Bankers Try To Respond to Government’s Mixed Signals

Let’s convince everyone that unemployment is due to fat cat bankers stubbornly refusing to lend money to small business, and also that their deliberately excessive lending is what caused the financial crisis – that and the policies of the Bush Administration. That seems to be part of Obama’s economic strategy. They’ve succeeded in getting many people to think that “fat cat bankers” are the main problem:



Obama didn’t run for office to help out “a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” he says, but that is precisely what he did by supporting the TARP bailouts. He enabled banks that wanted to pursue risky behavior by ameliorating their risk. In other words, as some have noted, allowed them to be “capitalist” with profits, but “socialist” with losses.

Big bankers, looking to position themselves for maximum advantage in whatever the government decides, are making noises to indicate, “Yes, we’re on board with ‘stepping up’ to help with the lending slowdown,” but also, in response to government warnings and what they astutely perceive as threats, they are being very cautious about making any kind of risky loans. They are keeping more reserves, meaning that less money is available to lend. So, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

As video at Wall Street Journal online notes, the President has a style that could create awkwardness, planning a big meeting with bankers so he and they can “work together,” after lambasting them on a 60 Minutes broadcast the previous evening. Some of the bankers probably felt like giving Mr. Obama a less than courteous reply. But, as mentioned, they want to be in an advantageous position somehow.

The “pay czar” is going to see to it that banks that still owe TARP money are going to keep bonuses to a minimum, and those who don’t owe money are to some degree restraining their bonuses. This large reduction in bonuses has hit hard in New York (state and city), since a great deal of tax revenue results from these bonuses. Unintended consequences…

The government wants new financial industry regulations to tell banks how to manage their business when the government’s management of its own financial business is out of control and getting worse. The House has passed a version of a regulatory bill, expanding government power (the theme of the Obama presidency) over risky or failing organizations. In the name of preventing bubbles and meltdowns, they actually will prevent a lot of prosperity by suppressing risk. And they wonder why banks aren’t on board with this.

“Large banks, from J.P. Morgan Chase to Citigroup Inc., lobbied against parts of the measure. They said the bill would penalize them for being large, through tougher capital requirements and higher fees, and would give the government greater authority to either seize large companies or order them to decrease their size.” [1]

American Banking News states:
“But as those in the banking industry rightly say, you have the White House speaking out of one side of its mouth while regulators are speaking out of the other side of their mouths.

“Regulators are telling the banks to strengthen their capital ratios and to be on the lookout for default trends going forward. In those cases the regulators are advising the banks to cut back on lending.

“But we already know that the big hit the banks are going to take on commercial lending hasn’t even arrived yet, and is going to kick in during the second half of 2010. So Obama attempting to pressure them to lend in order to try to get the economy back on track is ignorant at best, and terrible as far as business operations go.” [2]

So, which is it? Be cautious and don’t take risks with your bank’s money, or be open to more risk, possibly leading to more of the mortgage problems that led to the financial crisis? It seems the government wants to be able to blame bankers for whatever economic problems they can blame them for. Just so long as they can deflect criticism from their own policies.


[1] Elizabeth Williamson, “Obama Slams ‘Fat Cat’ Bankers,” 12/14/2009, The Wall Street Journal online, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126073152465089651.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

[2] Gary Bourgeault, “Obama Administration Clueless on Banking Issues, Sending Mixed Messages to the Industry,” American Banking News.com, 12/10/2009, at http://www.americanbankingnews.com/2009/12/10/obama-administration-clueless-on-banking-issues-sending-mixed-messages-to-the-industry/

Photo: Dreamstime.com

On to Copenhagen, or Much Ado about Nothing

Looking for control
The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, is scheduled for December 7-18 and is supposed to bring together 85 world leaders to discuss the issue. “The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged world leaders to ‘seal a deal’ on climate change when they meet in Copenhagen next month.” He seems optimistic that a deal can be reached. However, there are growing doubts concerning the scientific validity of global warming claims, and whether the conference will result in a significant agreement. [1]

I’ve been writing quite a lot about the costs and loss of liberty associated with Obamacare, but its (also) evil twin, cap and trade (along with the potential EPA regulations) threatens to seriously undercut the U.S. economy and make these double-digit unemployment rates seem permanent. If that’s not bad enough, the Copenhagen conference and events to follow could very well result in a further surrender of U.S. sovereignty, with serious foreign entanglements through bad treaties, etc.

