Monthly Archives: March 2014

The One-Party State: Incubator of Corruption

30 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Corruption

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

By Greg Smith

The Democratic-dominated California state senate better wrap up business for the year, it’s just a couple FBI stings away from not being able to muster a quorum. Republican candidates in Connecticut should point voters’ attention across the continent as they try to end the Democratic grip on every statewide office, as well as majorities in both houses of the state legislature.

The California state senate on Friday suspended three lawmakers, all Democrats, for varying charges of corruption. The most fascinating were the international arms trafficking charges against state Senator Leland Yee, who is – make that was – the point man in the state’s full-court press for more gun control. Yee was also running for secretary of state, where he would have overseen elections in the state. Oh joy. Imagine the fair shake challengers would have gotten from a Democratic secretary of state who was willing to deal in shoulder-fired missiles in his spare time.

With only 40 senate seats, three senators suspended – with pay — for corruption charges and/or bribery is a high number even if the assumption is all government corruption is caught by law enforcement, which seems pretty unlikely.

What is far more unlikely is no one in the state senate had any inkling about bribery, voter fraud or any of the illicit extracurriculars in which these three were charged or convicted. There aren’t many complete secrets in state houses, too many eyes and ears surround higher public officials. And political parties are completely aware that some people go into ‘public service’ to line their own pockets, legally or otherwise.

Obviously, any Democrats in California who knew or suspected illegal activity were not overly concerned because their party has a stranglehold on power in the state. California has become so blue Democrats weren’t worried about a stray scandal here or there. They just timed the scandals poorly.

“One is an anomaly, two is a coincidence. Three? That’s not what this senate is about,” said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, according to KTVU.com.

Steinberg is wrong. Any organization that doesn’t have to compete, without exception, rots from within. In the 1950s and 1960s the three major American automakers had the domestic market to themselves. Management was somewhat intertwined and all three had basically the same labor agreements so their largest expenses were inflexible and in line with each other. By the early 1970s the Big Three, and AMC with the Pacer, Gremlin, Javelin — got used to turning out junk they believed Americans had to buy if they didn’t want to walk. The only reason American cars began to improve in the 1990s was competition from Japan. The Big Three learned the hard way Americans didn’t have to buy a Pinto when they could get a Corolla.

This is by no means a claim Republican officeholders are more honest. The ideology of smaller government does provide fewer opportunities for corruption, but no matter how small and well lit the town some will still find a dark alley in which to prostitute themselves.

Senate Democrats in California seem to have moved the dark alley right into their chamber. At least the shorter commute will save them on carbon credits. According to the Washington Post senate Republicans last week put up a resolution to expel Sen. Roderick Wright, one of the three suspended Friday. Democrats defeated the resolution so Wright, convicted in January of eight felonies involving perjury and voter fraud, gets to keep drawing his $95,000 annual salary.

Friday’s vote to suspend the three passed 28-1. The lone dissenter was Republican Senator Joel Anderson who said, “What we’re doing is incentivizing bad behavior with this resolution,” and wanted the three expelled instead.

The three suspensions only cost Democrats their supermajority in the Senate, so they still control both chambers of the legislature and all other statewide offices. They have so little concern about the scandals, the senator who is expected to become the next senate president pro tem, Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, rated the body quite highly.

“This is the best legislative institution in the country, hands down, and we’re going to get past it,” he said.

Maybe de Leon has never golfed and doesn’t realize sometimes a lower score, like in the number of felony counts against sitting senators, would be considered the “best.” In any case there should be no surprise at the charges and convictions. Government will always involve some corruption, and one-party rule will always breed greater corruption than would have existed otherwise because legislators feel their jobs are much less vulnerable.

Republicans need only point to California and ask Connecticut voters if they think Chris Dodd’s shenanigans occurred in a vacuum. ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/28/us-usa-california-lawmakers-idUSBREA2R1K420140328

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/state-senate-set-vote-yee-suspension/nfM3F/

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/state-senate-set-vote-yee-suspension/nfM3F/

Let Me Look Up Who the Koch Brothers Are So I Can Despise Them

28 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by in 2014 Election

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

By Greg Smith

Call Karl Rove, someone finally won the pool on when it would no longer be Bush’s fault. Whoever had 1,841 days collects, that seems to be about when it became the Koch brothers’ fault.

