Sunday, October 21, 2012

Venture Socialsim and Losers

Venture socialism (as opposed to venture capitalism) will always fail because any type of socialism is destined to fail.  The reason for this is simple:  socialists use other people's money, and are therefore willing to expend it for political reasons as opposed to economic reasons.  When a venture fails, the socialist just blames the loss of jobs and the loss of capital on the market itself.  As Governor Romney has stated, this type of government intervention [socialism] picks winners and losers; however our current administration just seems to pick losers.

From The Foundry (Heritage), the complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1.  Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2.  SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.  Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.  Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5.  Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6.  SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7.  First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8.  Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9.  EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10.  Amonix ($5.9 million)
11.  Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12.  Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13.  A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14.  Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15.  Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16.  Schneider Electric ($86 million)
17.  Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
18.  ECOtality ($126.2 million)
19.  Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
20.  Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
21.  Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
22.  Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
23.  Range Fuels ($80 million)*
24.  Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
25.  Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
26.  Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
27.  GreenVolts ($500,000)
28.  Vestas ($50 million)
29.  LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
30.  Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
31.  Navistar ($39 million)
32.  Satcon ($3 million)*
33.  Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
34.  Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Green energy isn't really about energy as much as it is about control over the economy.  The vast majority of us are all for conservation and the minimization of pollution and waste, however that doesn't mean that we must embrace socialist or communist policies in the name of environmentalism.  While the current administration complains that one particular corporation (Exxon Mobil, which employs well over 100,000 people, provides a product to millions of people, and pays billions of dollars in taxes every year) uses one particular tax deduction (similar to deductions that many other companies use), we will remind you that this corporation also pays $3 in taxes for every $1 in profit.  Solyndra used our tax dollars and can no longer provide a product, profit, or employment to anyone due to the fact that they are a miserable failure.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Repeal The McCarran-Ferguson Act

Anyone with sufficient information and basic intelligence now realizes that ObamaTax needs to repealed.  The debate as to whether or not it should be replaced is another issue.  Yes, it needs to be "replaced", but not with more legislation; it needs to be replaced with free market solutions such as the ability to purchase insurance in any of the 50 states.  It needs to be replaced:

1.  With higher limits on HSA contributions and easier access to HSA's (ObamaTax does the opposite).
2.  With different types of insurance products (that the free market will provide) for different types of situations, such as a very high deducible policy with very low premiums for only catastrophic events (this product does not currently exist in New York State).
3.  With an individual market of various high-deductible insurance plans instead of the comprehensive insurance purchase mandates by the federal government.
4.  With associated payment plans (similar to the paydown of a loan) toward the high-deductible.  Also, one should be able to deduct the interest charged from this product on their federal taxes.
5.  With tax benefits for those that maintain HSA's (such as the ability to contribute with pre-tax dollars to a personalized, portable HSA where one also maintains their bank, credit lines/loans, and retirement accounts).

Other counterproductive legislation (redundant?) needs to be repealed as well.  The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by Congress in 1945, and has wreaked havoc on individuals purchasing health insurance and health care ever since.  It confines one's ability to purchase health insurance products to their state of residence only, leaving the other 49 states unable to compete for someone's business.  As Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) has illustrated, this also must be repealed in order to:

1.  Restore competition among health insurance companies as it corrects an historical error that granted an exemption to health insurance companies from federal anti-trust and unfair competition laws.
2.  The McCarran–Ferguson also prohibits class action suits against health insurers in antitrust lawsuits, but it maintains legal enforcement actions for wronged individuals on a case by case basis.

Similar to The Patient Destruction and Unaffordable Care Act, The McCarran–Ferguson Act (or at least the majority of it) hurts us far more than it helps us.  Mark Levin commonly states that "everything the government touches turns to crap!"  Not only is this statement true, but it is also attributed to a very unlikely source; Beatles drummer Ringo Starr.  Congress need not "let it be" and repeal legislation that:

1.  Restricts supply.
2.  Increases demand.
3.  Inevitably raises costs, allowing Congress the ability to blame the market for their own failures.

This also illustrates the cowardice of the Democrat Party leadership.  They knew that repealing this law in 2009 would help reduce costs by fostering a more robust market, however they completely failed to do so, as outlined in this Slate article.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Progressives are Not Progressive

We already know that "Liberals" are not liberal.  We will now cover how "Progressives" are not progressive at all.  Progressive means forward moving and advancing, however less liberty and more government is the opposite of advancement.  More government control over law abiding citizens is not progress, and is actually regression.  Therefore, modern day statists, socialists, Marxists, communists, and fascists are regressive.  More government, less freedom, less liberty, and less choice would absolutely cause our society to regress.  Once again, the left has twisted the language to distort what it is that they truly stand for.

Leftists, Progressives and Socialists by Walter E. Williams on October 19, 2010

One of the greatest sources of confusion and deception is the difference between leftists, progressives, socialists, communists and fascists. I thought about this as I caught a glimpse of the Oct. 2 "One Nation" march on Washington. The participants proudly marched with banners, signs and placards reading "Socialists," "Ohio U Democratic Socialists," "International Socialists Organization," "Socialist Party USA," "Build A Socialist Alternative" and other signs expressing support for socialism and communism. They had stands where they sold booklets under the titles of Marxism and the State, Communist Manifesto, Four Marxist Classics, The Road to Socialism and similar titles.

The gathering had the support of the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, stalwarts of the Democratic Party such as Al Sharpton and organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club, and the Children's Defense Fund.

