Basic Economics

I finished listening to Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics today, and considering my last article was very short, I've decide to write a quick review on the book.

Also, for those TJ Maniacs, don't worry he'll be back this week after having some computer problems last week.

Sowell has taught Economics, "the study of scarce resources with different uses," at Cornell, Amherst and Cal-LA, currently he is a scholar in residence at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

I don't have my copy of the book here at school, so I can't do a thorough review, but here are some of the main points explored in the book:

• Prices are essential and price controls always cause shortages. Using hotel rooms as an example: after a hurricane hits many people leave their homes and try to find a hotel somewhere. If the hotel kept the normal low price a family of four or five may choose to rent two rooms, causing the supply of rooms to drop. However, if the price is raised sufficiently, the family will probably choose to use just one room, this allows some other family to use the other room.
• Centrally planned economies cannot succeed. Simply: a farmer knows a helluva lot more about what to plant on his farm than a bureaucrat 1,000 miles away ever can. More complicated: most resources have different uses, with prices they will be put to the use that is most needed, because the low supply will cause the price to rise, if the economy is centrally planned these resources are likely to be misused and there may well be shortages of food, while something like ethanol is in full supply.
• Speculators help, a lot. A commodity speculator effectively takes all risk off the farmer, by signing a contract agreeing to pay that farmer a set price for the commodity, regardless of the eventual real price. Because of this, the farmer takes no risk if the price soars, and the speculator, through a diversified portfolio of commodities, can also reduce his risk
• In international trade there are no 'winners,' or 'losers,' and a lot more jobs are gained then lost. For example, because it is 'free' trade, there can be, by definition, no loser (both parties agree on terms, so both win). Because of this even if some jobs are lost many more jobs are created by the excess of profits.
  

Sowell goes over these points (in much better detail) and many others in the book. It is written very well, and is never hard to understand, thankfully, considering the nature of the book. It is also written with many references and real-world and business examples, that add to the enjoyment of the book while verifying its contents.

Are We Living in 1776?

I was reading over the Declaration of Independence, and decided to compare the King of England in 1776 to our current government, to see how the colonists may have acted.

The DOI contained a list of the grievances against the king; they will be compared to the current state.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

President Bush, has signed bills while writing in the caption that he would just take in ‘advisement’ the bill he had signed, and may not enforce it.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

The House was going to vote on whether or not more oil could be drilled, and Nancy Pelosi adjourned congress and turned the lights off.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Try reading through the IRS tax code, and you’ll see how the government harasses people and, “eats out their substance.”

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

Who has more rights a civilian or a Police Officer; regardless of the situation?

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws

The vast majority of the different parts and departments of government today are unconstitutional.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world

Not all parts, but there are rules for trading with Cuba and there are sanctions on other countries.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

I am under the impression that it says in the constitution that the government cannot tax the income of the people. If the legislature can just vote this rule away, what will protect any and all of our other rights?

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury

Please see: prisoners residing in Guantanamo Bay.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

The constitution was intended to limit government and give most of the power to the states and to the people, but over and over again the Federal government has taken control over the states.

All of these grievances were written 232 years ago, but some of them, as shown above ring true today.

Is it time for a Revolution?

Garad's Response

A few weeks ago we wrote an article to 'Garad,' who in reality works with TJ's Father.

Garad has replied, you can find that article here

Now I (Roark this time) will respond to that article.

OK, I'll respond here, your comments are in italics, and my answer follow them.

I thought it was decided by the delegates and super delegates. Who are these people anyway?

In the primaries the person who ends up running for the two main parties. In the general election each state has a number of electoral votes, which is equal to the amount of representatives plus senators.

It seems to me that tons of lies and deception from the right are flooding the airways trying to create a trail that suggest that there are some truth to it.

The lies that you have heard are all related to Sarah Palin. There is enough true stuff on Obama that nothing needs to be made up.

He did go to a Muslim school.
He did become friends with a convicted felon who funded his campaigns.
He did go to Church for 20 years and listen to racists America hating.
Just about everything you here about Obama is true.

Obama is a class act and has consistantly taken the high road like no other candidate that I have ever seen.

Did he take the high road when he forced the other candidates off the ballot in Illinois?
Did he take the high road when he refused to go to a military hospital?
Did he take the high road when he voted for infanticide?
Is he taking the high road knowingly lying to Americans about Economics?

I think if he were white, there would be a 20% lead over McCain, I really hate to say that because I am in no way a racist.

I disagree I think if he were white McCain would be up by at least 15 points. Why else would so many people want to vote for someone with absolutely no experience, and preaching the exact same socialist crap that Lyndon Johnson put in, which didn't work, 45 years ago, then calling it change?

People are attacking him and his charater because they have driven the country into the toilet and have nothing to say when it comes to what matters, the issues facing this country.

I haven't heard a lot of people attacking him, but then I don't listen to talk radio often. The media is madly in love with Obama, he's been on the cover of Times like 7 times in the past year. Listen to what the people who are attacking him are saying; they're probably correct.

The economy, huge deficit, Iraq, and where is the alquida?

Obama is in no way any answer for the economy, his socialistic theories have never worked anywhere, and can never work.

His whole basis is taxing more people, tell me how do you help the economy by taking money away form it? How can you call yourself moral if you want to take money from one class of people, by force, to give to another?

What about a woman's right to choose, human rights

I find it ironic that you put human rights in the same sentence as the horrific procedure that has stolen the rights of 40 million unborn children.

Tell me: why should a woman have a right to 'choose' whether or not her child lives? Should woman be able just say I can't take it and put her three year-old son to death? Where's the difference?

If any one has traveled internationally lately look at how we are percieved and a global basis.

I actually agree with this, but Obama is certainly not the answer. We need a president who is ready to follow the constitution, and remove our troops from every base not in the US.

We would hate any country who put a military base on our land against our will.

Bush has basically bankrupted our country.

Bush is only partly responsible for this, Clinton, the Fed and congress must also hold the blame.

The Fed needs to stop printing money and the congress needs to stop putting through unconstitutional bills that steal the money of the people.

Personally O don't care about her personal life but I think it is interesting that she fought to stop sex education in the schools in favor of teaching creationism.

I don't understand this sex education says wear a condom and creationism says God created man.

If you mean evolution, I believe they should both be taught, why would you not teach student s a possibility? It does not need to be endorsed.