If the climateers have their way, America would be paying to “aid” less-developed countries to improve their “greenhouse gas” emission levels, and be subject to international regulations. This is an attempt (somewhat successful, so far) at a major deception. It is based on the fraud and hoax of “man-made” global warming. No, wait, since global warming is in pause mode, it’s “climate change” now. In their world, everyone who breathes contributes to climate change, and everyone whose activities result in the release of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, is a guilty polluter who must be brought under control and punished.

Science not so hot
Never mind that the data and so-called science on this is deeply flawed, lacking in substantiation, and is seriously challenged by many qualified scientists. There is no way that the so-called “problem” merits anything like the destructive “solutions” being discussed. It is a patent lie that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is untrue that man is able to reverse or control climate change. All that could be accomplished by the solutions being proposed is more economic distress and widespread suffering, with some few profiting from carbon-credit trading and others having the satisfaction of exercising control over the citizens around the world, who will be paying heavily for the privilege of producing anything.

Given the revelations of “Climategate,” showing the deliberate manipulation and misrepresentation of data, destruction of evidence, suppression of opposing views, and manipulation of the peer-review process, the whole issue takes on a conspiratorial tone. Here is an attempt to get the most mileage possible out of the least evidence. One wonders how some of these people can call themselves scientists. They’re more like propagandists, trying to support a predetermined conclusion.

Obama Administration seeks more power
Just in time for Copenhagen, the EPA has declared that greenhouse gases “threaten the health and welfare of the American people….

“The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.” [2]

The EPA’s action constitutes another major government power grab, as discussed by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
“Don’t kid yourself into thinking the EPA doesn’t understand the scope of its power. By classifying CO2 and methane (among other so-called greenhouse gases), it can inject itself into just about every industry in the US. Energy production will be its primary target, but the EPA has also gone after coal mining on the basis of the Clean Water Act; it will certainly not be shy about using this new authority to kill coal mining altogether. It will also impact agriculture, especially dairies and cattle ranching, as well as transportation. The entire manufacturing sector will have to answer for its output.” [3]

Mark Whittington at Associated Content quotes Morrissey, and writes:
“Obama administration officials are claiming that President Obama still prefers to address carbon emissions through the legislative process. Obama administration officials claim that the EPA announcement and the opening of the Copenhagen Climate Conference are ‘coincidental.’” [4] Sure, it’s just a coincidence.

Religious devotion encouraged
It has been said that climate change is a new religion and it certainly seems to be. At least its proponents want people to regard it with religious devotion. As George Russell points out in a Fox News article, a paper that resulted from a meeting of top environmental bureaucrats, states far-reaching goals for UNEP (UN Environmental Program): “Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion ‘as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,’ according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog.”
(PDF Text of the paper is linked at Fox News article) [5] Emphasis his

It is unfortunate that President Obama wants an international agreement to come out of this conference. We Americans, and many others, will be paying the price for these useless regulations. It is said that Obama wants Congress to set emission standards through legislation, rather than the EPA doing so through regulations. “‘This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change,’ said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. ‘The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving.’” [6] If cap and trade doesn’t pass, we’ll get the EPA regulations, and probably will anyway.

Meanwhile, a U.N. report by an investigative unit warns that the U.N.’s own environmental management is “out of control and approaching chaos,” according to another article by George Russell. [7]

Trouble Ahead
Issues to be discussed at Copenhagen include pollution offsets. “As part of the Copenhagen talks, officials will be considering which types of offset programs work and can actually be enforced. (There's a big potential for fraud here.) Countries like Brazil and Indonesia, for example, are pushing hard for a forest program that would handsomely reward them for not cutting down their trees,” reports U.S. News. [8] Emphasis added.

The Copenhagen conference is an attempt to open even further the Pandora’s box of the “climate change” issue. Big businesses and big and small countries are trying to position themselves to be at an advantage under whatever scheme is implemented. Too bad they aren’t resisting with all their might, as we all should be. The elites are meeting, and following the Progressive model, that is, having a few “experts” decide policy for everyone, at the expense of the citizens’ money and freedom.

