Four months ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. In an historic inauguration, he became the first African-American, or indeed any ethnic minority, to become President. After eight years of the unpopular Bush administration, the changing of the guard was welcome to most Americans. The fresh face elected to the highest office in the land not only looked different, but promised something different. Barack Obama was coming to the White House to bring, "Change We Can Believe In." The disastrous policies of the Bush administration will be undone as a new day dawns in America....
But those of us who observe politics closely can only note that in almost every election, the "out party" complains about the excesses of the "in party," rides the abuses of the "in party" to victory and then becomes the new "in party," and proceeds to continue to exercise the power it previously complained about, but for which the previous government set precedent. Such behaviour is as old as the republic itself (consider Jefferson's Second Revolution in 1800, in which he rode the issue of the Alien and Sedition Acts to power, abolished them, and then proceeded to use state sedition laws to prosecute those that disagreed with his government) and perhaps as old as democracy itself. President Obama is no exception. For all his talk about change, the President has remained committed to continuing and fulfilling the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
To the careful observer, it is not surprising that the policies of the Obama administration are similar to the Bush 43 administration. After all, Barack Obama campaigned as a liberal and the Bush administration was the most leftist administration in four decades. My recent open letter to President Bush describes the left-wing policies of his administration in detail (http://freemarkets-freeminds-freesociety.blogspot.com/2009/01/open-letter-to-president-george-w-bush.html), but the highlights included a new federal health care entitlement, an increased role of federal government in education, massive domestic spending, socialization of financial industry, and a proposal for a federal "car czar" to give government control of the auto industry. While I know of no specific education proposal from the Obama administration, his White House has made an even larger and more unaffordable health care entitlement a priority. His administration has continued to socialize the financial industry by bailing out and buying large shares in more and more banks, and his car "politburo" now essentially runs GM and Chrysler and the President himself canned the GM CEO. Massive government spending continues. Candidate Obama took issue with one major Bush administration domestic policy - the tax cuts. President Obama, however, is quite content to let them continue and has no plans to repeal them (they will, however, expire if not renewed by Congress, in 2011).
In foreign policy and national security, President Obama has pursued a similar course to President Bush as well. Although rhetoric has changed, policy has not. President Obama announced the closing of Gitmo, but has no real plan to do so. Furthermore, he has promised not to release any enemy combatants that cannot be tried but are still a danger (presumably he decides whether they are dangerous or not). Therefore, open ended detentions will continue whether at Gitmo or not. After promising due process and a right to a trial to those detained, President Obama has decided to return to the military tribunals established by his predecessor. The surprising insurgent candidacy of Senator Obama owed its success, in part, to his opposition to the war in Iraq, his opposition to the surge strategy in Iraq, and his promise to end that war. President Obama views the Bush exit strategy for Iraq as adequate and has made no effort to modify the status of forces agreement President Bush negotiated with the Iraqi government in order to hasten our withdrawal. Besides, those troops aren't coming home, signaling and end to our foreign adventurism, when they leave Iraq they will be deployed in Afghanistan. But, the most chilling Bush administration security policy was its illegal eavesdropping on mobile phone calls made overseas. Yet, in the late stages of the campaign, Senator Obama voted for the bill that essentially retroactively endorsed that policy, gutted the authority of the FISA court and gave the federal government a longer time limit to eavesdrop on someone without a warrant. Now his administration happily uses this authority to "keep us safe." Senator Obama said he would not support the bill if it granted immunity for telecom companies that assisted the Bush administration in their illegal eavesdropping. The bill did grant such immunity and Senator Obama still voted for it (see the following article for a nice discussion of the new FISA law: http://www.slate.com/id/2194254/pagenum/all/ ).
The Bush 43 administration was a serious threat to the liberty of American citizens. It grew the size and scope of government at an alarming rate, it usurped the authority of state governments, it amassed debt that our descendants will never be able to repay, it made a mockery of private ownership when it bought large portions of the financial sector, it went to war without a declaration from congress and defined the war in open-ended way to seize war powers indefinitely, it detained people without charges, and it illegally eavesdropped. In November 2006 and November 2008, the American people said, "enough," and ousted Republicans from both the legislative and executive branches of government. Presumably these voters wanted, "change." Presumably these voters wanted Bush policies to end. Presumably these voters did not want a President who would essentially represent a "Bush third term." The irony is, a Bush third term is exactly what the voters got. Under President Obama, questionable detentions and increased government eavesdropping will continue, foreign adventurism will continue, new health care entitlements will be created, runaway spending will continue, socialization of the financial industry will continue. In no substantial way are the policies of the Obama administration different from those of the Bush administration (oh, except for a few federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, hurray change!). I am reminded of Walter Mondale's reference to a popular TV commercial of the mid 1980's when he challenged the lack of substance to Gary Hart's, "new ideas." For all the President Obama's talk about change we can believe in, "where's the beef?"
Saturday, May 23, 2009
On Libertarianism, Part 2
Pragmaticus argues for more federal regulation of the economy because, he concludes, people are too irresponsible to self-regulate. He gives Barry Madoff, predatory lenders, people who borrowed beyond their means, and CEOs with golden parachutes as examples. Publius responds:
As far as regulation goes, I have never argued that there shouldn't be any. In fact, I have been quite clear that government has an important regulatory role to play and I was quite specific about what I thought it should be (http://freemarkets-freeminds-freesociety.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-libertarianism.html). Madoff violated EXISTING laws and regulations, did he not? In the housing crisis, federal regulators BLOCKED state efforts to curtail subprime lending (http://www.slate.com/id/2182709/pagenum/all). The Fed was irresponsibly slashing interest rates to below the inflation rate. So you can put faith in regulators, but quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guards? or in this case, who will regulate the regulators?). I agree that people will act irrationally, but the way markets work is that people who make irrational or unwise decisions pay a price and learn and the markets correct. Most of the time, just the individuals involved pay the price - but when government acts irresponsibly, as Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed did; we all pay the price. What you can't do, if markets are going to work, is remove what is called moral hazard (or as Newt Gingrich said, you can't have capitalism on the way up and socialism on way down). Yet, what are we doing? All these people did act irresponsibly - some at the prodding of the feds, many others not - and we are bailing them out! How can a market self-regulate if no one pays the price for their bad decisions? It can't, it's the loss that corrects the market. What will these bailouts accomplish? Not much other than delay a market correction that still has to happen eventually.
