BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Barack Obama Archive

Tuesday

19

May 2009

0

COMMENTS

Uncreative Destruction

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets

Scott Sperling, co-president of private equity firm THL partners, writes in todays Wall Street Journal that “Obama’s Auto Plan Is Capitalism at Work.”

Mr. Sperling is ignorant of the ideology of which he speaks.  Capitalism’s creative destruction, which he cites to support his argument, is a process of spontaneous order, not central planning.  Letting Chrysler and GM go bankrupt without government meddling would have been an example of this process, not what Barack Obama is doing.  For while the President’s policies are destructive, they are anything but creative.

Friday

15

May 2009

0

COMMENTS

Obama Doesn't Understand A Free Society

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

President Obama recently addressed the graduating class at Arizona State University’s commencement ceremony.  In the speech, Obama displayed a shocking level of  ignorance regarding the most fundamental aspects of a free market economy.

In the face of these challenges, it may be tempting to fall back on the formulas for success that have dominated these recent years. Many of you have been taught to chase after the usual brass rings: being on this “who’s who” list or that top 100 list; how much money you make and how big your corner office is; whether you have a fancy enough title or a nice enough car.

You can take that road – and it may work for some of you. But at this difficult time, let me suggest that such an approach won’t get you where you want to go; that in fact, the elevation of appearance over substance, celebrity over character, short-term gain over lasting achievement is precisely what your generation needs to help end.

This is rich coming from a man who has, perhaps forever, cemented the American presidency as an office of appearance over substance.  His every action to date has involved public spectacles to hide contradictory actions, as exemplified by his denunciation of our unsustainable debt from Mexico after he spent 100 days piling it on in Washington.

With that said, there are tiny grains of truth in the President’s speech.  Short term gain should not overwhelm lasting achievement, and one’s life ambitions should certainly be more substantive than authoritative titles and flashy cars.  But Obama utterly dismisses the single best, albeit far from perfect, way we have to measure public usefulness: our pay.

The leaders we revere, the businesses that last – they are not the result of narrow pursuit of popularity or personal advancement, but of devotion to some bigger purpose – the preservation of the Union or the determination to lift a country out of depression; the creation of a quality product or a commitment to your customers, your workers, your shareholders and your community.

The trappings of success may be a by-product of this larger mission, but they can’t be the central thing. Just ask Bernie Madoff.

This is the common call of the collectivist, but it is completely false.  The greatest contributions to our collective good rarely, if ever, come from an actual desire to serve, or even an awareness of, “some bigger purpose.”  It is the beauty of a dynamic, free market economy that one need not try to serve “some bigger purpose” to provide real benefits for others.  When we earn a dollar, it means we have delivered a dollars worth of products or service to others. That which serves ourselves, serves us all. This is even truer in the modern welfare state, where merely providing for oneself means preventing the need for additional burdens on others.

America’s greatest inventions have not come from government bureaucrats serving some nebulous common good, but from entrepreneurs willing to take great risk for fame or fortune. It is those who demand that we all serve the collective good who condemn us all to poverty and servitude.  Just ask anyone who has lived under collectivist rule.

Friday

8

May 2009

0

COMMENTS

Federal Government Bullies California On Behalf Of Unions

Written by , Posted in Labor Unions

The union investment in Barack Obama continues to pay dividends:

The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger’s office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

This kind of federal government bullying against the states was entirely predictable, and is why many governors said “thanks, but no thanks” to federal dollars.  Gov. Schwarzenegger was not one of them.  In fact, he stabbed these principled conservatives in the back when he defended the porkulus and joked that if they didn’t want the money, he would take it for them.

Who’s laughing now, Arnold?

Friday

8

May 2009

0

COMMENTS

The Low Hanging Fruit

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Waste & Government Reform

The great, fiscally responsible Barack Obama has finished scouring the $3.4 trillion budget line-by-line in search of waste, fraud and abuse. He announced completion of this task to the typical pomp and circumstance, acting the glorious hero returning from war despite finding a meager $17 billion worth of cuts. That’s 0.5% of the total budget, and just 4.25% of the increases Obama is already responsible for in the federal budget.