Who?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Democratic colleagues have made a major blunder in their quest to paint billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, who dig deep donating to conservative political candidates and causes, as the culprits behind everything from Russia’s annexation of the Crimea to income inequality at home. Reid and friends like throwing around the term “the one-percenters,” to attack the rich, but the one-percenters are now the people who have any idea who the hell Harry Reid is talking about. Or care.

Normally, Americans are sufficiently tuned out that any anti-billionaire campaign – even a campaign run by a group which also accepts millions from billionaires – would gain at least some traction. This is not a normal year. First, the average American voter may not like billionaires donating to the Republicans, but they know Democrats are not funding their super political action committees with a lemonade stand and bottle drive.

Americans are quite fed up with the direction the nation is headed. The coming election will be won or lost on issues. This doesn’t necessarily bode well for Republicans because they can’t seem to be for anything, but the attacks on the Koch brothers by Reid and company are going to blow up in their faces because it shows either they believe their actions are not at fault, or they just figure a little slight of hand will fend off a major defeat in November.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday on another proposed change to Obamacare pushed by Senate Democrats. You can’t credibly blame your opponents’ political contributors as your own party pushes yet another alteration to its signature initiative, which you passed with no Republican votes. The average American doesn’t live on the set of MSNBC.

There are only two things that can save the Democrats from an historic drubbing in November. One is a come-to-Jesus meeting where they channel Jim Bakker, weepily sing “Amazing Grace” and cry for forgiveness – which isn’t very likely. The second, much more likely scenario is the Republicans keep their campaign strategists in place, offer no alternatives and just coast to a sure, small victory that leaves the Senate in the hands of the Democrats.

A little old fashioned leadership on the part of either party would improve their respective chances. Blaming the Koch brothers shows just how far the Democrats have to travel. What’s your opinion?

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

President Obama, 1938 Called, It Wants Its Foreign Policy Back

25 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Foreign Policy, NATO

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

By Greg Smith

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” President Obama to Mitt Romney during 2012 presidential debate.

The idea the North Atlantic Treaty Organization lost its mission after the fall of the Soviet Union has been proven wrong by Russia’s Crimean annexation, but the fog of peace still hasn’t lifted for NATO members who became pre-occupied doing business with the 800-pound gorilla in the Kremlin. NATO’s mission will continue so long as Russia exists.

For 40 years NATO had a single mission: protect Western Europe from the Soviet threat of invasion. When the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 widespread belief was the threat from Russia had permanently disappeared. That sentiment was probably shared by the Golden Horde in the 1400s. You know, the Mongol empire long ago absorbed by its former vassal state, Russia.

Since the 1200s Russia can be compared to a glacier during a cooling period. It mainly increases in size, engorging and less often disgorging satellite nations and regions. Despite its size – in area Russia is almost twice the size of the second largest nation, Canada – Russia has viewed its neighbors with fear and suspicion, of course with some justification. Adding territory on its margin provided both a greater buffer and control of populations. Russian leaders have proven adept at bargain hunting, snapping up land when the price was right.

The lesson from history for NATO is simple: Make the price Russia pays to take over other countries too high. In the past three weeks there has been discussion of Russian views of Eastern and Central Europe as a sphere of influence, and that Western diplomatic efforts at closer ties with Ukraine, as well as NATO inching closer to Russian borders are cause for alarm in Moscow. Hogwash.

Given its size and resources Russia no longer has any excuse or justification for taking over territory for self defense. European countries have been disarming for decades. Even collectively and including Turkey they pose no real danger to Russia. The U.S. has continued to invest in modern equipment but mainly for unconventional war. The U.S. Army has actually requested production of its main battle tank – the one designed to shred Soviet tanks — be stopped.

