On Wealth and Income Inequality

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin [1]

When tougher economic times come, as at present, we hear more about how we need to redistribute wealth and income to help those who have less. This is especially true under Barack Obama, who is on record as favoring redistribution. For him, this should have been part of the Supreme Court’s decrees during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. We are fortunate that it wasn’t, because that would have brought on a constitutional crisis and, if serious redistribution happened, the collapse of our economy.

Equality of wealth and income in a nation has never been and never will be a fact. It is a grasping at straws and striving after wind to attempt to realize it. If it could be made real, it would result in universal poverty, economic depression and degradation of everyone’s standard of living.

When people observe the different economic levels among people, their sympathy for those at the lower part of the spectrum sometimes leads them to believe that wealth should be confiscated from those at the upper end, and distributed to the less wealthy. Sometimes this motive drives political movements and tax policy. In some people’s religious efforts to help and serve the poor, they call upon government to help in their projects through grants, tax changes, etc.

We do not wish poverty on anyone, but we do recognize that some people are going to be poorer and some richer than others. Poverty is not necessarily a permanent or long-lasting condition, nor is wealth. There are opportunities and hazards which can sometimes change things quickly. I want to discuss reasons that forced redistribution of wealth, as advocated by some left-wing or liberal activists is a terrible and destructive idea.

Safety Net
To start, I will say that we need some kind of safety net to prevent and correct conditions of life-threatening poverty, i.e., hunger and homelessness. For those unable to work and support themselves, we rightly have programs to help them. For the homeless, the focus should be, not only on helping them in their homeless condition, but also in striving to help them to earn their way out of that condition. Most welfare help, other than for those permanently disabled, should be of a temporary and emergency type.

A High Standard of Living
According to distinguished Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises:
“Inequality of wealth and incomes is an essential feature of the market economy. It is the implement that makes the consumers supreme in giving them the power to force all those engaged in production to comply with their orders. It forces all those engaged in production to the utmost exertion in the service of the consumers. It makes competition work. He who best serves the consumers profits most and accumulates riches …

“This country enjoys the highest standard of living ever known in history because for several generations no attempts were made toward ‘equalization’ and ‘redistribution.’ Inequality of wealth and incomes is the cause of the masses’ well-being, not the cause of anybody’s distress. Where there is a ‘lower degree of inequality,’ there is necessarily a lower standard of living of the masses.” [2]

In general, it is unjust for the government to take the fruit of a person’s labor and give it to someone who has not earned it. It is, in fact, legalized thievery if it goes beyond a minimum reasonable amount. The best role of government in preventing and dealing with poverty, beyond a minimum safety net, is to maintain an environment of free market competition and to punish fraud and abuse.

Capitalism Is Not the Problem
Here is a brief conversation between Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue about the supposed drawbacks of capitalism:



There are so many examples of government interference and manipulation in the markets today that hardly any transaction completely escapes. Thus we have constant cost overruns, extreme tax rates, overbearing regulation and low incomes for many.

Any serious attempt to equalize wealth or income requires the imposition of socialism and the loss of economic freedom:
“The only alternative to this financial pressure as exercised by the market is direct pressure and compulsion as exercised by the police power. The authorities must be entrusted with the task of determining the quantity and quality of work that each individual is bound to perform. As individuals are unequal with regard to their abilities, this requires an examination of their personalities on the part of the authorities. The individual becomes an inmate of a penitentiary, as it were, to whom a definite task is assigned. If he fails to achieve what the authorities have ordered him to do, he is liable to punishment.” [3]

Inequality Is Not Unjust, and Is Necessary
The market economy requires an inequality of wealth and income. The pressures of the market serve as incentives to work, save, improve, advance, learn, and innovate. Without these incentives, under a socialist system, the incentives are toward gaining political power by exercising more control over others. The tendency is always to “innovate,” not by research, and more efficient production and marketing methods, but by more onerous requirements and expanding government power. This is always the tendency of bureaucracy. Bureaus try to perpetuate themselves by finding more things to regulate and more ways to control people.

Consider the fact that when the authorities determined that environmental pollution was a problem needing attention (as it was), the number and kind of regulations grew rapidly. Having achieved a good deal of cleaning up, government sought ever more authority to regulate and rule, and more hazards were “discovered,” even to the point that carbon dioxide, the gas we breathe out, has now been declared a pollutant, and the objectively stupid cap and trade legislation is actually being considered. We have reached the point where the “cure” is truly worse than the disease.

The same kind of bureaucratic growth tends to happen whenever government can take authority over activities that under capitalism are part of the private sector.

Private Sector Abuses Involve Government
The main abuses by the private sector have occurred when companies, professional associations, and unions and others have succeeded in getting government to enforce their economic interests, to the disadvantage of others, and in defiance of market forces, as discussed here by Ayn Rand with Mike Wallace in 1959:



Because of private-sector interests colluding with government, we have a lot of large and smaller evils such as:

1. Abuse of eminent domain: Taking property from citizens to provide to other citizens for their private gain, including spending public funds to finance sports arenas and events.
2. Handing out government funds to lure businesses to locate in a particular area.
3. Using the power of the Fed and the Treasury Department to bail out large private banks and take over private companies.
4. Government granting authority over a given profession such that a private association’s pronouncements have the force of law (e.g., AICPA, AMA, and ABA).
Also, these groups can restrict education and practice in these professions.
5. Labor unions employing government help to shake down employers for more benefits, beyond what the market alone would warrant.

If these entities could all operate without the force of government, outside of dealing with crime and abuse, the market would determine the results of economic activity. And the market can do a much better job than government. The more government control we have in any area, the less freedom. “That governs best which governs least.”

Liberal Offers
A major mistake people make when they accept the liberals’ claims that the government must provide what they need, is that they somehow trust politicians more than they trust private enterprise. Politicians are definitely not more trustworthy, nor, as a group, better-motivated than businessmen. Nor are they more knowledgeable, and generally they are much less knowledgeable about running a business operation of any kind. So when they set about to determine everyone’s income (think: pay czar), and wealth (IRS), we need to be prepared to work at gunpoint. Remember, current government officials think it will be all right to imprison people who refuse to buy insurance. That’s how much respect they have for our freedom.