Far from a line-by-line, intensive search for failing government programs, this was nothing more than Obama sauntering up and plucking some low hanging fruit. Even then, the free spending democrats in Congress and their special interest supporters are already challenging the cuts.

A real return to fiscal sanity will require more than just symbolic cuts with one hand while the other is busy handing out record levels of new spending.  Real cuts will mean standing up to the special interests groups, yet Obama has only demonstrated an ability to pander to them.  I hold out no hope that Obama will stop playing pretend time with our budget and get down to real business.

Tuesday

5

May 2009

0

COMMENTS

Son Of FDR

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets

With a deep ignorance of economic and political history, many have praised Obama by comparing him to FDR.  I see the similarities between Obama and FDR as deeply troubling.  It turns out the two presidents have quite a lot in common, though this hardly speaks well of either Obama nor the prospects for our nation’s future.

While President, FDR created a political environment hostile to free enterprise and growth.  The result was a needlessly prolonged period of economic misery.  Arbitrary rule, the natural consequence of making economic decisions through political means, is the enemy of economic growth.  Barack Obama is today creating a similarly hostile environment for free enterprise.

The most recent example is the President’s unlawful attack on Chrysler’s investors.  As payback for the millions of dollars in campaign funds they provided, Obama has seized the company from private investors and handed a majority over to the UAW, despite the fact that they held far fewer bonds than private investors.  For more on this atrocious abuse of governmental power, see here, here and here.

For refusing to go along with the President’s unfair raid on their investments, private investors were singled out for a public thrashing by the President, who took to the bully pulpit to once again bully the private economy into submission.  Obama is creating an environment in which contracts are meaningless and investment is always at risk of being wiped out by politicians advancing special interests.  This is crony capitalism.  It is the kind of disgraceful action taken every day in Latin America, and it will wreak havoc on our economy the same as it does theirs.

Saturday

2

May 2009

0

COMMENTS

A Teaching Moment

Written by , Posted in Identity Politics, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

The pending retirement of Justice David Souter is an excellent opportunity to remind the public what role the judiciary plays in a liberal democratic society.  The content of news coverage only confirms the need to spread this message, as the obsession so far has been over identity politics, rather than judicial performance.

The president faces competing imperatives in replacing Souter, including the pressure to appoint the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court and his own ties to prominent legal academics beginning with his years at Harvard Law School.

So the two pressures he is under include 1) pandering to an identity group and 2) rewarding his pals.  How about looking for justices that have the ability and experience to understand the law?  That does just happen to be their job, and not “understand[ing] the plight of real people,”  a nebulous criteria an unnamed source within the Obama administration said the President is looking for.

The function of a judicial system is to interpret the law as it is written, not according to changing social values as judges see them.  Nor is it their place to look at the two sides and decide which is more “deserving” based upon what identity groups they belong to.  What a judge should do in approaching a text is to seek to understand its meaning as written.  It’s not their place to weigh the desirability of the consequences.  That’s what we have legislatures for.  It’s also their job, and not the courts, to make sure current law fits current values.  Sadly, the President’s recorded views on the matter leaves a lot to be desired.  He wants a judge who places empathy above law, who isn’t afraid to “break free” of legal restraints in order to “redistribute wealth.”  This is a dangerous view which must be opposed.

Monday

27

April 2009

0

COMMENTS

Superfluous Government Agencies Can Never Be Understaffed

Written by , Posted in The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

MSNBC is fretting that the FDA is understaffed:

The FDA is responsible for overseeing the safety of the nation’s foods, drugs, medical devices and consumer products. In each of those areas, the agency is widely regarded as having fallen down on the job.

But its biggest black eye comes from the way the agency has handled its food safety responsibilities.

This is a common refrain from nanny-staters.  If only they had more money.  If only they had more people.  If only they had more regulations.  If only they had more government!  The President himself echoed this line, lamenting that, “at a bare minimum, we should be able to count on our government keeping our kids safe when they eat peanut butter.”  What a sad commentary on his view of American government.  Mr. President, making government responsible for protecting everyone from everything, even down to their peanut butter, cannot reasonably be considered a “bare minimum.”  It’s also not possible.