Family values? Kind of hard to raise a family with her career.

I don't agree with this, she could stay in Alaska while governor and the Vice President doesn't really do anything except break a tie in the senate.

Experience? Virtually none. She just got her first passport to leave the country.

Regardless, of the fact that she has only been in office for two years, Obama has no executive experience and his federal experience consists of 3.5 years in the Senate, two of these were spent campaigning. As for Foreign Policy experience, who really has foreign policy experience before being president other than Secretaries of State? It isn't Biden and it sure as hell is not Obama.

Our country is in need of a major change!!!

This is probably true, but the change we need should come in the form of less government, not in the form of Big Brother.

Things that should be Obvious Part II

Part 1

Corporations don’t Pay Taxes

This is pretty rampant, but also pretty easy to understand. A corporation is not a living being, it is a collection of people: employees, owners (shareholders) and customers. When the government taxes a ‘corporation’ it taxes these three through lower wages, less income and or higher prices.

The Government shouldn’t be able to do anything Citizens cannot do

According to the Declaration of Independence the government derives its, “…powers from the consent of the governed.” Even a quick glance at the constitution will show that is was written to constrict the powers of the government. With this in mind how does one explain why the government has more rights than the citizens of its country?

Welfare is Immoral

Considering that government cannot do anything a citizen can do, how do you explain taking money away, by force, from the people who earned it to give it to other people, the other people decided by a third party?

Most of the Congress should be tried for Perjury

The Oath of Office for the Senate is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

So for example anyone who voted to give the President the power to declare war, which is unconstitutional, should be tried for perjuring himself while saying the oath of office.

The War on Drugs is worthless

Does anyone really believe that government regulations stop people from buying and doing drugs?
Why then is a black market created where gangs get huge profit margins and start gang wars over territory? Not to mention a lot of drugs are not pure, which makes them more dangerous.

The Vice President does not matter

The Vice President’s job is basically to break a tie in the Senate and take over if the President dies.

Thus, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden are (should) not (be) meaningful to either campaign.

It wouldn’t be that bad, tax-revenue-wise, if the income tax was repealed

This was taken from Congressman Paul’s book; if the amount of tax revenue from income (40%) were taken away the size of the government would be the same it was in 1997.

I’m not sure which is worse: people believe this would end the world, or that the government has grown 66% since 1997.

Concerning Abortion, rape and incest shouldn’t matter

The main argument for being against abortion is that it is murder. Why then should it matter if the baby is the result of incest or rape? Should orphans be put to death? Children whose father is sent to jail?

Basic Economics is a more vital class than 11 and 12th grade English and Computer Technology, and most other High School Classes

In 11th and 12th grade English I can honestly say I did not learn anything that I will use later in my life. I started an excel class in college this year, and we did 75% of my high school computer tech class in an hour and a half.

Basic Economics, on the other hand, is a subject where the majority of US adults are extremely deficient in the most elementary aspects of Economics; this subject could immensely help America.

There is not a reason for Religion and Creationism classes not to be taught in public schools

I understand there should be a separation of Church and state, but one can teach a subject without necessarily endorsing it.

Roark is the Pseudonym of a College Student living in Slat Lake City, Utah. This blog is the result of his daily struggle, dealing with ignorant students, some who refuse to drink bottled water. For more on his visit our about page.

Things that Should be Obvious

I’ve been at college for a few days now, and though I have abstained from getting into any political debates, I’ve heard a lot of nonsense, thus far. Here I will attempt to bring common sense, reason or logic (whatever you want to call it) into issues, currently lacking them in the mind of the average American.

Oil Prices aren’t a result of Speculators

This is one I find the strangest, because it's hard to believe that if Speculators could drive up the price of a commodity, one as huge as oil wouldn’t be a problem, and after they chose one with a small volume of trades, Special Interest agricultural groups would have forced legislation through putting regulations on commodity trading.

For those not familiar, ‘Speculators’ trade contracts, where they say in the future I’ll be willing to pay you X for Y, for this privilege I’ll pay you a premium of a percent of X. Basically, they cannot have an effect on oil, because they trade derivatives of its price.

Or Oil Companies

I covered this in an article already. Here’s the gist of it: there is competition in the gas industry, so there’s no way a can be up the prices just to increase their margin.

If you walked into a super store to buy shoes and they were all basically the same, but one pair was $50 while the rest were $25 the company selling the $50 shoes would go out of business pretty quickly, unless it dropped the prices. Similarly, if the shoes were all sold for $50 a new shoe company could come into the market (and would to get the profits) and undercut the rest of the industry selling his shoes for $25 a pair, this would cause the rest of the companies to drop prices.

Minimum Wage Increases Unemployment

If the government decides to raise the price each worker gets paid, employers won’t be able to hire people who could do jobs that would be worth less than this wage.

It’s easy to understand.

Taxes Always Hurt the Economy

When you tax something you’re taking it away. This means, everything it could have been used for, buying food, buying a car, investing in a company, cannot be done. Also, because of compound interest, the economy as a whole is very worse off because this money was taxed away.

Taxation is Theft

How would you answer this question: What is income tax? Here’s how I would: The government forcibly takes your money. You may not think there’s any force involved because it is just withheld from your paycheck, but try not paying your taxes and you will see force pretty quickly.

With that established how would you answer: What gives the government have the right to steal from people who live within its borders? Your answer may be: because we’re a Democracy and we voted to give it that right, but then you would be incorrect.

The US was not intended to be a Democracy and the Founding Fathers mocked this form of government. It states explicitly in the constitution that the state cannot tax the income of the people. Unfortunately about 90 years ago a new amendment was voted in to allow this theft.

‘The Poor’ is not a class

Regardless of how politicians will pander it is important to know that the poor of this country are not a class, but are actually, for the most part, an age group.

According to Thomas Sowell’s great work, Basic Economics, the income and wealth differences of this country are very biased based on age. This makes a lot of sense, when you’re young you don’t make very much money, but as you gain experience and move up you make more money, and by saving establish more wealth.

The Rich are Taxed Enough

I will never get over this. There is no logical basis for taxing the rich more than others. This is literally the equivalent to making the basketball team who is winning at halftime put weights in their shoes – it is punishment for success.

