Archive for February, 2008
By Thomas E. Brewton
The current Republican and Democratic economic stimulus plan is the latest version of a much tried and repeatedly untrue liberal-progressive panacea.
Stimulus packages first surfaced in this country, under President Herbert Hoover, as a product of the liberal-progressive-socialist doctrine of the early 20th century. They failed miserably throughout the Depression and haven’t worked anytime since then.
The bottom line is that stimulus packages don’t do the intended job of jump-starting the economy. (See Why Tax Rebates Are Delusional ). Instead they work against righting misallocation of economic resources and add to inflationary pressures that rob people of the value of their savings.
Tax cuts, coupled with reduced government spending, are the only effective and non-inflationary economic stimulants.
Why then have one-shot stimulus packages?
Socialist theory since its inception in the first decades of the 19th century had always preached that industry could best be managed by intellectuals, working through industry councils and bureaucratic managers. Imposing public regulatory control (what was called socialization) on business was presumed to make it more efficient and thereby to raise wages and employment.
20th century American business itself ironically was partly responsible for the popularity of the idea of scientific management in government and its manifestation in stimulus packages.
As corporations grew to hitherto unimaginable size around the time of World War I, management became more structured. The professional manager came into being, and scientific management techniques came into vogue. To that end, the Harvard Business School was founded in 1908. Business leaders and the general public alike believed that the same highly successful business management approach should be applied to local, state, and national government.
By Thomas Lindaman
I was chatting online with a friend of mine watching CNN’s coverage of the South Carolina Republican Primary when my friend mentioned something said by one of the political experts they had. One of the experts said, hopefully with tongue planted firmly in cheek, that John McCain and Fred Thompson are working together to weaken the other candidates. Yeah, because as we all know, Thompson is secretly a liberal Republican who is only acting like a conservative Republican to undermine Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
For the people who believe CNN is the epitome of fine political reporting and analysis, that was sarcasm.
Is it just me, or have the media done a horrible job covering this election? Reading the online newspapers and magazines and watching the cable news coverage has been more painful than watching any of the recent "American Pie" sequels, but with many more exposed boobs. I know journalistic standards have declined in recent years, but there’s a big difference between declining and devolving. And from where I sit, the New York Times is only a couple steps up from the Weekly World News as far as journalistic quality.
Part of the reason is what the media do every time there’s a national election. In order to generate interest in the coverage, the media love to set up a horse race mentality. Which candidate is ahead? Which candidate is starting to fall back? Which candidate will be turned into glue at the end of the election?
WASHINGTON, February 13, 2008 — Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid disclosed today that a hugely expensive bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama, was quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. Kincaid said that the major media's cover-up of the bill, which makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, demonstrates the media's desire to see Senator Obama elected to the presidency.
In a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. It was scheduled for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have now put a "hold" on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.
The House version (H.R. 1302) was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Kincaid's column notes that the official in charge of making nations comply with the U.N. Millennium Goals, which are prominently highlighted in the Obama bill, says a global tax will be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.
By Alan Caruba
After a while, one grows accustomed to the environmental rants that appear in The New York Times. This newspaper, so often pointed to as an exemplar of the highest standards of journalism, has been repeatedly revealed to employ fantasists for whom truth and facts are mere impediments to the advancement of their obsessions and agendas.
A perfect example of this is the January 27th rant, “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler” by Mark Bittman, identified as the author of “How to Cook Everything Vegetarian” along with the disclaimer that “He is not a vegetarian.” He writes for the “Dining in and Dining Out” section. If it looks like a vegetarian, walks like a vegetarian, and quacks like a vegetarian, it probably is a vegetarian.
His commentary is a cornucopia of assertions and cherry-picked facts that beg to be rebutted, but I shall choose just a few, starting where he started. “Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government.” By subsidized, the reader is asked to assume that the raising, packaging, and distribution of meat products depends on government subsidies to exist and that the oil industry does as well. Unlike the European Union, those engaged in either industry in the United States are expected to make a profit on their own without such dependence. It’s called capitalism.
“Finally—like oil—meat is something people are encourage to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible.” Visible to whom? Do supermarket sections offering abundant choices of meat products suggest anything other than the fact that people want meat as part of their diet? Does anyone really give any thought to how it got there?
The only people recommending we eat less meat are vegetarians. Read the rest of this entry »
By Alan Caruba
If you want the government, federal, state and local, to tell you what you can and cannot eat, please raise your hand. Apparently no one does except for the various politicians who think they were elected to determine what you should eat and drink.
Let’s get something straight, however. I’m fat. You’re fat. And your kids, if you have any, are probably overweight too. There are some easily understood reasons for this and economist, Eric A. Finkelstein, along with Laurie Zuckerman, tells us what they are in their new book, “The Fattening of America: How the Economy Makes Us Fat, If it Matters, and What to Do About it.”
Looking to the government for answers, however, is predictably a bad idea. Sally C. Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, points out that “government data about what constitutes ‘overweight’ and ‘obese’ are misleading.” The standard metric for this is a person’s body-mass index (BMI). It is the ratio of one’s height to one’s weight. It is a measurement standard that “does not take into account an individual’s body type.” Some athletes would be categorized as obese, but their weight comes more from muscle than fat.
We keep hearing that America is in the midst of an “obesity epidemic” and this is just hype. Americans in general have put on more pounds, but an epidemic is a term applied to diseases that are quickly spread whereas the only thing spreading in America is our waistlines. It’s happening worldwide and even occurring in the world’s poorest countries. Finkelstein notes that “an astounding 1.6 billion people or roughly 25 percent of the planet’s population are (in a) higher than normal weight range, and 400 million of these are considered obese, according to a fall 2005 report by the United Nation’s World Health Organization.”