The President is using the recent episode of contaminated peanut butter to scare people into supporting ever more government.  This is not surprising, as fear is the typical driver of government expansion.  Stoking fear allows the nanny-staters to avoid explaining just why they believe government regulators can accomplish that tiny little task of “keeping [all] our kids safe when they eat peanut butter.”

If there is a government regulatory agency that has ever accomplished the goal of eliminating the danger or risk it was conjured to protect us from, I’ve yet to hear of it.  Government agencies, and the bureaucrats that run them, simply do not have the incentives necessary to compel efficacy.  Instead, government creations inevitably get co-opted by industry leaders, which then utilize the unique power of government force to protect not the consumer, but themselves – from market competition.

Thankfully, effective government is not necessary in situations like this.  Food suppliers have ample incentive to ensure the quality of their product. Poisoning one’s customers is a fast path to bankruptcy.  This is not to say that mistakes will never be made, as they are inevitable.  Private companies that make mistakes pay a high price, as Peanut Corp. of America learned when it filled chapter 7 bankruptcy after poor sanitary conditions at several of its plants lead to an outbreak of salmonella.  This is contrasted with the bigger budgets and greater powers that usually come after government screw ups.  Which incentive structure makes you feel safer?

Furthermore, the presence of government inspectors makes both consumers and producers lazy.  Suppliers rely on government to prove the safety of their products, rather than having to go the extra mile to convince customers themselves, while consumers with unjustified faith in government do less research and investigation of companies and products than they otherwise would.  When this combination of government and consumer apathy inevitably results in lapses, the immediate call is always to exacerbate the situation by giving government more responsibilities, and the individual less.  It’s a cycle of dependence that must be broken, and we can start by acknowledging that not only is the FDA not understaffed, but that even a single staffer is one too many.

Friday

24

April 2009

0

COMMENTS

Thursday

23

April 2009

0

COMMENTS

Criminalizing Politics Is Undemocratic

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, General/Misc.

The subject of torture is suddenly unavoidable.  I suspect this is a deliberate effort to distract from poor economic news and the recent tea party backlash against big government.  Be that as it may, the narrative needs to be addressed.

America, and Americans by and large, do not believe in torture.  This has always been true, and it’s no more true today than it was in the Bush administration.  Any government that seeks to avoid torture must, by necessity, define just what torture is.  The Bush administration sought to do this.  Now the Obama administration, not happy with the prior definition, seeks to adopt its own.  It’s to be expected that, when a new party comes into power, issues such as this will be readdressed and new positions taken.  But Obama is going one step further.  Not only does he find the Bush definition wrong, he wants to label it criminal.

This is a frightening development for anyone who supports our democratic system.  The United States has enjoyed a long track record of peaceful transitions that most of the world can only dream about.  A large part of the reason for this is that we do not seek to criminalize political differences.  When your average Latin American military junta assumes power, the first order of action is to jail everyone in power previously.  The United States is better than that. It used to be, anyway.

Barack Obama is willing to leave open the possibility that Bush administration officials may be tried for drawing a line in a slightly different place than Obama draws it.  Not, mind you, for wantonly and maliciously running torture dungeons where any and all practices were acceptable, but for approving a single tactic which Obama did not like, and which is routinely conducted on our own soldiers for training.  Peaceful democracies are not supposed to handle complicated legal and moral issues by jailing those who take opposing positions.  If Obama wants to elevate the game to that level, he should keep in mind that his entire economic agenda is flagrantly unconstitutional; whereas if he has his way on waterboarding, we might just have to start calling it criminal as well.

Tuesday

14

April 2009

0

COMMENTS

Obama Eases Restrictions On Cuba

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy, Free Markets

President Obama announced, as inconspicuous as possible, that his administration is reversing several restrictive policies on Cuba, including restrictions on travel to visist family, limits on money and goods that can be sent to family, and prohibitions on high tech investment. I support these moves. Unfortunately, however, the move does not indicate a broad commitment to freedom by the Obama administration, which seeks to limit trade in most other ways.