Finally, I can't believe any rational person would look at the behaviour of Wall Street, and the bankers, and the house poor borrowers and conclude that the solution to irresponsible financial behaviour is regulation by a government that acts even MORE irresponsibly. It is laughable to call Madoff the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. The United States Federal Government is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Since World War II, with a a few anomalous years under Nixon and Clinton (interestingly both times when control of government was divided between the two parties), our government has done nothing but spend, and spend, and spend, and amass debt that it never intends to repay (and probably never can). Yet, investors, particularly foreign ones, continue to finance it by buying our bonds - why? Because the government has a continually renewing source of revenue - the annual income tax - which brings in the new money each year to pay the interest on those bonds, making them still a good investment even though the principle cannot be repaid. That is exactly how Ponzi schemes work - the revenue collected from new investors is used to pay the profits of the old ones and it can continue ad infinitum as long as their is a stream of new investors. Madoff got caught because no one wanted to invest anymore when the economy went south. Well, when you have taxpayers instead of investors it can and will go on and on until it finally reaches the day of reckoning - when interest on the debt commands such large share of the federal budget that the tax revenue can no longer pay it and all the entitlement spending we have committed ourselves to (Medicare, Social Security, Medicare Rx, and soon national health care). You think the solution to Madoffs in the marketplace is these Ubermadoffs in Washington? This new irresponsibility knows no partisanship - both parties do it - and the current administration seems poised to do it bigger and grander than anyone. It simply has to stop. Our long term survival as the most prosperous country on the planet depends on it. I am not sure government can get smaller, but it at the very least NEEDS to stop growing. The irresponsible in the private sector are a fraction of the population (albeit probably a majority). The irresponsible in Washington are everyone - except Ron Paul, and sometimes John McCain.
What about the federal government gives you such confidence? The stellar way it manages Amtrak (which is far more expensive than flying, which the feds don't manage)? The stellar way it delivers the mail (which Fed Ex, DHL, and UPS do better but are prevented by law from delivering letters and may only deliver packages)? The stellar success of the ethanol industry - a government created, subsidized, and protected industry that continues to lose money? The fantastic job the government has done managing the war in Iraq or the aftermath of Katrina? The way the Fed devalued the dollar with low interest rates? In what way has the federal government inspired your confidence that increasing it's control over business and industry would be successful, or even better? Its success rate when it has tried is abysmal.
As far as regulation goes, I have never argued that there shouldn't be any. In fact, I have been quite clear that government has an important regulatory role to play and I was quite specific about what I thought it should be (http://freemarkets-freeminds-freesociety.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-libertarianism.html). Madoff violated EXISTING laws and regulations, did he not? In the housing crisis, federal regulators BLOCKED state efforts to curtail subprime lending (http://www.slate.com/id/2182709/pagenum/all). The Fed was irresponsibly slashing interest rates to below the inflation rate. So you can put faith in regulators, but quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guards? or in this case, who will regulate the regulators?). I agree that people will act irrationally, but the way markets work is that people who make irrational or unwise decisions pay a price and learn and the markets correct. Most of the time, just the individuals involved pay the price - but when government acts irresponsibly, as Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed did; we all pay the price. What you can't do, if markets are going to work, is remove what is called moral hazard (or as Newt Gingrich said, you can't have capitalism on the way up and socialism on way down). Yet, what are we doing? All these people did act irresponsibly - some at the prodding of the feds, many others not - and we are bailing them out! How can a market self-regulate if no one pays the price for their bad decisions? It can't, it's the loss that corrects the market. What will these bailouts accomplish? Not much other than delay a market correction that still has to happen eventually.
Finally, I can't believe any rational person would look at the behaviour of Wall Street, and the bankers, and the house poor borrowers and conclude that the solution to irresponsible financial behaviour is regulation by a government that acts even MORE irresponsibly. It is laughable to call Madoff the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. The United States Federal Government is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Since World War II, with a a few anomalous years under Nixon and Clinton (interestingly both times when control of government was divided between the two parties), our government has done nothing but spend, and spend, and spend, and amass debt that it never intends to repay (and probably never can). Yet, investors, particularly foreign ones, continue to finance it by buying our bonds - why? Because the government has a continually renewing source of revenue - the annual income tax - which brings in the new money each year to pay the interest on those bonds, making them still a good investment even though the principle cannot be repaid. That is exactly how Ponzi schemes work - the revenue collected from new investors is used to pay the profits of the old ones and it can continue ad infinitum as long as their is a stream of new investors. Madoff got caught because no one wanted to invest anymore when the economy went south. Well, when you have taxpayers instead of investors it can and will go on and on until it finally reaches the day of reckoning - when interest on the debt commands such large share of the federal budget that the tax revenue can no longer pay it and all the entitlement spending we have committed ourselves to (Medicare, Social Security, Medicare Rx, and soon national health care). You think the solution to Madoffs in the marketplace is these Ubermadoffs in Washington? This new irresponsibility knows no partisanship - both parties do it - and the current administration seems poised to do it bigger and grander than anyone. It simply has to stop. Our long term survival as the most prosperous country on the planet depends on it. I am not sure government can get smaller, but it at the very least NEEDS to stop growing. The irresponsible in the private sector are a fraction of the population (albeit probably a majority). The irresponsible in Washington are everyone - except Ron Paul, and sometimes John McCain.
What about the federal government gives you such confidence? The stellar way it manages Amtrak (which is far more expensive than flying, which the feds don't manage)? The stellar way it delivers the mail (which Fed Ex, DHL, and UPS do better but are prevented by law from delivering letters and may only deliver packages)? The stellar success of the ethanol industry - a government created, subsidized, and protected industry that continues to lose money? The fantastic job the government has done managing the war in Iraq or the aftermath of Katrina? The way the Fed devalued the dollar with low interest rates? In what way has the federal government inspired your confidence that increasing it's control over business and industry would be successful, or even better? Its success rate when it has tried is abysmal.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Why I Hate Presidents Day
This coming Monday (February 16, 2009) is Presidents Day. This is the federal holiday that honours George Washington (born February 22) and Abraham Lincoln (born February 12).
Certainly these two men are worthy of remembrance. Washington was instrumental in the founding of this nation. The independence declared by Adams and Jefferson meant little if not defended in the field by Washington. Washington's prowess as a general may be debatable, but he indisputably accompolished an amazing feat. Largely through force of will; he was able to keep a small rag-tag army in the field against what could only be described as the super power of the 18th century; maintain morale; and prevail despite shortages of food, clothing, weapons, and other equipment. Under our current Constitution, Washington was the first President of the United States. But more than being first, Washington set an example for the others to follow. Washington's example is his great gift to our nation. In the history of mankind, generals who lead revolutions usually seize power (Caesar, Napoleon). After victory at Yorktown, Washington resigned his commission, disbanded his army, acknowledged the political supremacy of the Continental Congress and went home to Mount Vernon. For this, King George III called him, "the greatest man in the world." The American Revolution was fought for the principle that no one man should rule with absolute power. Washington could have destroyed that principle and ruled as a popular, perhaps even just, king, but he did not. After the Constitution was ratified, Washington was concerned about the powers invested in the Presidency and therefore limited himself to two terms. Again, he voluntarily relinquished power that no one would have begrudged him. In so doing, he set a precendent that every future President followed until FDR. Regardless of whether or not you believe FDR's legacy is a positive one, certainly a number of his supporters must have taken pause at his virtual lock on the Presidency because after FDR the Constitution was ammended to enshrine Washington's wisdom into law and limit Presidents to two terms.