Low-income people have many opportunities in this country. True, a lot of better opportunities are open to people who have inherited wealth or who are especially talented in some high-paying skill. There is always someone who has more and who does more than his fellows. But these are among the differences that make life interesting, and encourage people to strive for improvement, and to appreciate their accomplishments.

Many of the poorer people have items considered luxuries not long ago. Many items people of modest means have are of comparable quality to items rich people have. Even after all the liberals’ attempts to destroy incentive, most people want to try to succeed on their own, and don’t want a handout unless life leaves them no other choice. For those who need help, many charitable operations are at work. The Obama Administration hurts this by planning to reduce income tax deductions for charitable contributions, and allowing the economy to languish, making it harder for people to contribute to charities anyway.

Liberals buy votes by promising government benefits to “victimized” groups. People in these groups are often willing to give over control of much of their lives to the authorities in order to receive these promised benefits. The benefits prove to be less than expected, and less as time goes by, but these voters are trapped into thinking that they must rely on government, so they keep voting for those who make the promises.

Conclusion
The demagoguery about “income and wealth inequality” is appealing to some people who think they should be entitled to what others have, and that government should give it to them. It also appeals to people who want to be in charge of the redistribution, whether to gain power over others, or to feel good about themselves. Class envy is the very lifeblood of liberalism, as it is with communism. The exploitation of the “class struggle” is the whole process. Clinging to that narrow and misguided view is what has produced much of the economic and social failure in our society. The sense of entitlement and victimhood encouraged by liberals, their false promises, and exploitation of the powerless drive much of the feeling of helplessness and despair around us. People who should know better, including politicians, fall for the liberal premises that lead to frustration and discontent. Liberals have little to offer as economic solutions. The results of their tax-and-spend and welfare-state policies can be seen in places like Michigan and California, and are coming soon to a state near you.

[1] Quoted at Goodreads.com.

[2] Ludwig von Mises, “Inequality of Wealth and Incomes,” Ideas on Liberty, No.1. Irvington, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education. (May 1955) 83-88. Reprinted in Essays on Liberty, III. Irvington, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education. (1958)123-31. Reprinted on Mises.org, at http://mises.org/EFANDI/CH9.ASP

[3] Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Scholar’s Edition, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala., 1998, 285-286. Ebook available at Mises.org. Excerpt at http://mises.org/humanaction/chap15sec7.asp.

Photo: Portrait of Ludwig von Mises

Unemployment and Deficit Increase: What Should Be Done?

“THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- OCTOBER 2009

“The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses over the month were in construction, manufacturing, and retail trade.

“Household Survey Data

“In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent, the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points….” (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
* * *
“I have always been a great supporter of Winston Churchill's statement about the United States. The United States can be counted on to do the right thing, after having tried all other conceivable alternatives.” – Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan [1]

Unemployment to Remain High
From all indications, including the White House’s own projections, unemployment is expected to remain high through much of 2010. Depending on the legislative results of the current Congress, a lot of variation is possible, but with policies now in place, things are bad, with the potential of getting much worse if we get Obamacare and cap and trade.
I and many others have made suggestions for improving the economy. The following are some I have made before, but here, I have added some detail and support.

Deficits to Increase
The situation is difficult at best, but is not being helped by the $787 billion stimulus. The overall business environment discourages business expansion and hiring. In general, what is needed are policies to encourage private sector economic activity. Also, in general, this can be done best by reducing taxes and pulling back on some regulations. Reducing the deficit will happen if these things are done, because increased production will lead to more employment, more taxpayers and more revenues to government.

Part of the answer to huge deficits is to reverse some of the things that have brought them on. Also, the government and the Fed need to consider the magnitude of their actions. Trillions of dollars, amounts hardly comprehensible, should not be handled so carelessly. This is the stuff of economic ruin.

Martin Crutsinger, in an Associated Press article, says:
“What is $1.42 trillion? It's more than the total national debt for the first 200 years of the Republic, more than the entire economy of India, almost as much as Canada's, and more than $4,700 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
“It's the federal budget deficit for 2009, more than three times the most red ink ever amassed in a single year.” [2]

Also, the national debt could rise to $17 trillion by 2019. [3]

Crutsinger also points out that increasing deficits will make it harder to sell this debt to investors, resulting in higher interest costs. He has the following quote:
“We should be desperately worried about deficits of this size,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. “The economic pain will be felt much sooner than people think, in the form of much higher interest rates and much higher rates of inflation.” [4]

First Things First
First priority ought to be to get America back to work. The Administration’s priority is not this, but rather, putting in place their socialist agenda of Obamacare and cap and trade, etc. They say that huge government spending and deficits are justified for the purpose of boosting the economy, but their fiscal “stimulus” is not particularly stimulating to the economy, and must be paid for by taxpayers.

The economy is going to be a serious political problem for Obama as time goes on. Already, he has lost a significant amount of favor among voters. According to Rasmussen’s survey of likely voters, 49 percent at least somewhat approve of Obama’s performance, and 50 percent disapprove (11/09/2009). [5]

Suggestions:
1. Forget Obamacare. Take up health care issues later and forget nationalizing it. If this was done, our nation could breathe a large sigh of relief. This plan, in whatever final form it takes, will definitely increase the deficit. It also will not meet the goal of insuring everyone. The resulting tax increases will slow the economy. It might be hard to measure how much the deficit would increase, since one bundle of a trillion dollars of deficit looks pretty much like another. The people in charge now don’t mind throwing around trillions.

2. Forget cap and trade. Recognize it as the fraud and hoax that it is. Cap and trade is a great job killer and will result in hardship for many Americans. There will be more foreclosures, more bankruptcies, lower tax revenues in a fairly short time (not higher as the government expects), and the number of “green jobs created” will be small compared to the number of better-paying jobs lost. Also, the creation of a new “carbon credits” market is an invitation to a great amount of fraud and abuse. Trading in credit default swaps has been a huge mistake (and a failure of government regulation), and carbon credits would probably be worse. Not to mention that all this would do nothing to help the environment. It’s a nightmare waiting to happen.