“Open your mouth for the mute,
For the rights of all the unfortunate.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.” – Proverbs 31:8,9


[1] Lea Pachta, “Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009: Commentary And Analysis Available, freshbusinessthinking.com, 11/30/2009, at http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?CID=&NID=2668&Title=Copenhagen+Climate+Change+Conference+2009%3A+Commentary+And+Analysis+Available

[2] Dina Cappiello and H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, “EPA says greenhouse gases endanger human health,” 12/07/2009, Yahoo News, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_epa_climate;_ylt=Au.zF0wVWFdgkb2UbyGT2Pes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNlcjVhMDZlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjA3L3VzX2VwYV9jbGltYXRlBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZXBhZ3JlZW5ob3Vz

[3] Ed Morrissey, “EPA declares air a danger to human health” 12/07/2009, Hot Air, at
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/07/epa-declares-air-a-danger-to-human-health/

[4] Mark Whittington, “Copenhagen Climate Conference Praises EPA Carbon Dioxide Decision,” 12/08/2009, Associated Content, at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2469084/copenhagen_climate_conference_praises.html?cat=9

[5] George Russell, “Document Reveals U.N.’s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks,” 11/30/2009, Fox News.com, at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html

[6] Cappiello and Hebert, see [2].

[7] George Russell, “U.N. Says its Own Eco-Management Out of Control,” 02/24/2009, Fox News.com, at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499244,00.html. This was in February; maybe they’ve cleaned it up a bit by now.

[8] Kent Garber, “Top 5 Issues at the Copenhagen Climate Conference,” 12/08/2009, U.S. News.com, at http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/12/08/top-5-issues-at-the-copenhagen-climate-conference.html

Phot: Dreamstime.com (Danish postage stamp with graphic representing a fuel cell)

Unemployment Problems? Call a “Summit”

“THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2009

“The unemployment rate edged down to 10.0 percent in November, and nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-11,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. In the prior 3 months, payroll job losses had averaged 135,000 a month. In November, employment fell in construction, manufacturing, and information, while temporary help services and health care added jobs.

“Household Survey Data

“In November, both the number of unemployed persons, at 15.4 million, and the unemployment rate, at 10.0 percent, edged down. At the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons was 7.5 million, and the jobless rate was 4.9 percent. …”

The unemployment rate for teenagers was 26.7 percent.

(Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)

In advance of the release of these unemployment figures, President Obama announced a “jobs summit,” for which various business and union leaders, and liberal economists have been invited to “brainstorm” and share new ideas.

Stuart Varney of Fox News explains the guest list:



Ben Stein compared the “jobs summit,” appropriately, I think, to President Gerald Ford’s inflation summit. Obama’s PR move is roughly the equivalent of passing out “WIN” (Whip Inflation Now) buttons from the Ford Administration. The Ford people appeared concerned, which no doubt they were, but seemed at a loss to know what to do.
See Ben Stein on video here.

The summit is more of a “dog and pony show” than a substantive effort to create jobs. It truly rings hollow when the President, Nancy Pelosi and company say the government wants to help create jobs, when at the same time they are introducing major job-killing programs, viz., Obamacare and cap and trade. It’s just mind-numbing if you think about it.

Was the best suggestion a government project to winterize homes? One blogger asks this, and calls it “cash for caulkers.”[1]

Here’s an informative report on CBS News from December 3:


Washington Post economics blogger Frank Ahrens states that the “truer” U.S. unemployment rate dropped from 17.5 percent to 17.2 percent, that being the rate that includes “people who want full-time jobs but can only find part-time ones and the unemployed who have become so discouraged that they have given up looking for work.” This is the rate that can be compared to the 25 percent unemployment rate at the nadir of the Great Depression. [2]

Ahrens held a nationwide discussion on unemployment. One participant from Atlanta had this to say: “I run a small business and we are not hiring due to several reasons, but mainly due to the uncertainty in the economy and where the economy will be in the next several years. We have actually downsized to a core group of employees and may downsize further if needed. We won't hire more people until it is in our best interest to do so….

“It is the small businesses in this country that hire most of the people and taxes are killing us. Take some of the remaining stimulus funds and apply those to permanent tax cuts, get the budget balanced and show the business community that you care about doing something real to stimulate the economy, not sending out pork. ….” [3]

That business owner has a good grasp of the problem. Government officials think they are going to be the answer to unemployment, but in a real sense, they are the problem. As Ben Stein suggests in the video referenced above, they are standing on the oxygen hose of the suffering private sector.