Lincoln was arguably the most able President in the history of this country. No President has been handled a greater challenge than civil war. Lincoln's courage and fortitude held this nation together. His actions are not without controversy. His means may have been, at times, questionable. But, his legacy is a United States that remained united and whole and cleansed of the stain of slavery. Emancipation set the ground work for people of colour ultimately to share in the Jeffersonian ideal that all are created equal.
Why then do I hate Presidents Day? When I was a child, the holidays were separate: Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday. I can understand the desire to consolidate the two rather than have two holidays so close together, but the problem I have with President's Day is that in renaming it, the great legacy bestowed on our country by these two men gets lost. It should be a day for remembering the great gifts of Washington and Lincoln to our nation, not a day for buying cheap mattresses. Invariably, use of the term Presidents Day conjures up images of Mount Rushmore and other Presidents. We as a nation should be grateful for the contributions of Washington and Lincoln, not reminded of the irrelevance of Millard Fillmore, the corruption of Richard Nixon, the lechery of Bill Clinton, or the incompetence of George W. Bush. If it has to be one holiday, why not Washington-Lincoln Day, instead of Presidents Day?
Certainly these two men are worthy of remembrance. Washington was instrumental in the founding of this nation. The independence declared by Adams and Jefferson meant little if not defended in the field by Washington. Washington's prowess as a general may be debatable, but he indisputably accompolished an amazing feat. Largely through force of will; he was able to keep a small rag-tag army in the field against what could only be described as the super power of the 18th century; maintain morale; and prevail despite shortages of food, clothing, weapons, and other equipment. Under our current Constitution, Washington was the first President of the United States. But more than being first, Washington set an example for the others to follow. Washington's example is his great gift to our nation. In the history of mankind, generals who lead revolutions usually seize power (Caesar, Napoleon). After victory at Yorktown, Washington resigned his commission, disbanded his army, acknowledged the political supremacy of the Continental Congress and went home to Mount Vernon. For this, King George III called him, "the greatest man in the world." The American Revolution was fought for the principle that no one man should rule with absolute power. Washington could have destroyed that principle and ruled as a popular, perhaps even just, king, but he did not. After the Constitution was ratified, Washington was concerned about the powers invested in the Presidency and therefore limited himself to two terms. Again, he voluntarily relinquished power that no one would have begrudged him. In so doing, he set a precendent that every future President followed until FDR. Regardless of whether or not you believe FDR's legacy is a positive one, certainly a number of his supporters must have taken pause at his virtual lock on the Presidency because after FDR the Constitution was ammended to enshrine Washington's wisdom into law and limit Presidents to two terms.
Lincoln was arguably the most able President in the history of this country. No President has been handled a greater challenge than civil war. Lincoln's courage and fortitude held this nation together. His actions are not without controversy. His means may have been, at times, questionable. But, his legacy is a United States that remained united and whole and cleansed of the stain of slavery. Emancipation set the ground work for people of colour ultimately to share in the Jeffersonian ideal that all are created equal.
Why then do I hate Presidents Day? When I was a child, the holidays were separate: Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday. I can understand the desire to consolidate the two rather than have two holidays so close together, but the problem I have with President's Day is that in renaming it, the great legacy bestowed on our country by these two men gets lost. It should be a day for remembering the great gifts of Washington and Lincoln to our nation, not a day for buying cheap mattresses. Invariably, use of the term Presidents Day conjures up images of Mount Rushmore and other Presidents. We as a nation should be grateful for the contributions of Washington and Lincoln, not reminded of the irrelevance of Millard Fillmore, the corruption of Richard Nixon, the lechery of Bill Clinton, or the incompetence of George W. Bush. If it has to be one holiday, why not Washington-Lincoln Day, instead of Presidents Day?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Trade
We are in difficult economic times. The collapse of the housing bubble has had repercussions in other aspects of the economy. Banks, faced with default mortgages, are now unwilling to lend. With capital frozen, business cannot expand or grow. Hiring freezes, and employees are let go to cut costs. In this climate, everyone looks to government to create jobs and protect jobs. Populism and protectionism become popular.
This is evident in the creation of the current economic stimulus package that is being debated on Capitol Hill. The House and the Senate have passed two different bills, which must be resolved in conference committee. The House version contains, “Buy American,” clauses to insure that the government money spent will go to American businesses, buy only American products and, “protect,” American jobs.
It is easy to understand why such measures might be popular in these economic times, but they are extremely short sighted. No one makes an effective argument for truly free trade. Trade proponents argue that it creates jobs, opponents point to the jobs lost. The truth is, in any free and competitive market there will be winners and losers. This gives each side examples to point to, but confuses the public at large that is trying to decide, on balance, whether open trade or protectionism would be better.
However, these, “practical,” arguments about whether free trade costs or creates jobs miss the larger moral issue at stake. What defines a free society is freedom of choice. Our Constitution enshrines some freedom of choice in the First Amendment – our government is not allowed to dictate what you can say (or think), cannot prevent you from assembling peacefully, and cannot tell you what to believe or what god to worship. True liberty, however, requires that this freedom of choice extend to economic activity as well. What empowers consumers is having multiple businesses providing goods and services competing for the consumers' business. The consumer then can choose amongst various options the product he or she judges is of reasonable quality and/or a reasonable price. Monopolies or trusts exploit the consumer by denying choice and either force the consumer to accept inferior quality or charge the consumer exorbitant prices. The competition of a free market prevents this economic exploitation.
Protectionism similarly exploits consumers. Freedom and both political and economic power are maximized when the consumer has more choice. Limiting access to foreign goods, or subsidizing domestic ones, or inflating the prices of imports through tariffs, limits choice and forces the consumer to accept higher prices than the market would otherwise bear. What helps a narrow segment of the population (those that work in the industry being protected) exploits everyone who consumes goods and services and hurts us all. Economic freedom of choice is so crucial to liberty that, in the same sentence of the Declaration of Independence that charges King George III with the tyranny of taxing the colonies without representation, Jefferson also labelled George III a tyrant, “for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.” It is no less exploitive to restrict consumer’s access to the fullest selection of goods and services today through trade barriers as it was in Mr. Jefferson’s day or when the lord of the manor would insist that all his serfs use the lord's mill exclusively.