3. Keep the Bush tax cuts in place, and don't reduce tax deductions. If businesses and individuals knew in advance that taxes would not be raised, they could confidently spend and invest. Tax increases are a strong disincentive to economic activity. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts were a major factor in the 25-year economic recovery, and proved their worth. Higher taxes would not help the deficit, but would actually increase it. Also, Obama wants to decrease tax deductions for medical care and charitable deductions. Both of these would penalize the people he supposedly most wants to help.

Forget the notion that tax cuts only benefit the rich. About 47 percent of Americans don’t pay income taxes. High taxes for “the rich” translate to fewer jobs and therefore less tax revenue to the government. Taxpayers are over-taxed at best from federal, state, and local taxes.

“Those who argue that the Bush tax cuts were a ‘give-away’ to the rich assume that incomes grow at a constant rate, regardless of how heavily they are taxed. That is the fallacy of the recent [2004] CBO [(Congressional Budget Office)] study. The report concedes: ‘Our analysis does not account for incomes changing in response to the tax cuts.’ It’s like assuming that you’re not going to take off any weight if you stop eating hot fudge sundaes with whipped cream and cherries on top. This is the same whimsical logic that compelled the tax accountants on Capitol Hill to famously estimate that a 100 percent income-tax rate would bring in billions of dollars in federal revenue….
“The CBO estimate says that the share of income taxes paid by the richest 20 percent of earners fell from 82.5 percent to 82.1 percent in 2004. The report also states that the top 10 percent of earners will pay ‘only’ 66.7 percent of 2004 taxes, with the top 1 percent paying 32.3 percent. Fully 80 percent of Americans pay less than 18 percent of total income taxes….” [6]

As of 2005, the latest year for which I found data, the top 25 percent of earners paid 85.99 percent of federal income taxes. The top 1 percent paid 39.38 percent. [7]

4. Reduce corporate tax rates to 15 percent or less. The U.S. has a higher corporate tax rate than other industrialized countries, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage. If businesses could have lower tax rates, they could more readily hire people and buy new equipment. Unemployment would quickly decrease if businesses could be confident about continuing lower tax rates. And another result would be increased tax revenues to the government. While we’re at it, reduce capital gains tax rates, too.

5. Sell government interests in GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc. Recover as much as possible of the billions that were spent on these transactions.

6. Recover all TARP funds possible as quickly as possible. Don’t do any more bailouts, period. If a business fails, it fails. That’s why we have bankruptcy courts and established processes for failed banks. Why should taxpayers be on the hook paying for big banks’ big mistakes? There is no bank or business firm that is “too big to fail,” or that government should bail out at taxpayer expense. If some big banks or other businesses fail, this will discourage the kind of behavior that led to their failure, and the market will adjust.

It is unjust and unnecessary to force the taxpayers to bail out banks that failed. Capitalism is based on the principle of risk-taking. Risk involves the possibility of failure. With the massive Fed and Treasury bailouts, Americans are on the hook for such huge amounts that the taxpayers are now the ones at risk. If large banks are assured of being bailed out in case they have large losses, they lose incentives to operate efficiently and the system loses competitiveness. The large banks, already lacking a good level of competition, will operate even more like a cartel.

I have said that the financial meltdown is largely the fault of government, in that the government forced banks to make bad mortgage loans, and Congress stood in the way of regulation of the misbehaving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Common sense about loans, and proper regulation, could have prevented much of the problem. That said, the big banks did take extreme undue risks by issuing and trading in derivatives that never should have been created or traded. This is a failure of the banks, but also a failure of government regulation. The SEC should have seen the danger and acted.

The Bush Administration, to their credit, tried, though unsuccessfully, to regulate Fannie and Freddie, but they erred terribly in yielding to the bullying tactics of Henry Paulson as well as the Fed. To approve legislation of the magnitude of the TARP bailouts, handing over virtually a blank check for $700 billion to Paulson, and doing so without significant debate or discussion was foolish at best. The Fed and the Treasury Department decided the winners and losers of this “bailout bingo,” dividing and distributing bank assets at will. There should be a full accounting and public disclosure of who got what and under what circumstances with all the bailouts.

An inspector general’s report concluded that banks were forced to take money even when they didn’t need or want it. [8] To hand out money like that is nonsense.

A Federal Reserve Board book states that according to the Federal Reserve Act, the Fed’s purpose is “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” [9] It appears that the Fed is also interested in bailing out favored large banks at taxpayer expense. I support the proposed legislation to audit the Fed.

7. Get out of foreign financial entanglements. The U.S. should not participate in any international financial bailouts nor contribute to any kind of international bailout fund. The world’s central banks are infatuated with bailouts. Foreign banks got a considerable chunk of the TARP money and Fed bailouts. These things threaten not only national solvency, but national sovereignty, and ultimately, national security.

8. Back off on “stimulus” bills. Repeal the remainder of the $787 billion stimulus and don’t do any more of them. If tax rates are made more reasonable and the high-cost, job-destroying Obamacare and cap and trade proposals are defeated and discarded, the private sector will be “stimulated” to the point that the recession will soon be over and employment will soon be back to normal.

But the Administration is apparently about ready for a second stimulus:
“There is growing recognition in the White House that the stimulus package wasn’t enough. The White House is considering further stimulus measures -- a combination of more infrastructure investments, more money to weatherize homes and businesses, more tax cuts for businesses, and/or more steps to promote lending. This will be a matter of weeks not months. They know they have got to turn this job cycle around.” [10]

Dealing with the longer-term problems
Even if the changes mentioned above could be made, after our economy began to look normal, we would still have very serious longer-term problems with unsustainable entitlements.

Phasing out Social Security and Medicare over a 25 to 30-year period should be considered, because these programs are not sustainable, and are in themselves capable of toppling our economy. These entitlements currently represent unfunded liabilities of about $83 trillion. [11] It is, arguably, impossible for this to ever be paid.

Younger people should be encouraged to finance their own retirements and provide their own health care. The welfare system should be reduced to a basic safety net, not permanent incentives to refrain from working. This seems to be a problem that is beyond anyone’s expertise to solve, and something politicians routinely pass along to their successors. But it’s going to be a “sudden” big crisis in not many years if nothing is done.

Unless significant changes in direction are made, the actual current economic outlook is not encouraging. There is a likelihood of a second “stimulus,” and the Administration is pushing hard for Obamacare and cap and trade. More taxes are on the horizon. More international arrangements that entangle the U.S. in banking and climate commitments will add to the problems.

