Mitt Over Obama?

As you may recall, a few weeks ago a Republican friend of mine asked me whether I would be voting for Newt Gingrich over Obama this election. My answer was a resounding "no." Last night (the night before the Florida GOP primary), this same friend asked me whether I would be voting for Mitt Romney over Obama this election. My answer is still "no."

I had to laugh at the ease with which my friend is willing to throw his support to Romney (a candidate he previously despised) now that it looks like he will win the Florida primary and become the presumptive GOP nominee. After a moment's reflection, I suppose it's really not that surprising. Romney and Gingrich are simply generic, interchangeable parts of the same neocon machine after all. Since there are no substantive differences between them, it probably makes just as much sense (from my friend's point of view, anyway) to support one as the other.

From my perspective it makes no sense to support any of them. Neither Obama, nor Gingrich, nor Romney reflects anything even remotely approaching my own views. They're all just a bunch of big-government types – whether they choose to put an "R" or a "D" after their names is completely inconsequential. They're indistinguishable from one another when it comes to their positions on bailouts, monetary policy, foreign policy, civil liberties…you name it. And as I told my friend before, my vote won't make a difference to the outcome one way or the other, so why bother?

He found my argument…unpersuasive. Here is the most recent exchange – again, I leave it to the reader to decide which of us has the more reasoned view.

GOP (Friend)

Ok... looking more and more that Mitt is going to be the nominee. Will you vote for Mitt or stay home?

I'll be honest, Romne-care makes me want to stay far away from this guy. However and ironically, the more I hear about Bain it makes me want to vote for him. Newt's attack on Bain backfired badly. Romney promises to support repealing 0bama-care, so that's good enough for me to forgive his heinous healthcare record in Massachusetts.

ABGTF (Me)

I'll stay home, but I agree that Newt's attempt to play the Occupy card was a disaster (among others). I think Romney would have a better shot at beating Obama. Newt's like a right-wing Hillary Clinton - popular with the base, but carries too many negatives with independents. And Santorum would go down as the GOP's Mondale. Mitt's your guy if you want a shot at getting the White House back. Hope for a net gain in the Senate and pray to hold onto the House.

GOP

You don't really think the House is in jeopardy, do you? I'll make that bet any day of the week and five times on Sunday.

You staying home is a vote for 0bama. You libs are like those *****s in the school yard growing up. My way or I take my ball home. Anything is better than 0bama, wake up!!

ABGTF

It's not that I think the House is in jeopardy, it's just that I think the Dems are likely to retain the White House regardless of who the GOP puts up. So perhaps more focus should go into maintaining and building on the gains in Congress rather than on the Presidency.

My staying at home is a rational choice. My vote will make no difference (the probability of a decisive vote here is roughly 1:1 billion). I'm pretty sure Obama will win the state of California by more than one vote. If it makes you feel any better, though, I could take any of the following actions to help Mitt Romney (or whomever) win, and each of them would be just as effective as voting, if not more:

1. Perform a modified rain dance.
2. Sacrifice a virgin to a volcano (the volcano part is no problem, but finding a virgin in Southern California may be a little tricky).
3. Send out positive vibes to the universe, a la The Secret.
4. Buy a lottery ticket and donate some of the winnings to the GOP candidate's campaign.

If I were to vote, it would be for Gary Johnson (assuming he gets the LP nomination), simply because he's much more in line with my views and because there are ballot retention reasons for doing so. It certainly wouldn't be for any superstitious belief that my vote mattered to the election's outcome.

And finally, everyone's a tough guy online. Save the ad hominem attacks for your buddies on the message board. No one here is impressed by your inability to make a convincing argument.

GOP

Am I supposed to be impressed by that weak comeback?

ABGTF

No, you don't have to be impressed, but since you can't be bothered to refute anything I said I'll take your silence as consent. Did you ask Santa for a GOP victory?

Equally useful...

Political Quotes (Intentional or Not)

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

- Upton Sinclair, on journalists and politicians.

"From my tribe I take nothing. I am the maker of my own fortune."

- Tecumseh, on how a true public servant would act.

"When we have begun to take charge of our lives, to own ourselves, there is no longer any need to ask permission of someone."

- George O'Neil, on the radical notion that other people are not your property.

"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

- Samuel Johnson, on arguing with non-libertarians.

"It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny."

- James Fennimore Cooper, on the merits of a living, breathing Constitution.