There is Military Occupation Blowback

If the US goes into the Middle East and bombs countries occupies Muslim Holy Lands and kills 500,000 women and children, the Muslims will be pissed, and the bin Ladens of the world will take advantage of this to convince the ready to go to war.

This does not, however, justify more occupation and fighting in the Middle East, the opposite actually seems more suitable.

The current situation in Iraq is a form of Socialism

Let’s look at this logically: Americans are forcibly taxed so their income can be redistributed to the Defense (yes, it is DE-fense) and companies in Iraq that are making it a ‘democracy.’

So basically the money is taken from those with the ability to earn it to give to those who need it.

I believe Karl Marx said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

It is a contradiction to be, “Personally against Abortion,” but ‘Pro-Choice’

Other than the fact that a life is being taken, I don’t see a reason for being against abortion, considering this, there should no choice for a woman on whether or not she can take a human life, murder is illegal.

It is also a contradiction to be Catholic and Pro-Choice

Nanci Pelosi seems to believe there has been controversy in the Catholic Church on when life begins; this is probably why her book sold less than 3,000 copies in the first two weeks.

As a Catholic I’ve never met another Catholic who is Pro-Choice. However to put to rest any of this non-sense, it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that life should be protected from conception, and it says in the Bible that it would be better for a man spill his seed into a prostitute than on to the ground.

Government Regulations are not really ever good

Let’s look at a few things that are regulated: marijuana, alcohol to those under 21, the speed of a car, the quality of roads, the quality, speed and locations in relation to first-class mail, airports.

Here are all of those regulations that have improved the situation: .

Therefore it does not make sense to be moderate on economic issues

Either one thinks government needs to ‘help,’ or that it will make things worse, there is no issue where one can use his philosophy to change his opinion.

In Defense of the Oil Companies

After watching an incredibly biased interview of Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, being interviewed by ABC’s Charles Gibson (the video can be found here and transcript here) I decided to write the first energy-policy related article on Agents of Liberty.

Three big points, infinitely touted by the biased media, need to be countered.

‘Obscene’ Profits

First, to kill the ridiculous notion of obscene profits. ExxonMobil had ~$138 billion in revenue last quarter, and ~11.7 billion in net income. This net income number may seem huge, but it is just 11.8% of Exxon’s profits, by comparison Google’s profits are 23% of its Revenue, Microsoft’s are 27%, in fact a Google Stock screen turns up over 1,300 companies with net margins of at least 12.2%.

Exxon has huge profits, but this is from huge volume, not from price gouging, in fact if Exxon was stupid enough to price gouge it would probably immediately lose business to other gas companies who are willing to sell their product at an 11% margin.

Exploration vs. Buybacks

The following exchange was the most revealing of the interview:

CHARLES GIBSON: When profits are so high, why is spending on exploration so low?

REX TILLERSON: Well, we're spending at record levels. Through the first half of this year, we have spent $12.5 billion. That's a record level of capital and exploration expenditures for us. We expect we will spend about $25 billion this year. And we have forecast over the next five years that we will invest $125 billion in capital and exploration expenditures. And to give you some perspective on that, that's a little more than half of what all 13 OPEC nations are going to invest as they've announced. So we are investing at record levels and expect that we will continue to be doing that in the years ahead.

CHARLES GIBSON: You're spending more money buying back stock than you are on exploration.

REX TILLERSON: Well, that's a cash flow question, Charlie, in terms of how should we manage our cash flow. And that's important for our shareholders, obviously. It's important for our future health as well.

The first thing we do is invest in all the projects that we have available to us and that make sense to invest in. And the second thing we do is pay all our taxes, pay all our operating costs, all of our employees and all the people that do business with us. And then we see what's left over. And what's left over we try to return efficiently to the shareholder, because it's their money. So we do that through dividends, and we do it through share buybacks. Our shareholders then take all that money, and they're doing something with it elsewhere in the economy.

Tillerson effectively dismantled Gibson’s heinous argument that the buybacks should be lower than exploration, but as Gibson mentioned many more times that Exxon buys back a lot of stock, the arguments needs to be clarified.

ExxonMobil is a business; therefore it is run to produce a profit. Gibson mentions that they: Invest in projects, pay taxes, pay operating costs pay labor then return the rest to shareholders.
This is pretty easy they pay what they need to continue running the business then return the rest to shareholders, who own the business.

Gibson either doesn’t understand this or is too ignorant to care, as he digs himself into a hole by trying to tell an experienced CEO what he should be doing with his business. Let’s return to the business definition: it’s run to make a profit, by that definition everything in which Exxon invests must be capable of producing a profit for the shareholders in the future.

Gibson is of a different opinion and for some illogical reason thinks Exxon should invest billions of dollars in unprofitable investments (something I believe he has absolutely no knowledge of) instead of returning the money to the shareholders, who, through their positions, have the right to it.

Windfall Profit Tax

Later, in the interview Gibson talks about windfall profits taxing and Obama’s plan to tax the ‘windfall profits’ of oil companies $65 billion over the next five years. Again, Tillerson has a simple response that Gibson seems incapable of comprehending, “What would that accomplish.”

This is something Obama has not addressed. Senator Obama: we understand you think taxing is the answer to everything, and that you understand that when uneducated people see Exxon’s large profit dollars they are angered. However what exactly would this accomplish?

In a world where too much government has caused the price of oil to soar, how is more government the answer?

Also, the price of all food related to corn has soared almost the same amount as oil over the past few years. Yet corn farmers are getting subsidies from the government, to produce corn to make ethanol, a fuel that just about every scientist believes has no reasonable use, and would be more expensive than gasoline.

Where’s the difference? Why should the shareholder’s of the oil companies have their money stolen three times: To subsidize the farmers, to pay higher food prices and to kill their dividends?

The Real Problem

The real problem is unrelated to any oil companies, but good luck finding that on any news channels.

There are two big reasons for the high oil prices, the dollar and supply and demand.
The supply and demand issue is not very revolutionary, the demand for oil went up, but the supply did not, as a result the price went up. This is basic economics.

One way to increase the supply of oil is to open up off-shore drilling and ANWR, regardless of how long this would take to produce oil, I fail to see what gives the government the right to forbid drilling.

The dollar issue, however, is more complicated. The US dollar is not backed by any commodity and is currently being printed willy-nilly by the Fed. Whenever more of a currency is printed inflation goes up (this is because if you have more of something it loses its value, if everyone had $150 million, it would not be a big deal to have $150 million).