Furthermore, economic protectionism is no longer practical in the 21st century. The world and the U.S. economy have changed over the last century. The airplane, the telephone, the cellular phone, the computer, the internet, and broad-band internet access have made the world smaller. The world is now, to borrow Tom Friedman’s phrase, flat. It is now much easier to market goods and services to all parts of the globe, buy from and sell to all parts of the globe, and collaborate with others in every corner of the world. These technological innovations make it impossible to build a wall around fortress America and remain internally self-sufficient. As developing countries can manufacture simpler things less expensively, our economic growth depends on being a center of innovation for the new goods and services of tomorrow. We cannot continue to do that unless we take advantage of the same tools – a worldwide talent pool and the ability to maximize profit by outsourcing tasks that others do better or less expensively – as our competitors will. The truth is, we have no business manufacturing something if we can’t make it better or cheaper and we will need to have open access the world’s resources if we are to continue to innovate. This means our workforce will have to have more flexible skill sets and gone are the days where working on the same assembly line provides a lifetime of job security. This is neither bad nor good, it simply is. Our policies must reflect this reality and trying to protect the industries of the 20th century, burying our heads in the sand, will lead to a long-term lack of competitiveness that stunts our economic growth and allows competitors to pass us by. Buy American provisions will simply encourage others to close their markets to our goods and services and lead to escalating trade wars that will deprive us of the competitive advantages and opportunities of full participation in the global marketplace.
The Buy American provisions in the economic stimulus package are a poison pill that threatens our liberty and long-term economic prosperity. President Obama has voiced his disapproval of these provisions, but if they remain in the final bill, they will prove and interesting test of the new President’s leadership. If such provisions are in the final bill, President Obama should veto it. President Clinton took on elements in his own party when he promoted NAFTA, can President Obama do the same? If these provisions are in the final bill, will President Obama have the political courage to veto a stimulus package that most of the country believes we need in the face of the economic crisis and ask Congress for a new bill without these provisions? I, for one, certainly hope so.
This is evident in the creation of the current economic stimulus package that is being debated on Capitol Hill. The House and the Senate have passed two different bills, which must be resolved in conference committee. The House version contains, “Buy American,” clauses to insure that the government money spent will go to American businesses, buy only American products and, “protect,” American jobs.
It is easy to understand why such measures might be popular in these economic times, but they are extremely short sighted. No one makes an effective argument for truly free trade. Trade proponents argue that it creates jobs, opponents point to the jobs lost. The truth is, in any free and competitive market there will be winners and losers. This gives each side examples to point to, but confuses the public at large that is trying to decide, on balance, whether open trade or protectionism would be better.
However, these, “practical,” arguments about whether free trade costs or creates jobs miss the larger moral issue at stake. What defines a free society is freedom of choice. Our Constitution enshrines some freedom of choice in the First Amendment – our government is not allowed to dictate what you can say (or think), cannot prevent you from assembling peacefully, and cannot tell you what to believe or what god to worship. True liberty, however, requires that this freedom of choice extend to economic activity as well. What empowers consumers is having multiple businesses providing goods and services competing for the consumers' business. The consumer then can choose amongst various options the product he or she judges is of reasonable quality and/or a reasonable price. Monopolies or trusts exploit the consumer by denying choice and either force the consumer to accept inferior quality or charge the consumer exorbitant prices. The competition of a free market prevents this economic exploitation.
Protectionism similarly exploits consumers. Freedom and both political and economic power are maximized when the consumer has more choice. Limiting access to foreign goods, or subsidizing domestic ones, or inflating the prices of imports through tariffs, limits choice and forces the consumer to accept higher prices than the market would otherwise bear. What helps a narrow segment of the population (those that work in the industry being protected) exploits everyone who consumes goods and services and hurts us all. Economic freedom of choice is so crucial to liberty that, in the same sentence of the Declaration of Independence that charges King George III with the tyranny of taxing the colonies without representation, Jefferson also labelled George III a tyrant, “for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.” It is no less exploitive to restrict consumer’s access to the fullest selection of goods and services today through trade barriers as it was in Mr. Jefferson’s day or when the lord of the manor would insist that all his serfs use the lord's mill exclusively.
Furthermore, economic protectionism is no longer practical in the 21st century. The world and the U.S. economy have changed over the last century. The airplane, the telephone, the cellular phone, the computer, the internet, and broad-band internet access have made the world smaller. The world is now, to borrow Tom Friedman’s phrase, flat. It is now much easier to market goods and services to all parts of the globe, buy from and sell to all parts of the globe, and collaborate with others in every corner of the world. These technological innovations make it impossible to build a wall around fortress America and remain internally self-sufficient. As developing countries can manufacture simpler things less expensively, our economic growth depends on being a center of innovation for the new goods and services of tomorrow. We cannot continue to do that unless we take advantage of the same tools – a worldwide talent pool and the ability to maximize profit by outsourcing tasks that others do better or less expensively – as our competitors will. The truth is, we have no business manufacturing something if we can’t make it better or cheaper and we will need to have open access the world’s resources if we are to continue to innovate. This means our workforce will have to have more flexible skill sets and gone are the days where working on the same assembly line provides a lifetime of job security. This is neither bad nor good, it simply is. Our policies must reflect this reality and trying to protect the industries of the 20th century, burying our heads in the sand, will lead to a long-term lack of competitiveness that stunts our economic growth and allows competitors to pass us by. Buy American provisions will simply encourage others to close their markets to our goods and services and lead to escalating trade wars that will deprive us of the competitive advantages and opportunities of full participation in the global marketplace.
The Buy American provisions in the economic stimulus package are a poison pill that threatens our liberty and long-term economic prosperity. President Obama has voiced his disapproval of these provisions, but if they remain in the final bill, they will prove and interesting test of the new President’s leadership. If such provisions are in the final bill, President Obama should veto it. President Clinton took on elements in his own party when he promoted NAFTA, can President Obama do the same? If these provisions are in the final bill, will President Obama have the political courage to veto a stimulus package that most of the country believes we need in the face of the economic crisis and ask Congress for a new bill without these provisions? I, for one, certainly hope so.
Trade
We are in difficult economic times. The collapse of the housing bubble has had repercussions in other aspects of the economy. Banks, faced with default mortgages, are now unwilling to lend. With capital frozen, business cannot expand or grow. Hiring freezes, and employees are let go to cut costs. In this climate, everyone looks to government to create jobs and protect jobs. Populism and protectionism become popular.
This is evident in the creation of the current economic stimulus package that is being debated on Capitol Hill. The House and the Senate have passed to different bills, which must be resolved in conference committee. The House version contains, “Buy American,” clauses to insure that the government money spent will go to American businesses, buy only American products and, “protect,” American jobs.
It is easy to understand why such measures might be popular in these economic times, but they are extremely short sighted. No one makes an effective argument for truly free trade. Trade proponents argue that it creates jobs, opponents point to the jobs lost. The truth is, in any free and competitive market there will be winners and losers. This gives each side examples to point to, but confuses the public at large that is trying to decide, on balance, whether open trade or protectionism would be better.