President Obama told USA Today, “I will tell you that I think the most important thing I can do for the African-American community is the same thing I can do for the American community, period, and that is get the economy going again and get people hiring again.” He dismissed complaints of the Congressional Black Caucus that the Administration is not doing enough to help African-Americans get jobs. [4] OK, but how are you going to do that? Obama is set to depart on a jobs “listening” tour to get public input. He should be going on a tour telling how he’s going to help solve the problem. It appears he doesn’t know what to do.

Of course, the left is calling on Obama to help by increasing government spending on infrastructure and the like, which would help some workers, but add greatly to the deficit. The deficit severely limits what the government can do at this time, and more government spending is not what’s needed. Nancy Pelosi wants to use the remaining TARP money as another “stimulus.” Keep in mind that this is still money that has to be printed, not money from a pile of cash somewhere in the Capitol.

Republicans held their own forum across town, inviting mostly conservative economists (who were not invited to Obama’s event). One participant, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget office, said “that the single best thing Obama could do to create jobs was ‘to reverse course on a dangerous agenda of debt-financed spending, crippling regulation, expensive mandates, and intrusive government expansion.’” [5]

The liberals are ignoring the elephant in the room, and I don’t mean the GOP, but the Democrats’ own laws and plans that continue to sabotage any real improvement in the unemployment rate.


[1] Aaron Crow, “Obama’s job summit didn’t get to the main issue,” 12/04/2009, WalletPop, at http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/12/04/obamas-job-summit-didnt-get-to-the-main-issue/

[2] Frank Ahrens, “Truer U.S. unemployment rate drops to 17.2%,” Washington Post.com, at
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/

[3] Frank Ahrens, “Analysis of Obama’s jobs summit,” Washington Post.com, at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/12/01/DI2009120103274.html?wprss=rss_business/personalfinance

[4] Fox News.com, “As Obama Holds Jobs Summit, Frustrated Left Complains About Slow Growth,” 12/03/2009, at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/03/frustrated-liberals-plan-protest-obamas-job-summit/

[5] Ibid.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Amendment X

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

It’s X because X is the Roman numeral for ten, but it could be called X because, among members of Congress and the Obama administration, it seems to be largely unknown and certainly ignored.

As the current Congress and Obama Administration extend their tentacles to take in more items and people to control more directly, the Tenth Amendment has become a significant issue. The Constitution clearly limits the authority of the federal government and, just as clearly, the federal government has managed to push the Constitution aside in order to get the power it wants in many instances.

The Tenth Amendment became part of the Bill of Rights because of the concern of some of the Founders, and the states in general, that the federal government, unless specifically restrained, might take over the internal operations of the states, and abuse their authority. Federalists and anti-Federalists agreed that the power of the federal government was limited, but disagreed on the necessity for the Tenth Amendment. [1]

“Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as ‘the foundation of the Constitution’ and added, ‘to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.’ Jefferson's formulation of this doctrine of ‘strict construction’ was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.” [2]

States have occasionally succeeded in thwarting federal laws. A recent example is the REAL ID law that, while on the books, is not being implemented due to state resistance. Twenty-five states, led by Maine, have passed laws nullifying it within their states. [3]

Constitutional questions have arisen as to the federal government’s authority to take over health care as described in the House and Senate versions of Obamacare. There is no specific authority for the federal government to do so. Some argue that the Preamble statement of a purpose “to promote the general welfare” covers this, but if it does, it covers a multitude of possible sins of legislation, being so broad and vague. Or, perhaps the Interstate Commerce clause grants the authority? But is refusing to buy insurance an example of interstate commerce? I think not.

If there is a case to be made for constitutional authority for government-run health care for everyone, it probably would arise from the following:

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
....
Clause 18:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Lacking any compelling necessity for such a law, it would seem that the Tenth Amendment is strong enough to override the claim that such a law is constitutional.
But who knows how the courts might decide? If this is ruled acceptable, the whole private sector is in danger, because then the government can think up excuses to take over any industry or sector it wants. They’ve already done some of that with the bailouts.

The Tenth Amendment’s effect has risen and fallen over the years from having some impact, to having virtually none (as in the Reconstruction days following the Civil War). [4] But a good many of the states these days are working to dust it off and claim their own sovereignty through nullification laws. Several such laws have been introduced, but most have yet to become law. . Check www.tenthamendmentcenter.com for updates on these activities.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas expresses the concern and frustration of many with the continuously expanding power of the federal government at the expense of states’ rights:



Thirty-eight states have introduced Tenth Amendment resolutions. The are in various stages of consideration, and two (Tennessee and Alaska) have been signed by governors, according to Tenth Amendment Center.