So inflation is going up, the value of the dollar is falling, and all the oil in the world, with the exception of that under the control of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is traded in dollars, as a result the price of oil is up.

This may seem negative as there is nothing the government can do to help (as if there has ever been anything where the government helped), but true Capitalism was shown in June as the demand for oil fell the most in ~30 years, this affected the price of oil and it fell from over$140 per gallon to below $115.

This whole situation reminds me of a conversation between Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny was remembering how she was taught in school that eventually the sun would burn itself out and the world would end. Rearden replied that he had always thought that by the time any of this had happened man would invent a solution.

Maybe the government should stand aside and let man invent a solution.

Roark will be a college student majoring in Economics in less than one week, until then he will make do with the many books by genius authors he has collected. For more on Roark, please visit out about page.

Two Must-Reads

I finished Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion last week, and read How Capitalism Saved America last month; here I’ll review these books.

Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion

This book was written by Michael Cloud a motivational speaker and speech writer who ran for the senate seat against John Kerry in 2006 and managed to garner 20% of the vote. He writes a column for the liberator online and made some tapes on political persuasion in the late 80’s.

He’s says he reads 100 books per year, since he slowed down, and its proved with his many book recommendations in the book, he uses this knowledge to effectively show how to increase your chances of converting people to libertarianism.

Some things he recommends:

• Pick people who are likely to listen to you. If you pick die hard liberals or religious conservatives it’s unlikely you can convert them, instead pick an independent or someone who you know well.

• Don’t get in people’s face, no one’s likes this and it usually hurts your chances.

• Use comparative arguments: if you can’t convince someone that drugs should be legalized have them tell you why they think guns should be and use their own arguments with drugs, etc.

• Talk the same way, he knows salesmen who have tripled their commissions by simply using the same volume, speed and pitch of the person to whom their talking.

• Finally, a lot of debates about libertarianism end with, “…but there’s no way that would ever be able to happen!” Cloud recommends two things for this: What if and the magic button. He recommends you say, but what if it could happen or what if you had a magic button that could make it happen? When people are forced to agree with you under these terms they break-down and tend to agree with libertarianism.

These (explained much better) and more are available in the book, plus when you buy it from the above link you support The Advocates which has been spreading the word for thirty years.

How Capitalism Saved America

The author, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, is a columnist for LewRockwell.com and his written a few books before, including two arguing that Lincoln was one of our worst presidents and an upcoming book arguing Alexander Hamilton was bad (Amazon link). This books was actually endorsed by Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and, Larry Kudlow.

DiLorenzo goes over many time periods I American history and shows how Capitalism helped America or the opposite (either Mercantilism, Socialism or New Dealers, all are the same pretty much) hurt America, some things he goes over are:

• When the Pilgrims came they all worked for the collective and they were starving, Sir Thomas Dale came over and started private property where each colonist had to work for his own food and the colonists were prosperous almost immediately.

• The Americans who started the Revolution were for liberty (or capitalism as we would call it today) and were against the mercantilism run by England’s parliament (which is pretty much the same as socialism).

• ‘Robber Barons’ in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were supposedly greedy, but they actually created jobs for millions of Americans and drove the prices of every day goods down.

• Anti-Trust laws are always bad, and there has literally never been a case where anti-trust helped ordinary citizens and wasn’t pushed through by the competition or special interest groups.

• It is common knowledge that Herbert Hoover’s Laissez Faire economic policies caused the Great Depression. However, it is a fact that Hoover’s response to a recession with more government caused the depression, and Franklin Roosevelt’s socialist policies kept the unemployment rate high and the economy in the dumps for twenty years.

In addition to the above DiLorenzo explains Capitalism, explores the never-ending war on it and shows hoe price controls caused the 70’s energy crisis. The book is a great addition to any bookshelf, in history and economics, but be aware that DiLorenzo tends to write with anger and sarcasm at some points, which made me weary after reading more than 3-4 chapters in a row.

I finished The Fountainhead last week, so that review is coming up next, please visit our Book Store,/a> for more book, music and movie recommendations.

Roark is a soon to be college student who has gotten by this summer by reading books as much as possible.

Bob Barr for President?!

The following article is collaboration from Roark and Madison. We wanted to explore the positives and negatives about voting for the Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr. Roark wrote the ‘pro’s’, while Madison wrote the ‘cons’. Is Bob Barr a wasted vote, or a good message to send?

Pro

Bob Barr will not win the presidency. There I said it, let's move on.

Now, for this vote-wasting nonsense.

Ron Paul's run for the Republican candidacy has pushed liberty into the mind of the nation, regardless of the fact that it was too stupid to nominate him.

With liberty on the minds of Americans the two most important issues in the coming election seem to be the Economy and Foreign Policy (basically the Iraq 'war').

Since neither McCain nor Obama have correct positions on either of these, many people have complained about the upcoming 'clothespin election.'

Six percent of the nation, however, has chosen to go with the Libertarian party.

Up until now the most votes ever won by a Libertarian candidate is 473,000, by Edward Clark in 1996.

The Barr/Root campaign has almost quadrupled that with 18 million. If they can get that up to 10% in three national polls Barr will have to be included in the national debates.

Watching Barr tear apart Obama's socialist economic policies and McCain's ignorant foreign policy has the potential to be the best thing on TV this fall.

Paul's internet campaign has shown Americans the prospect of a society free from big government. If Barr can attain 10% of the polls and show America what it's missing with these two clowns, there is the potential for the Libertarian party to start to make huge waves.

I doubt a Libertarian Party candidate will win the presidency anytime within the next century, but the more popular the philosophy becomes the more likely Libertarians are to win local and state elections.

Eventually, congressman whose main concern is that of liberty will get elected and each year there will be a libertarian Republican in the primary.

For this to happen freedom-loving Americans must vote for Bob Barr. I am aware of two conflicts with this sentiment, they are:

· Bob Barr isn't exactly the ideal candidate, he's got some negatives

· If people vote for Barr they are theoretically taking away votes from McCain, which will elect the socialist Barack Obama

Here's my take on these two:

· I am aware of the negatives, which are covered in full below, Barr is supposedly behind Hillary's Vast Right-Wing conspiracy and even wrote a book, The Meaning of Is, about Clinton and why he should have been impeached. Finally, looking at the issues Barr shares the same position with most Libertarians on just about everything. Finally, there's no way he's getting elected so I think voters would be better off showing they won't vote for a fool like McCain than worrying about the Global Warming position that McCain shares.