However, these, “practical,” arguments about whether free trade costs or creates jobs miss the larger moral issue at stake. What defines a free society is freedom of choice. Our Constitution enshrines some freedom of choice in the First Amendment – our government is not allowed to dictate what you can say (or think), cannot prevent you from assembling peacefully, and cannot tell you what to believe or what god to worship. True liberty, however, requires that this freedom of choice extend to economic activity as well. What empowers consumers is having multiple businesses providing goods and services competing for the consumers business. The consumer then can choose amongst various options the product he or she judges is of reasonable quality and/or a reasonable price. Monopolies or trusts exploit the consumer by denying choice and either force the consumer to accept inferior quality or charge the consumer exorbitant prices. The competition of a free market prevents this economic exploitation.
Protectionism similarly exploits consumers. Freedom and both political and economic power are maximized when the consumer has more choice. By limiting access to foreign goods, or subsidizing domestic ones, or inflating the prices of imports through tariffs, limits choice and forces the consumer to accept higher prices than the market would otherwise bear. What helps a narrow segment of the population (those that work in the industry being protected) exploits everyone who consumes goods and services and hurts us all. Economic freedom of choice is so crucial to liberty that, in the same sentence of the Declaration of Independence that charges King George III with the tyranny of taxing the colonies without representation, he also labelled him a tyrant, “for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.” It is no less exploitive to restrict consumer’s access to the fullest selection of goods and services today through trade barriers as it was in Mr. Jefferson’s day or when the lord of the manor would insist that all his serfs use his mill exclusively.
Furthermore, economic protectionism is no longer practical in the 21st century. The world and the U.S. economy have changed over the last century. The airplane, the telephone, the cellular phone, the computer, the internet, and broad-band internet access have made the world smaller. The world is now, to borrow Tom Friedman’s phrase, flat. It is now much easier to market goods and services to all parts of the globe, buy and sell to and from all parts of the globe, and collaborate with others in every corner of the world. These technological innovations make it impossible to build a wall around fortress America and remain internally self-sufficient. As developing countries can manufacture simpler things less expensively, our economic growth depends on being a center of innovation for the new goods and services of tomorrow. We cannot continue to do that unless we take advantage of the same tools – a worldwide talent pool and the ability to maximize profit by outsourcing tasks that others do better or less expensively – as our competitors will. The truth is, we have no business manufacturing something if we can’t make it better or cheaper and we will need to have open access the world’s resources if we are to continue to innovate. This means our workforce will have to have more flexible skill sets and gone are the days where working on the same assembly line provides a lifetime of job security. This is neither bad nor good, it simply is. Our policies must reflect this reality and trying to protect the industries of the 20th century, burying our heads in the sand, will lead to a long-term lack of competitiveness that stunts our economic growth and allows competitors to pass us buy. Buy American provisions will simply encourage others to close their markets to our goods and services and lead to escalating trade wars that will deprive us of the competitive advantages and opportunities of full participation in the global marketplace.
The Buy American provisions in the economic stimulus package are a poison pill that threatens our liberty and long-term economic prosperity. President Obama has voiced his disapproval of these provisions, but if they remain in the final bill, they will prove and interesting test of the new President’s leadership. If such provisions are in the final bill, President Obama should veto it. President Clinton took on elements in his own party when he promoted NAFTA, can President Obama do the same? If these provisions are in the final bill, will he have the political courage to veto a stimulus package that most of the country believes we need in the face of the economic crisis and ask Congress for a new bill without these provisions? I, for one, certainly hope so.
This is evident in the creation of the current economic stimulus package that is being debated on Capitol Hill. The House and the Senate have passed to different bills, which must be resolved in conference committee. The House version contains, “Buy American,” clauses to insure that the government money spent will go to American businesses, buy only American products and, “protect,” American jobs.
It is easy to understand why such measures might be popular in these economic times, but they are extremely short sighted. No one makes an effective argument for truly free trade. Trade proponents argue that it creates jobs, opponents point to the jobs lost. The truth is, in any free and competitive market there will be winners and losers. This gives each side examples to point to, but confuses the public at large that is trying to decide, on balance, whether open trade or protectionism would be better.
However, these, “practical,” arguments about whether free trade costs or creates jobs miss the larger moral issue at stake. What defines a free society is freedom of choice. Our Constitution enshrines some freedom of choice in the First Amendment – our government is not allowed to dictate what you can say (or think), cannot prevent you from assembling peacefully, and cannot tell you what to believe or what god to worship. True liberty, however, requires that this freedom of choice extend to economic activity as well. What empowers consumers is having multiple businesses providing goods and services competing for the consumers business. The consumer then can choose amongst various options the product he or she judges is of reasonable quality and/or a reasonable price. Monopolies or trusts exploit the consumer by denying choice and either force the consumer to accept inferior quality or charge the consumer exorbitant prices. The competition of a free market prevents this economic exploitation.
Protectionism similarly exploits consumers. Freedom and both political and economic power are maximized when the consumer has more choice. By limiting access to foreign goods, or subsidizing domestic ones, or inflating the prices of imports through tariffs, limits choice and forces the consumer to accept higher prices than the market would otherwise bear. What helps a narrow segment of the population (those that work in the industry being protected) exploits everyone who consumes goods and services and hurts us all. Economic freedom of choice is so crucial to liberty that, in the same sentence of the Declaration of Independence that charges King George III with the tyranny of taxing the colonies without representation, he also labelled him a tyrant, “for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.” It is no less exploitive to restrict consumer’s access to the fullest selection of goods and services today through trade barriers as it was in Mr. Jefferson’s day or when the lord of the manor would insist that all his serfs use his mill exclusively.
Furthermore, economic protectionism is no longer practical in the 21st century. The world and the U.S. economy have changed over the last century. The airplane, the telephone, the cellular phone, the computer, the internet, and broad-band internet access have made the world smaller. The world is now, to borrow Tom Friedman’s phrase, flat. It is now much easier to market goods and services to all parts of the globe, buy and sell to and from all parts of the globe, and collaborate with others in every corner of the world. These technological innovations make it impossible to build a wall around fortress America and remain internally self-sufficient. As developing countries can manufacture simpler things less expensively, our economic growth depends on being a center of innovation for the new goods and services of tomorrow. We cannot continue to do that unless we take advantage of the same tools – a worldwide talent pool and the ability to maximize profit by outsourcing tasks that others do better or less expensively – as our competitors will. The truth is, we have no business manufacturing something if we can’t make it better or cheaper and we will need to have open access the world’s resources if we are to continue to innovate. This means our workforce will have to have more flexible skill sets and gone are the days where working on the same assembly line provides a lifetime of job security. This is neither bad nor good, it simply is. Our policies must reflect this reality and trying to protect the industries of the 20th century, burying our heads in the sand, will lead to a long-term lack of competitiveness that stunts our economic growth and allows competitors to pass us buy. Buy American provisions will simply encourage others to close their markets to our goods and services and lead to escalating trade wars that will deprive us of the competitive advantages and opportunities of full participation in the global marketplace.