"It is seldom that the miserable of the world can help regarding their misery as a wrong inflicted by those who are less miserable."

- George Eliot, on the average Occupy Wall Street protester.

"A man of such obvious and exemplary charm must be a liar."

- Anita Brookner, on (fill in name of politician here).

"About the most originality that any writer can hope to achieve honestly is to steal with good judgment."

- Josh Billings, on intellectual property law.

"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas."

- George Bernard Shaw, also on intellectual property law.

"All socialism involves slavery. That which fundamentally distinguishes the slave is that he labours under coercion to satisfy another's desires."

- Herbert Spencer, on…well…socialism.

"You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

- Al Capone, on the nature of government.

Fear and Envy

I watched the last part of CNN's Republican debate from Florida Thursday night, and to my surprise I came away with a much better understanding of the stark choice that American voters will face this November when they go to the polls to vote for President. Regardless of who the GOP nominee is (assuming it won't be Ron Paul), Americans will have to decide between fear and envy.

Fear is what the Republicans have to offer. Based on last night's debate, it may be all they have. This point was driven home when Rick Santorum answered a question relating to the Cuban embargo. Naturally, Mr. Santorum is all for it. As I'm sure readers are aware, the US government maintains strict sanctions against the tiny third-world island nation (technically the US government punishes American citizens who wish to interact with Cubans, but I suspect that distinction is lost on most of the candidates). The embargo, which was allegedly designed to drive Castro from power, has been in place longer than I've been alive. And yet the Castro boys are still running the show in Havana. To Rick Santorum, this is exactly the kind of wildly successful government program that should be maintained.

The former Senator from Pennsylvania did not rest his support for the embargo on its efficacy in achieving its stated objective, though. Instead, he claimed that now was not the time to reward Castro by lifting the embargo*, because Castro associates with other anti-American tin-pot dictators like Noriega.

That's right, he said "Noriega." (I had to rewind just to make sure).

For those of you who (like Rick Santorum) don't know, Manuel Noriega was imprisoned in France until just last year. He was recently extradited to Panama, where he's now serving a 20-year sentence. Though there may be many threats to American security out there, we can rest assured that Noriega is not one of them.

But clearly the GOP no longer limits itself to actual threats to national security. They're worried about imaginary ones, too (you can never be too careful). In addition to the terrifying specter of Manuel Noriega, Santorum is also keeping a watchful eye on jihadists who are (wait for it)…going to set up missile sites in Latin America. That's right. They're not planning suicide attacks with small explosives, they're not building IEDs, and they're not attacking soft targets with machine guns. They're building missile sites.

And Ron Paul is considered the "nutty" one? The unelectable one?

Aside from the existential threat posed to the United States by Cuba (Latin America's poorest country) Rick Santorum is also deeply worried about Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and presumably (though it didn't come up during last night's debate) Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as well. Which leads me to wonder if there are any underdeveloped countries the GOP is not afraid of?

Fear. That's what the Republicans are offering. That's the driving force behind all their saber-rattling.

This is not to say that Obama has put forward anything more inspiring for the voters in November. From what I gather from his recent State of the Union address and other speeches, the only thing President Obama has to offer is envy.

"Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary."

Naturally, Obama wants to raise Buffett's tax rate to rectify this injustice. It never occurs to him to lower the tax rate of the secretary, of course. (Personally, I'd rather have 15% of Warren Buffett's capital gains than 28% of his secretary's salary, but that's just me). But with a national debt of over $15 trillion, multi-trillion dollar deficits projected as far as the eye can see, and anywhere from $50 to $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, it should be clear to anyone paying attention that no tax rate, no matter how high, no matter how rich-soaking it may be, will ever be enough to satiate the Federal government's appetite for spending. But that is not the point, of course. The point is to throw red meat to blue voters, and in today's highly emotional and economically illiterate climate, that means serving up envy – and lots of it.

In a recent speech in Michigan, President Obama channeled the odious Elizabeth Warren, saying, "We do not begrudge wealth in this country. I want everybody here to do well. We aspire to financial success, but we also understand that we're not successful just by ourselves. We're successful because somebody started the University of Michigan. We're successful because somebody made an investment in all the federal research labs that created the internet. We're successful because we have an outstanding military that costs money. We're successful because somebody built roads and bridges. And laid broadband lines and these things didn't just happen on their own. And if we all understand that we've got to pay for this stuff, it makes sense for those of us who've done best to do our fair share and to try to pass off that bill on to somebody else, that's not right. That's not who we are."