There are cultural and racial characteristics, too, that play a role in over-weight. “As was the case 30 years ago, excess weight remains more common among African-Americans and Hispanic children than among whites.” And, if the kids are fat, their parents are likely to be fat, too.
Plainly said, Americans are just eating more. “Between the late 1970s and today, men have increased their daily food intake by about 180 calories and woman have increased their daily food intake by about 360 calories.” For men that’s the equivalent of a pint of beer and, for women, it’s a four-ounce slice of chocolate cake. Over all, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), men now consuming 2,600 calories per day and woman now consume 1,900 calories daily.
A major contributing factor has been the price of food that has dropped 38 percent relative to the prices of other goods and services. Add to this that, “high-calorie foods have become much cheaper compared to healthier alternatives such as fish, fruits, and vegetables.” Fast food establishments have thrived in the U.S. and even restaurants serve large portions these days. It’s Economics 101. Cheaper food equals eating more.
In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom recently announced he intends to tax retail chains for stocking Coke, Pepsi, and other drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. He is typical of politicians who (a) think raising taxes on anything is a good idea and (b) haven’t a clue about nutrition.
Henry Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, the author of “The Frankenfood Myth”, points out that “In sweetness, high-fructose corn syrup is equal in intensity to disaccharide sucrose, otherwise known as table sugar.” Moreover, “Sugar and high-fructose corn syrup also have essentially the same affect on the body’s production of insulin, which helps burn calories and lowers blood sugar.” According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Americans actually consume less high-fructose corn syrup than sugar.
Ruling Loses Support When People Learn the Details
Washington, D.C. — 35 years ago, on January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court handed down one of the most controversial rulings in history, Roe v. Wade. For the most part, support for the decision is surrounded by a lack of knowledge. Much of the public is unaware of the details of Roe.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) along with Focus on the Family, The Alliance Defense Fund and the Family Research Council, created the Roe IQ Test to see how familiar the average American is with the details of this controversial ruling.
The outcome: America flunked. With the average score resulting in 7 out of 12 correct answers, America scored a failing grade of 59%. When individuals learn of the specifics of Roe, the support to overturn the ruling increases.
CWA speakers are available to discuss the Roe IQ Test, as well as the March for Life and current lobbying efforts by CWA for federal legislation.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America said “The assumption that most people support Roe is not only flawed but flat out wrong. When people learn the details of Roe, their support declines.” Wendy has been a pro-life activist for over 15 years and involved in many U.S. Supreme Court cases involving abortion and free speech. She is a recognized leader in the pro-life movement.
Dr. Janice Crouse, Director and Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, can discuss research and data analysis on current abortion trends.
Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues, provides a personal account of how abortion affects men. “Abortion doesn’t only hurt women and kill children; it can also deeply wound the men it touches. I’m sad to say that I know this from personal experience. Along with the realization that a woman has chosen to end the life you helped to create, comes a profound sense of loss and guilt. I can’t know for sure, but I sometimes imagine my first child was a girl. Today she would have been about 22 years-old, finishing college, I suspect, ready to take on the world. Perhaps I’d be walking her down the aisle soon. I can’t know. I’ll never know. Only God knows. My child was torn from this world before anyone could know.”
For Information Contact:
Natalie Bell
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
By Thomas E. Brewton
The New York Times is distressed that private philanthropists can give money to any charity they choose.
Only a socialistic Federal government is capable, says the Times, of making wise decisions about dispensing money to achieve social justice.
The flip side of American private largess is the stinginess of the public sector. Philanthropic contributions in the United States — about $300 billion in 2006 — probably exceed those of any other country. By contrast, America’s tax take is nearly the lowest in the industrial world. Federal, state and local tax collections amount to just more than 25.5 percent of the nation’s economic output. The Finnish government collects 48.8 percent. As a result, the United States spends less on social programs than virtually every other rich industrial country, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Finnish government probably has money to build children’s health clinics.
Critics of government spending argue that America’s private sector does a better job making socially necessary investments. But it doesn’t. Public spending is allocated democratically among competing demands. Rich benefactors can spend on anything they want, and they tend to spend on projects close to their hearts.
The real point, of course, is not that private philanthropists misplace their donations. The point is to move the United States farther toward what Hilaire Belloc called The Servile State and Friedrich Hayek called The Road to Serfdom.
True socialism of the kind lovingly promoted by the New York Times requires that all economic resources of the nation be collectively controlled by government ownership or by regulation.
Social justice being defined as equality of income, the Federal government must roughly double income taxes to bring the United States up to par with other socialist nations.
The Democratic Party's presidential candidates, all liberal- progressive-socialists, have not explicitly acknowledged that goal, but Senator Hillary Clinton's recent pronouncements make clear the direction in which she intends to head if elected.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com
By Thomas E. Brewton
The experience of the Soviet Union, Japan, and China should, but will not, cause liberal activists to proceed with caution.
According to the New York Times:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy, to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration…
Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.
The logical end of Senator Clinton's prescription was first articulated by the followers of Henri de Saint-Simon, who in 1829 addressed the following to the President of the French Chamber of Deputies:
The sole effect of [the free market place] system is to leave the distribution of social advantages to a chance few who are able to lay some pretence to it, and to condemn the numerically superior class to deprivation, ignorance, and misery. [Socialists] ask that all the instruments of production, all lands and capital, the funds now divided among individual proprietors, should be pooled so as to form one central social fund…