The Failure of Major Federal Programs: Responsibility And Stewardship - Part 3

Second part of the answer: 95% of the problem with these programs is how they were and are still being mismanaged. Even decades(!) after they became problems AND decades after Congress promised to fix them. In fact, the programs are ALL being GROSSLY mismanaged. Any manager mismanaging something this badly in the private sector would be out of a job in a heartbeat and would have trouble finding anyone else to hire him.

The government ALWAYS mismanages welfare programs. It is by far the mismanagement that has led to the problems they all have now or soon will have. Who’s most responsible for the mismanagement? Democrats for lots of reasons. They created them so they have some ownership (stewardship) to make sure the programs do what was intended without bankrupting the system. After all, according to Democrats(!), they were the ones with expertise enough to create them in the first place. Who better then to keep them in line? Do you think that the other political party has responsibility to properly manage a program they opposed in the first place? That makes no sense.

Who had the most opportunity to manage the programs and fix them once broken? Democrats have held a veto-proof majority in one or both houses for 30 of the past 60 years while Republicans have had a veto-proof majority in either house exactly ZERO times! Democrats had the means, opportunity and primary responsibility to create AND manage them properly. Based on what’s actually happening, how would you say that’s working out so far? And we just let them create the biggest and most expensive welfare program of all time.

(Part 4, the last part of this serious coming in a couple of days.)

The Failure of Major Federal Programs: Responsibility And Stewardship - Part 2

Who created these ‘monsters’ of problems? Democrats created these blood (money) sucking programs. Is there anything a rational person should take away from that fact?

Were they ‘bad’ to start with? Yes and no. What they were trying to do is commendable I suppose … help those who can’t help themselves kind of thing but all these programs were vastly over-done from the start. The arguments against them were consistently along these lines:

1. Too much welfare … creating a class of citizens dependent on government is sooooo not good.
2. We can barely afford it now but won’t be able to later, the more people become dependent on them. (This is the historical, classic result of welfare programs!)
3. We’re ignoring a lot of the real costs.

If they weren’t so bad for our economy to start, what happened? Many who are complaining about what these programs are doing to our economy talk about it as if we who USE any of the benefits are causing the problems. If we were abusing the benefits somehow it would be a legitimate argument but, in most cases we’re not. We’re just making use of what government has made available.

We are not doing anything wrong … we’re following the rules. We didn’t complain when the government started TAKING our money for programs like social security. THEY shouldn’t complain when we start using programs like SS according to THEIR rules that we followed all our working lives. It is how the programs are constructed that is the problem! And who’s responsible for how they're set up AND for fixing that? The first part of the answer is: NOT WE WHO USE THEM!

The Failure of Major Federal Programs: Responsibility and Stewardship - Part 1

Consider all the programs that are causing federal spending and debt problems:
1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. Medicaid
4. The New National Health Care

To that add some extraordinarily expensive programs that are ineffective or rife with fraud or both:
5. Education
6. Food Stamps
7. Economic Recovery Programs

There is UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT that the cost of these programs is sucking the life out of our economy. There are several questions we should be asking about them. We should know who created them and why as well as who mismanaged them and how they did that. How can we expect to fix them properly without understanding the answers to these questions? One thing must be clear to rational Americans: we CANNOT just keep throwing money at them blindly people!!! That’s just stupid!

(Parts 2 and 3 will follow soon.)

Remember, Not Only Did They Make It Worse, They Were Instrumental In Causing It

To my previous blog I add a reminder that it was Democrats (esp Frank and Dodd), NOT Republicans, who pushed sub-prime mortgages AND ridiculously(!) loose lending practices. Those are the toxic investments that were the primary root cause of our economic collapse. How so many Americans can continue giving these guys (Democrats in general, Frand and Dodd in particular) a pass is a complete mystery to me.

More Lies About Who Created The Mess

This week Vice President Biden and House Minority (Republican) Leader Boehner traded barbs over this economic non-recovery. Boehner made a speech first, they Biden responded. In his response, Biden complained about Bush and then said "For eight years before we arrived in the West Wing Mr. Boehner and his party ran this economy and the middle class into the ground".

Democrats have been spreading this lie for so long that many Americans no longer give it a second thought. Even Biden now believes that Boehner and his party ran this economy into the ground for eight years. Yes, Republicans caused much of our economic problems but Democrats took control of congress, therefore (according to the constitution!) control over the economy as well in 2007 ... NOT 2009! Boehner and Republicans had control of Congress for 6 years, not 8 Mr. Biden. Weren't you paying attention which party actually handed off this mess to you?

In fact, when Democrats took control in 2007, they proceeded to run the economy into the ditch even faster than did Republicans via even greater spending and much greater debt. For two years before Biden arrived in the West Wing, Democrats had all the control they needed to stop what happened. Not only did they not stop it, they made it worse via even more ridiculous spending than that by Republicans.