Russia’s aggressive stance – particularly using shadowy, unmarked forces who appear more like Klansmen — against Ukraine shows it didn’t get the U.S. State Department’s memo ending 19th Century power politics. Western nations invite greater problems if they treat Russia like a wayward regional power, applying sanctions instead of putting military options on the table. Vladimir Putin may mean it when he says Russia has no designs on Ukraine or any other country, but effective diplomacy is about credible foreign policies that prevent these types of crises before they occur.

Acting as a bulwark against Russian expansion does not require a Cold War posture or attitude. In fact, a credible, sincere defense policy would prevent Russia from actively considering military measures, leaving dialogue as the preferred option. Crimea leaving Ukraine could have been dealt with diplomatically, but Russia chose not to go that route. Why not is the 64,000-ruble question.

So long as Russia exists, NATO will have three core missions: contain Russia, contain Russia, and contain Russia. Whether NATO chooses to fulfill its mission is less clear. ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

U.S. Needs to Back U.K. to Head Off Falkland War II

22 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Falkland Islands, Foreign Policy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

Without alteration to U.S. policy there is a very real possibility of a second invasion of the Falkland Islands in the next two years. The time is at hand for the U.S. to “dance with the one that brung you” and advise Argentina in case of a war, American forces will be offered to serve with or under command of Great Britain.

In 1982 the military junta governing Argentina ordered an invasion of the Falkland Islands as a means of diverting the gaze of Argentines from a bleak economic and political picture. This example of “mover al perro,” or wag the dog, generated a short-lived burst of nationalism for the junta. Argentina has long claimed the islands, which they refer to as the Malvinas.

Today, the Argentine economy is a shambles as yet another left-wing government tries to breath more life into Chavezanomics than Cuban doctors could breath into Chavez himself. Electricity blackouts, rampant inflation, a crushing debt load, consumer good and food shortages have public approval of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez below 30%. Another Falkland invasion would be a good way to get protesters to drop their sandwich boards and wave the flag in nationalistic adulation.

Buenos Aires continues to rattle the saber, recently adding a provision to its constitution on gaining control of the Falklands and announcing a large increase in defense spending, which would allow it to re-take the islands.

Prior to the 1982 Argentine invasion Britain had exercised control of the islands since 1833. The Royal Navy mounted an operation that re-established British control 74 days after Argentina invaded. Today, the Royal Navy is not its former Cold War self, lacking an operational aircraft carrier, without which its ability to defend British sovereignty in the South Atlantic crown colony is minimal at best.

During the 1982 war the U.S. remained officially neutral, though it fed satellite intelligence to the Thatcher government, was rooting for a quick British victory and had a secret plan to loan an amphibious assault ship to the Royal Navy if either of its carriers were sunk. Since taking office President Obama has placed less importance on U.S.-British relations than on his NCAA tournament picks. A web search using the terms “Britain,” “Obama” and “snub” shows British sentiment on its relationship with Washington. After all, they are only the country that stood – even when it was apparent they didn’t want to — “shoulder to shoulder” with the U.S. after 9/11.

The Obama administration has even had the temerity to say London should hold talks with Buenos Aires over what the State Department called “competing claims” to the Falklands, this even after the islanders themselves in March 2013 voted 99.8% to remain British subjects.

Considering U.S. treatment of Britain over the past five years and the lack of any real response to Russian aggression in Central Europe, Argentina could be forgiven for assuming the Obama administration’s response to another Argentine invasion of the Falklands would be handled by the deputy to the assistant deputy undersecretary for who gives a damn. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez has said American and British opposition to Russia’s annexation of Crimea is a double standard, comparing the situation in Crimea with that of the Falklands. This acutely faulty reasoning can only be interpreted as justification of if not necessarily a plan for a second Argentine invasion.

Argentina’s window for an invasion will narrow in January 2017, as a new U.S. president will make repairing the enormous damage to the U.K.-U.S. alliance his or her first international priority. That window will slam shut two years later as the Royal Navy will be getting at least one new aircraft carrier as soon as 2019, at which time the British fleet will completely outclass anything Argentina could muster.