What goes unappreciated is that socialists and communists have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.
Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party. Nazis murdered 20 million of their own people and in nations they captured. The unspeakable acts of Adolf Hitler's Socialist Workers' Party pale in comparison to the horrors committed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and their successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tse-tung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii's Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, "Death by Government." A wealth of information is provided at his website.

You say, "Williams, isn't it a bit unfair to lump the "One Nation" communists, socialists and their supporters with mass murderers such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung? After all, they expressed no such murderous goal." When Hitler, Stalin and Mao were campaigning for political power, you can bet they didn't campaign on the promise to murder millions of their own people, and probably the thought of doing so never crossed their minds. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, Russians and Chinese, like many of today's Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for a Hitler, a Stalin or Mao to take over. But as Voltaire said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

While America's leftists, socialists and communists condemn Hitler, they give the world's most horrible murderers a pass. First, they make a false distinction between fascism, communism and socialism but more importantly, they sympathize with the socioeconomic goals of communism and socialism. The primary goal of communism and socialism is government ownership or control over the means of production. In the U.S., only a few people call for outright government ownership of the means of production. They might have learned that government ownership would mess things up. Instead, they've increasingly called for quasi-ownership through various forms of government regulation, oversight, taxation and subsidies. After all, if someone has the power to tell you how you may use your property, it's tantamount to his owing it.

I believe most Americans find the ideals and principles of socialism, communism and progressivism repugnant, but by our sanctioning greater government centralization and its control over our lives, we become their dupes or, as Lenin said, "useful idiots."

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Liberals are Not Liberal

Liberals are not liberal at all.  Liberal means being open to, and tolerant of, other opinions and views.  Classical Liberalism as a political philosophy means limited government and the utmost individual liberty so long as one does not infringe upon another's rights.  Limited government equates to maximum liberty and therefore maximum choice as to what one wishes to pursue with their own life.  The Democrat party and the left wing are not "liberal" in either sense of the word.

Why, then do Democrats refer to themselves as being "liberal"?  Very simple; they cannot call themselves what they truly are:  statists, socialists, Marxists, and (at times) Communists.  Some have even determined that the current administration is fascist.  None of those labels are attractive in America.  How do they justify calling themselves "liberal"?  Also very simple; they rationalize that it is "liberal" (compassionate and generous) to use the government to excessively tax some, and redistribute resources to others.  When their programs fail, as they usually do, they claim that we must have a "safety net", as if one does not already exist.  The safety net(s) must always be bigger and more expansive in their opinions.  Most of their policies are contingent upon a "zero-sum fallacy", and that they must take from some in order to help others.  This is not "liberal" at all, and merely equates to being economically ignorant and outright foolish.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Contradiction-in-Chief

Do we currently have a Commander-in-Chief or a Complainer-in-Chief?  Blaming all the world's problems on someone else and only taking responsibility for the positives is not leadership.

Celebrity-in-Chief?  Appearing on morning talk shows and late night comedy shows diminishes the office of the President of the United States, and indicates a distorted view on priorities.

A true Commander-in-Chief would not make the following mistakes:

Barry Salutes Navy “Corpse-Man”
Barry Mispronounces "Corpsman" At Prayer Breakfast
Barry Mispronounces Navy 'Corpsman' at Prayer Breakfast

and...

Barry Thinks U.S. Soldiers Use AK-47's
Barry and the AK-47
Barry’s Urban League Speech: AK-47’s for America’s Enemies, Gun Control for American Citizens

and...

Barry Botches Rank of Top Navy SEAL, Calling Admiral William McRaven a General
Barry Botches Rank Of Top Navy SEAL...
Barry is so Proud of Admiral McRaven, He Just Promoted Him to General

Monday, October 1, 2012

The Power of the Purse

"The power of the purse" resides with Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, in the federal government.  The fact that Bill Clinton is trying to claim the credit for balancing the budget four straight years in the 1990's is sad.  

The 1995 Republican majority in the House of Representatives (the first in 46 years) coupled with the 1995 Republican majority in the Senate (the first in 8 years) led to responsible federal spending.  Before 1995, the Republicans had not controlled both chambers of Congress since 1949 (after only two years of having majorities in both the House and Senate).  Bill Clinton only stopped vetoing the Republicans spending cuts because he realized he would have to compromise if he were to receive re-election.  Perhaps he knew that he could try to take credit (despite his multiple vetoes) years later for "balancing the budget".  Bill Clinton is a political hack that looks out mainly for himself.  Our current President is a radical ideologue that has shown zero ability to compromise throughout his political career.   

Our current Congress has not passed a budget in years due to a corrupt Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.  Reid has blocked all budgets passed in the House (where the budgets should be deriving from) so that the Democrat Party can continue to spend like drunken Marxists under the Teleprompter's administration



By ALISON MITCHELL 
Published: June 08, 1995

President Clinton vetoed his first bill today, striking down a plan to cut $16.4 billion in spending this year and marking a new phase in his confrontation with the Republican-controlled Congress.

The Economic Recovery

...that we have yet to experience.  As The Lonely Conservative points out: the Unemployment Rate would be 11.2% if the labor force was the same size as when the Teleprompter-in-Chief took office.  It is clear that the Teleprompter's economic "plan" is bad for everyone (except Washington D.C. bureaucrats).

Everyone must have missed the notice that the "Recovery Summer" was kicked off in June of 2010.  As of September 11, 2012, the labor force participation rate is well below 64% (the lowest it has been in almost 30 years).  Nice recovery.