Conclusion
My own view is that if the Administration were more concerned about the unemployed, and the suffering of American families in this time of economic hardship, more concerned about restoring long-term prosperity, and less concerned about getting their socialist-fascist program in place, they would take steps similar to what I have described above, and many others have suggested. That would improve the economy fairly quickly. Their own political fortunes will ultimately depend on the economy.

But Obama is determined to fundamentally change American government and social structure, and that is his priority. Other considerations must serve that objective. This kind of “change” is destructive and unconstitutional, and, I believe, will ultimately be rejected by the American people. The more successful this agenda is, the more that economic “hope” will decline.

[1] Martin Crutsinger, Associated Press, “2009 federal deficit surges to $1.42 trillion,” 10/16/2009, at Google News, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iPlbcTnWEfuKimEaDq0UdU2Uxk1gD9BCG27O0.

[2] – [4] Crutsinger, see [1].

[5] “Daily Presidential Tracking Poll,” 11/09/2009, Rasmussen Reports, at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll.

[6] Stephen Moore, “Killing the Class-Warfare Argument,” 08/19/2004, National Review Online, at http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/moore200408191201.asp
The CBO study cited was touted by the Kerry-Edwards campaign as finding that the Bush tax cuts unduly favored the rich.

[7] Rush Limbaugh.com, at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irs_screen_grab.member.html

[8] Matt Cover, “Inspector General: Treasury Secretary Forced Banks to Surrender Ownership Interest to Government,” 10/05/09, CNS News.com, at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55017

[9] The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Ninth Edition, June 2005, page 15. Ebook available at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

[10] Jake Tapper, “Wave After Wave of Bad News,” 11/07/2009, ABC News at
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/wave-after-wave-of-bad-news.html

[11] Gary North, “Social Security and Medicare: The Twin Disasters That Will ‘Break the Bank,’” Gary North’s Specific Answers, at http://garynorth.com/public/department30.cfm

FDR and the Great Depression, Barack Obama and the Great Recession

Ted Roelofs of The Grand Rapids [MI] Press reported as follows on a debate between authors Joseph Alter of Newsweek and Bloomberg columnist Amity Shlaes on the effectiveness of FDR’s Depression-era policies.

“Alter conceded Roosevelt made missteps.
But he argued there is no alternative to ‘massive’ government stimulus
when an economy is plunging.

“‘It would be nice if there was an alternative,’ he said.

“Shlaes maintained virtually nothing Roosevelt did helped pull the
United States out of the Depression, short of entry into World War II in
1941.

“Unemployment stood at 19 percent in 1938, despite the flurry of social
engineering Roosevelt spearheaded in the preceding years. By 1942 with
the massive war effort under way, it stood at about 5 percent.

“In her book [The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression], she argued Roosevelt's biggest failing was a ‘lack of faith in the marketplace….’” [1]

Examples for Obama?
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wasted no time getting to work on the Great Depression problem after taking office in 1933. He immediately declared a bank holiday, an idea he had rejected three days earlier when Herbert Hoover had suggested it. [2]

FDR’s policies worsened and prolonged the Depression. In spite of a strong and sustained effort, the remedies were mostly misguided, ineffective, and counterproductive. They were also short-sighted, not giving adequate consideration to other factors outside the immediate environment of a particular issue, or longer-term effects.

Of course, FDR inherited the Great Depression and Barack Obama inherited a recession and a financial meltdown. Obama’s was and is a difficult situation but there are some lessons that could be taken from history. He need not repeat all the previous mistakes.

Barack Obama’s economic policies have been referred to as “The New New Deal,” and Obama is apparently an admirer of FDR’s policies. In the numbered items below, I mention some of FDR’s policies (italicized) and make applications to current policies (non-italicized).

President Roosevelt was supposedly attempting to help the unemployed and the poor. His policies did economic injury to many workers and others in the following ways:

1. Minimum wage laws froze many workers, especially African-American, out of hiring possibilities.

Minimum wage laws still hamper employment today. Teen unemployment is the highest since the government started keeping records of this in 1948, over 25 percent. [3] Factors other than minimum wage laws have more effect, but minimum wage requirements exacerbate the problem.

2. Many lawsuits, anti-trust and the like were filed against large employers which undermined their ability to hire and pay workers. [4]

Left-leaning governments always want to go after large companies that might be commercially successful, wanting to assert power over them and tax them if they are profitable. Witness the government’s vendetta against Microsoft in recent years. The failing companies, such as Wall Street banks and the auto manufacturers, they want to “bail out,” i.e. take control at great taxpayer expense, saying they are “pulling the economy back from the brink,” and “restoring stability” to the financial system. Really? More likely, they have set the financial system and the American economy up for disastrous failure through unpayable debt.

We are a long way from seeing the “stability” they talk about. Also, The Obama Administration is greatly endangering national sovereignty through international arrangements on finance, “climate change,” etc. I do not like conspiracy theories, but the one about the international banking cartel, starting with the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers plotting to take over the world’s money and reduce the population to serfdom begins to have some plausibility. I don’t endorse it, but what would be different if it isn’t true? It is true that we are in danger of a massive economic collapse simply because of our national debt and endless deficits. Not all Obama’s fault, but he was on board with the bank bailouts and was the principal operator in the auto company takeovers.

According to The New York Times, “Beyond the $700 billion bailout known as TARP, which has been used to prop up banks and car companies, the government has created an array of other programs to provide support to the struggling financial system. Through April 30, the government has made commitments of about $12.2 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion — but also has collected more than $10 billion in dividends and fees.” [5] (emphasis theirs).

3. Under FDR, increasing tax rates put potential employers in a difficult position for hiring. Also, they could see that if they were successful, their profits would be largely taxed away. [6]

Every dollar a company pays in taxes is a dollar that is unavailable for hiring or investment in plant and equipment. Today’s employers face some of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, and see more coming as the Bush tax cuts expire. Also, they could hardly be blamed for waiting to see what happens with the Obamacare and cap and trade proposals before deciding on major hiring or investments. The business environment is very difficult and hardly improving in terms of employment.


