Hurricane Irene: Our New Stimulus?

In a perverse assessment of last weekend’s tragedy, some in the media now report 4th Quarter GDP could rise by a full percentage point as a result of clean-up and infrastructure rebuilding. We are told the markets rallied on the news. This knowledge should provide us comfort during a very difficult time for many. At least through the tragedy something positive will come out of it is the implication. The billions of dollars in property lost to Irene’s wrath are going to lead to a construction boom. Somebody should check in with Louisiana and Mississippi to see how much money Hurricane Katrina brought in.


It would appear many journalists, already desperate for a third stimulus, will now use this event to triumph new jobs and root for a much needed recovery in time for President Obama’s 2012 re-election. In a bizarre, twisted, measure of thinking, Irene’s torrents of rain along the East coast are somehow a precursor to economic revitalization. Taking this to its logical conclusion, minus the human suffering and loss of life which nobody wants, more future natural disasters could be our lifeline out of this economic stalemate. It would appear the bigger the disaster, the more rebuilding needed and higher our future growth prospects. This is modern-day Democratic thought.

The logic behind this fake stimulus comes straight from the heart of John Maynard Keynes. This man’s destructive economic model keeps rearing its ugly head. Keynesian economics is our government’s “demand creating” machine at work, and the modern day Democratic Party takes most of their economic agenda straight from his playbook. In short, Mr. Keynes believed an economy’s demand determined its long-term structural employment. It doesn’t matter where the demand comes from just so long as there are dollars chasing goods. If the private sector experiences decline, the government should artificially inflate things by priming the pump with as much spending as is necessary. Instead of letting the free market run its course through natural highs and lows, government is the spender of last resort even if it has no money to spend. Where Keynes and most Democrats part ways is the endgame after this artificial demand is created. Keynes advocated government paying off the newly created debt at its first opportunity to do so. Democrats just continue spending.

In a similar vein, many on the left sounded the call for increased unemployment benefits last year as another means of spurring growth. Apparently, more unemployment benefits beget higher GDP. Maybe the government should just print each household a check for $100,000 and demand us to spend it all? Can you imagine our economic vitality then?

We need to be about the business of making things again in this country. When we stop giving credence to the notion that spending equals GDP, we can begin a process of putting together effective policies to encourage making more things others in the world actually want to buy. Only then will we have real GDP without the scourge of runaway debt, and I fear shortly, rampant inflation. Capitalism does not champion government spending. Just as people can’t spend their way out of debt, governments cannot either. The Tea Party understands this. I wish President Obama and his friends did too.

Birth Control Nation

Free prescription birth control pills are coming to an insurance plan near you courtesy of our federal Department of Health and Human Services. HHS wants to force taxpayers to subsidize the entire cost of birth control along with controversial abortion drugs as a means of saving health care dollars. Apparently, the U.S. government believes it would be better off spending money on free pills than on free pregnancy services to mothers with little or no insurance. What’s next free crack pipes to drug addicts?

Assuming their math is correct, which I’m pretty positive it is not, I am appalled that personal responsibility is being tossed aside yet again at the altar of emotional arguments. Why do I have to take responsibility for my own actions while subsidizing the poor choices of other people? Then, if I balk at having even more of my hard-earned dollars taxed to pay for these services, I’m the bad, inconsiderate,and uncaring person while their poor behavior continues unabated.

If HHS wants to save on free pregnancy care they should be telling poor people not to make themselves even poorer by having sex with strangers. Or, they could be encouraging people indulging in illicit sex to run out to their local pharmacy and buy contraceptives with their own money. I realize abstinence outside of marriage is a concept all but lost on today’s youth, but this remains the best solution very few educators or legislators dare discuss. Heather Has Two Mommies is fine with the NEA but telling kids to keep their pants on is a radical and outdated notion.

Ours remains a somewhat free society so go ahead and indulge your cravings, but then please either deal with the consequences yourself or find some family, friends, or neighbors to chip in on the remedy. The government has no business picking our collective pockets to provide others with free contraceptives because they are unwilling to do so themselves.

As with so many legislative attempts to curb bad behavior, this one promotes more of the same. The answer to spiraling uninsured pregnancy costs lies not in encouraging more of the same damaging behavior, but in asking people to consider the potential consequences of their actions before moving ahead with them.

Outside of the moral argument, HHS also doesn’t understand simple supply and demand. If the government begins making prescription drugs available for nothing, you’ve instantly increased demand. Everybody will be out to get these freebies. How long will it be until birth control manufacturers are bilking the government ridiculous prices for these “free” pills because they can?  As with every item billed to federal coffers, taxpayers pay infinitely more than fair market value. And as with every other entitlement, costs will be exponentially higher than originally estimated leaving no actual savings but much more expense.

Let’s start telling the truth instead of putting band-aids over bad behavior. The sooner we get back to promoting individual freedom, personal responsibility, and local problem solving the better off our country will be.

The Left Loves RINOs, You Should Not

I’m tired of the media picking GOP candidates. Michele Bachmann is too radical. Rick Perry has a sharp tongue. Rick Santorum is anti-science. Newt Gingerich is too crotchety. Sarah Palin is too stupid. Herman Cain is too much like a preacher. Our field is too weak and our candidates are too narrow-minded.