· As for Obama I believe there are a legitimate amount of voters who will vote for him on the fact he is anti-war, alone. Those voters going Libertarian could have the same impact on him as the Free-Marketers would have on McCain. And if he gets elected it would not be the end of the world. It took Jimmy Carter to get Reagan elected and with congress acting as incompetently as it is I don't see him passing anything more extreme than what (Bill) Clinton got in.

Con

For my web partner and me, consideration for Libertarian candidate for president says more about the Republican nominee than the Libertarian nominee. Every four years a lot of liberty-minded Republicans go through three possibilities on what to do on the first Tuesday of November:

1. Stay home and not vote. I’ve never done this. There’s more on the ballot then the Presidential race.

2. Hold your nose and vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’. This, unfortunately everybody’s done more times then they like to admit.

3. Vote for a third-party candidate. This one I’ve done. It was 1996, and no one could possibly convince me to vote for Bob Dole.

The Republican nominee 2008 is John McCain. Another ‘Big Government Conservative’ that makes a lot of limited-government Republicans squeamish. However, as far away from limited government as McCain is, he’s still closer then the alternative, Barack Obama.

So why waste a vote for Libertarian Bob Barr?

He can’t win. The Libertarian candidate has historically had trouble garnering 1% of the national vote. So why waste your vote when the candidate has no chance of winning. And with close national elections in 2000 and 2004, it’s imperative we get the ‘lesser of two evils’ in the White House.

Next, there’s Bob Barr himself. If I’m going to waste a vote on a third party candidate, at least make it someone who I can actually trust. After meeting with Environmental Fascist Al Gore, Barr now apparently believes in man-made ‘Global Warming’. Not more then two months ago, in an interview with Glenn Beck, Barr confidently said, “Global Warming is a myth!”

Now Al Gore doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy that would be able to persuade a Libertarian in one meeting. So this can only mean Barr is pandering for votes. And if there’s one thing I know about Libertarians: it’s that they are very ideological and rarely pander, if ever.

Another reason not to vote for Barr: He’s a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Now I know that in itself is not unusual for a Libertarian. However, the ACLU is against an individual’s right to own a gun. This is a God given right, according to the Constitution.

The ACLU is also notoriously bigoted against any Christians and religion in the public square. I wonder what they would say about Thomas Jefferson attending church service in the Capitol building as President! I’m sure they conveniently forgot this, since they want a Godless-Socialist society.

So, answer me this, Bob Barr: From the year 1800 till now, we’ve gone from, a President attending church services in the Capitol building, to Washington lawyers harassing towns like Spooner, Wisconsin and Coon Rapids, Minnesota about a Nativity scene or a Christmas tree!

Does it sound like the ACLU took the phrase, separation of church and state a little bit out of context?

I guess I’d like to know what Bob Barr what thinks of that.

Conclusion

For now we are both abstaining from declaring for whom we will vote in November. If McCain really shows how he will decrease the size of government and Obama continues his insanity we may vote for McCain. On the other hand if Barr manages to stay up in the polls and looks like he can really make a difference in American's standpoint on Liberty then we may vote for him, until then please visit the Home Page of our site and tell us if you are voting for Bob Barr.

Minimum Wage Nonsense

On Thursday the minimum wage increased 70 cents, to $6.55 per hour. Many liberals feel this will have a positive impact on the economy (one commenter on the New York Times site thinks the wage low needs to be tripled to force the economy to turn-around).

It will definitely have an impact, though there is very little chance it will be anything positive. Like most liberal sentiments minimum wage knowledge is clouded by ignorance, here I will go through the facts and common sense on them.

To tear apart the myth of minimum wage I could quote economic studies showing it increases the unemployment rate, or reference the 90% of economists who believe it is harmful to workers, but none of this is necessary, because I can easily explain the negatives with common sense.

I used to work at KFC, so I'll use my story as an example.

I moved to Utah when I was 15, before I moved I worked for a movie theatre for five months (where coincidentally I was never paid minimum wage and received two raises based on performance before leaving).

After arriving to Utah I was unable to get a job because of strict labor laws (which are for a different day), but I applied in the month of my birthday and interviewed a few weeks before to allow my first day of work to be the day I turned 18.

I was hired for $5.50 per hour, already more than the minimum wage based on my five months of experience at an only partly-related job.

Within six months I was up to $6.70 and was on the verge of beginning management classes.

In total I worked there for a year and a half, in that time I learned how to do all positions (cook, register, pack food, shift supervisor), took two courses on management and as a result ended up with an $8.50 per hour wage before leaving to focus on school in the fourth term of my senior year.

I achieved this through hard work, the simple virtue which most liberals despise.

I was literally never late for work; I took only one sick day when it could not be avoided because I worked in a restaurant; I was never disrespectful to a person in a position of authority (or any others for that matter); I took every opportunity to further my knowledge of my work and move-up; and regardless of the situation I always worked hard and never asked for a break or sat-down.

I view the ability I had to achieve this when I was 16-17 years-old as proof that any semi-competent worker who cannot earn minimum wage is a loser, and save for any medical problems, has no excuses.

For those who disagree, there was a woman who worked at KFC at the same time I did.

She had three kids with her boyfriend who was addicted to drugs. She usually showed up 15 minutes late for work, smelling like smoke and complained her whole shift, begging for a break.

Though she was an obviously bad employee she still made $8 per hour simply because people who could work during the day were in demand. This is called Capitalism and is the result of the Free Market.

I believe I have sufficiently proved minimum wage is unnecessary, now let's go through some logic to prove it hurts the economy.

• 1. It is common sense every business is run to make a profit, if it didn't it would no longer be a going concern.

  2. 2. So, employers can only pay employees the value of their work, if they paid more they would be unprofitable and go out of business.

  3. 3. Since employers can logically only pay the value of the employees work, the minimum wage causes them to lay-off employees whose work is worth less then minimum wage, usually those who just started working.

  4. 4. As employers nationwide lay-off employees who they can't afford to pay the unemployment rate goes up (the employees who make themselves worth more to the employer are usually kept).

1.