The Tenth Amendment should be a defense against Obamacare, cap and trade and other intrusive federal laws and proposals. The Tenth Amendment is certainly at the heart of the Tea Party protests. More people are becoming aware of their constitutional protections. We can’t really rely on federal officials to live up to their oath of office. They will have to be held to it by citizens.

“The world needs to be reminded that all human ills are not curable by legislation, and that quantity of statutory enactment and excess of government offer no substitute for quality of citizenship.

“The problems of maintaining civilization are not to be solved by a transfer of responsibility from citizenship to government, and no eminent page in history was ever drafted by the standards of mediocrity....”
— President Warren G. Harding


[1] Forrest McDonald; revised by Robert M. Hardaway and Adisa Hubjer, “Amendment X to the U.S. Constitution,” Answers.com at http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution

[2] Ibid.

[3] Tenth Amendment Center at http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/#realid

[4] “Law Encyclopedia: Tenth Amendment,” Answers.com, see [1].

Deficits and Debt Do Matter

Keynesian economics encourages deficit spending by government to address the problems of a recession. So we get (after the massive bank, insurance, and auto manufacturer bailouts), the big “stimulus” plan, which has accomplished some political rewards for favored interests, and several large but not particularly useful pork projects (Murtha’s airport, for instance). What is the reward to the American taxpayer for such spending? In general, not much. Unemployment is at its highest level since 1983 and won’t be coming down much for the next year or so. But Obama is getting action on his cap and trade and Obamacare programs, which together, if finally passed, will greatly increase unemployment as well as the deficit.

Current Conditions
As I write this, the national debt of the United States is $12,020,893,013.17, or an estimated $39,106.98 per person. [1] The federal budget deficit for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 was a record $1.42 trillion. “In addition, future deficits are currently projected to total $9.1 trillion in the coming decade.” [2]

The $9.1 trillion figure is overly optimistic, since it assumes low interest rates throughout the period, which appears to be impossible as more massive spending comes on stream.

These deficits alone, in my opinion, make a convincing argument against Obamacare and cap and trade. Not to mention the unemployment rate. But what are the consequences of such spending and debt?

Consequences of Large Deficits
As the national debt increases, the cost of financing it increases, not only because of the greater principal, but also because of the higher interest rates that will be required. Other interest rates must rise in order for other (non-government) debt instruments to remain competitive. Thus, we’ll see higher interest rates in general, which will increase the costs of buying houses and cars, taking out bank loans, etc.

As Roger W. Garrison pointed out, in a 2003 article (when the U.S. faced a deficit of $304 billion), “…At that level of borrowing, the effect of the deficit will be:
• higher interest rates (if the government borrows domestically) OR:
• increased inflation (if the Federal Reserve monetizes the debt) OR:
• weakened export markets (if the government sells debt abroad) OR:
• tax hikes (possibly in the form of a Johnsonesque "surtax") OR:
• all the above in some combination. …” [3]

Of course, each of these things represents a kind of tax on the citizens and reduces purchasing power and the ability to save. None of them tends to encourage higher employment.

He also mentions that deficits introduce a good deal more uncertainty into things, since it is initially unclear how they will be dealt with. [4]

These uncertainties become greater at the much higher spending levels we’re seeing now.

The Way Forward
Douglas Holtz-Eakin (former director of the Congressional Budget Office) at Wall Street Journal reminds us that Barack Obama promised action on big problems and has expended a lot of political capital on health care reform. But the big problem is not health care, but the deficit. “Recently, the White House signaled that it will get serious about reducing the deficit next year—after it locks into place massive new health-care entitlements. This is a recipe for disaster….”

Holtz-Eakin says that despite the claims of Obama and his advisers that they understand the concerns over the deficit, “the administration's policy choices are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg….” [5]

Here’s the President speaking on the deficit in March 2009:



More spending on Obamacare, climate control, education, etc. will neither promote economic growth nor help with the deficit. Also, he wants to blame the Bush Administration for his troubles. The deficit he inherited was greatly enlarged, more than doubled, by the massive bailouts that he supported.