We are told Democrats would love for any one of these wacky conservatives to win the nomination because it would be clear sailing for President Obama. Never mind the paradox that if these candidates really had such serious character flaws there would be no need to keep pointing them out to everyone since they couldn’t possibly win in the first place. Or could they?

This is where our liberal charade begins. A quest to develop whatever narrative is most likely to steer the public toward their particular candidate. In order to clear the field, liberals must lift up those GOP contenders most likely to keep their entitlement agenda intact. Call it a win-win for the Democratic Party. If the RINO (Republican-in-name-only) wins the presidency, much of the previously laid Democratic legislative agenda stays intact. If the Democrat wins, it continues unabated. Either way, liberal policies become so entrenched over time there is no way to undue them. The great trap is sprung.

Enter John Huntsman and Mitt Romney. They are the moderate, fair-minded republicans who will work with Democrats. They are the really intelligent candidates most likely to appeal to a broad cross-section of Americans. President Obama’s campaign staff is most afraid of his re-election chances should either of them win. Heard any of these straw man statements recently? Why is it, right now, these two men are the sane Republicans while the rest of the field is so out-of-touch? It is because Huntsman and Romney are the most liberal of the pack.

Romney was governor of a very liberal blue state and was elected by flip-flopping on a bunch of social and some economic issues. Huntsman is a big global warming advocate as shown by his favoring of cap and tax. He also threw his support to the terribly pork-laden stimulus plan, and has no problem forcing people to buy health insurance even if they don’t want it. These guys almost make Obama blush.

What unnerves me about this agenda is how affective it really is. Our media hands us defeat and we run with it. Palin, Bachmann, Gingerich, Santorum, and other conservatives are not the crazies NBC wants them to be. Palin knows high oil prices are brought down by increasing supply not building wind mills. Bachmann understands the key to illegal immigration is actually securing the border not perpetually leaving it open. Gingerich understands you increase government revenue by finding more taxpayers not beating up on the ones you already have. Santorum knows you cut back spending during difficult times instead of doubling down on it. These are some very bright individuals, and conservatives should not be disappointed they represent us.

Don’t let liberal media elites pick our candidates. Get behind your favorite conservative and talk up their common sense solutions in the arena of public ideas. Our crumbling republic desperately needs another Ronald Reagan. Remember he was an idiot too.

Social Issues. What Social Issues?

Where did social issues go? Much of the country’s conversation today centers around one all-encompassing subject: our economy’s precarious situation. Our news is about jobs, recessions, depressions, unemployment, GDP, and government spending. Little else seems to matter short of some tired liberal celebrity’s latest rant about the hateful Tea Party or what sac religious song Lady Gaga just released. When did issues of morality within the GOP take a backseat to Donald Trump's latest advice for fixing our economy?

Last time I checked, over a million babies a year were still being aborted in this country. Six states now legalize gay marriage. Recreational drug use is becoming more rampant. Divorce is now so common place we don’t even really give it a second thought. Women continue becoming more content to have the baby without the husband. Pornography on the internet slices up our relationships and makes sexual deviants out of more and more citizens. How many "To Catch a Predator" reruns does it take to crystalize the notion our young people are committing some pretty lewd acts?
I’m not blaming the Tea Party for keeping our national focus on the exponential spending occurring in Washington since 2008. In fact, I marched in Washington D.C. twice since November 2008 speaking out against destructive runaway spending. Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid’s economic notions are extremely dangerous, and I applaud the Tea Party for keeping the crisis in front of average Americans. Our media certainly won’t do it in an intellectually honest way. Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Printing money to spend when you don’t have any is a sure fire way to find insolvency. Americans need to understand the effects of this crippling spending spree.

Yet, I wonder if we conservatives are focused too much on spending while leaving the back door open to continued erosion of our collective moral conscious. How did America rise to prominence in the first place? Was it our robust adherence to capitalist principles or our allegiance to a power greater than any one human being? Was it lower marginal tax rates or loving and helping our neighbors as ourselves? Was it supply side economics or self-reliance and individual responsibility? Does economic policy drive our success or could a moral, virtuous, people be the foundation for ultimate wealth creation? It would appear we need both. One or the other is not enough. We need capitalism and we need morality.

Don’t misunderstand me. I love capitalism. I understand its power to lift up the greatest number of people out of poverty. I’m all for the free market, and supply and demand. I know that many a moral people can live in socialist economies and not experience freedom like we have. But capitalism with no morality ultimately equals destruction. A republic will not stand unless its citizenry understands their very liberties come from God.

Lasting success does not come without integrity. It does not come without honesty. It does not come without a desire to serve other people. Each of us should strive as individuals to live and lead with moral clarity. We need to be models of integrity. We need to do the right thing even when it could lead to personal hardship. Our fellow neighbors, friends, and co-workers will be moved to change only when they see authentic people living their lives in such a way as to honor their fellow man. This is the real hope and change so many of us are looking for.