Peter Schiff

Schiff points out the noted “crowd out effect” that you may have learned about if you’ve taken a macroecon course.

Basically, there is only a limited amount of money that people in an economy are putting out to lend (just like there are only so many houses or cars on sale). The more the government runs a deficit, and has to borrow, the less lendable money there is to go around for everyone else.

Essentially, the government “crowds out” private interests who could have used that borrowed money to start up new businesses, expand their production, create jobs (ahem)… etc. Check it out:

The more money government spends, the more resources it drains from the private sector. The fiscal 2011 budget proposed by President Obama contains $3.8 trillion in federal spending… The proposed fiscal 2011 federal budget contains “only” 2.4 trillion of taxes.

The remaining 1.4 trillion of spending is borrowed (incredibly, for every dollar the government collects in taxes, it now spends almost $1.60). I would argue that a dollar borrowed kills more jobs than a dollar taxed. Therefore, cutting taxes and borrowing the shortfall kills more jobs then it creates. This is true because jobs require capital and government borrowing more directly crowds out private capital investment than taxes do.

When Obama says “the best anti-poverty measure is a world class education,” he knows that the Democrats are the party of NO. They say no to school vouchers, which would offer an opportunity for the children of the “rural areas to the inner cities” to pursue that education which has been denied them by failing public schools. They say NO to merit pay to reward good teachers and punish the bad ones.

More after the jump…

When Obama speaks of “strengthening our trading partners,” he must realize that the Democrats have been obstructionists to free trade, even recently spiking tariffs against China.

Obama insists that he will “not walk away from” healthcare. But, of course, Democrats have obstructed real reform that Republicans have offered yet again. Look at Rep. Paul Ryan’s bill, submitted to committee, which would help break down state-to-state barriers of purchase and even the playing field between employer health benefits with individual insurance. Check out his website explaining what may be the Republican plan of healthcare reform once we re-take the majority.

Lastly, when Obama spoke of his sharp pivot towards jobs, just remember, the industry that’s expanding fastest at the moment is the government. And a few others too:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=08w5J5cnacw

Now, let me get this straight…

We are going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also hasn’t read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes…

All to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?

~Anonymous

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejwYXpFjtd0

I remember a while back when Bush was snubbed a few handshakes from foreign dignitaries and it was a big deal. This video is awkward turtle times a thousand–I ascribe to “politics ends overseas,” so it makes me feel kind of annoyed that the US President was treated like this.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZXEShSIFks

I see SNL has finally rolled up its sleeves and has taken a serious jab at Obama. “I am noticing that each of your plans to save money involves spending even more money…”

Independents jumping from the Dem ship.

Supreme Court could potentially incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states.

Sarah Palin gives Oprah huge ratings.

“Her words came from the heart, not a teleprompter.”

Yes, ObamaCare will lead to federally funded abortions.

MSNBC reporter bullies teenage girl on line for Palin signing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp4jwtFlXho

The video is from earlier this year, but it is still significant. As a sidenote, I find it ironic that Arlen Specter claimed to have switched sides because the Republican Party had grown far “too conservative” under Bush, and yet it was President Bush in 2004 who literally saved Specter from losing his senate seat to a far more conservative challenger in the primary.

If conservatism means enthusiasm for war, using the federal government to oppose gay marriage and flag burning, and increasing state and individual interference by the federal government… then yeah, we’ve probably been too conservative.

However, if conservatism means advocating limited government, defending the Constitution and the restraints it puts on government, supporting freedom, protecting individual rights, and keeping America’s defense strong but unencumbered–then I’d say it’s time to roll up our sleeves and start acting like true conservatives again.

As Barry Goldwater put it in The Conscience of a Conservative:

The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.

With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order… the Conservative’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?

Quote the Brady Campaign:

This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.

Problem number one – they imply that the soldiers on this “heavily fortified” base were armed to the teeth. In truth, the soldiers at Ft. Hood were not allowed to carry weapons. All of the victims were unarmed when Hasan began his shooting rampage.

Second problem – the people who subdued Hasan happened to be the first two armed people at the scene, officers Munley and Todd. Hasan was only stopped when weapons were used against him.

Pfc. Marquest Smith, who was at the scene, took cover under a desk and “[laid] low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.”

Militaries of other nations permit their soldiers to carry guns on their person while stationed–an option so obvious, I shouldn’t have to explain why. Thanks to gun control and deprivation of the right to self defense at Fort Hood, soldiers of the United States Army–preparing to face the threat of enemy insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan–were helpless to face the simple threat of one man with a pistol.

It was said that “it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty” of the Fort Hood tragedy. Let’s not allow self defense to be interred as well.

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire… (also via Reason)

Two people in dark clothes follow you for several blocks. It’s after midnight. You look back several times at them. They say nothing, but they continue to follow. What to do?

Dustin Almon, 28, faced this perdicament this week while walking back to his home. On the third time looking back at his pursuers, Almon produced a pocket knife and extended the two-inch blade, which he held at his side. There was roughly twenty feet between him and them.

It turns out these men were undercover police. When they shouted “Police!”, Almon immediately folded and holstered his knife and cooperated with the officers. The result? He is being charged with criminal threatening with a weapon.

“I feared for my safety,” said one of the officers, who was, once again, twenty feet away and both he and his fellow officers were carrying concealed pistols. Almon was sentenced to 30 days in prison, but he intends to appeal.

I think it is safe to say that Almon acted completely reasonably and rationally in the situation–he suspected the two men following him were muggers, and hoped to avoid conflict by scaring off potential attackers.

The law he is being charged under, against “threatening with a weapon,” was probably instituted in the hope of punishing gang members and the like and reducing armed attack on citizens. However, if holding a knife at a distance of twenty feet falls under this law, it certainly will backfire and only encourage attacks on citizens.

Being afraid of defending yourself from an attacker only emboldens attackers and increases the incidents of violence, not reduces.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMTPwAA5Pb8

Speaking of CPAC, conservative comedian P.J. O’Rourke gave a great speech at the convention back in 1995, I believe. This one is a gem and I hope we can see a speech half as good in February.

Replace “Clinton” with “Obama” and you have a great commentary on today’s outlook!