None of this would surprise Richard Ebeling, who commented as follows for National Review Online symposium, “Obama Money Talk: The New Administration and the Economy” in November 2008:

“In spite of the impression in the media, that President-Elect Obama’s economic team reflects an underlying “pro-market” orientation, they in fact are advocates of manipulating markets to generate outcomes more to their interventionist and welfare redistributive liking… That is not the free market. They will manipulate the markets to bring about the “green” and pro-labor union outcomes that will have nothing to do with the outcomes we as consumers would have desired in a more competitive environment….

“In addition, they are all on board to design and implement a vast deficit spending package that will end up doing far more harm than any good ….” [6]

The solution involves looking at the deficit as an immediate problem, not something to be dealt with only in future years. There will have to be some hard decisions about serious budget cuts, including entitlements, and some revision of the tax structure. The recession and unemployment situation need to be substantially improved before the deficit can be effectively reduced, because until then, revenues will be too low. But this needs to be dealt with in the very near future.

Political difficulty in fixing these problems is preferable to the alternatives: downgrading of America’s credit rating, and possible national bankruptcy. Printing money has its limits. We need to avoid finding out what they are.


[1] U.S. National Debt Clock, 11/30/2009, 9:27 PM CST, at http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[2] David Jackson, “Obama team makes it official: Budget deficit hits record. By a lot.”
USA Today.com, 10/16/2009, at http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/620000005/1

[3] Roger W. Garrison, “The Trouble with Deficit Finance,” Ludwig von Mises Institute, 02/04/2003, at http://mises.org/daily/1158

[4] Ibid.

[5] Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “The Coming Deficit Disaster,” Wall Street Journal – Opinion Journal, 11/20/2009, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547492725871998.html

[6] “Richard Ebeling Comments on the Obama Economic Team for National Review Online,” American Institute for Economic Research, 11/26/2008, at http://www.aier.org/about-aier/news/853-richard-ebeling-comments-on-the-obama-economic-team-for-national-review-online

Photo: Dreamstime.com

PLEASE NOTE: As you may have noticed, the national debt figure above is missing three places. As of December 5,2009, 11:51 PM CST, the debt is $12,096,353,549,537.00. So because of my typo, the amount I stated was roughly one one-thousandth of the correct amount. Sorry I made this error. If the figure I gave were correct, our situation would be a lot better!

How Much Ridiculous Government Control Are We Willing To Put Up With?

“…the law is a ass – a idiot….” – Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist, by Charles Dickens, Chapter 51.

When it comes to the Nancy Pelosi so-called “health care” bill, the above statement is much, much too true. Under the worse-than-worthless so-called leadership of Pelosi and Reid, Congress is looking to pass the worst legislation ever presented in Congress.

Not only is the would-be law in question “a ass,” but so is each of the congressional leaders proposing it. And that is being too kind to them. They deserve to be removed from office. If we, the American people, are willing to accept this stuff, I guess we deserve what we get.

First, hear Pelosi “justifying” prison terms for refusal to buy insurance:



When government takes over, watch out! Your money and freedom are in danger.

Just check one of the sections that have been sneaked into the bill, Section 2572 (H.R. 3962, page 1,511 and following). This section requires chain restaurants to provide calorie and nutrient information on all menus for “standard menu items.” For salad bar and self-service items displayed, calorie and nutrient information must be displayed adjacent to each food item. [1]

This is simply an unconstitutional destruction of freedom. Big Brother rules like this undermine all our liberties and generate disrespect for legislators and such stupid laws.

For vending machine operators, the requirements are just as onerous if not more so:

“Section 2572 of the bill (H.R. 3962) says, “In the case of an article of food sold from a vending machine that – (I) does not permit a prospective purchaser to examine the Nutritional Facts Panel before purchasing the article or does not otherwise provide visible nutrition information at the point of purchase; and (II) is operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending machines, “the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.” (See page 1,515 of H.R. 3962 Section 2572 (H) (viii).” [2]

Does that sound innocent and simple? It is vicious. It is an affront to liberty. It is an insult to every American. Besides the fact that it is on its face a reprehensible requirement in terms of liberty, it is extremely costly to the vendors affected. This is only one relatively small part of the extremely high cost of these proposals.

“[The National Automatic Merchandising Association] NAMA estimated that the first year start-up cost to comply with the basic disclosure would be $56.4 million.” [3]

I see these requirements as more reasons to view the legislation as a great government power grab, and more reasons to believe that the less the government does, the better. I just wish Congress could reduce their work week to four hours or less so they could do less harm to America.

Of course the “health care” bill is a basic foundation of Obama’s fascist regime. I and many others have written many articles arguing against it. It is supported by only a minority of the American voters, and that number is steadily decreasing.

