Successful Businessmen Cannot Hide, Politicians Can…

An interesting find is brought up over at a blog called Bacon’s Rebellion:

“Eric “Young Gun” Cantor, the Republican House Majority Leader from Henrico County, seemed older and out-gunned Wednesday when new Republican members in the GOP-controlled House voted 233-198 to kill an alternative engine for the new F-35 strike fighter that even the Pentagon didn’t want.

More than half of the new Congressmen voted against the engine that the House’s older leadership, represented by Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, worked desperately to keep in the federal budget.

Their reason? Pure pork. The alternative engines would be built jointly by Rolls Royce, which has its North American headquarters in Virginia, and in Ohio where partner General Electric has big manufacturing plants. The House decided to drop the alternative and go with the main supplier, Pratt & Whitney, thus saving $450 million.”

So obviously Republicans like Bacon’s Rebellion look at this as an instance when the old harden Republican politicians vote for pork and the new saviors vote against it. Whether these new Congressmen continue their votes against pork is still to be seen. What the important lesson here to take away is how a politician like Eric Cantor can vote for pork and write a book about deficit reduction at the same time.

The best fake limited government politician will convince the general populous that they are for limited government, while voting for bills that will give money out to special interests that will continue to help fund their campaigns. This may be a hard concept for the reader of this blog to grasp because the very fact that you are reading this does not make you apart of the general populous.

So how does this differ on the free market with businessmen? First, think about the places you visit on a weekly basis and do you know what policies the business owner gives speeches on in his free time? No. Would you want to know? Maybe. But the truth is it doesn’t matter.

When you go and visit a place of business, you go to purchase something. You are only satisfied if the business owner meets your demands. For example, if you go to the grocery store looking for the best cut of steak then you will only be satisfied if you find what you are looking for. In Economic terms, if the producer supplies the demands of the consumer.

So how can a politician as a producer of policies satisfy the demands of the consumer? If a business man says “come to my grocery store and you will find the best filet cut in town” and upon arrival you realize it is chuck roast at best you will stop going there. But for some reason in politics Eric Cantor can say “I am a deficit reducer” and vote for an increase at the same time with little to no repercussion.

So I ask the reader this question. Free market or government coercion? Which of the two satisfy the demands of the consumer the best? If it is the free market then how can we apply that to government?

Advertisements
Published in: on February 18, 2011 at 9:20 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

We Can’t Afford a ‘Public’ Health Plan by Lawrence Kudlow

Today’s article of the day is from RealClearPolitics:

Does anybody really believe that adding 50 million people to the public health-care rolls will not cost the government more money? About $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion more? At least. So let’s be serious when evaluating President Obama’s goal of universal health care, and the idea that it’s a cost-cutter. Can’t happen. Won’t happen. Costs are going to explode. Think of it: Can anyone name a federal program that ever cut costs for anything? Let’s not forget that the existing Medicare system is roughly $80 trillion in the hole. And does anybody believe Obama’s new “public” health-insurance plan isn’t really a bridge to single-payer government-run health care?

And does anyone think this plan won’t produce a government gatekeeper that will allocate health services and control prices and therefore crowd-out the private-insurance doctor-hospital system? Federal boards are going to decide what’s good for you and me. And what’s not good for you and me. These boards will drive a wedge between doctors and patients. The president, in his New York Times Magazine interview with David Leonhardt, said his elderly mother should not (in theory) have had a hip-replacement operation. Yes, Obama would have fought for that operation for his mother’s sake. But a federal board of so-called experts would have told the rest of us, “No way.” And then there’s the charade of all those private health providers visiting the White House and promising $2 trillion in savings. Utter nonsense. And even if you put aside the demerits of a government-run health system, Obama’s health-care “funding” plans are completely falling apart.

Not only will Obama’s health program cost at least twice as much as his $650 billion estimate, but his original plan to fund the program by auctioning off carbon-emissions warrants (through the misbegotten cap-and-trade system) has fallen through. In an attempt to buy off hundreds of energy, industrial and other companies, the White House is now going to give away those carbon-cap-emissions trading warrants. So all those revenues are out the window. Fictitious. Anyway, the cap-and-tax system won’t pass Congress. The science is wrong. The economics are root-canal austerity — Malthusian limits to growth. And there are too many oil and coal senators who will vote against it.

All of this is why the national-health-care debate is so outrageous. At some point we have to get serious about solving Medicare by limiting middle-class benefits and funding the program properly. There is no other way out. We can grow our way out of the Social Security deficit if we pursue pro-growth policies that maintain low tax and inflation rates. Prospects for that don’t look any too good right now, though it could be done. But government health care is nothing but a massive, unfunded, middle-class entitlement problem. (The poor are already in Medicaid.) Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., proposes to solve health care by limiting employer tax breaks. He’s on to something, but he’s only got half the story. (more…)

Published in: on May 14, 2009 at 6:53 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

How much does it take to privatize the Post Office?

First this from USA Today:

“The post office was $1.9 billion in the red for the second quarter of the fiscal year and continues to face the possibility of running out of money before year’s end.
The agency cited the recession and movement of mail to electronic communications in announcing the loss on Wednesday.

Postal rates go up on Monday, but the increase — to 44 cents for first-class mail — is unlikely to cover the entire shortfall.

The second quarter loss brings the total loss for the fiscal year — which began Oct. 1 — to $2.3 billion.”

2.3 billion dollars in the red for the post office, are you serious? When is the government going to privatize the post office? As a matter of fact, when is the government going to privatize anything? How much in the red does a program have to go in? Not to mention that most things are electronic now. Do we even need mail? Well if we privatize we would figure it out fast. Especially now that yesterday they raised the price of stamps. This makes even less business sense. They pushed the forever stamps making most people think that the price wasn’t going to be raised. Instead, they might catch a few extra bucks from those last minute letter carriers. As Jimmy Fallon said “email me if you guys can come up with a better way to send communications.”

Mail carriers have just become glorified trash carriers. They transport junk from one place to another. Everytime I go to the mailbox I automatically include the trashcan in my walk. In their defense, they have tried to prevent their downfall though not like normal businesses. Instead they lobbied for a monopoly on fax machines and a tax on emails.

~Marxsevelt

Published in: on May 12, 2009 at 12:35 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

20/20 Bailout Special Featuring Mason Economics

Okay, not quite but one of my best professors, Dr. Peter Leeson, is featured on the below video at around 3:45. This is just the first part of the series. I urge everyone to watch the program in its entirety.

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on March 15, 2009 at 9:10 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,