"The Party of NO!"

Let's be real clear on something. The problem arises when the Republicans are known as anything other than "the party of no." There is a reason Republicans and Democrats are known as conservatives and liberals. I'll make my point with salt. To add it conservatively you risk blandness, but you can add more to taste later. To add it liberally you may luck out, but you risk ruining the whole meal. So in politics we need guys to come up and say "it needs salt," but you need the other guys to come up and say, "let me have a look at that." It's a balance. Republicans aren't Libertarians, they believe that there are times when the government can offer a solution, but they are supposed to be slow to come to that conclusion.

Siding first with Capitalism doesn't deny a problem, it denies the understanding of a proper solution. Siding with Capitalism assumes that if there is a need or a desire that someone will figure out a way to fulfill it. If the solution is poor it will fail and disappear. This cycle continues until there are desirable solutions at hand. A solution too liberal can be bad while also restricting or inhibiting a quality solution in the private sector. Unfortunately a bad, or outdated, solution made by the government is hard to turn away from. This can be seen with the Social Security system. It's far inferior to other methods, and yet people have paid into it their whole lives. It would be completely unfair to say they are out of luck, but it currently seems unfair to those paying into it now. For this reason we should be incredibly slow to assume that the government has the best ideas.

Let's say for example that a charismatic politician decides that he wants to end poverty. He comes up with this grand scheme and figures out that he can reduce the poverty level in America to virtually 0%. All he needs is a trillion dollar budget and we will have a record that will leave the rest of the world in a state of awe. It takes someone with a conservative mind to stay, hey wait a minute, that tax burden may destroy our economy and leave us all in a bread line. Simply put, naming a problem doesn't create a solution. A poor solution via stage one thinking can leave us in deeper water then we started in.

The same can be said about a health care bill so bad that they have to bribe Democrats with hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars just to pass it. You need people questioning what will happen to the state of health care if the government decides to take over the insurance business. How will this effect us in the long term? What will this do to the overall quality of healthcare? Or, How will this effect our economy. Are we sure that we are making the right decision, since backtracking seems to be nearly impossible in the world of government? It doesn't mean that national healthcare is a bad idea. It's a great idea, it simply assumes that the right solution has not been presented, and a commitment so large and expensive needs to be handled with extreme caution.

So to all the Republicans out there, when you hear the title "the party of no," be proud. The politicians are doing their job.

Our Economic Fall and Future Rise

I don't know about everyone else, but it really bothers me to hear President Obama blame the "fat cats" of Wall Street for all of our economic problems. They are to blame, but there are two other groups that are just as guilty, and just as necessary for economic recovery. I believe two of the three are making progress, but the third is just not doing their part. We have the banks, the American consumer, and the government. I think I can base my entire argument around Dave Ramsey, or just about any financial counselor in the last 10 years. It should become obvious, because of the popularity these guys have gained recently, that we have been absorbed by debt, and are attempting to change our financial culture.

First of all, that great economy we lived in for years wasn't even real. While at the beginning of the 20th century most of the jobs in our country dealt with the production or sale of food, it's now based on product sales and customer service. Our economy has been driven by the creation of debt rather than an equal percentage of the production and sale of products. While people may not have seen this on a grand scale, it's obvious that they saw it in their own lives. Everyone that decided to do something about their enormous debt knows that life changes dramatically when you transition from the love of things to some sense of financial responsibility. First, you quit making irresponsible large purchases that weren't really needed in the first place. Second, you break down your bills in a way to start getting out of debt. Third, you start to save and buy your products with money you've already earned. It takes time, but life becomes a lot easier once you get through it.

When the banks started failing as a result of their irresponsible decisions the government thought they could step in and save them. It's more than a little ironic that they chose to do this through the creation of debt by our government. The debt doesn't go away, instead it is managed by the "fat cats" of Washington. It's ultimately useless, and if by chance it would have worked we would have found ourselves in a similar situation a few years later. Sadly, result or no result, the American people now shoulder the financial burden. While people don't want to see it this way, we are worse off for saving them than we would have been had we let them fail.

So where is the solution? I believe the government needs to take a good look at itself. It needs to quit making huge financial commitments we don't really need, pay off the debt we've incurred, and change the financial culture of our government. I believe that they should take a lesson from the rest of our country, and I hope we as voters force them to do so.

Tax Cuts VS. Stimulus Packages

I've been wondering for the longest time if people have given any thought to the difference in effect of a tax cut and a stimulus package. It took me awhile to figure out, but I think I finally came up with a few reasons why a stimulus package would be preferred by our wonderful politicians. Though really, why the populous refuses to think this through and see how ridiculous the idea is on an economic level just drives me nuts.

First of all, the politician's motive. Unlike a tax cut, a stimulus package is a one time deal. They don't have to vote to raise or lower later, and it comes with a lot less controversy. Second, if successful, which we will soon see is hardly possible, they gain popularity. Third, it would seem to work a lot quicker, if it worked at all.

Unfortunately, from an economic standpoint, it stands a very slim chance of having any long term effects. One example of this would be the cash for clunkers idea. The theory is that people would go out and sell their old cars and buy new ones. Saving the jobs our auto industries are so quickly losing. It's real effect though is that while costing taxpayers billions of dollars, it only created a temporary incentive to buy cars at a time when Americans aren't wanting to make such a large financial commitment. What good does this do for the auto industry in the months to follow? It would seem to me that these stimulus packages are nothing more than life support for the terminally ill. Which is great for comforting friends and family, but doesn't much matter in the big picture fate has to offer.

Tax cuts, however, would reward the successful and ambitious companies who still had valuable products to offer. Auto industries that didn't make decades worth of poor decisions would still thrive, while the foolish would fade to black. I think we can assume that the demand for vehicles isn't going away any time soon. So we can also assume, in a world of supply and demand, that other companies would come up to replace them. From the failures we would have numerous lessons for the up and coming. Subjects such as; overpowering unions, pensions vs. 401k's, distribution of labor, rate of new technology, etc... We would come out bigger, stronger, and with the kind of jobs that would last for decades. This is how Capitalism works friends, it recycles. If we get in it's way it doesn't mean we are going to stop the process, we just may get lucky and prolong it until the next guy is in office.

Real effective change requires us to quit prolonging the inevitable, and to let nature take it's course.