Americanly Yours

I worked all day long on this blog yesterday, stopping only to watch President Obama’s inauguration, and to eat some Chicken Wings. Thank you to Chris Cassimus for helping me with all of my WordPress problems.

I thought the speech was pretty good—say what you want about President Obama, but he is a great speaker. I thought that he had some nice, positive things to say about our Nation, and I especially liked the point he made about how great it is that a man whose father would not have been allowed to eat at a local restaurant 60 years ago has now become President. The American Dream is not dead!

I did, however, have problems with some of the things that Mr. Obama said. I have copied parts of the text of his speech and placed the in italics with my criticism of them below.

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

I thought these sentences were completely inappropriate. For one, the way Mr. Obama described putting “hope over fear” makes his sound like a sore winner. I voted for Senator McCain, but I did not vote for “fear.” That was a ridiculous statement by President Obama which serves no purpose other then to reopen old wounds. I didnt vote for fear, I voted for free trade, free markets, economic freedom, experience, strength, and leadership. Obama did not need to say that.

On a side note, I have a friend (who will remain nameless here) who has an awful habit of changing his views to agree with whatever the candidate he supports says, even going so far as to copy the rhetoric of those who he supports. I have seen him do so for years and he did this quite a bit during the election. Well, he has already reminded me (in all seriousness on his part) that I “voted for candidates who preach fear.”

The final sentence of the above paragraph is troubling to me. Does Mr. Obama really believe that his election has put an end to politics? Does he think that there will be no political resistance to his lofty, overly expensive, and intrusive plans? He had better think again.

As far as false promises go, you can track these for yourself throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency. Here is a link to an Excel spreadsheet of the nearly 900 promises that Mr. Obama made during his campaign. Here is a webpage that tracks statements made by elected officials—kind of like Snopes.com for politics. They have created a user friendly table of nearly 500 of Obama’s campaign promises and his progress towards achieving them.  He is off to a great start so far.

“Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.”

The above statement is mostly true, but to me it provides another example of President Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth. He derides those who prefer leisure over work, yet he is calling for an extension of unemployment benefits so that unemployed workers can receive taxpayer money for doing nothing—probably the worst way to encourage hard work and employment. Bush already made a mistake by signing a bill extending unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 39 weeks, but Mr. Obama wants even this to be extended. If you disagree with my assertion that this is bad policy, think about Europe’s extended unemployment benefits and their constant double digit unemployment rates. President Obama celebrates “the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things,” yet he has plans to raise taxes on those very people. Raising taxes on risk takers (entrapreneurs) will not help our society create new innovations, and will surely not lead to the creation of the 4 plus million jobs that Mr. Obama has promised to create.

“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”

Again, how can Mr. Obama believe that the day of political arguments and disagreements have ended. This is just not how things work in a Democracy. Sure, President Obama will enjoy a large majority for at least 2 years, this does not mean that we have reached the end of political arguments.

Our government is too big. This is clear, as is the fact that it is not working correctly. The proper role of the government is to protect its citizens from foreign invaders, to protect its citizens from violence brought on by other citizens, and to protect the citizens from fraud and abuse through the creation of an objective and fair legal system. These are the only duties and responsibilities of government. The government should not be providing, owning banks, making cars, placing priority on any one type of scientific innovation over another, “creating jobs,” or deciding what children should learn.

“Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Did those words really come from the mouth of a man whose inauguration cost 4 times more than what was previously the most expensive inauguration in the history of this Nation and who has promised trillions of dollars in new spending and programs when the Nation is broke?  My trust will be restored when the budget is balanced.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

As of yet I have not responded to comments from readers.  I probably wont do so much in the future either, but I received a comment on my Inaugural Costs article that I felt needed a response.  Here was the comment:

“The government can’t help the fact that millions of people are about to flood the streets of DC. Obama’s election was too huge of an event for Americans to even allow a scaled back inauguration, and they will show up in DC regardless of the size of the “party”. It’s necessary to spend large amounts of money for safety reasons when dealing with a crowd that big; it’s not like they’re buying $40 million worth of booze. With so many nonresidents showing up, the crowd could easily become restless and end up costing the gov’t (not to mention the poor people caught in the subsequent panic) even more money than they’ve already spent.

Think about it: do you remember anyone jumping in their car to go see Bush sworn in? Me either, although I do know quite a few people that will be traveling well over a thousand miles this week just to catch a glimpse of history.

Anyhoo – most of the money spent on the actual festivities comes from private donors. Public funds are used mainly for unavoidable security reasons”

Let me start my refuting the 2nd to last sentence.  Most of the money spent on the festivities is NOT coming from private donors.  For one, the Federal government’s costs alone are at least $49 million.  As I said in my previous post, Virginia and Maryland’s combined costs are over $28 million.  Washington D.C.’s costs are at least another $47 million.  The total so far for D.C, Maryland, Virginia, and the Federal government is $124 million, meaning that this is the vast majority of the funds being spent.  If the total costs of the inauguration are $160 million, at least 77.5% of the money will be coming from the government.

Also, I understand that this is a historic event, but my argument was simply that Obama could have tried to tone down the celebration.  I used the example of Jimmy Carter in my article.  President Carter was inaugurated in 1977 after 16 years of failed presidencies, including a long war, corruption, criminal behavior, and an economy that makes today’s economy look great.  Yet, Mr. Carter explicitly asked supporters to tone down the celebrations.  All I was saying was that Obama could have at last asked his supporters to limit the inaugural activities.  People poured into D.C. because Mr. Obama encouraged it.  He could have refrained from encouraging it, given the current economic turmoil our nation is experiencing.  I would have.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

People are now estimating that Mr. Obama’s inauguration will cost at least $150 million, and possibly over $160 million.  I know that the Democrats are excited to end 8 years of Bush-led Republican rule.  I know that many people in this Nation are also excited that America will be inaugurating our first black president, but I don’t think that spending so much on a president’s inauguration can be justified, especially in this economy.

Lets put things in perspective:

George Bush’s inaugurations each cost around $40 million.

Bill Clinton’s 1st inauguration cost $33 million and his 2nd cost $23.6 million.

George H.W. Bush’s inauguration cost $30 million.

Obama’s inauguration is set to cost as much as all 5 of these previous inaugurations combined.

Economically speaking, these are not exactly the best of times.  Unemployment is rising and people are having trouble paying their bills.  In a time like this, should the American people really be forced to pay for this event?  After committing trillions of dollars that we do not have to bailouts and “economic stimulus,” our government should be trying to save money wherever possible, not paying for lavish parties.

The District of Columbia has anticipated their costs for the inauguration to be $47 million.  Virginia and Maryland will spend another $16 and $12 million, respectively.  The states are already broke–Virginia just cut $429 million from its public education budget and $418 million from its health care budget.  This is just not the right time for states to have to shell out money for a party when they cant even afford to educate their own children.

In 2005, Bush was criticized for spending $40 million on his 2^nd inauguration (even though only $17 million of this money came from the government). Yet, the media is not criticizing Obama even though his inauguration is costing about 4 times what Bush’s cost. If you are interested, this BBC article from 2005 details some of the complaints of Bush’s inauguration, including a request by Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner to cancel the inauguration because he says that the government shouldnt be throwing parties while people are dying in a war. We are still at war, but ill bet that Representative Weiner is not calling for Obama’s inauguration to be cancelled.  Also, I have yet to see an article online criticizing the costs of Obama’s extravagant inauguration (although, I am not surprised).

Mr. Obama fundraising during the previous election was nothing short of amazing.  Why couldn’t he use his network of donors to help fund the costs of his lavish inauguration.  Or, he could take the example of Jimmy Carter who intentionally scaled back his inauguration during a recession, spending only $3.5 million on his inauguration in 1977 to avoid drawing too much attention to himself while so many Americans were hurting.

Is it just me or does the story of an extravagant party for a Nation’s leader while its people suffer sound familiar?  Well at least maybe Obama will let us eat cake.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barent

I am leaving the Democratic Party to join the Libertarian Party. My fit with the Democratic Party has been less great in recent years, and I have got to the point where I no longer feel comfortable calling myself a Democrat. And, although I voted for John McCain, I cannot consider myself a Republican either. Even though I supported Senator McCain, I actually disagreed with him on more issues than I agreed with him. It wasn’t a “lesser of two evils” thing, it was just that at the time Senator’s McCain’s views were closest to mine.

Since the election, however, a wave of bailouts has swept aside our Capitalist system and has moved us towards a socialist system in which the government owns and directs the economic activities of large corporations. The government’s reaction to the recent economic crisis (which I blame on government intervention in the first place) has hardened my non-interventionist views.

I decided to join the Libertarian Party after these bailouts convinced me that I could not support the Democrats or the Republicans. I began looking at the party platforms for different parties and found that I agreed with most of the Libertarian Party’s platform. Sure, there are major areas where I disagree with them, but I feel great about joining the Libertarian Party.

Why did I join the Libertarian Party you ask? Well…

Who stood up to Republicans and opposed the Patriot Act?

Who stood up to Bush and defended the 4th Amendment to our Constitution after details of Bush’s warrantless wiretap program were revealed?

Who has stood up against the efforts of the Democratic Party to take away the rights given to Americans by the 2nd Amendment?

Who has opposed every government bailout?

Who has opposed the increasing governmental control over every part of your personal life, from how you educate your children, to what types of cars you drive, to what type of energy you use to heat your home?

Who has fought for the right of ailing patients to be allowed to use medicinal marijuana to soothe their pain?

Who has fought for an end to the immoral system of taxing human labor, investment, savings, and entrepreneurial activity?

Who is the only party that defends the Constitution, as written?

Who is the only party that promises to cut the fat from our bloated bureaucracy?

With both parties turning toward bailouts and excessive regulation, who is the only party left still advocating Capitalism?

Which party is a staunch supporter of Free Trade, knowing that it is the best way to create jobs, economic growth, and save consumers the most money?

And which party holds the fundamental belief that individual freedom and personal responsibility are natural rights which should not be abridged by government for any reason?

The Libertarian Party.

Do you get the point?  The Libertarian Party is the only American political party which advocates complete economic and political freedom.

Many people say that voting for a “3rd party” candidate is a “wasted vote.”  This is not true.  It is true that the odds of a Libertarian candidate being elected to National office in the next elections is small.

The Democratic and Republican Parties want you to think that your vote only matters if you vote for one of their candidates.  And, this is only true to the degree that you accept their argument.  If you want to vote for a candidate who supports Liberty, but you do not believe that he can win, so you vote for one of the candidates from the two major parties, you are wasting your vote.  You are making the Democrats and Republicans right in their assertion that a 3rd party candidate cannot win.

This is a democracy.  In a democracy, there are no wasted votes.  A vote for any candidate, be he Republican, Democrat, Communist, Libertarian, or a protest write-in vote for yourself is equally valid and is not a wasted vote, as long as you are voting for the candidate that you feel is the one most suited for the job.  A vote is wasted if you compromise your beliefs and vote for a candidate that you do not like over a candidate that you agree with because you assume that the candidate that you agree with has no realistic chance of winning.  Penn Jilette says that if you “keep voting for the lesser of two evils [you will] watch things get more evil.”

Additionally, a vote for a 3rd party candidate should be viewed as an investment in the future.  A candidate may get only 5% of the vote this time, but getting 5% could encourage more people to vote for him.  Maybe in the next election, he gets 10%.  And as this happens, we could see a Libertarian or other 3^rd party candidate win. In Georgia in November, a statewide Libertarian candidate for Public Service Commissioner received over 1 million votes and received over 1/3 of the total votes cast for his position, even winning my county by over 37,000 votes. Maybe next time, he can win.

They say that “absolute power corrupts, absolutely.” Well, I say “absolute freedom enlightens, absolutely.”

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

The American People do not want the auto industry to be bailed out. According to a poll conducted by CNN, 61% of Americans surveyed are absolutely against any federal bailout of the American auto industry. Additionally, the majority of voters in every single region of the country are opposed to these bailouts, including 53% of people in the Midwest (these are the people most likely to be affected by any auto industry bankruptcies). 70 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and 55 percent of Democrats are opposed to these bailouts. Simply put, this is an issue on which there is an overwhelming amount of agreement. The American people do not want to see their money wasted on bailing out failing automakers.

Chrysler is a privately owned company which is 80% owned by Cerberus Capital Management and 20% owned by Diamler AG. Both of these companies have billions of dollars in cash on hand, yet the parent companies of Chrysler have refused to inject more of their own money into their failing subsidiary. If, as the automakers are claiming that they only need money to temporarily get them through an organization process, why wont the owners of these companies temporarily inject the money into the companies? Probably because they know that it is a bad investment and that they are not likely to receive their money back. If the owners of Chrysler are unwilling to put their own money into Chrysler, why should the American people be FORCED AGAINST OUR WILL into spending OUR money on a bailout? Additionally, the Ford family has billions of dollars in personal assets. If they want to save their company, maybe they should use their money.

Speaking of Ford, of the Big 3 Automakers, Ford is the only one not in horrible shape. Since taking over two years ago, CEO Alan Mulally has begun to implement a vast turn around plan called “The Way Forward.” This plan has been relatively successful, and has already resulted in billions of dollars in cost savings, and will continue to help the company. As a result, Ford is the only American automaker not in immediate risk of collapsing. According to company reports, Ford expects to turn a profit in 2011, while GM and Chrysler haven’t bothered to give the American public any timetable for when they will be able to return to profitability. Both GM and Chrysler are said to be within weeks of collapse, and GM has already hired a team of bankruptcy lawyers. By bailing out GM and Chrysler, the government could be hurting Ford’s prospects of recovery.

Congress, President Bush, and President-Elect Obama should respect the wishes of the American People and allow these automakers to fail—or succeed on their own.

Americanly yours,

Phred Barnet