4. Excise taxes were placed on many consumer goods. This especially hurt the poor.

We still have a lot of “hidden” taxes, on products and services. But the Democratic Congress also wants to tax sugar-sweetened drinks and other popular consumer items in connection with Obamacare. This would take more money out of the pockets of people they claim they’re trying to help. And these taxes are just the beginning. Even if they don’t pass their health care bill, they’ll still try to control everyone’s diet and shopping habits through costly taxes. And then there’s VAT that seems to be up for discussion.

5. FDR destroyed much food while millions were hungry. In an ill-advised attempt to create artificial shortages and thus raise prices, the government paid farmers to plow under 10 million acres of crops and to slaughter and discard six million farm animals. Then they paid farmers for not producing. [7]

Well, the Obama Administration hasn’t yet sunk to the level of destroying farm products. They do, as their predecessors did, still cling to unwarranted farm subsidies and government controls on farming. And they continue the previously existing harmful practices of mandates and subsidies for ethanol.

Bad Economics
According to Robert Higgs, “In their understanding of the Depression, Roosevelt and his economic advisers had cause and effect reversed. They did not recognize that prices had fallen because of the Depression. They believed that the Depression prevailed because prices had fallen. The obvious remedy, then, was to raise prices, which they decided to do by creating artificial shortages. Hence arose a collection of crackpot policies designed to cure the Depression by cutting back on production. The scheme was so patently self-defeating that it’s hard to believe anyone seriously believed it would work.” [8] (emphasis his).

FDR went a long way toward nationalizing industry, in effect, through the National Industrial Recovery Act, which was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote that, ‘extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.’ Congress ‘cannot delegate legislative power to the President to exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed.’” [9]

FDR unconstitutionally confiscated gold by an Executive Order, which also made it illegal to own most kinds of monetary gold. It did nothing to help, and amounted to legalized thievery. [10] This harmed individual savers and investors, and, more indirectly, workers. And it threatened and reduced everyone’s freedom. If gold can be confiscated, what’s to stop government confiscation of other things (over and above taxes), in the interest of “fairness,” of course.

Liberal governments see a problem and they think the federal government must act to correct it. Their corrections may benefit, temporarily, some group experiencing hardship, but what is usually ignored is the effect on others, and what their actions mean down the road. This recalls the “Forgotten Man” of William Graham Sumner:

“As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. As for A and B, who get a law to make themselves do for X what they are willing to do for him, we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but what I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. He is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdens which are laid upon him.” [11]

Henry Hazlitt quotes this and observes that in the 1930’s, the “forgotten man” label was applied to X. C was still forgotten [12] (Amity Shlaes uses this phrase in the title of her book.)

The Congress is currently considering legislation to mandate a week of annual sick pay for all employees, as a result of the swine flu scare. Many companies cannot afford to pay employees when they aren’t working, so if this passes, unemployment or underemployment will likely increase. But the squeaky wheel gets the grease. More government micro-management. Another reason to believe the government is less concerned about the economy than with finding excuses for expanding government power.

Unemployment was 3.1% before the stock market crash of 1929 and 24.8% when Franklin D. Roosevelt took office. The rate was in double digits until 1941. [13] The published rates do not count people who have given up looking for work or have taken part-time jobs.

Well, the Great Depression is over. World War II lifted America out of it. But the current recession is not over, except perhaps in some narrow technical sense according to some “experts.” And over or not, its ill effects linger, and from all indications will linger for some time. There are too many instances of Obama following FDR’s ill-advised prescriptions, when we should have learned better. FDR didn’t have a previous great depression in memory to serve as his example. Previous depressions were left to the market and recovery was fairly quick. But Obama has the example of the Great Depression. Circumstances and technologies change, but the laws of economics still apply. The sooner the government ends its love affair with deficit spending and embraces something more oriented toward free markets and individual liberty, the sooner things will begin to improve. But don’t hold your breath.


[1] Ted Roelofs, The Grand Rapids Press, “Authors debate: Did FDR’s social programs make the Great Depression worse?” 10/12/2009, at http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2009/10/authors_debate_did_fdrs_social.html.

[2] Robert Higgs, “How FDR Made the Depression Worse,” Feb. 1995, Ludwig von Mises Institute, at http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258.

[3] Catherine Rampell, The New York Times, “Teen unemployment at record level,” 09/08/2009, SF Gate, at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/07/BU6H19IVRT.DTL&type=business.

[4] Jim Powell, “Tough Questions for Defenders of the new Deal,” 11/06/2003, Cato Institute, at http://www.cato.org/research/articles/powell-031106.html.

[5] The New York Times, “Adding Up the Government’s Total Bailout Tab,” 02/04/2009, at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html.

[6] Powell, see [4].

[7] Ibid.

[8] Higgs, see [2].

[9] Ibid.

[10] David J. Heinrich, “FDR’s Heinous Crimes,” 10/21/2004, Mises Economics Blog,
at http://blog.mises.org/archives/002627.asp. Text of the Executive Order is here.

[11] William Graham Sumner, “The Forgotten Man,” 1883, The Forgotten Man and Other Essays, at 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.

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

Photo: Dreamstime.com. FDR statue

Is Obama President Yet?

Candidate Barack Obama spoke like a man who was very confident about solving America’s economic, social, and foreign policy problems. That’s the impression his silver-tongued oratory was trying to leave, and he succeeded enough to get elected by a majority. His speeches were long on platitudes and short on specifics, but, to many, he looked like the man with some answers, and they bought his message of “hope and change.”

When Does It Become Obama’s Presidency?
What we continue to see too much of is Obama’s willingness to blame all present problems on “the mess we inherited” from the previous administration, and to wish his critics would be silent. After all, they are, according to his statements, the ones who created the mess. To him, apparently, they have no right to criticize, or, for that matter, to even speak. George W. Bush is the great villain who caused all the trouble, the president and his people would have us think, and he is the one they continue to campaign and run against.





(See Jay Leno clip here.)

But Obama’s attempts to blame Bush for his (Obama’s) own situation is becoming tiresome to many of the American people, and possibly wearing thin among his supporters – certainly among many of his former supporters.