I have argued against this legislation as against policies I oppose. This goes deeper than a mere difference of opinion. This is part of a socialist-fascist regime that must be stopped or America as we have known it is going to be destroyed and our freedom lost. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company are working hard to wreck our economy and freedom. That is the aim of the gigantic deficits and resulting unpayable debt, added to already unsustainable government programs, and liberty-destroying proposals, one after another. The 2010 and 2012 elections may be the most important ever.

It is unfortunate that so many people only see “benefits” as described by the lying government officials, and care nothing (as the officials care nothing) for the Constitution and the disastrous consequences, economic and other, of these evil proposals. I cannot state strongly enough my belief that the Obama Administration and Democratic congressional leadership are among the worst ever in our history. Such laws cannot be justified legally or morally. I wish them success in their constitutionally enumerated responsibilities but not in their unconstitutional ventures.

Are we to be a free people, or are we to be led about by the nose by the would-be fascist masters of the Democratic Party leadership?

The American people deserve better than this.


[1] H.R. 3962 text available at http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org/id57.html

[2] Christopher Neefus, “Pelosi’s Health Care Bill Would Regulate Snack Machines at Estimated Cost of $56 Million the First Year,” CNS News.com 11/26/2009, at http://cnsnews.com/news/article/56572

[3] Ibid. NAMA represents the vending machine industry.


Photo: Cover page of Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens, 1838. Source: The New York Public Library, Berg Collection of English and American Literature.

Remembering the Forgotten Man

In this article, I quote rather freely from William Graham Sumner’s essay, “The Forgotten Man.” It is well worth reading the whole essay, and whether you agree with Sumner or not, you can see that his position is reasoned and consistent. He describes the person who is truly forgotten in all the government’s glorious spending programs to benefit the “less fortunate,” the various “petted classes,” as Sumner called them.

William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) was born in New Jersey, moved with his family to Connecticut, where he attended public schools and Yale College. “After graduation, he studied ancient languages and history at Göttingen (1864) and theology and philosophy at Oxford (1866). The following year he was appointed tutor at Yale and then was ordained in the Protestant Episcopal Church. In 1869 he left Yale to be rector of churches in New York City and Morristown, N. J. In 1872 he became the first professor of political and social science at Yale - a position he long held.” He was a sociologist and a proponent of free-market capitalism and severe critic of government social programs and imperialism. His major work was Folkways, analyzing social life in terms of mores, institutions and values. [1]

The Forgotten Man (1883) is described in his essay of that name. His Forgotten Man is still very much the forgotten one today, the one, C, who, when A and B get together to decide what should be done for the suffering X, is compelled by the resulting law to also do for X what A and B have determined. He is never thought of, yet he is the one who sacrifices and pays for the “help” that is to be given to X.

Who Are We “Helping”? And Who Pays for It?
Sumner writes:
“The notion is accepted as if it were not open to any question that if you help the inefficient and vicious you may gain something for society or you may not, but that you lose nothing. This is a complete mistake. Whatever capital you divert to the support of a shiftless and good-for-nothing person is so much diverted from some other employment, and that means from somebody else. I would spend any conceivable amount of zeal and eloquence if I possessed it to try to make people grasp this idea. Capital is force. If it goes one way it cannot go another. If you give a loaf to a pauper you cannot give the same loaf to a laborer. Now this other man who would have got it but for the charitable sentiment which bestowed it on a worthless member of society is the Forgotten Man. The philanthropists and humanitarians have their minds all full of the wretched and miserable whose case appeals to compassion, attacks the sympathies, takes possession of the imagination, and excites the emotions. They push on towards the quickest and easiest remedies and they forget the real victim.

“Now who is the Forgotten Man? He is the simple, honest laborer, ready to earn his living by productive work. We pass him by because he is independent, self-supporting, and asks no favors. He does not appeal to the emotions or excite the sentiments. He only wants to make a contract and fulfill it, with respect on both sides and favor on neither side. He must get his living out of the capital of the country. The larger the capital is, the better living he can get. Every particle of capital which is wasted on the vicious, the idle, and the shiftless is so much taken from the capital available to reward the independent and productive laborer. But we stand with our backs to the independent and productive laborer all the time. We do not remember him because he makes no clamor; but I appeal to you whether he is not the man who ought to be remembered first of all, and whether, on any sound social theory, we ought not to protect him against the burdens of the good-for-nothing. In these last years I have read hundreds of articles and heard scores of sermons and speeches which were really glorifications of the good-for-nothing, as if these were the charge of society, recommended by right reason to its care and protection. We are addressed all the time as if those who are respectable were to blame because some are not so, and as if there were an obligation on the part of those who have done their duty towards those who have not done their duty. Every man is bound to take care of himself and his family and to do his share in the work of society. It is totally false that one who has done so is bound to bear the care and charge of those who are wretched because they have not done so. …” [2] (emphasis added)

