Selected Blogs
- Details
- Written by: Webmaster
- Category: Selected Blogs
 Michael Beitler (pronounced Bite-ler), Ph.D., CPA, is the host of "Free Markets With Dr. Mike Beitler," a libertarian internet-radio talk show, and the author of Rational Individualism: A Moral Argument for Limited Government & Capitalism. Mike was the CFO of a profitable bank for more than ten years. |
Originally published at Campaign For Liberty
Fannie Mae reported a loss of $25.2 billion for the fourth quarter of 2008 (losses of $58.7 billion for full-year 2008). Total nonperforming loans were $119.2 billion at year-end. Fannie is requesting additional capital from the U.S Treasury. The other gargantuan government-sponsored enterprise, Freddie Mac is likewise running up billions of dollars in losses. Freddie is preparing to ask for additional capital from the U.S Treasury of $35 billion.
Why should you, the taxpayer, be concerned? Isn't the Federal government using bailout funds allocated by Congress to clean up the mess?
The problem is the Federal government is on the brink of bankruptcy itself. The U.S. government is $11 trillion dollars in debt. (That figure does not include tens of trillions of dollars of off-balance sheet, unfunded liabilities.) Congress has no "money to allocate" to Fannie, Freddie, or anything else. You, the taxpayer, are on the hook for these massive obligations.
Go back to the first paragraph and substitute "additional taxpayer money" for "additional capital."
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
There are many people in the United States that have this belief that society, government or other "owes us." This belief came to fruition in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It was made famous men such as William Jennings Bryant, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Eugene Debs, Franklin Roosevelt as well as others. This belief goes by names such as "soak the rich" and, my favorite. "compassion." What thsi belief really entails is the punishment of achievement and the promotion of class envy. It is the belief of pitting one group against another.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
Published on cnn.com:
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- When libertarians question the merit of President Obama's stimulus package, a frequent rejoinder is, "Well, we have to do something." This is hardly a persuasive response. If the cure is worse than the disease, it is better to live with the disease.
In any case, libertarians do not argue for doing nothing; rather, they advocate eliminating or adjusting policies that are bad for the economy independent of the recession. Here is a stimulus package that libertarians can endorse:
American Business Has Sold Its Soul to the Devil: Exhibit A- Obama Warns Companies Not to Book Event
- Details
- Category: Selected Blogs
Government is filled with people who couldn't get a job in the private sector. Why on earth would we put them in charge of our economy? If they knew anything about running a business, they'd be running a business. George W. Bush was a failure at virtually everything he ever did in the business world- except buying the Texas Rangers. He succeeded at that because of his family connections and wealth. Anyone could make money buying a baseball team- if you have the connections and millions of dollars necessary to buy one in the first place. Then Bush proved his lack of business skills by running our country into the ground, ruining our economy, and increasing our debt dramatically.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
For most people, the term "moderate" means someone who is "middle of the road," a "centrist" or a "pragmatic." It also is described a person who "avoids extremism" or "extremes." After doing research and after watching so-called "moderate" politicians and others in action, sort to speak, I come down to a conclusion that they stand for nothing at all. If they did, they would only stand for themselves and nothing else. I seen this when "moderate" politicians like Arlen Spector, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowne who voted for the $800 billion dollar "stimulis" plan in Congress. I saw it also when "moderate" Justices like Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor sided with the majority on the court in the Kelo decison as well as in the Campaign Finance Reform decision. They stand not for the plain words of the Constitution, nor good fiscal policy and when it comes to individual rights, they think that those can be "compromised" as well. They stand for statism.
When it comes to "extremism," I have come to the conclusion that "moderates" regard that as "one who stands for his or her principals." If that is the case, then there should be more extremists around. They would be blessed. They would stand more for freedom than a "moderate" would.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
Published on townhall.com
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, was set up to combat fraudulent practices. The SEC's website explains that "Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s." It goes on to say, "Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the 'rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul' principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses." That is how the SEC described the recent Bernard Madoff $50 billion Ponzi scheme, "a stunning fraud that appears to be of epic proportions."