The Buy American provisions in the economic stimulus package are a poison pill that threatens our liberty and long-term economic prosperity. President Obama has voiced his disapproval of these provisions, but if they remain in the final bill, they will prove and interesting test of the new President’s leadership. If such provisions are in the final bill, President Obama should veto it. President Clinton took on elements in his own party when he promoted NAFTA, can President Obama do the same? If these provisions are in the final bill, will he have the political courage to veto a stimulus package that most of the country believes we need in the face of the economic crisis and ask Congress for a new bill without these provisions? I, for one, certainly hope so.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
An Open Letter to President George W. Bush
Dear Mr. President:
Shortly before Christmas, sixteen years ago, I wrote your father to thank him for his service to our nation as President. I thanked him for his leadership and, to this day, believe our country is better off because of it.
It is with a heavy heart that I cannot do the same today. While I realize that your administration was dealt a difficult hand (9-11, financial crisis, etc.), I am forced to conclude, as a majority of Americans have, that your administration has failed this nation and your leadership has been detrimental to it.
In my opinion, Mr. President, this is a direct result of being conservative in rhetoric only, rather than in policy. Yours has been the most left-leaning administration in decades, and certainly more leftist than your three predecessors. Other than tax cuts, which I do thank you for, your administration has not pursued any conservative policies. You have presided over the largest increases in domestic, non-defence, discretionary spending since LBJ’s great society. You had been in office for six years before you finally vetoed a spending bill. Your administration created a brand new healthcare entitlement (the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Industrial subsidies for agriculture, wool, sugar, and ethanol have increased on your watch. Both your father and President Reagan were committed to free trade with other nations. Although you have negotiated free trade agreements with our Latin American neighbours, you have also placed (at least temporarily) protective tariffs on European steel and engaged in trade disputes over the purchase of lumber from Canada. This free spending domestic policy has saddled us with debt, undoing the 104th Congress’ work in balancing the federal budget, and is a record Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton could have been proud of.
While President Reagan wanted to abolish the federal department of education, you expanded the role of federal government in education with the No Child Left Behind Act, which makes the federal department of education the watchdog of schools in every state. What policy could be more antithetical to the Reagan-Goldwater view of devolving power out of Washington? I am shocked that, as a former governor, your administration would make a mockery of state sovereignty. In addition to No Child Left Behind, your administration, under Attorney General Ashcroft, attempted to use the Controlled Substances Act to prosecute doctors in Oregon that assisted in suicide. While I am not an advocate of assisted suicide, I would defend to my last breath the right of the state of Oregon to decide what is acceptable medical practice in Oregon. Similarly, your administration has disrespected laws allowing medical use of marijuana in several states. Wading into the Terry Schiavo case was truly shameful. Clearly such end of life decisions belong to families and state laws should govern who is an appropriate decision maker. The federal government clearly has no role in such cases. Fortunately you chose not to pursue it in your second term, but your proposal for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage is also a frontal assault on state sovereignty and states rights.
The intrusiveness of federal government under your administration does not stop with the trampling of states rights. Rights of individuals have also been threatened by illegal detentions, aggressive interrogation tactics, and illicit eavesdropping. I appreciate that stronger measures may be necessary in the post 9-11 world, and I am consoled by the fact that provisions of the USA PATRIOT act are subject periodic review and renewal by Congress. However, it is worth remembering that when similar anti-terrorism measures were proposed in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing by President Clinton, it was Republicans that defeated those measures with concerns that they threatened civil liberties. I miss the days when Republicans concerned themselves with keeping the federal government off the back of the people… Your administration’s expansive view of executive authority is frightening. In a recent appearance on Fox News Sunday, Vice President Cheney argued that the War Powers Act was unconstitutional, not because it strips Congress of its constitutionally defined role to declare war, but because it allows Congress to interfere (after 90 days) with the President’s execution of his role as Commander-in-Chief! I can understand, in the 21st century, why a War Powers Act is necessary to allow a President to act in a time-sensitive manner while Congress convenes, debates, and votes. But, make no mistake sir, under our Constitution it is Congress alone that has the authority to decide when and if the United States goes to war.
Your foreign policy has been no less leftist. In your second inaugural address, you set as a goal of U.S. foreign policy, the elimination of tyranny in our world. This is certainly a noble ideal, but not a suitable guiding principle for the foreign policy of any nation. Foreign policy must always be based on national interest. Aiding freedom fighters to prevent communist hegemony may have met that goal, but toppling all dictators in every corner of the globe does not. Your policies resemble the nation-building zeal of the Clinton administration (Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia), the, “make the world safe for democracy,” philosophy of President Wilson, and the human rights agenda of President Carter more than the, “humble foreign policy,” that you promised in your 2000 presidential campaign. I would agree that things have changed because of 9-11, but we knew before invading that Iraq had no role in 9-11. We also knew Saddam was not anywhere near the largest state sponsor of terrorism (Iran has been a much bigger sponsor of terrorists), his military had been cut down in size by Desert Storm, his country was under tough economic sanctions, a third of his country was under a no-fly zone, and Iraq had not threatened another country outside its own borders in over a decade. Even assuming the accuracy of intelligence reports of WMD (which I did at the time), it is clear from these facts that there was no justification for invading Iraq. Possession of WMD is not enough. That would be justification for invading dozens of countries (including the U.S.). Only intelligence of an imminent attack with those weapons could justify pre-emptive military action. As a Christian, I cannot believe you asked, “What would Jesus do?” and concluded that He would invade Iraq. The consequences have been staggering. Not only have lives, American and Iraqi, been needlessly lost, but this unnecessary, unjustifiable war has cost billions of dollars, alienated our allies and strengthened the hand of Iran, a country that actually does sponsor terrorists and has an active nuclear program. In this, too, your administration’s policies have been contrary to the principles of previous Republican administrations. Your father explained why military occupation of Iraq was a bad idea:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in, “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs…. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would have instantly collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable, “exit strategy,” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren – outcome.
George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft
A World Transformed, p.489 (1998)
Finally, I would like to say a few words about the financial crisis. The most basic conservative principle is the limitation of government’s influence in the market place. Conservatives believe that this not only encourages economic growth, but also establishes an important economic component of individual liberty. We all know that the financial crisis, while global, began with the collapse of a real estate bubble in the United States. What is often not discussed is that the real estate bubble was created by the type of government intervention in the market places that all conservatives should eschew. As you know, the Community Reinvestment Act indirectly encourages subprime lending by mandating home loans to low-income families. A revision of the act on your watch in 2005 made it easier for lenders to participate in the program by allowing smaller banks to participate solely as lenders, with less oversight. In addition, in 2004, your administration increased the affordable housing goals of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and allowed them to include securitized subprime loans toward their affordable housing goals. The goal was to increase home ownership and in your 2004 State of the Union address, you boasted about the success of these policies, noting that new home construction was the highest in twenty years and home ownership was at an all-time high in the U.S. But, these policies ignore the fundamental conservative principle that government intervention in the market place has unintended consequences. Add to these policies a Federal Reserve that kept interest rates artificially low and you have an artificial market that encourages exuberant lending. Furthermore, the Feds policies devalued the dollar, which raised the price of fuel and food, and made it more difficult for those with subprime mortgages to make their payments. Your administration’s manipulation of the marketplace for a public policy goal of affordable housing helped create this financial crisis. Such policies are anathema to conservatives who believe in free market principles. Your administration’s response to the crisis has been even more shocking. Bailouts of industries, government ownership of financial institutions, and a, “car czar,” to direct business decisions of the automakers that take government money. In short, the response to a crisis created by ignoring free market principles and has been socialism – government purchase and ownership of private industry. These policies can in no way be seen as anything other than leftist.