If there were no minimum wage, employers would have the ability to hire people for below the minimum wage, and allow them to prove themselves to earn a higher wage (The vast majority of people who earn the minimum wage get a raise within a year and 40% get one within four months). As the employee made himself valuable to the employer he would either be forced to pay the employee more, or watch him go elsewhere to make more. Either way the employee ends up with a relatively good wage, without the government's help.

Finally, it's necessary to show that upping the minimum wage does not turbo-charge the economy.

The liberal argument is that when employees make more they will have more money, which will allow them to spend more helping the economy (this sounds very similar to trickle-down economics, but not related to tax cuts).

It's true that people who make minimum wage (or something tied to it which many union workers make) will be able to spend more. But, that money has to come from somewhere.

Businesses can't just print new cash (though the fed seems to be unable to learn this simple fact), so to pay some workers more they will have to lay-off others and raise the prices of the things they sell.

Let's look at a simple pencil, if the minimum wage goes up the company that cuts down the trees will have to cut workers and raise the price of the wood, as will the:

• Company that mines the graphite for the 'lead'
• Mines the metal to put on the eraser
• Makes the eraser
• Puts it all together and makes the pencil
• And sells it at the retail level

Even this is an overly simplified example, there are many more possibilities, but the end result is the same: the prices will rise!

Now to use a little more logic, if a lot of people lose their jobs and the prices of goods rise, the economy will go down!

Wow! Revolutionary.

Roark is the pseudonym of an 18 year-old writer based in Utah. He remains surprised at the ignorance of most politicians, related to many other areas than Minimum Wage. For more on him visit our About Page.

For more on kinimum wage see: Somebody's Gotta Say It by Neal Boortz and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage: How the Minimum Wage Law Destroys Jobs, Perpetuates Poverty, and Erodes Freedom by Jim Cox

Glo-Bull Warming

My position on Global Warming is that it is a hoax, but either way I don't believe Congress has any business talking about it.

It says in the Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

You can do a quick search if you want, but there's nothing in there about funding for Global Warming research, any preventive actions or other regulations.

One can argue (forgive the cliché) until he's blue in the face that we are currently experiencing Global Warming caused by human interference, but that does not change the fact that the government, which by the way is supposed to 'Derive its rights from the people,' has no business with it.

Let's ignore this as lefties usually do (come on it's a living document), what can we expect from the government if it tries to decide for people how they should react to Global Warming:

· The first thing that will likely happen is government funding for research, and other combative crap. A number I've heard tossed around is $30 trillion. The impossibilities of this number are so vast it feels silly to write about. Not to mention the corruption that is to be expected with any government activity, we would have to worry about where the government is going to get this money. The GDP in 2007 was $13 trillion; the proposed cost is more than twice that. This means that it would take more than two years to get this money if they taxed 100% of all American's paychecks. Probably longer than that unless we forget about all other current government programs. That's not even the worst of it, all this money that is taxed has to be taken from something, the economy is a zero-sum game: every dollar taxed has an opportunity cost. If they decide to just print a bunch more cash, than the inflation will go up to Jimmy Carter levels.

· Emissions tests is another thing that probably doesn't work. The US can't control the emissions of any other country, so any effect is likely to be negligible (I don't have any facts on this, it's just an assumption). Also, what about the people who can't afford a car that's up to the standards, they will probably lose their job, which will up the unemployment rate, and the welfare, which could add another few hundred billion to opportunity costs in the economy.

For those who think Global Warming will end the world, here's my suggestion: Let the Free Market take care of it.

Many companies are already pushing 'green' products; as a result many producers have to adapt their items. This is evident in the Wal-Mart situation, where some companies have to sacrifice margins to be able to sell to Wal-Mart. This is not because of any government regulations, but because entrepreneurs think that consumers are scared of global warming so they change their product to benefit society.

Wow! Revolutionary.

Al Gore has convinced millions of people, that global warming will kill them and all the Polar Bears, without government help, and the movie A Day After Tomorrow grossed $187 million in the US and $543 million worldwide (an almost 70% margin by the way), without any government help.

Meanwhile, congress has had endless conversations about it, on their exorbitant one-day-a-week salaries, and nothing has come of it, which is quite possibly the best outcome.

It's a good thing they never took action against global cooling, or we'd really be in trouble.

Roark is a soon-to-be Utah College student who is peeved that Global Warming kept snow on the ground and the temperatures below 50 until May.

For more info on Global Warming read these books: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) and An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems

The Audacity of Ignorance

"What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair." – Barack Obama on Tax Reform

This statement is wrong in so many levels its maddening, let's go over it piece by piece.

"What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness...

Maybe, I haven't been drinking the kool-aid, but I fail to see how raising taxes on anything can possibly be construed as fair, but let's see…

"The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals…
I think the correct term here would be: earned, the top 50 hedge fund managers earned $29 billion last year....

They earned this $29 billion by managing, probably, trillions of dollars after going through many years of college, where they probably paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Perhaps, I'm just too much of a capitalist, but maybe the reason these people went through all the years of college and are willing to take the stress of managing this vast sum of money is to obtain the possibility to earn this amount, but that would involve common sense.

"Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries….

Again with the clever term usage, Senator Obama; many of these hedge fund managers, who 'work' the stock market, wake before 5 a.m. (Jim Cramer wrote about never sleeping more than 3 hours, and I talked to a manager who spoke of drinking excess amounts of water, right before bed, so he would be forced to wake-up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, before checking the foreign markets). Their dedication to their job is immense, many putting in 16 hour days to keep up with the mass amount of money they are managing (oh, and for those who think these hedge fund managers don't need to work hard, think twice, many times, if they have just one bad year (even quarter or month) the majority of their Assets Under Management will be pulled and they can kiss their huge checks good bye).

The secretary comparison is cute (though I am surprised you didn't use the more politically correct term: administrative assistant, you're gonna have to pay more attention next time, Senator). However, you fail to mention that the amount of schooling it takes to answer phones and type 90 words a minute is probably a little less than that to manage billions of dollars. Of course, you know this, but refusing to use it on such grounds wouldn't get you the emotional response from your less educated supporters, would it?

Also, is it just me or would it make TOO MUCH sense to lower the secretary's tax rate?

"That's not fair."

Here's where I agree with you, Senator. It's not fair that the secretary has about a third of her money withheld from her paycheck each month.