A Ponzi scheme does not generate any wealth whatsoever; that is why it ultimately collapses. As Circuit Judge Anderson said in the 1922 Lowell v. Brown case, the Ponzi scheme was "simply the old fraud of paying the earlier comers out of the contributions of the later comers." So long as the number of late comers – you might call them suckers – grows, the fraudulent scheme has life.
- Details
- Written by: Webmaster
- Category: Selected Blogs
Originally published at http://lp.org
The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger doesn't point out congressional Republican voted against the stimulus, not out of opposition to Big Government, but in spite of it. They simply wanted their pork included.
But Henninger does ask the question no one on Capitol Hill wants offered -- if this $1.2 trillion Frankenstein's monster of wealth transfers and exploding spending is supposed to create jobs and help families, why then does it do more for Pennsylvania Avenue than for Main Street? And he takes Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to task for playing along with Obama's dreams of exponentially-expanding government.
- Details
- Written by: Webmaster
- Category: Selected Blogs
Hoping to win favor for adding trillions of dollars in additional bailouts for banks to his already-struggling government expansion plan, President Barack Obama announced yesterday the imposition of salary caps on executives whose banks receive TARP funds.
In other words, if your bank is struggling and its failure could throw the economy deeper into turmoil, Barack Obama wants to make it even harder to hire the managers you need to stay in business.
So if you're keeping score at home, Obama's plan to create jobs is to 1) permanently inflate government spending, 2) impose billions of dollars in additional debt on future workers, 3) eventually repeal tax relief for employers and 4) impose salary caps on bank executives that ensure they will only hire less-qualified managers in a time of economic trouble.
Inciting class warfare and funneling taxpayer money to groups that supported your election doesn't create jobs. Cutting taxes and hiring experienced business managers will.
No wonder independent voters are turning against the Obama plan in hordes.
- Details
- Written by: Chris Wuestefeld
- Category: Selected Blogs
I recently received a message from the New Jersey Republican Party urging me to lobby my Senators to vote against the so-called "stimulus plan". While I certainly oppose this legislation, I found their position so obviously hypocritical that I was insulted. Here is my reply to them.
- Details
- Written by: Webmaster
- Category: Selected Blogs
Bretigne Shaffer (www.bretigne.com) is a writer and filmmaker. Her weekly Internet TV show "On the Banks" can be seen at www.breakthematrix.com, channel 2 every Friday at 12:00 Pacific Time. |
Originally published at Campaign For Liberty
Dear pro-Obama friends,
I got a call from one of you the day after the election. You were so happy. You had "not been so proud to be an American for... decades!" You're living overseas, and you told me about watching the results in a bar with other Americans and how you were all hugging and crying you were so happy. As I hung up the phone, I found that I felt happy for you too.
Most of you know that I supported neither McCain nor Obama, that I view them as equally opposed to peace and freedom and equally ignorant of sound economic principles. I wasn't going to be happy with the election results no matter who won, so I can at least be glad that some of my friends are happy, and I am. And after his first few days in office, even I have to admit that Obama has done some very good things for which he is receiving well-deserved praise. It is not my intention to dismiss these accomplishments, nor is it my intent to rain on anyone's parade. But I do want to ask you all a big favor.
- Details
- Written by: Webmaster
- Category: Selected Blogs
Originally published at http://lp.org
Syndicated columnist Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger expresses his surprise today over reports the Republican Party has discovered fiscal conservatism again.
As Mulshine points out, the Libertarian Party and its 2008 presidential nominee, former congressman Bob Barr, opposed taxpayer-funded bailouts and explosive government growth back when the GOP was espousing it as bedrock principle.
More than a little miffed about Republicans suddenly painting themselves as fiscally responsible, Mulshine decided to give Congressman Barr's office a call:
- Details
- Written by: Webmaster
- Category: Selected Blogs
From NJ Tax Revolution:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 is perhaps the most appalling piece of proposed legislation I have ever seen. The stated purpose of the bill is to jumpstart the economy and create jobs. The bill itself claims that there are no earmarks in this bill. That is one of the most comical claims I have seen as this entire bill is an earmark that will be shoved down the throat of taxpayers with little or no debate.