Do Sumner’s Arguments Apply Today?
The injustice of overburdening the Forgotten Man is obvious, yet it is the pattern of all legislative welfare and philanthropic programs. People today are taught to have a sense of entitlement to government assistance. If they decide not to fulfill their duties to work for their living and live responsibly, it must be society’s fault, and the C’s of the world must be ordered to help them.

As I mentioned in a previous article, during FDR’s reign, the “forgotten man” label was applied to the aggrieved X, leaving C as forgotten as ever. [3]

The current Administration, under Barack Obama, is trying to squeeze everything possible out of C to transfer much of his substance to government, thence to Obama’s favored X’s, the permanent government-dependent underclass the government has created, as well as socialist activist groups like ACORN, big labor unions, big banks, trial lawyers, environmental activists, etc. Some of the C’s of our society are beginning to band together in protests such as Tea Parties, marches, and so on. They will either have influence or be wiped out economically and socially. It should be noted that in the rare event that C raises any objection or complaint, he/she is criticized by government and their media lackeys as a member of an “unruly mob,” too unsophisticated to understand what the elites know is good for society.

The liberals’ conception of fairness is “equality” which, if it were realized, would result in all being impoverished in every way. We already have too much of the socialists’ “trickle-up poverty.”

Most Americans really do not mind paying taxes for the legitimate functions, i.e., constitutional responsibilities, of government, but are not nearly so much in favor of the socialist welfare state, and the enabling of people addicted to irresponsible behavior. The main people in favor of the welfare state are those who would receive benefits, those who would administer the system, certain politicians, and those who want to be helpful, but neglect to consider the social and human costs, as well as the economic costs of government social welfare. That said, almost all agree that a (at least) minimal safety net is needed to help those who are actually unable to support themselves. The problem arises when this is exaggerated.

As for government relief efforts, one might point to the government’s efforts after Hurricane Katrina. No, I don’t mean FEMA’s slow response at the beginning, but their continuing efforts to provide help for years afterward to people who should have been left to care for themselves sooner. Also, while the Katrina victims were truly suffering, many other people were suffering in an equally bad or worse way, who received no government help whatsoever, nor did they ask for any.

Similarly, the families of those lost in the 9/11 attacks were (I think) very generously compensated by the government. Money can’t replace a lost loved one, but on any given day, a number of people die tragically and their families get nothing from the government, nor do they ask for anything.

I don’t mean to suggest that it was wrong to want to help these people, but that it should be seen in perspective.

Government entitlements that are well-established threaten to greatly damage our economy in future years, because these obligations are unsustainable and can never finally be met. In addition, they unjustly burden the taxpayers every year. Younger payers of these taxes cannot realistically expect to benefit from these programs. They are among the forgotten men and women.

Conclusion, Again Quoting Sumner
“It is plain enough that the Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman are the very life and substance of society. They are the ones who ought to be first and always remembered. They are always forgotten by sentimentalists, philanthropists, reformers, enthusiasts, and every description of speculator in sociology, political economy, or political science. If a student of any of these sciences ever comes to understand the position of the Forgotten Man and to appreciate his true value, you will find such student an uncompromising advocate of the strictest scientific thinking on all social topics, and a cold and hard-hearted skeptic towards all artificial schemes of social amelioration….” [4]


[1] William Graham Sumner biography, Answers.com, at http://www.answers.com/topic/william-graham-sumner

[2] William Graham Sumner, “The Forgotten Man,” 1883, The Forgotten Man and Other Essays, The Online Library of Liberty, at
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1654&search=%22Forgotten+Man%22&chapter=108194&layout=html#a_2270750.

[3] Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008. Originally published by Harper & Brothers, 1946, page 179

[4] Sumner, see [2].


Photo: Portrait of William Graham Sumner from The Warren J. Samuels Portrait Collection at Duke University. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.