Every president inherits a situation of some great difficulty. A man who runs for president must accept this as a challenge. It is the height of bad form to blame your predecessor for everything when you’ve based your campaign on claims to understand and accept the challenges that are being faced, and claimed to have the desire and ability to deal effectively with them. Truman’s oft-quoted advice still stands: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” (Biden explains to George Stephanopoulos how they “misread the economy” in video found here.)

Past Presidents Inherited Troublesome Situations, Too
Franklin D. Roosevelt faced a dire situation in 1933. He didn’t spend his terms of office whining about what a mess Mr. Hoover left him. While (in my opinion) his economic “solutions” prolonged the Depression, he at least took it as his responsibility to deal with it. Did he claim that everyone had “misread the economy”? I don’t think so. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Ronald Reagan inherited quite a mess from Jimmy Carter. But he didn’t repeatedly remind everyone of that fact as a political strategy in his White House. He didn’t waste time and energy blaming others for his troubles. He devoted his efforts to restoring prosperity and winning the Cold War.

Bill Clinton said there couldn’t be a middle-class tax cut because the economy was so much worse than they thought when they came into office. That kind of excuse was lame then, and it’s lame now. Get some competent economic advisers. Still, we didn’t hear Clinton harping on the problems left by the previous administration after he was well into his first term.

Can We Blame Everything on Bush?
Yes, Bush left an economic mess. Liberals would have us believe it was entirely Bush’s fault, when in fact there was plenty of blame to go around, most of which ought to be placed on Democrats. The housing crisis that led to the financial meltdown was anticipated long before it broke open. The warning signs were there. When the Bush Administration tried numerous times to get effective regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they were rebuffed by Congress, who wanted to attack the regulators. How dare they accuse these GSE’s of anything? They were surpassing their goals (after creatively adjusting the books) in providing affordable housing, i.e., buying mortgage loans made by banks under duress to people who were obviously unable to repay them. But the execs, mostly ex-Clinton people, got their huge bonuses. (See video about Congressional hearings here).

Then there’s the deficit. Bush left two wars, as well as “compassionate conservative” programs, such as a Medicare drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, and other costly items. OK. But: “Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency.” [1] Does Bush’s admittedly large deficit justify the astronomical deficits we’re already seeing under Obama, to be followed by even more? How much is too much? We may learn the answer.

Further Reading
I found three good articles on Obama’s insistence on blaming the Bush Administration, one by National Review’s Rich Lowry, one by Peggy Noonan at The Wall Street Journal, and one by William McGurn, also at WSJ. Polls have indicated that many Americans still blame Bush for the continuing economic problems, but they also show Obama’s support, especially among independents, declining. Maybe that reflects some significant reality about a president who obsessively apologizes for America and blames George W. Bush for his own lack of success.

[1] Robert Rector, Katherine Bradley and Rachel Sheffield, “Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor,” 09/16/2009, at Heritage.org.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/sr0067.cfm.


Photo: Dreamstime.com

Obama’s Enemies List: Are You on It?

President Barack Obama, in a very un-presidential manner, is going about promoting his political agenda in large measure by criticizing, trying to marginalize, and ultimately bring down those whom he perceives to be his political enemies (rather than “opponents”). Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has cautioned the President that his actions are beginning to look like those of Richard Nixon, who, seemingly in a paranoia mode, made a list of “enemies” he wanted his administration to go after, and some of whom he did actually attack, using the resources of government. This pursuit of “enemies” led to the eventual downfall of his presidency.

“‘An “enemies list” only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself,’ Alexander said on the Senate floor. ‘These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let’s push the street-brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly presidential issues: creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy.’” [1]

Sorry, Senator. You are correct, but you may be too late. The enemies-list operation is in full swing already. Any people or groups of people who have criticized (to any significant effect) some part of the Obama agenda may very well find themselves to be his target, if they aren’t already.

A partial listing of Obama’s “enemies”:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce – This is yet another example of Obama trying to marginalize and take down a traditionally very influential group. Obama is against any effective lobbying group that tries to benefit the private sector or the American economy. A prosperous people don’t look to government for everything. An impoverished people may.



Fox News – Anita Dunn, David Axelrod and others have been sent out to try to discredit Fox News and even get “mainstream” news outlets to deny that Fox is a legitimate news organization. This will have some effect, perhaps, but Fox News’ ratings are up substantially since this “war on Fox News” broke out.

Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio – The administration will probably try some back-door version of the Fairness Doctrine to silence conservative talk radio (and Fox New as well). Mark Lloyd, the “diversity czar” of the FCC has no respect for freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Rush’s ratings are up.

Health insurance companies – Democrats in Congress are currently working to deny health insurers the exemption from anti-trust laws that they currently enjoy. The objective is to strip the states of their power to regulate insurance and at the same time put the insurance companies either out of business or directly under the thumb of the federal government, and further obfuscate the costs of their health care plan.



Big oil – All energy-related industries, as well as consumers, are likely to suffer as a result of cap and trade, if it is enacted. This will punish our entire country by bringing on another depression. States that are already suffering the most will likely be hardest hit, but all will be hurt. Are you ready?

Auto manufacturers – Current CAFE standards and the GM and Chrysler takeovers should be punishment enough, if any were needed (which it isn’t), but Obama is going to tighten CAFE standards further and dictate what kind of cars can be made. Many vehicles currently available will be gone.

Fast food – Federal and some local laws will more strenuously regulate fast food providers as to location, nutritional information disclosure, and allowable menus. This is an area where endless harassment of citizens can and will take place.

Conservatives on the internet – Obama is already pushing for authority to take over private networks on the pretext of “cyber-security” concerns. Proposed “net neutrality” rules will further restrict internet freedom. People have remarked on how the internet has not brought about “Big Brother” controls as some have feared, but we haven’t seen the outcome yet. The technology is there for massive abuse and government control. The FCC “diversity czar” is going after internet conservatives also.

According to Investors’ Business Daily, even though “net neutrality” is advertised as creating more opportunities for internet access, “[t]he issue is not access, but control. In February 2008, FCC diversity czar Mark Lloyd, an admirer of what Hugo Chavez did to silence Venezuela's media, wrote about net neutrality in an article titled ‘Net Neutrality Is A Civil Rights Issue’ and published by CommonDreams.org.