In summary, the policies of your administration have abandoned almost every conservative principle: free trade and laissez-faire economic policies, strict interpretation of and adherence to the Constitution, limited government intrusiveness and the protection of individual liberty and states’ rights, fiscal discipline, and non-interventionist foreign policy. Your administration has systematically undone and reversed the policies of previous Republican Presidents and Congresses. The result has been an unpopular war, disaffected conservative voters, the decimation our political party and policies that lay the groundwork for President-elect Obama to establish a new American socialism. This is not what we conservatives thought we were voting for in 2000.
Mr. President, it is not my goal to be disrespectful. I understand that you had to make difficult decisions in real time, and it is easy for me, or anyone else, to play, “Monday morning quarterback.” However, I felt compelled to explain to you why so many of us conservatives feel let down by your administration. On January 20, 2001, I stood in the cold, pouring rain, on the Mall in front of the Capitol while you took the oath of office. I was excited about your election and hopeful and optimistic about where you would lead this country. As I have watched your administration do nothing but expand the scope of federal government for eight years, I feel betrayed. I think you need to understand that a number of conservatives feel this way and I hope you will reflect on what I have said.
Let me close, Mr. President, by wishing you, Laura, the twins, your folks, and all of your family a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year. Regardless of our differences, I wish you the best and hope you enjoy some much deserved time off.
Shortly before Christmas, sixteen years ago, I wrote your father to thank him for his service to our nation as President. I thanked him for his leadership and, to this day, believe our country is better off because of it.
It is with a heavy heart that I cannot do the same today. While I realize that your administration was dealt a difficult hand (9-11, financial crisis, etc.), I am forced to conclude, as a majority of Americans have, that your administration has failed this nation and your leadership has been detrimental to it.
In my opinion, Mr. President, this is a direct result of being conservative in rhetoric only, rather than in policy. Yours has been the most left-leaning administration in decades, and certainly more leftist than your three predecessors. Other than tax cuts, which I do thank you for, your administration has not pursued any conservative policies. You have presided over the largest increases in domestic, non-defence, discretionary spending since LBJ’s great society. You had been in office for six years before you finally vetoed a spending bill. Your administration created a brand new healthcare entitlement (the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Industrial subsidies for agriculture, wool, sugar, and ethanol have increased on your watch. Both your father and President Reagan were committed to free trade with other nations. Although you have negotiated free trade agreements with our Latin American neighbours, you have also placed (at least temporarily) protective tariffs on European steel and engaged in trade disputes over the purchase of lumber from Canada. This free spending domestic policy has saddled us with debt, undoing the 104th Congress’ work in balancing the federal budget, and is a record Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton could have been proud of.
While President Reagan wanted to abolish the federal department of education, you expanded the role of federal government in education with the No Child Left Behind Act, which makes the federal department of education the watchdog of schools in every state. What policy could be more antithetical to the Reagan-Goldwater view of devolving power out of Washington? I am shocked that, as a former governor, your administration would make a mockery of state sovereignty. In addition to No Child Left Behind, your administration, under Attorney General Ashcroft, attempted to use the Controlled Substances Act to prosecute doctors in Oregon that assisted in suicide. While I am not an advocate of assisted suicide, I would defend to my last breath the right of the state of Oregon to decide what is acceptable medical practice in Oregon. Similarly, your administration has disrespected laws allowing medical use of marijuana in several states. Wading into the Terry Schiavo case was truly shameful. Clearly such end of life decisions belong to families and state laws should govern who is an appropriate decision maker. The federal government clearly has no role in such cases. Fortunately you chose not to pursue it in your second term, but your proposal for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage is also a frontal assault on state sovereignty and states rights.
The intrusiveness of federal government under your administration does not stop with the trampling of states rights. Rights of individuals have also been threatened by illegal detentions, aggressive interrogation tactics, and illicit eavesdropping. I appreciate that stronger measures may be necessary in the post 9-11 world, and I am consoled by the fact that provisions of the USA PATRIOT act are subject periodic review and renewal by Congress. However, it is worth remembering that when similar anti-terrorism measures were proposed in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing by President Clinton, it was Republicans that defeated those measures with concerns that they threatened civil liberties. I miss the days when Republicans concerned themselves with keeping the federal government off the back of the people… Your administration’s expansive view of executive authority is frightening. In a recent appearance on Fox News Sunday, Vice President Cheney argued that the War Powers Act was unconstitutional, not because it strips Congress of its constitutionally defined role to declare war, but because it allows Congress to interfere (after 90 days) with the President’s execution of his role as Commander-in-Chief! I can understand, in the 21st century, why a War Powers Act is necessary to allow a President to act in a time-sensitive manner while Congress convenes, debates, and votes. But, make no mistake sir, under our Constitution it is Congress alone that has the authority to decide when and if the United States goes to war.
Your foreign policy has been no less leftist. In your second inaugural address, you set as a goal of U.S. foreign policy, the elimination of tyranny in our world. This is certainly a noble ideal, but not a suitable guiding principle for the foreign policy of any nation. Foreign policy must always be based on national interest. Aiding freedom fighters to prevent communist hegemony may have met that goal, but toppling all dictators in every corner of the globe does not. Your policies resemble the nation-building zeal of the Clinton administration (Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia), the, “make the world safe for democracy,” philosophy of President Wilson, and the human rights agenda of President Carter more than the, “humble foreign policy,” that you promised in your 2000 presidential campaign. I would agree that things have changed because of 9-11, but we knew before invading that Iraq had no role in 9-11. We also knew Saddam was not anywhere near the largest state sponsor of terrorism (Iran has been a much bigger sponsor of terrorists), his military had been cut down in size by Desert Storm, his country was under tough economic sanctions, a third of his country was under a no-fly zone, and Iraq had not threatened another country outside its own borders in over a decade. Even assuming the accuracy of intelligence reports of WMD (which I did at the time), it is clear from these facts that there was no justification for invading Iraq. Possession of WMD is not enough. That would be justification for invading dozens of countries (including the U.S.). Only intelligence of an imminent attack with those weapons could justify pre-emptive military action. As a Christian, I cannot believe you asked, “What would Jesus do?” and concluded that He would invade Iraq. The consequences have been staggering. Not only have lives, American and Iraqi, been needlessly lost, but this unnecessary, unjustifiable war has cost billions of dollars, alienated our allies and strengthened the hand of Iran, a country that actually does sponsor terrorists and has an active nuclear program. In this, too, your administration’s policies have been contrary to the principles of previous Republican administrations. Your father explained why military occupation of Iraq was a bad idea:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in, “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs…. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would have instantly collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable, “exit strategy,” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren – outcome.