The U.S. relationship with Argentina should not be thrown away lightly, and the U.S. should take pains to soften the diplomatic blow to Buenos Aires, but it is high time for the U.S. government to abandon its neutral policy on the Falkland Islands. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the Falklands. The nation that has legitimate claim also happens to be the closest, most loyal ally the U.S. could have.

Argentine planning for the 1982 invasion included a belief the U.S. would not interfere and possibly even pressure Britain to negotiate a peace. Quietly letting the Argentines know any use of force on their part will trigger an offer of U.S. assistance to Britain will remove any thoughts of an invasion, while showing Great Britain the special relationship is alive and well. God save the Queen.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10740605/Britain-is-disappointed-with-America-over-Falkland-Islands-finds-Commons-report.html

Is Taiwan the Next Crimea?

20 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in China, Crimea, Foreign Policy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

By Greg Smith

For going on two decades Americans have viewed China as a serious military adversary. While the U.S. could defeat China without breaking a sweat, the global economic fallout of such a war would be severe, so the best strategy is to avoid it in the first place. The Obama administration’s response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea is not helping.

When a Chinese fighter aircraft collided with an American P-3 surveillance plane over international waters south of China in 2001, the U.S. response was surprisingly tame and muted. Since then angst has grown over our place in the world, or at least in Asia. In 2009 U.S. media outlets discovered the existence of China’s DF-21D “carrier-killer” anti-ship ballistic missile. The response in the media and Internet was somewhat hysterical, as if the Navy’s aircraft carriers had never faced a threat from other nations.

If war between the U.S. and China were to occur even in China’s best-case scenario it would be defeated by the U.S. In China’s best-case scenario it quickly defeats any other militaries before the U.S. Navy and Air Force could deploy, and also China’s missiles are able to keep U.S. naval surface forces 1,000 miles from China’s shore. Neither of these is close to certain.

China’s is an export-driven economy with a heavy dependence on imported oil from South America and the Middle East, iron ore and copper from Australia and many other raw materials. In turn, products are shipped by sea around the world. Considering routes from China’s coastline are largely hemmed in by Japan, the Philippines, Australia and the Straights of Malacca, the U.S. would not even need aircraft carriers to effectively blockade commercial shipping from China or petroleum bound for it.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy is not capable of projecting power beyond the range of land-based aircraft. U.S. submarines and aircraft alone would be able to sink any ship departed from China. American forces could asphyxiate the Chinese economy. The U.S. needn’t bomb China back to the Stone Age when it could instead blockade it back to 1999 in economic terms.

The downside is such a blockade would negatively affect much of the world economy – including the U.S. economy — and cause an unnecessary rift between two of the world’s most economically powerful nations. Both nations have too much to lose.

China’s economic maturity should act as a deterrent to recklessness, as her actions have the capacity to cause large drops in stock prices, and more importantly price increases on the raw materials on which her economy depends. Yet Beijing continues aggressive stances toward its maritime neighbors, claiming wide swaths of ocean and training for offensive military operations. Mutual prosperity doesn’t seem to be a certain road to peace.

If U.S. foreign policy makes it appear to Beijing it can act with impunity, China’s actions make it clear it will only be a matter of time before an actual war breaks out. The Obama administration’s “pivot” of a relative handful of military assets to the Pacific is not a replacement for decisive engagement by the U.S.

Considering how the Russian invasion of Crimea was handled the Obama administration should make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that U.S. response to an Asian conflict would be instantaneous and unflinching. To demur is to temp an outcome in which all sides lose.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com

Government Action is Source of, Not Solution to Income Inequality

12 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Domestic Policy, Personal Freedom

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

President Obama has made income inequality an issue in this midterm election issue, but his plan unfortunately ignores the source of inequality, a lack of good blue-collar jobs and hurdles for new small businesses that will only make the situation worse.

During the Great Recession college-educated workers had an unemployment rate less than half that of persons with only a high school diploma. College graduates earn considerably more than high school graduates, are far less likely to live in poverty, and these figures ignore the roughly 20 percent increase in persons receiving Social Security disability payments in the four years between 2008 and 2011. Since blue-collar workers are more likely to do physical labor they are a greater share of people on disability programs.

