaker, depending on how they deal with it. But it’s our everyday lives that shape us the most, and make us who we are.

Humans are very good at adapting to our environment. Too good, in fact. We do it instinctively, unconsciously allowing our environment to redefine us. The danger is, if we aren’t conscious of the environment in which we spend most of our time, and what behaviors it rewards and punishes, we may adapt in ways we never foresaw, and become someone we didn’t anticipate.

How does one become one’s self, rather than some random person defined by happenstance? By exercising our will. — Not by exerting our will over others, but over ourselves.

1. We can choose the way we think and feel in response to external stimuli. For example, instead of thinking like a victim and feeling resentment, we can analyze how the situation came about and what options we have to alter or avoid it in the future.
2. We can choose our behavior. Instead of acting/reacting in our habitual ways, we can consciously behave as the person we define ourselves to be.
3. We can remove ourselves from a situation that cultivates the characteristics we want to overcome, and find or create a new situation where we can cultivate the traits we choose to hone.

Nietzche said “Become yourself.” Each of us can choose to be the author of our own life, or we can let our lives happen to us and live with whomever we happen to become.

---

Rate this post:

Call me Scrooge

I’m appalled by the universal acceptance of a debt-based economy. It encourages a sense of entitlement on the part of the majority of the population (as well as the government itself) to reap more than they can sow. Our entire nation is caught in a self-perpetuating spiral of fiscal irresponsibility. When the entire culture accepts that debt is ok, and promotes it as a virtue, it’s not surprising that so many individuals don’t know where to draw the line.

If record numbers of people are now learning that there are consequences to overextending their budgets, then maybe they’ll teach their children that debt is dangerous, and the next generation will grow up with a greater sense of fiscal and personal responsibility. But those who eschew luxuries and take care to live within their means should not end up being forced to foot the bill for those who don’t.

What’s wrong with telling people they shouldn’t spend more than they can earn, and that they should earn it before they spend it? What’s wrong with not having everything at once, but working your way up to a point where you can be proud that you’ve earned the right to a higher standard of living than you had when you started out? What’s wrong with living lean until you gain the skills to provide enough value to somebody to get paid enough to support yourself in the style to which you’d like to become accustomed? Why does everybody feel they deserve everything up front before they even know what it means to work hard enough and long enough to be able to afford it? It’s a sickness in our culture.

Debt is not a right, nor even a privilege. Debt is a disease. I understand that, in dire circumstances, one may contract it. But the idea is to get rid of it as soon as possible, not to cultivate it and nurture it and make it a lifestyle. I know I’m in a miniscule minority on this question. What seems obvious to me seems ridiculous to most. Why do without when you can charge it? Well, for one reason, there are things that even money can’t buy, no matter how deeply in debt one is willing to sink. Self-reliance has it’s own rewards. Knowing you don’t owe anything to anyone is more than just solvency. It’s freedom.

I don’t understand why anybody feels entitled to anything they haven’t earned. I really don’t. Call me a Scrooge. Call me old-fashioned. Call whatever you want. But I believe in taking responsibility for one’s own life.

---

Rate this post: