"Once abolish God and the government becomes the God." -G.K. Chesterton

Friday, September 14, 2012

Krugman's Keynesian Fail

Paul Krugman has an insanely stupid article in the New York Times today that tries to draw a correlation between the success of Apple's iphone and government spending. Krugman proposes that if new iphones can convince consumers to part ways with their hard-earned money, thus giving the economy a small boost, then think of what more money spent on teachers and bridges will do! Seriously. I'm not making this stupid argument up. It's a Krugman original.

Nevermind that government money is not behind the success of Apple's iphone. If it were, the gadget would cost four times as much and work half as well, but don't worry because there would be a government subsidy to help you purchase one if you made below a certain income. In other words, shares of Apple would be worth about the same as shares of GM.

What Keynesians like Krugman fail to realize in all their economic models is the difference betweeen money spent and money well spent. In their world all spending is equal, or if anything government spending is given added importance. This is more a mask for Krugman's statist tendencies than an argument for Keynesian economics.

Because Apple is a private company, it goes wihout saying that their success is profit-driven, not politically-driven. That means innovating their products to meet the demands of the consumer. Efficiency is rewarded. If they fail to innovate, they lose customers. If they succeed, demand increases and they hire more workers in a desire to increase market share. This is why free enterprise is such a successful economic model.

Krugman argues for increased spending for politically-driven interests. This makes them grossly inefficient. There is no risk of failure so long as the government is providing the backing, meaning there is no incentive to innovate. Increased government spending in this case doesn't meet the demands of the consumer, it ignores the consumer to meet the demands of the special interests. This is the opposite of Apple's model.

Take into account all the debt that comes with more government spending, and what you are creating isn't a robust economy, it's an economy that will ultimately crash due to myopic splurging.

Krugman quotes Keynes, saying "we are all dead in the long run" so better borrow and spend today. Yet what we leave behind matters. Do we leave behind successful and growing businesses free to hire workers and invest in products that can change humanity? Or is our legacy that of failed government programs that cost so much businesses like Apple are burdened with higher taxes and regulations until they can no longer operate for society's benefit?

America's economy isn't failing because we lack teachers and bridges. It's failing because we have invested so much in government that political interests impede us from holding anyone accountable anymore. Instead, we get more teachers educating dumber students, green energy companies that never produce a kilowatt of energy, and bridges to nowhere. All of which Krugman argues are somehow great for our economy.

Some days I think President Obama's Nobel Prize was more deserved than Krugman's.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Jennifer Granholm: High Priestess of Hopenchange

When I think of today's Democratic Party, I think of a faith-based religion where even the current 11.7% unemployment rate (as measured using the same standards as the Bush administration) isn't enough to deter the moonbats from voting for a leftist president. Heck, the unemployment rate could be 20% and they would be clamoring for more Obama-style hopenchange. It's a moral issue with these types and they worship at the alter of Big Government

Want to know why there's always more enthusiasm by the Democratic delegates? Because government is their savior. Republicans are more likely to have a healthy skepticism of government - even the governments they elect. A healthy distrust of authority used to be considered a good thing. Not so in the left-wing of the Democratic Party anymore, where it's considered racist to question President Obama.

Nothing against Democrats. But they sold their souls for a false religion based on creating a utopia on earth without any acknowledgement of traditional rights and values. Which is probably why they removed mention of God from their party platform only to reinsert Him back in (to boos) at the eleventh hour.

In case you think I'm overstating it, here's video of former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm delivering what I can only describe as a Big Gov Sermon at yesterday's convention (sober, one hopes). The delegates at the Democratic Party eat up every word, of course, giving pause to the more reasonable among us.

If this is what your political party's convention looks like, you're living a lot closer to Scientology on the cult spectrum than you probably realize.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

The Clinton Flop

Let's assume Bill Clinton gave a rousing speech at the Democratic Convention. I don't believe he did, but the talking heads on the cable stations keep trying to tell me otherwise. Timing out at just short of an HBO miniseries, the speech was one long stuttering, meandering, hypothesizing, self-aggrandizing, rambling mess that only Chris Matthews could love. It kept going and going and going until even the Energizer Bunny must have felt like committing suicide.

Mercifully, most Americans changed the channel and watched the NFL Kickoff between the Cowboys and Giants, which means they most certainly missed the Patriots vs. Fauxcahontas, as Elizabeth Warren reminded us why charisma matters in a candidate.

Michelle Obama's speech the previous night grated on my last nerve given the over-the-top rhetoric, but at least it was well-crafted. It would have made a great testimonial except that it made actual testimonials of people who have accepted Christ as their Savior seem small by comparison. And Barack has enough image problems without being compared to the Messiah.

But Clinton's speech, with its faint praise and convoluted excuses for Obama's presidential challenges, couldn't have been effective even if it was the smashing success Washington insiders and media elites claim it to be. Why? Because it wasn't going to move independents to Obama, and that's the point at this point in the game.