In Obama's worldview, government expenditures in infrastructure and defense provide a justification for limitless predation on the productive sector. In an America motivated by envy, the more successful a person is, the less secure his property becomes. And despite Obama's frequent entreaties not to call it class warfare or envy, that's exactly what it is.

Envy. That's what the Democrats are offering. That's the driving force behind all their "eat the rich" sloganeering.

So which will it be this November? Fear or envy? Remember – if you don't vote, you can't complain.

* Note to Rick Santorum: Lifting the embargo is not a reward for Castro, it's his greatest fear. Once the embargo is lifted, Castro will no longer have a convenient scapegoat for all the misery his evil and idiotic policies have inflicted on the Cuban people lo these many years.

Teachable Moments

As pessimistic as I usually am about the prospects for liberty in the United States, two stories cropped up this week to remind me that not all modern Americans actively cheer their own enslavement. The first was Senator Rand Paul's recent run-in with the TSA.

As you're no doubt aware, Paul – an outspoken critic of the TSA – was detained Monday while traveling through the Nashville airport. A TSA agent claimed that the naked radiation bath Paul had just passed through indicated some sort of irregularity, and that the Senator would have to be felt up just to make sure the nationally-known politician wasn't also moonlighting as an Al-Qaeda operative. The Senator declined the TSA agent's come-on, offering to go through the scanner a second time instead to clear up any security concerns. Evidently enraged by having his advances publicly spurned, the TSA agent started barking orders at Paul and detained him in a cubicle long enough for the Senator to miss his flight.

It might have ended there, but Rand Paul decided instead to use the incident as a teachable moment. He quickly penned an op-ed for The Washington Times in which he wrote, "Despite removing my belt, glasses, wallet and shoes, the scanner and TSA also wanted my dignity. I refused." When speaking to CNN about the incident, he asked, "Is it too much to ask to have a little dignity when you travel? And shouldn't an adult be able to get back in line and go through the scanner? I don't think that's too much to ask."

Personally I think it's too much to "ask" anyone to be sent through Michael Chertoff's money siphoner even once, much less twice. And to be clear, no one is "asking" us to go through them – they're commanding us. Nevertheless, I applaud Senator Paul's decision to stand up to the TSA and use the spotlight he's been given to keep the public discussion over the agency's usefulness (or lack thereof) going.

Continuing from his op-ed piece,

"Ever since the news of my struggle with TSA, the phones in my office have been ringing off the hook with calls from citizens who sympathize with my frustration, as they, too, feel their liberties are being compromised every time they travel. My office is being inundated with their stories of assault and harassment by TSA agents. This agency's disregard for our civil liberties is something we are expected to understand and accept. But we are tired of being insulted and we are tired of having our dignity compromised. TSA was created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but was it necessary? Has it overstepped its bounds? Is it respecting the rights of citizens? It is time for us to question the effectiveness of TSA. America can prosper, preserve personal liberty and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens. Every time we travel, we are expected to surrender our Fourth Amendment rights, yet willingly giving up our rights does not make us any safer. It is infuriating that this agency feels entitled to revoke our civil liberties while doing little to keep us safe."

Senator Paul brings up a number of good points, none of which had the slightest impact on President Obama, the one person who might be able to do something about TSA abuses. Rather than work to restore some sense of sanity to air travel in the United States, the White House instead defended the TSA's relentless assault on Americans' civil liberties.

The second ray of hope this week comes from Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas, who chose not to accompany his teammates to the White House to receive the blessings of the Oval Office for last year's Stanley Cup victory. Instead, Mr. Thomas used the opportunity as a teachable moment, issuing the following official Facebook statement:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL. This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"

Well said, Mr. Thomas.

Not everyone agrees, of course. ESPN columnist Joe McDonald said, "Thomas' absence was uncalled for. The president has more important things to worry about with Tuesday's State of the Union address." (Which makes one wonder why the President is wasting his time meeting a hockey team in the first place). Mr. McDonald feels the "Bruins goalie picked inappropriate time, venue to make personal statement." I suppose he might have picked next Thursday afternoon instead, but I doubt it would have had the same impact.