“‘Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the Internet for its public interest benefits,’ Lloyd wrote. ‘Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it.’ Lloyd feels government should be the voice controlling what you see and hear.” [2]

The Republican Party – The Obama White House is trying to marginalize the Republican Party as a non-factor. The main obstacle to this is the fact that the American people, by a majority, support none of Obama’s main initiatives. Republicans could capitalize on this a lot more than they have been doing. But if they’re afraid of appearing too combative, they will instead appear to have rolled over and capitulated. New candidates will be needed if the GOP is to be revived in 2010, even though most voters want that to happen.

Etc., Etc. – Look for more enemies-list activity in upcoming days. They’re just getting started, and they’ve got to move fast.

Then there are those the Administration and Congress are going after a little less directly, without trying to publicly discredit them specifically. They’re not enemies so much as targets to be dealt with in clearing the way for and financing the Obama program:

Doctors who oppose Obamacare – Doctors are going to find their government reimbursements decreased (to lower “costs”), which will lead to more doctors dropping out of government-reimbursed programs, or out of medical practice entirely. But that’s OK with Obama if he gets his government-dominated program going. However, the attempt to cut reimbursements may well prove politically impossible.

The private sector in general – How many more businesses and industries must be taken over by the government? Apparently many more, will be, not necessarily by ownership, but by numerous new taxes and regulations and zealous enforcement from the growing government sector. Corporate profits are the liberals’ piggy bank, they think. They’ll worry about the economy and jobs (along with Afghanistan) later, time permitting.

The “rich” who aren’t part of his support team – Hollywood liberal elites, professional athletes, union leaders, rich trial lawyers and other liberal donors can hope to fare well in Obama’s fascist crackdowns. Some large companies are said to be cutting deals to try to gain a favorable position. But the rich taxpayers in general are considered ripe for the picking. Obama does not care about unemployment or the bad economy. It’s all about getting his great fascist program in place before the bottom falls out of his popularity.

American Taxpayers in general (investors, professionals and other workers) – These will do well to be able to keep their jobs or the better part of their investments in the Obama-depressed economy that we’ll see if Obama’s big agenda items are enacted. Forget about green jobs. A few thousand of those will do little to help the 15-million-plus who are unemployed, not counting those who have given up looking for work, or have taken part-time jobs.

The Obama Administration is probably the most activist freedom-destroying and takeover-minded (i.e., “progressive”) administration in our history. Woodrow Wilson and FDR might come close, but at least they could point to World War I and the Great Depression and World War II as excuses for their activism. Obama still tries to blame George W. Bush long after it’s too late to do so. This is not the change most people thought we were going to get. Soon only the most hardcore leftists and Obama fans (and some others bought off or severely arm-twisted) will be able to willingly support the Obama program.


[1] Politico Staff, “Alexander to Obama: No ‘enemies list,’” Politico.com via Yahoo News, 10/21/09, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091021/pl_politico/28549_1.

[2] IBD Editorials, “A Power Grab Called ‘Net Neutrality,’” 10/21/09, at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=509810.

Mao Zedong: Anita Dunn’s Hero?

Here’s part of what Anita Dunn said to a group of high school students at their graduation ceremony in May 2009:



Mao Zedong (or Tse-Tung) was a ruthless dictator responsible for deaths of millions of people, more than Hitler, and more than Stalin. The “Great Leap Forward” and the later “Cultural Revolution” killed millions, and many died in numerous rural and urban purges.

“When questioned last week after a video of her speech surfaced, however, Dunn said she was using ‘irony’ in reference to Mao. A leading expert on China [William Ratliff of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University] told CNSNews.com that Dunn’s remarks were ‘pathetic,’ given the human rights atrocities committed under Mao’s reign.

“[Ratliff] said he found Dunn’s comments astonishing regardless of her larger point, and wondered whether Dunn is aware of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, or if Dunn was trying to look at Mao’s positive accomplishments.” [1]

Irony? I suppose there’s a hint of irony in pairing Mao and Mother Teresa, but there is nothing ironic about her quote of Mao and her expression of admiration for his “political philosophy.” And how would high-schoolers with no memory of Mao perceive any such intended nuances in her speech? But there weren’t any.

During the “Great Leap Forward,” Mao, supposedly in an attempt to bring China into the twentieth century, had peasants working to produce steel, often from back yard blast furnaces. Farm tools were melted down for the steel. Agricultural work was neglected, leading to crop failures. This led to mass starvation, killing 20 to 40 million people. Also, the steel was of such low quality that much of it was not usable.



“Beginning in the spring of 1966, Mao ordered the closing of schools and the formation of ideologically pure Red Guard units, dominated by youths and students. The Red Guards campaigned against ‘old ideas, old culture, old habits, and old customs’ Millions died as a series of violent purges was carried out. By early 1967, the Cultural Revolution had succeeded in bolstering Mao’s position as China’s paramount leader.” [2]

Youqin Wang, at a web site devoted to the memory of victims of the Cultural Revolution, points out in a paper appearing on the site, that many teachers and school officials were tortured and beaten, some to death, by students. What was supposed to be a non-violent campaign of criticizing the education system and “capitalist-roaders,” thought to be leading the Party back toward capitalism, soon became violent:

“The Red Guards espoused an essentially destructive philosophy. At the Girls Middle School attached to Beijing Teachers University, in August 1966, the Red Guards destroyed books and paintings on campus. After the vice-principal, Bian Zhongyun, was beaten to death on campus, three seventh graders beat an eighteen-year-old waitress of a restaurant near the school to death in the chemistry laboratory, merely because she was rumored to be a ‘bad woman.’ These kinds of pointless yet destructive actions were romanticized as ‘revolutionary behavior’ which no one dared to stop. Ironically, these actions, which consisted for the most part in destroying objects and in beating innocent people, were called ‘rebellious actions,’ but they were actually carried out with the support of the highest authorities….” [3] (Emphasis added)

In her paper, Wang also details several examples of the abuse of the teachers and others, with information gained from interviews with people involved at the time. [4]

Just in case you aren’t familiar with things that happened in China under Mao, as many younger people are not, these were some of the things that happened under Mao, and with Mao’s participation. The point is that it is no small thing when White House officials praise Mao, especially to young graduating students.