Why should this secretary have to support lazy people on welfare, the impossibly terrible and inefficient Department of Education or the unwinnable 'war' on drugs?

The answer is she should not; it is not that her boss should have to pay twice as much in taxes.

When did this great country turn from the, "land of dreams," to the land of, "Be ambitious if you want, but when you become successful and make a bunch of money the government will take it from you, but on the other hand you could just not work and sit in your house all day, why else have the rich if they aren't to support the rest?"

Sounds like socialism to me.

Most Influential Books

Before starting with articles TJ and I have written reviews on the five books, which influenced us the most.

TJ's

A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny By Pat Buchanan

I credit Pat with getting me interested in politics. I loved watching him beat down Leftists on the show Crossfire.

Even though at this time in my life, my political beliefs tend to lead to a much smaller government then Mr. Buchanan, I do see eye to eye with him on staying out of foreign entanglements. For those who don’t know, A Republic, Not an Empire, is a well researched book on America’s foreign policy over the last 200 years, and it’s not hard to agree with his conclusions.
I think if we want much smaller government, we must contain our politicians need to intervene in foreign conflicts not directly related to our National Security. In this book, Pat is very persuasive in his attempt to show you how our foreign policy has led astray from what our Founders had intended.

What It Means to Be a Libertarian. By Charles Murray

This Charles Murray book gets the credit with making me aware that I was a libertarian Republican. I knew a wanted smaller government, but after reading his book, I knew then I wanted much smaller government.

It really made me feel comfortable with beliefs of some real ‘radical’ changes in the size and scope of government.

This book will not make a Socialist turn into a Jeffersonian, but it can help a Conservative who’s wondering what happen to “Buckley-Goldwater” Conservatism.

The Fountainhead By Ayn Rand

I haven’t been much of a fiction reader, lately. However, in my early 20’s, when I read this book, I think it helped underscore my beliefs of Individualism.
If you have not read this classic, I guarantee you will end up loving the main character, Howard Roark. The best thing you can learn in the book is that selfishness is a virtue, not some demeaning character flaw.

Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition By Milton Freidman

I saw Milton Friedman on television, when I was younger, and even though he wasn’t an animated guy by any stretch, his greatness was making economics understandable to me.

So I bought Capitalism and Freedom and it didn’t disappoint. He covers Monetary policy to the role of government in education. He is very clear in proving that ‘good’ things come from the free-market system, not the government.

The Roosevelt Myth By John T. Flynn

It has always bothered me that FDR is known as one of our greatest Presidents. If you feel this way, this is a book you should read. Flynn does a great job categorically tearing down FDR’s flawed policies. Which he rightly concludes how the New Deal made the depression worse. It details the administration with only facts that can not be contradicted.

Roark's

Before I start writing this, I'd like to point out that I have been a libertarian for approximately two months and the following books are the ones that have most influenced my thoughts on economics and liberty.

My conservative leanings have been developed from reading political books and listening to countless hours of talk radio for the past eight years.

Also, I originally put 1984 and Anthem on my list; I've decided that they are very similar and I will be replacing 1984 with What it means to be a Libertarian.

The books that have influenced me most and that I will be reviewing are (in order of my reading them):

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism

The Myth of the Robber Barons

Somebody's Gotta Say It

Anthem

What it Means to be a Libertarian

__________

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism

I believe this is the best book for putting down leftist (it may be more prudent to just start calling them Marxist) myths on the economy. It's very readable (I read it just a few months after getting my driver's license) and systematically states the liberal arguments then breaks them down using facts and common sense, two things which liberals seem to be short on these days.

Up until reading this book I kind of understood why tax cuts work and that there wasn't really a reason for liberals to whine about trade deficits. Including these two subjects the books talks about:

· Why rent control doesn't work

· Why slave labor doesn't make sense

· The Free market kills any discrimination

· Charitable givings were up 50% during the 'Decade of Greed'

· Athletes and CEOs deserve their high salaries

After reading this book I had a foundation for my philosophy, but had not yet cemented in my mind the philosophy of limited government.

The Myth of the Robber Barons

This is possibly my favorite book. I originally bought on the recommendation of the PIG to Capitalism, which spent a chapter on the same subject.

The book sets out to prove that the so called 'Robber Barons' (Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, etc.), helped the US and were not just ruthless and greedy, well Robber Barons.

It easily accomplishes this, but also proves another extremely important fact, that has become a huge part of my philosophy: Businesses receiving government help generally suck.

The relatively short (170 pages) book goes over 6 barons and shows how they beat the competition, which many times had government help.

Somebody's Gotta Say It

This was the first book I read that explained the libertarian philosophy of limited government.

Boortz is a talk show host in Atlanta who uses humor and a no-nonsense approach to politics in this book.

It goes over why welfare is bad, government subsidies to art, what should be taught in school, why you don't have the right to vote and many more subjects that made it the first book that really put the idea in my head of small government.

Anthem

I had read that Ayn Rand's books The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were two Libertarian stalwarts, so when I needed an extra hundred pages read for English Anthem was the book I chose.

To this point I understood why small government is the best for prosperity and many economic things, but Anthem is very good at showing why collectivism will vastly stunt progress.

What It Means to Be a Libertarian

By the time I had written this book I was a self-proclaimed Libertarian, though I really only though about the Economics part of politics.

This book shows why limited government works and uses trend lines to show that in every single aspect things get worse or improve to a much lower extent after government interference.

Get a Clue High School Students!

This article appeared in my school newspaper last month, some of the info may be a little dated.

The coming election and two hotly contested runs to win the nomination make knowledge more important than ever. Despite this fact Pleasant Grove students seem to know little about what affects their lives, but much about things that don’t.
In a recent poll 68% of students correctly answered who won the super bowl and 55% knew how many children Britney Spears has, but barely six percent could correctly answer the amount of experience leading democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has.
German Poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said, “Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action.”
In an attempt to correct this, the following article will cover four subjects: the constitution, the economy, the leading candidates, and other issues.

The Constitution

Perhaps, one of the most common misconceptions around is that the United States is a democracy – also wrong is that the United States should export democracy. It says nowhere in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence that the United States government is a democracy, Woodrow Wilson was the first president to even mention democracy in his state of the union. In fact, founding father Benjamin Franklin said, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”

Next, is income tax which will hopefully become a big issue in the near future. Other than during the Civil War there was no income tax before 1914. As a matter-of-fact income tax was ruled unconstitutional, and congress republicans tried to kill a bill starting income tax by refusing to vote in favor of it unless a constitutional amendment allowing income tax was added.