President Obama’s administration has been quite unfriendly to blue-collar labor. Blue-collar jobs are much more susceptible to loss from government regulation and policy. An example is the Environmental Protection Agency regulations squeezing out coal mining jobs. The granddaddy of them all is the Affordable Care Act, which places considerable new burdens on employers to provide healthcare to employees.

Blue-collar jobs on average pay less than white collar work, so the cost of healthcare is a much greater percentage of the value of the output of blue-collar workers, meaning the ACA, commonly referred to as Obamacare, is much more likely to negatively impact either creation of new or maintaining current blue-collar jobs.

New and larger taxes, banking legislation and tax code changes all cost businesses money to comply. Since the value of white-collar work is higher, the marginal cost of complying is lower for businesses that employ white-collar workers. This heavier burden on unskilled labor is a cause of outsourcing, wage stagnation, and underemployment.

This causes employment to be more scarce, meaning workers must accept employment at lower wages just to have a job. And those who can’t get a job have to exist on unemployment, work under the table, or try to get on disability. These options pay less than even a lower-end full-time job.

The best way to help lower income workers is to lessen the burden of taxes and regulations that create needless hassles for new or smaller businesses, usually due to lobbying by larger, established businesses and industries to remove the chance for competition. Even well-intentioned laws, rules and regulations cost money to comply with, a burden considerably greater on newer and smaller businesses.

In the first four years of the Obama administration the Federal Register, a list of proposed rules, final rules, public notices, and Presidential actions increased by 310,211 pages, and this doesn’t include state laws and regulations. Ignorance of the law is no defense. Every new law and regulation makes it harder for small businesses, which according to the Small Business Administration create 64% of new private-sector jobs, to succeed.

It is little wonder why the pace of new laws and regulations churned out by government in this country is choking the life out of blue-collar jobs and small businesses. President Obama’s plan so far is for more rules and laws. That ought to help.

The name of this blog is another way of saying with government, the cure is normally worse than the disease. President Obama’s prescription will only make the patient more ill.   ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

Click to access FR-Pages-published.pdf

GOP Needs Platform to Repeat ’94, Avoid ’98

09 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Domestic Policy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

Attention Congressional Republicans: You only have 240 shopping days until the next election. Get me something nice!

If campaigns were like Christmas presents, Congressional GOP efforts in 1998 would have been like a second-hand toaster or a $10 gift certificate to the grocery store. The party had caught President Clinton in his web of lies and didn’t bother to do much else. It was a classic example of playing it safe. ‘Hey, why trot out new ideas that may flop when we showed President Clinton is sleazy? What more do voters want?’

But 1994, oooh, that was like a diamond-encrusted Lamborghini with a walk-in humidor and a lifetime supply of cola and Pop Rocks. Even a diabetic non-smoker without a driver’s license couldn’t help but love it. The GOP needs to pay attention to the lessons of these two elections if they want real success in November.

In 1994 Republicans won a historic victory. They were the party out of power running against Hillary Clinton’s plan for health care and a national ban on ‘assault’ weapons. The U.S. had suffered an embarrassing and tragic defeat in Somalia, unemployment had come down but was still hovering near 7%. Blue Dog Democrats and independents were disaffected. Why does this sound so familiar?

Republicans put together the Contract with America, which contained specific ideas and promises to at least put those ideas to a vote. Then as now, Republicans were tarred with the epithets of liberalism: women hating, flat earth believing, gun toting, homeless hating war mongers who want the poor to starve and no one to have health care. But Republicans believed in their message, presented it with confidence and won a historic victory. Not one Republican running for re-election in 1994 was defeated while 34 Democratic House incumbents – including the sitting Democratic Speaker of the House Tom Foley – lost. Republicans won a total of 54 House seats and eight in the Senate. The drubbing was so bad President Clinton had to publicly explain why he was even relevant and veered right to prep for his 1996 re-election run.