Oh well, the sheep ye shall always have with you. Then again, we will also always have with us those who, though they may submit to the government's plunder, its violations of rights, and its endless interference in our lives, don't feel obligated to lick the boots resting firmly on their throats, as President Obama and Mr. McDonald would have them do. When offered a teachable moment, they take full advantage to remind us of the freedoms that we as Americans used to enjoy.

They may even inspire us to work to reclaim those same freedoms.

Economic Fascism Defined

The most succinct description of the economic aspects of fascism I've ever read comes from Babylon.com's A Glossary of Political Economy Terms. There is no question that fascist systems are characterized by other elements that go far beyond economics – elements such as rabid nationalism, racism, and militarism - and the glossary does cover those as well. But it's hard to beat the following for a concise definition of economic fascism:

"Strict regulation and control of the economy by the regime through some form of corporatist economic planning in which the legal forms of private ownership of industry are nominally preserved but in which both workers and capitalists are obliged to submit their plans and objectives to the most detailed state regulation and extensive wage and price controls, which are designed to insure the priority of the political leadership's objectives over the private economic interests of the citizenry. Therefore under fascism most of the more important markets are allowed to operate only in a non-competitive, cartelized, and governmentally 'rigged' fashion."

It is this definition that always comes to mind whenever I read stories like the one recently published by New York Times reporter Robert Pear titled, "U.S. Seeks Rollback of a Health Insurer's 'Excessive' Rate Increase." To his (or his editor's) credit, he did at least put the word "Excessive" in quotes to indicate that the White House's assessment of the rate increase is highly subjective. Sadly, that's about the only creditworthy aspect of this particular piece.

The alarm bells start going off with the very first sentence, which states,

The Obama administration said Thursday that rate increases sought by a health insurance company were unreasonable, and it ordered the insurer to rescind them or justify its refusal to do so.

I realize that in modern American public discourse health care has become the end-all-be-all, something apart and above all other issues, goods, or services. I also recognize how the entire health care industry has been politicized, and I accept that most people approach the economics of health insurance from a highly charged, emotional perspective. That being said, I cannot help but feel a sense of sadness and disgust at the hubris displayed by the Obama administration's belief that it has the slightest idea as to what increases are or are not "reasonable" in a commercial setting. Neither Obama nor his Soviet-style health czar Kathleen Sebelius have ever worked in the insurance industry (nor any other private-sector industry for that matter). And they certainly haven't worked at Trustmark Life, the firm that has drawn the administration's PR-driven wrath. Even if they had, the government is unrelated to the contracts entered into by Trustmark and its clientele.

Or at least that's how it would be in a free market. In a fascist economic system, on the other hand… (See definition of economic fascism above).

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, issued the finding against the carrier, Trustmark Life Insurance Company...

"It's time for Trustmark to immediately rescind the rates, issue refunds to consumers or publicly explain their refusal to do so," Ms. Sebelius said, wielding power granted by the new health care law.

Who the hell is Kathleen Sebelius to dictate Trustmark's or anyone else's rates? Obviously the wildly unconstitutional Obamacare law gives her the legal power to do so (see definition of economic fascism above), but where does she get the moral authority? If this precedent is allowed to stand (and I have no doubt it will be), what logical defense could possibly be given to prevent the government from setting the price of any other good or service? What would prevent one of Obama's flunkies in say, the FCC, from setting the price of cell phone service? What would prevent another government stooge in the Department of Energy from setting the price of gasoline?

The action fits in with White House efforts to demonstrate the value of the new health care law and to portray President Obama as fighting for the economic interests of middle-class families in this election year.

The action fits in with the definition of economic fascism (see above).

Cindy Gallaher, a spokeswoman for Trustmark, based in Lake Forest, Ill., said: "We respectfully disagree with the assumptions and conclusions drawn today by the Department of Health and Human Services. Our premiums are driven by the rising cost and increased utilization of medical services. Trustmark has been and will continue to be in compliance with all aspects" of the law, Ms. Gallaher added.

And this of course is the real reason why Trustmark's rates are going up. As everyone with an IQ above room temperature predicted (and Obama denied), the regulatory burden associated with Obamacare is driving up the operating costs for private insurance providers. Those providers can only respond by raising rates or by limiting coverage (or dropping it altogether). The completely predictable crowding-out effect of Obamacare is underway, which one can only assume was the administration's goal all along. (Never again will I use the term "unintended consequences" – they're intended).