For two years Democrats were the ones pushing us ever faster into the collapse. Sorry Mr. Biden. As much as you'd like to give them a pass via your revisionist history, Democrats in fact had a non-trivial role in the collapse too. They had plenty of time to head it off before you arrived in the West Wing. But the fact is, they chose to make it worse. The truth is, since Democrats were in charge of spending, taxing and debt for two years immediately prior to your arrival in the West Wing, you arguably inherited this mess from them, not Republicans. Please stop the lies sir.

"There They Go Again!" News Flash: The GOP Is NOT Against Helping Small Businesses

Ronald Reagan's famous line (title) is so appropriate. President Obama and Dems in Congress are dragging out their old fable. It is getting tiresome. And it's getting frustrating for the lie it is.

Yes, Congressional Republicans are opposing some of what Dems call help for small businesses. They call what's in their bills a tax cut when, not only is it not a cut, it is no ACTUAL help to small business owners who have to run their businesses sensibly! Do you suppose that's why Republicans are opposed to it? Nah, they can't have a logical reason. After all, they're Republicans! They just like hurting small businesses like the President says. They'd rather sink the economy than allow Obama to have something he wants, right? Does that make any sense, really?

I have an idea Mr. President. Why not ask small businesses what they need and give them that? Oh, that's right, you all in the White House and in Congress don't care what the people want.

Here's the scoop. The 'help' Dems are offering small businesses are tax credits, not tax cuts. One year tax credits for various things. For example, a credit for every person hired. Sounds good on paper, right? That helps small businesses hire, right?

I have a question. If small businesses cannot afford to hire more people, what good is a one-time tax credit for hiring them? What does a business do next year?

This economy isn't going to turn around in a year. What is most likely to happen based on any reasonable assessment of the economic recovery if they fall for this nonsense is the businessmen will hire the people this year and fire them next year. NO BUSINESSMAN WOULD DO THAT TO PEOPLE BECAUSE IT ISN'T FAIR AND IT MAKES THINGS WORSE FOR THEM OVERALL NOT BETTER! No politician can promise a good enough economy next year so that small business owners can hire people or keep people on board that are hired this year. No one knows what'll happen but there's one thing pretty certain. Even uncertainty over next year's economy is enough to make businessmen cautious in hiring. It's not good for their business to hire people this year and, MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, fire them next year. HELLO?

THAT is why Republicans are opposed to some of the things Dems are calling help for small businesses. THEY actually listen to small business owners and try to get done what they say they need. Dems should try it sometime. Oh, and stop complaining about Republicans who are actually trying to give small businesses what they say they want ... and what most respected economists SAY is needed by the way.

Two last questions for the White House and Congressional Democrats.
1) Don't they teach economics at Harvard? (Evidence suggests not, at least to lawyers and politicians-to-be.)
2) If you're so good at organizing and communicating with those who need something, how come you only talk and not listen? Last I heard, communication is a two-way deal. Economists and small business owners are saying what is needed but you all keep doing something else. Because you are the experts, right?

Would Our Economy Be Better Off If They'd Done Nothing?

Consider the title question. Seriously. The president and all Democrats are running around telling us how bad our economy would have been if they hadn't taken the steps they took. But there are three very big problems with that statement.

First and foremost you can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that what you did NOT do would have been worse OR better! Likewise, there's no way to prove what you did was the best or only solution. In fact, when what you chose to do didn't do what you thought ... didn't help or made it worse, doesn't that strongly suggest there was probably a better way that you didn't try? (Such as lower taxes and less spending?)

Second but equally important is the fact that our economy is and always has been very resilient. Throughout our history, when it has been left free of interference, our economy has thrived. If you examine all troubles in our economic history you'll see that some 'event' caused each problem. The very nature of our economy suggests it will and has self-corrected. True enough, it helps to take some emergency measure sometimes to stop the bleeding but after that, our economy has remarkable self-healing capabilities. This suggests that such extraordinary infusions of government help probably wan't even necessary beyond the first action to save the financial industry. If businesses had been left alone so they knew what to expect in the way of new taxes and government controls they would have been more willing to invest in the recovery rather than waiting to find out what government is going to do ... or going to screw up.

Third, there is the undeniable reality that reducing taxes and the size and cost of government, done together, are very, very stimulative. Government revenue has ALWAYS increased. (Congress' mistake sometimes was then going off and spending too much.) One can point to times when tax cuts didn't result in good enough economic growth but in all those cases the slow growth was caused by excessive government spending that sucked the life-blood out of small businesses and reduced citizens' ability to buy 'stuff'. When our country has done either (reduce taxes OR reduce the size of government) the economy grew in a healthy way. It's only when we've reduced one and increased the other that it didn't help.

Democrats have no basis whatsoever on which to claim their policies avoided a depression or even started a recovery. However, based on actual history AND basic economics(!), one can reasonably argue that if they had left the economy alone and not plunged us so far into debt or increased government growth and regulation, small businesses most likely would have done better than they've done this time. Is it completely unreasonable to argue that if Dems had not gone spend-crazy, debt-crazy or government (and regulation) growth crazy the economy just might have done better? Of course not! Actual facts of what has happened relative to promises attest to something not right! In fact, doesn't the fact that our economy has been stagnant ever since Obama came into office suggest that his policies did NOT work? Don't results (actually lack of them!) strongly suggest that he didn't know what he was talking about during his campaign (about how successful his fixes would be). Doesn't it also suggest that he's not telling us the truth now by suggesting the economy is getting better and that he fixed it when neither is clearly not true?