Republican strategy in 1998 could not have been more different in there basically was none. The GOP had become fat and happy and saw a pro-active campaign strategy as a needless risk because Clinton had been caught, literally, with his pants down in the Oval Office. Midterm elections are historically a win for the party that doesn’t control the presidency, but in 1998 Republicans lost five seats in the House and gained nothing in the Senate. It was the first time in 68 years a sitting President’s party had a net gain in a midterm election. The ramifications for Republican hesitance in 2014 should be clear.

So far the upcoming election has a political landscape like 1994. Unfortunately, the Republican plan to traverse that landscape looks more like 1998. There is still time, but the various GOP factions can’t even sit down together, never mind hammer out a platform. If Republicans wait until state primaries are decided to determine a platform it will be too late.

This is a warning to the GOP: If it simply runs against the Affordable Care Act Republicans will not win the Senate and will probably pick up only a dozen seats in the House. The majority of voters may not approve of Obamacare, but they understand there is a serious problem with health care in this country. And if Republicans are incapable of coming up with and pushing a viable alternative – an easy task — what does that say about their ability to lead, not to mention their political beliefs? Public approval of Congressional Republicans isn’t exactly stratospheric, so just assuming the unpopularity of President Obama’s policies will win the Senate for the GOP is a recipe for wasting a once-in-a-generation opportunity.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

Tax Cuts Should Take Backseat to Spending Cuts, Reforms

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in American Resurgence, Domestic Policy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

This is boring. This is dull. This is important.

For many years the standard Republican template for economic growth has been cutting taxes, but with an enormous national debt it is time to recognize tax cuts without spending cuts, tax and regulatory reform are almost meaningless. Today, whether you tax or borrow the money from the private sector the effects will be nearly the same.

In years past one of the favorite descriptions Republicans pinned on Democrats was “tax and spend.” Democrats wanted bigger government and were willing to raise taxes to pay for it. President Reagan’s massive tax cuts passed in 1981 were very sensible and when you look at the 33% increase in federal tax revenue in constant dollars from 1981 to 1990 the tax cuts more than paid for themselves. Military and social spending went up considerably, which was why the national debt increased in the 1980s.

Post-Reagan GOP

Comparing the Republican Congress of 1995-99 with the Bush administration, which enjoyed Republican control of Congress from 2001-07, show a considerably different agenda and outcome.

The elections of 1994 were such an enormous victory for Republicans that President Clinton was actually forced to explain why he was still even relevant. The Republican-controlled Congresses from 1995 through 1999 among other initiatives reformed welfare and farm subsidies while controlling spending increases, resulting in government much friendlier to economic growth and employment. Clinton was pretty much forced to go along. When he takes credit for the balanced budget toward the end of his term, he is taking credit for Republican plans he fought tooth and nail.

These were serious reforms with serious consequences: By 1999 the country was at four percent unemployment, which economists consider to be full employment. National debt actually began to be retired. Quite a contrast to the predictions made by detractors in 1995.

President Bush took office in 2001 and Republicans held both houses of Congress until 2007. Bush was never a conservative and was not much of an ideologue when it came to tightening the purse strings. While both the defense budget and social spending increased, Republicans stuck to the idea of lower taxes because it worked under Reagan, but when Reagan took office tax rates were much higher and a greater impediment to growth, so his cuts had the potential to unleash much more growth.

One of the basic arguments for Reagan’s tax cuts was the Laffer Curve, which argues government would collect zero tax revenue with tax rates of 0% or 100%. In the latter case no one would bother working on the books. Government would actually collect more money with 50% tax rates than at 90% tax rates because of the greater incentive to work. The truth of this is elemental.

But if tax rates continue to decline at some point government begins to collect less revenue. Where this point sits is an open question, but it explains tax cuts today – while they should still increase revenue and are justifiable on other grounds – are not going to produce the same increase in revenue as under Reagan because marginal tax rates are already much lower than in 1981. Tax cuts should produce slightly greater revenue, but tax cuts by themselves will not solve our debt problem. We cannot grow our way out of our debt without cutting regulation, waste and simplifying the tax code.