A bill is currently in congress that would correct this and stop the government from stealing the money of the citizens with the withholding income tax. It is called the fair tax, under the fair tax a 23% sales tax would be added to all items and services sold in the United States – currently 22% is the average amount of tax embedded in the price of all goods and services, so the average price of goods and services would not be inflated in the long-term.

This would jumpstart the economy by allowing Americans to take home 100% of the paycheck while the government would receive the same amount of revenue. For more information of the Fair Tax bill visit fairtax.org

Finally, an explanation of the electoral system is needed. US citizens do not have a right to directly vote for the President or Vice President. Electors are chosen by party in the state which holds the majority, these electors than vote for the president.

The Economy

The Economy is the system of activities related to the production and exchange of goods and services in a country. Basically, it is the flow of money in a country.

The poll asked what affects the economy, of the 77 students polled only four answered taxes which is perhaps the most debated factor between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals tend to try to inflict voter’s emotions by stating that tax cuts serve just to help the rich and add to the national debt. Whether it is their own ignorance or blatant dishonesty this stance alone should prove the candidate to be faulty, but back to the article.

When the government cuts taxes taxpayers get a refund on taxes originally withheld from their paycheck. The taxpayers then go out and spend the money refunded to them by the government; this influx of money into the economy creates a greater demand for goods which in turn causes employers to hire more employees in reaction to the increased demand. This leads to economic growth and in the end greater tax revenues to the government.

This theory was put in action and proved during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, while he was president tax rates fell from as high as 91% to 28%, but by the end of the 1980’s the tax revenues had doubled.

Trade deficits are another tactic liberals use in an attempt to play with voter’s emotions. According to the liberal ideals trade deficits with China and India are sucking money out of the US economy and the outsourcing of jobs is hurting Americans.

This subject was mentioned by eight of the 77 polled, who called it imports or exports, a trade deficit is when the imports from a country exceed the exports to that country.

A common analogy used by Free Market Economists to combat the liberal viewpoint is this: Should a doctor find what his trade deficit is with every restaurant in town and then change his eating habits so that all his money isn’t suckled up by the restaurants? Obviously not, his trade deficit with the restaurants is offset by his trade surplus from the hospital where he works.

In the same way the US trade deficits are partially counterbalanced by surpluses with places such as Australia and Hong Kong.

The net deficit could not stay that way forever, because dollars are used to pay for goods from other countries they have to somehow make their way back to the US economy – unless someone is just hiding them all under his bed, they don’t disappear – if they don’t the exchange rate between the two countries will eventually rise to the point that it would be more logical to buy products from a different country.

Finally, the stock market was named by eight people as a factor which affects the economy. The inverse is true: the economy affects the stock market. Each stock is partial ownership in a corporation, the stock price rises and falls as people will pay more or less to own part of the company. The sentiment of people who want to buy the stock is because of their view of how the current economy will affect the stock in the future, their positive or negative views push the stock price in the corresponding direction.

Leading Candidates

Currently, it looks like Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate and John McCain will be the Republican candidate. Conservatives too quickly follow the whims of talk-show hosts and authors and think McCain is liberal while Liberals make up for the fact that Obama has no experience or record to speak of by explaining their rationale of voting for him by calling him the second coming which could be the most ridiculous statement uttered yet this political season.

First, to tackle McCain’s ‘liberalism.’ McCain has never voted for a tax increase, has the most pro-defense spending stands, and according to the Cato Institute is one of just 16 free traders in the senate – all conservative views.

In fact, other than McCain’s strange hate for the first amendment and global warming stance he is conservative. The fact the liberally biased press likes McCain and calls him a ‘Maverick’ is most likely the reason behind conservative talking-heads calling him a liberal.

This, however, does not mean McCain is a great candidate for president he has a strangely strong like for Teddy Roosevelt and seems to want to got to war with every country that crosses the US. Also, he supports one of the biggest waste of money in government history – using congress to evaluate steroid use in baseball.

Obama is frankly, a joke. He has little experience – only four years operating at the federal level he was a state senator before – and has no legislative record to speak of. His stances are pretty much no different than that of Dennis Kucinich and though he advocates ‘change’ one would have to search long to find any difference in his positions than those of the democrats for the last forty years.

In his speech after winning the Iowa caucus Obama mentioned that the government needs to stop saving money for the rich while adding to government debt with unnecessary tax cuts. There are two things strongly wrong with this statement: One, as before shown tax cuts do not add to government debt. Secondly, why should the government punish the rich for being more successful than the poor? Higher tax rates on the rich serve only to force them to attempt to lock-up their money in low tax investments – instead of investing it in ventures that could help the economy.

Whether Obama is too incompetent to realize this or if he is being dishonest to play with the emotions of voters he does not belong in the Oval Office.
The other candidates aren’t exactly great alternatives:
· Huckabee knows next to nothing about foreign affairs
· Hillary is a socialist who could possibly be a bigger threat to Americans than terrorism
· Ron Paul has extreme views that turn off a lot of America
· And the Libertarian candidate may be too quick to pull American forces out of foreign countries

Other Issues

First, there is a misconception the author would like to dispute. Many people like to blame the high gas prices on oil companies saying they are price gougers - Hillary Clinton even went as far as saying she would propose legislation that would take the income form oil companies and put it into a government run fund to find alternatives to oil if an ordinary citizen did this he would be in jail for the rest of his life, but according to Hillary the government could do it, the definition of this is socialism. This is completely false. Oil company Exxon-Mobil has a profit margin of just 9.5% (this means that for every dollar of sales Exxon only gets 9.5 cents after all expenses and taxes). This margin is lower than much of the S&P 500 and a third of Microsoft’s.

However, Microsoft does not deal with calls from newspapers and politicians of price gouging.

Health care is a big issue in the coming election – Hillary Clinton talks about it a lot. Politicians talk about a way that the government could make health care available to all citizens. But, instead of taking money away from tax payers and using it to pay for others medicine, there is a better solution – one that does not have the same risks of government scandals.

The solution is less government – not more. If the government were to kill restrictions on midwives and nurse practioners and make the health care market more free it the prices would correspondingly fall on competitive pressures.