These are clearly people running the country now who think that if they say something loud enough and long enough people will believe them even though anyone with common sense can see it's not true. (Sounds like the Saul Alinsky approach does it not?)

Just Say No!

Say NO to an omnipotent ruling political class and YES to government by We The People!

Let's put ALL politicians on notice that we're NOT going to put up with their nonsense any more!

Tail Wagging The Dog

535 men and women in Congress doing what some 70% of Americans do NOT want them to do. Some 150 million people do NOT like what those so-called representatives are doing but this HANDFUL of a political class that's out of touch with citizens say they don't care what most Americans want. They're going to do legislation the way THEY want, period!

Huh?

Also, most Americans do NOT like the WAY they're creating and passing legislation. The process sucks. Unimaginable audacity prevails in shutting the minority party out of the process. It's fundamentally unconstitutional too. The founders NEVER intended for a tyranny of the majority to EVER exist and they made a point of cautioning against it. Yet that is what's being done.

Huh?

What's up with this arrogant political class? How DARE they call themselves representatives! A House of 'Representatives'? Huh? Just WHO are they representing? NOT the majority of Americans!

NO WONDER Americans are now completely fed up with BOTH parties. Republican citizens are fed up with Republican 'representatives' and Democrat citizens are fed up with Democratic 'representatives'. And these 535 UNrepresentative congress-people really don't even care. BOTH parties cater to their special interests and American citizens lose out.

This political class must not be allowed to continue this nonsense. We The People want OUR government back in OUR hands!

Why The Dems' Financial Reform Didn't Fix The Root Problem ... That's Still THERE!

Got news for those who drink the administration and media Kool-Aid. The Dems claimed that their "Financial Reform" bill recently passed fixed the problem that caused the economic melt-down. Fact is, the root problem is still there waiting to sink our economy again.

What they fixed was the problem with derivatives. What is probably news for most folks is that wasn't the root problem. And their 'fix' will NOT keep the root problem from causing more (worse?) problems in the months ahead.

Derivatives are a way to package various types of investments. Derivatives in and of themselves are NOT 'investments'. What they allow traders to do is repackage actual investments and it is the investments that did and can again(!) cause collapses like that latest big one nearly two years ago.

Sub-prime mortgages were the "toxic investment" that caused the collapse ... and they're still 'out there'!!! The only thing that new "Financial Reform" did was prevent sub-prime mortgages from being re-packaged as derivatives and re-sold as if the re-packing itself made them less risky (which it doesn't). The financial reform did NOTHING to reduce the sub-prime mortgage risks out there. Those things are still there! The reform did nothing to make that practice (selling sub-prime mortgages to people who previously wouldn't have qualified for the loans) or the existing under-water mortgages go away! And the key people and government bureaucracies contributing to the collapse are UNtouched by the reform. In fact, Frank and Dodd who did the most to cause this are touted as the key heroes fixing this mess. Huh? Does that make any sense? ONLY in the government where CYA and DENIAL are the collective job one!

People and institutions holding the sub-prime mortgages are just hiding them, hoping that the economy (esp the real estate sector) will rebound before they have to write those bad investments off. Do you know what'll happen when they write them off? How about a second collapse that could be worse than the first one?

The ONLY thing that would have prevented the financial collapse is not having those sub-prime mortgages in the first place. If mortgages had only been sold to those who REALLY qualified for them, the collapse of 2008 would not have happened! It’s not the existence and use of derivatives that caused it although derivatives aggravated it to some extent. Even if derivatives had not existed, sub-prime mortgages would have been given to hundreds of thousands of UNqualified buyers anyway! And those mortgages would have caused our economy trouble ANYWAY, just not in the form of derivatives!

So, what did the Dems' "Financial Reform" bill fix? Yes, it reigned in the use of derivates. Did it fix the sub-prime mortgage mess that caused the collapse and is still out there? Absolutely not!

The two key ingredients in the 2008 collapse went unaffected by the Dems’ highly touted reform bill. The fact that sub-prime mortgages were allowed by any lending institution was key. Perhaps MOST KEY was the fact that Fannie and Freddie pushed sub-prime mortgages to over 50% of their holdings. To accomplish that they loosened loan qualification requirements to the point where anyone who was breathing qualified, regardless their ability to repay the loan. NOTHING was done in the Financial Reform bill to make them stop.

NO reform of sub-prime mortgage loan practices. NO reform of Freddie and Fannie. And the TWO KEY GUYS in Congress who consistently pushed these toxic loans and lower qualification rules, Frank and Dodd, got this reform bill named after them … as if they are the ones who fixed the problem when IN FACT, they’re most responsible for causing it! Gads! These people have NO CONSCIENCE!