Continuing to spend as we are now requires borrowing, and borrowing money causes the same outcome as taxing: wealth is destroyed because it is taken from economically useful activities – the private sector which exists on its own merits – and given to the public sector in which only a fraction of the money is spent in a way that indirectly generates wealth-producing jobs.

Today, tax cuts without spending cuts are almost meaningless because whether you tax or borrow the money out of the economy matters very little, you still remove it from the private sector. The GOP should look at the successes of Congress from 1995-99 – reform, cut and simplify government bureaucracy and programs, and then consider tax cuts. Republicans fail to claim the success of this strategy at their electoral peril.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

Channeling Churchill on the Tea Party

06 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in American Resurgence, Personal Freedom

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

Independent voters in America have overwhelmingly negative opinions of the Tea Party. Considering the general beliefs of these two groups this view is caused to a large extent by poor presentation and communication by Tea Party members. If the Tea Party wants to remain relevant in elections it needs to begin giving basic, dispassionate explanations of why smaller government matters.

Their phone went to voicemail so let me take a crack at it.

For me, there is now one overriding domestic policy issue, the deficit and debt. Governments must carry debt, but in 2008 the ratio of the national debt to gross domestic product was 64.8%, which was already too high. This is a basic measurement of how far we are in hock compared to annual income. By 2013 that ratio had shot up to 101.6%. Here’s a hint: When this ratio could be a station on the FM dial, the country is being quite irresponsible.

There are many who will start to lay the blame at the feet of Barack Obama or George Bush. Save it, those arguments are not going to put my kid through college. In politics, when spending priorities are debated there is considerable talk about ‘fairness.’ Where is the fairness in elected officials in the White House and Congress borrowing trillions of dollars, which they then hand out to groups based on whose support they need to get re-elected, then hand the bill to the next generation? They obviously have no plan to pay it back.

A wonderful little boy is in taking a nap on his bed. His biggest concerns are his sippy cup, access to as many cars – toy and real — as possible and when he’ll see another school bus. Buses are his big thing now. Cute. Little does that boy realize most of the political establishment is okay with borrowing as much as they need to keep their jobs and stick that little boy and the rest of his generation with the bill.

Open a credit card account in Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen’s name – according to Townhall.com the biggest Congressional spender of 2013 – buy a plasma TV and a Playstation, and get locked up. He can try to spend about $70 billion in borrowed money, and probably get re-elected. Fairness?

Someone may argue we’re spending that borrowed money to shore up the economy and create jobs, which will then benefit the next generation. Save your breath, I’m not stupid, and isn’t that the despised ‘trickle-down’ economics? Apparently it doesn’t work from rich to poor but it works from generation to generation. If that argument held water we would not, considering the trillions borrowed and spent, be facing a true unemployment rate of 13%.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and his colleagues may come off poorly. He certainly should have known better than to amateurishly read Green Eggs and Ham during his Senate filibuster last year because news outlets are going to seize on what’s interesting rather than what is important. But I don’t see anyone else telling Americans the hard truth: Actually living within our means would help the economy, but the better reason is it’s the right thing to do. If you disagree, just try explaining the fairness involved to a child.

Winston Churchill famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others.” The same can be extrapolated to the Tea Party.   ©

Greg Smith is not a member of the Tea Party, but is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

Enough with the ‘Wrong Side of History’

04 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Wrong Side of History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

By Greg Smith

Political speech is a tricky business. What electrifies one day often sounds tired the next. This pantheon of overuse now includes the phrase “the wrong side of history.” Recently applied to gay marriage, it is now part of the discussion over Ukraine, uttered both by President Obama and now America’s U.N. ambassador Samantha Power.

The situation calls for grand, sweeping rhetoric, but not a phrase you are also applying to domestic policies, and certainly not a generic argument lacking a clear plan to act.

Vladimir Putin’s view of history is the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a tragic mistake. Frankly, the Obama administration’s response is putting the matter of where history will wind up in question. One thing is for certain, Obama and Power are on the wrong side of oratory.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com

(Author’s note: This blog was intended to cover a healthy dose of domestic as well as foreign policies, but the events in Ukraine are serious. The sidetrack is temporary. Thank you for participating.)