- Details
- Written by: Webmaster
- Category: Selected Blogs
Not everybody is pumped about Obama's $825 billion stimulus plans, especially the part that includes billions of taxpayer dollars being spent by the government in the hopes of jump-starting the economy. Here's what we've said about it:
- If Obama's Plan Doesn't Seem to Make Sense, it's Because it Doesn't
- We're Not Going to Spend Our Way to Economic Recovery
- Is Cutting Taxes Really Raising Taxes?
- Keynesian Economics Explained
- The LP Goes to Harvard
- Obama's new "Raw Deal"
But don't just take our word for it: There is a growing number of economists speaking out against the logic behind Obama's stimulus package. Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw (who've we've mentioned on here a few times before) has been recording these economists' statements against the stimulus plan. This is some of what Mankiw has compiled:
- Details
- Written by: Jay Edgar
- Category: Selected Blogs
Reason Magazine has many great articles (as usual) in its January edition. Of note are the following:
Is Deregulation to Blame?
The new Washington consensus says "yes." The facts on the ground say something different.
Katherine Mangu-Ward | January 2009 Print Edition
You might not be able to tell by looking at it on the page, but deregulation has become a four-letter word in Washington. In October’s vice presidential debate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) practically spat it out: “If you need any more proof positive of how bad the economic theories have been, this excessive deregulation, the failure to oversee what was going on, letting Wall Street run wild, I don’t think you needed any more evidence than what you see now.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) echoed the sentiment in her floor speech before the first vote on the bailout bill: “It’s really an anything-goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline.”
See full article on their website.
Bush's Regulatory Kiss-Off
Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon.
Veronique de Rugy | January 2009 Print Edition
When Barack Obama was running for president, he made no secret about his plan to "restore common-sense regulation"—read: increase regulation—by closing the regulatory loopholes he thought the Republicans had opened. Deregulation, he argued repeatedly, is the source of evil. Much like Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression, Obama offered a sweeping, ambitious agenda: new financial regulations, new labor regulations, new energy regulations, and more.
- Details
- Written by: Webmaster
- Category: Selected Blogs
The Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation recently released a video with Cato's Daniel Mitchell explaining the failed logic behind Keynesian economics. It's a great watch, since Keynesian theory is the driving force behind President-Elect Barack Obama's latest stimulus plans:
- Details
- Written by: Webmaster
- Category: Selected Blogs
Since its creation as a Jewish state in the late 1940s, Israel has been one of the main sources of tension and unrest in the Middle East. Now, more than 50 years later, Israel once again finds itself at odds with its Palestinian neighbors, forcing the hand of the United States to show where it stands on one of the most polarizing issues in modern history.
The tension between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East goes back thousands of years, and there is no easy solution to the issues in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. Many U.S. presidential administrations have tried to act as brokers of power or arbiters of peace without any success.
- Details
- Category: Selected Blogs
It has been an honor and privilege to serve all of my many friends, fans, voters, contributors and most importantly, the Libertarian Party as the nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008. Thanks to all of you for your support and contributions to my campaign.
As a complete newcomer and outsider to Libertarian politics and the actual LP, many of you in the party welcomed me immediately and made me feel at home. Some of you recognized the potential I had to offer this movement and took the time to educate me in areas where I needed it (and I'm sure, still do). My knowledge grew tremendously and in many cases, my views changed dramatically. Many of you told me that I won you over as a result. I really appreciate the honest hearing you gave me and your willingness to bring me into the Libertarian fold. I'm in this for the long haul and it is my hope that I will eventually win over the few skeptics that remain.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
Mad Money' host says federal entitlement program operates in the same manner as Madoff's scam
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
12/18/2008 9:21:07 AMLove him or hate him, this time Jim Cramer makes a good point.
While some in the media have expressed fury over allegations that Bernard Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme that may have cost investors up to $50 billion, CNBC’s “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer made another point.
- Details
- Written by: Jay Edgar
- Category: Selected Blogs
Your home is your castle, right? Well, maybe not, as Institute for Justice client Lori Ann Vendetti explains in her battle against the city of Long Branch. Read more about this case.