Manufacturing “czar” Ron Bloom also expressed agreement with Mao, saying there is “no free market,” and quoting his statement “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Remember, these people speak for President Barack Obama. In a political sense, when they speak, Obama speaks. He is the one who chose these and other admirers of communism and Marxism for positions of responsibility in our government.

[1] Fred Lucas, “White House Official’s Praise for Mao --Whose Policies Led to Death of 65 Million --Was ‘Pathetic,’ Says China Expert,” CNS News.com at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55665.

[2] Borgna Brunner, ed., Time Almanac 2007 with Information Please ®, TIME Inc., 2006, page 709.

[3] Youqin Wang, “Student Attacks Against Teachers: The Revolution of 1966,” Memorial for the Victims of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, at http://www.chinese-memorial.org/.

[4] Ibid. Wang further details some of the atrocities and suicides that followed, in a second paper, “The Second Wave of Violent Persecution of Teachers: the Revolution of 1968,” presented at the 35th International Congress of Asian and North African Studies, Budapest, July 7-12, 1997, and also appearing at the web site.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Fox News Guilty of Journalism; This Annoys White House

Fox Stands Out Among News Outlets
In a CNN interview, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn pointed out that Fox News story selection differed significantly from that of CNN, the major broadcast networks and other cable channels. This was done in order to support her contention that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization, but a de facto arm of the Republican Party.

Anyone who’s been paying attention since Barack Obama became a candidate for president could hardly miss the fact that the mainstream media has protected, promoted, covered for, and even idolized him. This is scarcely debatable. Fox News has not. Their coverage of Obama and political stories has differed from the others because they wanted to cover items the others either did not cover or did so in such a manner as to put a positive spin on items that might be seen as critical of Obama, and minimize the airtime devoted to such items.

Fox News doesn’t get much respect from the White House, or mainstream media outlets, because (1) they are not invested in the political success of Obama or his opponents, and (2) they do not ridicule people who have a conservative viewpoint. Conservative opposition to Obama is viewed by the MSM as “divisive,” and basically ill-informed and in need of guidance from themselves.

Political Coverage
In political things Obama-related, Fox is representative of actual journalism, while political journalism in the mainstream media has seemingly become dormant. It is Fox that reported adequately on Obama’s connections with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and other radicals. Not that the others didn’t report, but they made it clear that there was no cause for concern, in their view; similarly with Obama’s radical, Marxist and Marxist-leaning “czars” who don’t mind exerting their power to take away normal freedoms – such as the right of a business to pay their employees as they have agreed to. Fox reported these items in their news segments, and they were fairly heavily covered in Fox’s opinion shows with Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc.

On the issue of “health care reform,” for example, Fox News gave attention to the fact that many Americans oppose Obamacare, covering the tea parties, town halls and march on Washington. The MSM outlets devoted much less airtime and attention to these phenomena and gave more emphasis to their “divisive” and occasionally unruly aspects. Nor did Fox neglect critics of the events or controversies involving them. As for the issue itself, the MSM seems to start with the premise that socialized healthcare is a good idea for America, while most Americans won’t accept this without strong persuasion.

The Role of the Media
Media, by and large should have a thorough understanding and a deep appreciation for our Constitution, particularly the First Amendment protections. Traditionally, newspapers and other media have served as a watchdog over government abuses and corruption, and an advocate and protector of the people. Today, this role is much more often fulfilled in consumer matters and local politics than national political matters.

From an August 2000 article at the Australian Press Council website:
“Fleet Street [1] genius Sol Chandler put it this way: ‘The oldest rule of journalism, and the most forgotten, is to tell the customers what is really going on.’ If it is forgotten, it is because exposure journalism is quite impossible for all but the most financially secure media organisations.

“The reasons lie in the Eighteenth Century. Modern journalism, invented by Defoe in 1704, became what [Press Historian Francis] Williams calls ‘a weapon of freedom, a sword in the hands of those fighting old or new tyrannies, the one indispensable piece of ordnance in the armoury of democracy….’

“[Eighteenth Century British] Judges sent many honest soldiers for truth to prison during the long (and largely unsuccessful) struggle for free speech and democracy. Williams says the privations they endured impose the same obligations on all who come after: to report honestly, to comment fearlessly, and to hold fast to independence.” [2]

This is pointed out only to illustrate that free-press journalism has a rich heritage of an international struggle for freedom that imposes serious responsibilities.

Point and Counterpoint
The White House has excluded Fox News from some events and has hinted at further steps along this line. News organizations have sometimes been known to go out of their way to avoid offending their government sources, so as to preserve access. But what’s the point of having access if you can’t freely report the facts? But presumably, Fox won’t be denied access, they’ll simply find that the White House will “hit back” (twice as hard?). This does not appear to frighten Fox.

To their credit, Fox has responded appropriately (I think) to the criticism. Chris Wallace called the White House group a bunch of “crybabies,” and that got under their skin even further. To which I say, in the words of Harry Truman, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”

Two sides of the issue, first from Anita Dunn on CNN, then Neil Cavuto on Fox:





Some Observations
A few things are clear from this:

1. Barack Obama and his White House staff are thin-skinned.

2. Obama’s staff includes people like Dunn and “czars” who are admirers of Communist leaders like Mao Tse-Tung and Marxists like Hugo Chavez, dictators who have not hesitated to shut down media outlets that disagreed with them. Presumably Obama shares some of these characteristics. Liberals often have not hesitated to go after critics and try to silence them, rather than engage on issues with them. We saw this in some of the town hall meetings in August. We have heard in the pronouncements of people like the FCC’s “Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd. What stands between us and the loss our freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not so much the ethics of government as the First Amendment itself. And these days, that may not be entirely secure.

3. The warning about investigative journalism needing to be backed by financial resources is very appropriate today. Fox News has a billionaire owner. One hopes he will not be moved to change Fox News on account of White House pressure. If Fox stays in the White House crosshairs, they might expect some form of further retaliation.

Fox News has practiced actual journalism in both news reporting and opinion that deserves respect. For not being coddlers of the president, they are on his bad list.


[1] Formerly known as the home of the British press, though that is not the case nowadays.

[2] Evan Whitton, “In Function of the Press,” Australian Press Council News, August 2000, at http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apcnews/aug00/whitton.html


Photo: Dreamstime.com