MSM goes after Newt

Reading this article on the Gingrich marriage imbroglio proves a bird's eye view on how the MSM tries to control the  nominee selection process. Of particular interest in this example are the comments which follow the article.

Ron Paul has an important message

Paul Jacob's mea culpa here speaks for many people these days about the candidacy of Ron Paul.  Paul is a follower of the Austrian school of economics.  This school proclaims the Federal Reserve and fractional banking to be the twin causes of the recurring booms and busts in western economies, and any other economies that deviate from free market  principles, what used to be called "laissez faire" capitalism.  Such economists as Von Mises, Rothbard, Hazlet, and others provide a coherent explanation of the so-called failures of capitalism that   has been accurate over and over since they began to have ibnfluence in the middle of the 20th century.  Call their philosophy anti-Keynsianism, and you'd about have it.  A return to the gold standard is included in their prescriptions for a cure, as well as reducing government intervention in the markets to an absolute minimum.

ADDED:  Paul and the Austrian school are appropriately appalled by the welfare state and what it does to any society.  This brief piece from Forbes speaks to this issue.

Private equity investing

Since Bain will likely be the focal point of the democrat party's attack machine in the general election, this explanation of what they do will be helpful in debunking the inevitable misinformation sure to be coming.

Obama's stealth government

Once America became The Administrative State, the danger has always been that the country is, or can be, run by hidden bureaucrats appointed to their positions without vetting by voters or Congress.  Welcome to the Obama administration and the faceless Czars and Czarinas appointed to head the many commissions, committees, et. al. responsible for interpreting laws passed by Congress and churning out the rules and regulations that everyone then has to live by.  Obama, as per this article, has taken the administrative state concept to a new level with the appointment of all the far left lawyers like Cass Sustein, Eric Holder, et. al, to positions of power and unaccountability in what used to be our Republic.  This course of action by democrat presidents should never come as a surprise as they have been engaged in this stealth governing since FDR, some simply with more gusto than others.  Hopefully the next Republican President can reverse this outrageous government takeover and return the country to its roots as a Constitutional Republic, accountable to the sovereign people.

Huerto de Soto on fractional banking

This Youtube interview interview of Huerto de Soto, a leading Austrian economics school economist from Spain.explains quite clearly the role of central banks and fractional banking in the creation of booms and busts in the world economy these days.  His accent is heavy but his explanation is quite lucid and worth listening to.

Corzine the liar

Observing Jon Corzine's career as head of the largest Wall Street stock and bond house and gig as a liberal governor of New Jersey and back to the private sector as CEO of a large brokerage house, and the as a witness before a Congressional committee looking into his company's loss of over a billion dollars of clients money, on has to wonder, where in God's name do these people come from?

Unfair analysis by Robert Samuelson

This analysis of the impending crackup of our political "solution" to the economic dilemma now facing the nation does little to offer any reason for optimism about a reasonable outcome in the future.  Samuelson, a reporter on economics for many years, seems to try very hard to place blame for the impasse equally among democrats and republicans without addressing the significance of the underlying causes.  A quote:

The budget impasse raises comparable questions. Can we resolve it before some ill-defined crisis imposes its own terms? For years, there has been a "something for nothing" aspect to our politics. More people became dependent on government. From 1960 to 2010, the share of federal spending going for "payments to individuals" (Social Security, food stamps, Medicare and the like) climbed from 26 percent to 66 percent. Meanwhile, the tax burden barely budged. In 1960, federal taxes were 17.8 percent of national income (gross domestic product). In 2007, they were 18.5 percent of GDP.

This good fortune reflected falling military spending -- from 52 percent of federal outlays in 1960 to 20 percent today -- and solid economic growth that produced ample tax revenues. Generally modest budget deficits bridged any gap. But now this favorable arithmetic has collapsed under the weight of slower economic growth (even after a recovery from the recession), an aging population (increasing the number of recipients) and high health costs (already 26 percent of federal spending). Present and prospective deficits are gargantuan.

Samuelson's static comparative analysis of the economy since 1960 to present fails to mention the growth of the welfare state and the consequent devotion of economic resources to satisfy that growth. While the tax burden as a percentage of the GDP may indeed have barely grown since 1960, personal incomes have probably doubled or more in constant dollars since that starting point meaning the government burden on the economy is much greater now than then.  Furthermore there was no Medicare, EPA, Departments of Energy, Education, et al, commanding tax resources but more importantly creating thousands upon thousands of regulations the hidden costs of which easily match the direct tax burden on the economy.

Samuelson's equal blame allocation to both parties is also less than accurate:

Liberals still want more spending, conservatives more tax cuts. (Although the tax burden has stayed steady, various "cuts" have offset projected increases and shifted the burden.) With a few exceptions, Democrats and Republicans haven't embraced detailed take away policies to reconcile Americans' appetite for government benefits with their distaste for taxes. President Obama has provided no leadership. Aside from Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, few Republicans have.

Au contraire, republicans have proposed many plans to limit the size and growth of government for many years including wholesale elimination of wasteful and useless departments, revision of the tax code to promote economic growth, and others.  Meanwhile democrats have blocked all these efforts and promoted other plans such as the CRA which have led directly to the crises we now face.  Placing blame on both parties is fair up to a point, but on net, republicans have offered many plans for restraining government growth and beyond that of Paul Ryan's aimed largely at the train wreck called Obamacare.