We are down to just a handful of undecided voters, six to eight percent really, who have yet to make up their minds in this election. So appealing to them is crucial. And when a cheater who was impeached for lying under oath steps in as your character witness, you know your campaign is in trouble.

As it turns out, Clinton presents a Catch-22 for independents. Either they liked him and miss him or they recall his extracurricular activities, Monica, the blue dress, the big lie, etc. For those in the latter group, Slick Willie was just that, and he lacks the credibility to sell Obama's policies. For those in the former group, Bill Clinton is nostalgia for the economic heyday of the 90s when deficits were one trillion dollars less and Congress actually came together and passed laws. Standing next to each other, our current president is found wanting. Clinton reminds us of all Obama's faults and failures.

Alex Castellanos, a GOP "strategist" who spends most of his time on CNN gushing over Democrats, claimed Clinton's speech by itself was strong enough to "re-elect Obama." I won't ask what medication Mr. Castellanos is on or which winning conservative politician he's given advice to recently, but I will point out the flaw in his analysis.

"Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party once, it was going too far left, he came in, and the new Democrats took it to the center," Alex summarized. "He did it again tonight."

I disagree. What Bill Clinton actually did was remind independent voters that the Democratic Party has gone too far left, that we don't have a centrist in the White House. Obama's campaign slogan is "Forward" but the Clinton years are "Backwards." And backwards in the Democratic Party sounds a lot saner than forward, where fights break out over honoring God on the convention floor.

The Democrats put Bill Clinton on stage as a measuring stick Wednesday night and proved Obama doesn't measure up.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Fictional Obama vs. Real Obama

President Obama criticized Mitt Romney recently for trying to run against a fictional Obama, but if any candidate has a chance of winning this election, who better than a fictional Obama? The real Obama, after all, has overseen the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Oh well, he wanted to be compared to FDR. Favorably, one assumes, but we'll just leave it to the sycophants in the media to make up the difference.

Fictional Obama was on display quite a bit Tuesday night in Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention. Here was a Barack Obama who grew up poor, dug through dumpsters for furniture and was stuck with just one pair of shoes a half size too small as a law school graduate. Here was a Barack raised by his hard-working grandmother in poverty-stricken middle class, with no radical influences to be found. Here was a president who cared so much about Americans struggling to find employment that he hunched over his desk late at night reading letters, determination in his voice to turn this economy around. Here was a Barack Obama who wanted all of us to succeed, to fulfill our wildest dreams!

Perhaps such a stirring speech with so many heartbreaking stories would win us over if the real Barack Obama hadn't been elected president four years ago. But we know better. We've seen the real Barack Obama up close and personal and he doesn't match the fictional Obama that the First Lady is selling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the First Lady for trying. Who wants to go back to being picked up in a rusted-out car when you can take separate planes to Hawaii or jet to Spain, Aspen, and Martha's Vineyard with a full entourage of staff, friends, and family members on the taxpayer dime? Not that a rusted-out car would be waiting for the First Couple should Fictional Obama lose the election. I'm sure they could at least afford a Chevy Volt or two.

The Real Barack Obama, of course, is who we are talking about electing, and his tenure has been disappointing to say the least. If the Real Obama wants us to succeed in achieving our dreams, he certainly hasn't shown it. Instead, he has said about successful businessmen, "at a certain point you've made enough money" and "there will be a time for profits later." In the meantime, risk your savings and lose your shirts for the greater good, because "if you've got a business - you didn't build that."

The Fictional Obama may be a family man who dotes on his daughters, but the Real Obama has a Kenyan half-brother living in poverty and doesn't want anyone "being punished with a baby." Which is probably why this year's Democratic National Convention is as anti-family as Americans have ever seen. If the contraception talk keeps up for two more days, the networks will have to change the TV rating to "MA" for mature. And it certainly didn't help when they wrote support for abortion on demand into their party platform - even at taxpayer expense - to go along with taxpayer funded sterilizations and sex change operations, removing any mention of God or God-given rights.

Sure, Fictional Obama is deeply concerned about the 11.5% real unemployment and even the fictional, Enron-style-bookkeeping 8.3% unemployment rate, but Real Obama hasn't met with his Jobs Council in eight months and thinks "the private sector is doing fine." And while Fictional Obama may stay up late focused on the job like a laser, Real Obama has set a record for golf outings and fundraisers, not to mention that time he walked out in the middle of a press conference to attend a party, leaving Bill Clinton in charge (don't worry, the interns had the day off).

Essentially, we elected Fictional Obama the first time around. But he was new on the scene. He spoke eloquently. And he promised to cut the deficit in half. Obama promised real change in 2008, but that turned out to be fiction, too, as our annual deficit has failed to sink below the one trillion dollar mark during his presidency. That's an extra five trillion dollars of very real money added to the debt in less than one term.

It's all too fitting that we should have a record number of fact-checkers in an era where fiscal reality is ignored and personal narrative is king. Meanwhile, Democrats with the aid of a complicit media, try to convince us that Fictional Obama is real, and Real Obama is just a figment of our racist imagination.

My head is spinning.