George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft
A World Transformed, p.489 (1998)
Finally, I would like to say a few words about the financial crisis. The most basic conservative principle is the limitation of government’s influence in the market place. Conservatives believe that this not only encourages economic growth, but also establishes an important economic component of individual liberty. We all know that the financial crisis, while global, began with the collapse of a real estate bubble in the United States. What is often not discussed is that the real estate bubble was created by the type of government intervention in the market places that all conservatives should eschew. As you know, the Community Reinvestment Act indirectly encourages subprime lending by mandating home loans to low-income families. A revision of the act on your watch in 2005 made it easier for lenders to participate in the program by allowing smaller banks to participate solely as lenders, with less oversight. In addition, in 2004, your administration increased the affordable housing goals of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and allowed them to include securitized subprime loans toward their affordable housing goals. The goal was to increase home ownership and in your 2004 State of the Union address, you boasted about the success of these policies, noting that new home construction was the highest in twenty years and home ownership was at an all-time high in the U.S. But, these policies ignore the fundamental conservative principle that government intervention in the market place has unintended consequences. Add to these policies a Federal Reserve that kept interest rates artificially low and you have an artificial market that encourages exuberant lending. Furthermore, the Feds policies devalued the dollar, which raised the price of fuel and food, and made it more difficult for those with subprime mortgages to make their payments. Your administration’s manipulation of the marketplace for a public policy goal of affordable housing helped create this financial crisis. Such policies are anathema to conservatives who believe in free market principles. Your administration’s response to the crisis has been even more shocking. Bailouts of industries, government ownership of financial institutions, and a, “car czar,” to direct business decisions of the automakers that take government money. In short, the response to a crisis created by ignoring free market principles and has been socialism – government purchase and ownership of private industry. These policies can in no way be seen as anything other than leftist.
In summary, the policies of your administration have abandoned almost every conservative principle: free trade and laissez-faire economic policies, strict interpretation of and adherence to the Constitution, limited government intrusiveness and the protection of individual liberty and states’ rights, fiscal discipline, and non-interventionist foreign policy. Your administration has systematically undone and reversed the policies of previous Republican Presidents and Congresses. The result has been an unpopular war, disaffected conservative voters, the decimation our political party and policies that lay the groundwork for President-elect Obama to establish a new American socialism. This is not what we conservatives thought we were voting for in 2000.
Mr. President, it is not my goal to be disrespectful. I understand that you had to make difficult decisions in real time, and it is easy for me, or anyone else, to play, “Monday morning quarterback.” However, I felt compelled to explain to you why so many of us conservatives feel let down by your administration. On January 20, 2001, I stood in the cold, pouring rain, on the Mall in front of the Capitol while you took the oath of office. I was excited about your election and hopeful and optimistic about where you would lead this country. As I have watched your administration do nothing but expand the scope of federal government for eight years, I feel betrayed. I think you need to understand that a number of conservatives feel this way and I hope you will reflect on what I have said.
Let me close, Mr. President, by wishing you, Laura, the twins, your folks, and all of your family a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year. Regardless of our differences, I wish you the best and hope you enjoy some much deserved time off.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Decision 2008
I have made it a point not to discuss the Presidential race or endorse a candidate in my postings because I want this blog to be about issues and ideas and not about personalities. However, I would like to suspend that custom today and comment on the results of yesterday's historic U.S. Presidential election.
I must admit that I did not vote for Barack Obama yesterday. Other than his opposition to the war in Iraq, his views are antithetical to those presented in this blog. However, today I am proud of my country for electing him. Although he had a number if advantages - fund raising, George Bush's unpopularity, John McCain's link to an unpopular war and the simple truth that the party that holds the White House during an economic downturn always loses it - any of those could have been negated by racial prejudice, and they weren't. I may not agree that President-elect Obama's policies will be the best for our future, however 63 million Americans did and they didn't let Barack Obama's race dissuade them. That may seem like a small thing, but in a country that as recently as 150 years ago enslaved people of colour and as recently as 50 years ago had laws designed to deny them access to the voting booth, it is a big deal.
But more than that, Barack Obama is a bi-racial person, and on his father's side, a first generation American (the son of a Kenyan immigrant). His origins are humble, raised by a single parent and grandparents. From this improbable beginning, he will become President of the United States. His election is an affirmation that the American Dream is alive and well. He has demonstrated that we speak the truth when we tell our young people that in this great land, you can be anything you want to be and achieve anything you set your mind to achieve. Regardless of who your parents are or the colour of your skin, the United States of America is a land of opportunity for all.
I am sure that in the years to come I will be posting criticism of some of President Obama's policies. But today it is my sincere hope that his administration will be a successful one during which our nation enjoys peace and prosperity. It is my hope that his election will transform how the world views the U.S. by demonstrating to the world that we are not simply a nation of gun-slinging cowboys, but a nation of diverse peoples.
I did not support Senator Obama's candidacy, but his election reminds my of why I love this country.
I must admit that I did not vote for Barack Obama yesterday. Other than his opposition to the war in Iraq, his views are antithetical to those presented in this blog. However, today I am proud of my country for electing him. Although he had a number if advantages - fund raising, George Bush's unpopularity, John McCain's link to an unpopular war and the simple truth that the party that holds the White House during an economic downturn always loses it - any of those could have been negated by racial prejudice, and they weren't. I may not agree that President-elect Obama's policies will be the best for our future, however 63 million Americans did and they didn't let Barack Obama's race dissuade them. That may seem like a small thing, but in a country that as recently as 150 years ago enslaved people of colour and as recently as 50 years ago had laws designed to deny them access to the voting booth, it is a big deal.
But more than that, Barack Obama is a bi-racial person, and on his father's side, a first generation American (the son of a Kenyan immigrant). His origins are humble, raised by a single parent and grandparents. From this improbable beginning, he will become President of the United States. His election is an affirmation that the American Dream is alive and well. He has demonstrated that we speak the truth when we tell our young people that in this great land, you can be anything you want to be and achieve anything you set your mind to achieve. Regardless of who your parents are or the colour of your skin, the United States of America is a land of opportunity for all.
I am sure that in the years to come I will be posting criticism of some of President Obama's policies. But today it is my sincere hope that his administration will be a successful one during which our nation enjoys peace and prosperity. It is my hope that his election will transform how the world views the U.S. by demonstrating to the world that we are not simply a nation of gun-slinging cowboys, but a nation of diverse peoples.
I did not support Senator Obama's candidacy, but his election reminds my of why I love this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)