The law, signed by President Obama in March 2010, set detailed federal standards for health insurance, which had for decades been regulated mainly by the states. The law calls for the annual review of "unreasonable increases in premiums." Under rules issued last year by Ms. Sebelius, rate increases of 10 percent or more must be reviewed by state or federal officials.

See definition of economic fascism above…

The administration used its rate review authority once before, on a smaller scale, in an effort to stop what it described as an unreasonable rate increase of 12 percent by the Everence Insurance Company in Pennsylvania. The company says the increase reflects the cost of providing coverage to small businesses there.

See definition of economic fascism above…

Under the new law, insurers must spend at least 80 percent of premium revenues on medical care and efforts to improve it. Gary Cohen, acting director of insurance oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services, said Trustmark did not meet this standard in any of the five states.

What other industry is required to spend its earnings in ways dictated by government officials? What kind of economic system allows that kind of intervention?

See definition above.

Good News and Miscellaneous Fun Stuff

How about some good news for a change? Time for me to take a break from the doom and gloom and focus on something positive. So here's a round-up:

Liberty Conspiracy Live!

Regular readers know that I'm a big fan of Gardner Goldsmith's Liberty Conspiracy. Gard and I go way back, and I've even contributed pieces to his political podcasts from time to time. I'm pleased to announce that his show is now live five nights a week on Liberty Radio Network. Tune in Sunday through Thursday, from 10pm to midnight (Eastern) to check it out. You'll be glad you did… (There's also an app for streaming LRN directly to your mobile device).

Freedom Book Club

Another fellow Conspirator, Furb, is the creator of the Freedom Book Club. As the website explains, "Freedom Book Club is devoted to getting books promoting individual liberty on the New York Times Best Seller List. This is done through the bourgeoise multitudes buying the selection of the month all during a specified range of dates (during the same week). It is the goal of Freedom Book Club to transform the world to into a free society through the education of self and sharing with others." Go to the website and help make freedom a best-seller.

Laissez-Faire Books - Under New Management

Agora Financial (the Daily Reckoning crew) has bought Laissez-Faire Books, and placed Jeffrey Tucker (of the Mises Institute) in charge. Only good can come of this.

SOPA is DOA

President Obama finally did something right this weekend, and informed Congress that he would not support its latest attempts to censor the internet. We can expect the SOPA/PIPA monstrosity to rear its ugly head at some future date under different acronyms, but it looks like internet freedom may have gotten a temporary reprieve. Just to make sure Congress gets the point, Wikipedia is planning a 24-hour blackout to protest these idiotic bills.

Kim Jong Il

…is still dead.

Political Fashion Statements

Time magazine recently published its list of the Top Ten Political Fashion Statements. Here they are:

10. Rick Santorum's sweater vests

9. Fidel Castro's tracksuits

8. Every Male in American Politics, Ever (dark blue suit, white shirt, red or blue tie, flag pin on lapel)

7. Kim Jong Il's Khaki Safari Suits and Sunglasses

6. Jimmy Carter's Cardigan

5. Mao Zedong's Suits

4. Jawaharlal Nehru's Jackets

3. Muammar Gaddafi's Everything

2. Hillary Clinton's Pantsuits

1. Sarah Palin's Glasses

I don't know if those were supposed to be in any particular order - it's hard to imagine Sarah Palin's glasses being a stronger fashion statement than the Nehru jacket. (And I'll never understand how Rick Santorum's sweaters managed to beat out Che Guevara's beret). No matter, it's still a pretty impressive list. But on more than one occasion I've seen Time magazine take a more charitable view of government than I do, and I think that attitude is reflected in the list they've compiled here. Whether they're talking about some anonymous bureaucrats, political lightweights, or mass-murdering dictators, it seems that just about anyone in the public sector has something to offer Time's world of fashion.

But since we're talking specifically about political fashion statements, I've come up with my own list of government-inspired garb, haberdashery, and accoutrement which I feel more accurately reflects the importance of the state in our lives (as seen through the prism of fashion). Here it is – let me know if I've left anything out:

10. A badge

9. Riot Gear

8. Handcuffs

7. Combat fatigues

6. Black robes

5. Mirrored sunglasses

4. Orange prison jumpsuits

3. Hangman's noose

2. A boot (stamping on a human face)

And last but not least, the sine qua non of government fashion, the absolutely, positively, don't-leave-home-without-it, must-have government accessory of this (and every) season has to be…

1. Guns, guns, and more guns!

"Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom." - Ludwig von Mises