A Balanced Budget Amendment We Can Live With

Image via Wikipedia

We have to get a balanced budget amendment. I'd like to see any budget with a deficit subject to referendum that also approves immediate taxes to pay it down within 10 years.

And if we have a war or other emergency that requires spending, Congress should be free to start spending, as long as a referendum that approves or vetoes the spending is arranged promptly.

And we need a tax to pay off the existing debt, all of it, within 50 years in the same amendment.

There's no reason the richest country in the world should operate the way it does. The result will be our decline and eventual loss of any power in the world. We cannot expect to compete with other powers technologically and militarily if we don't get our economic house in order.

A lot of people like to talk about democracy, but actually giving the people control over how much debt they are getting into is not what they have in mind.  Many want a process that they can game to their own advantage.

In the US, the trappings of democracy is used to keep the people under control, not to give the people control over their government.  And debt is used to keep the people from understanding the real costs.

Its time we took off the backwards sunglasses.

Why Income Inequality is A Great and Necessary Thing

Northern Minnesota Mine (Photo credit: cliff1066™)

Income inequality is a sign that an economy is functioning properly, for people vary greatly in their talents, ambition, tolerance for risk, vision. Some can lead, delegate and inspire, while others cannot. 

Some are great at collaboration, others love confronting difficult challenges. Some are great at squeezing suppliers and others good at pushing people to adopt the next wave of technology. Some know exactly what people want and others are incredibly creative. Some never stop learning.

Some do none of the above and only want everything defined for them with no risks or growth required.

How could anyone analyze all of this incredible variability and decide whether people get too much money for their contributions?

Income inequality rewards the development of all of those qualities.  We all benefit from what high producers produce.

And then they put what they earn in the bank where we can borrow it to make ourselves more productive.

How is that not beneficial for every person in the country?

Cain stumbling under glare of national spotlight - Yahoo! News

Image by pbeens via Flickr

Cain stumbling under glare of national spotlight - Yahoo! News

Don't worry. A man running for president is only joking about killing people. ha ha. what a kidder.

Here's a clue about telling jokes, Mr. Cain. First, don't joke about death, especially the death of the downtrodden.

Second, if you are telling a joke, pay attention to whether people laugh or not. If not, let them know you were telling a joke.

Third, don't lie about your non-jokes way after the fact and expect me to believe you.

Related articles

• "Herb Cain" answers Palin's flavor-of-the-week comments (hotair.com)
• Cain In Vain (theillogicalseminary.com)

Here's to the Crazy Ones

A lot of people think that fans of liberty are a bit whacked.

There's nothing crazy about wanting people to interact with each other peacefully.

That's all liberty is.

The actually crazy ones are those who think only force can solve problems.  Lets hope they emerge from their psychosis soon.

Any truly great idea must struggle to gain acceptance.  There has never been a better time to return to the great ideas on which this country was founded.

Banking Isn't the Problem

Image via Wikipedia

There's nothing inherently faulty with people lending their money to others or with an intermediary taking part of the action for arranging things.

Most of the recent problems with banking have a different root cause, namely that the government relieves you of all responsibility for choosing wisely who you lend your money too.

Your savings are insured. But unlike rational insurance, risky banks are insured at the same cost as prudent banks. That doesn't exactly give banks useful feedback about the risks they are taking.

On top of that, the government also implicitly guarantees to these banks that they'll never let them go out of business. So they can take all kinds of risk and only suffer when they don't take enough high-paying risks.

And, over time, those in charge of this insurance take money for gradually loosening standards for what they insure. Yes, Congress is actually corrupt. Sorry to break it to you.

Oh, sure, Congress clamps down on the banks AFTER bad practices lead to disaster. But then, slowly and inexorably, time and lobbyist cash gradually get Congress to loosen standards.

The public, who didn't truly understand the causes of the previous disaster, has forgotten about what happened, the political pressure dissipates and Congress returns to subsidizing unreasonable risks.

But don't worry: you're insured. Unfortunately, unlike any other insurance you've ever bought, behind the scenes, the actual costs are being billed to you. You'll be forced to pay higher taxes in the future to clean up the very disaster the government supposedly protected you from.

Bill Clinton Misinterprets Constitution

Image via Wikipedia

Here's the article.

Clinton points to this clause in the Fourteenth Amendment: "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned." as justification for ignoring the debt ceiling. But as I read it, its talking about the debt not being questioned, not new spending not being questioned. Default is not allowed constitutionally. Clearly, paying the interest on our debts SHOULD take precedence over new spending.

Paying the interest on the debt is not the same as paying for new spending. There is more than enough revenue to pay the interest. If Congress and the President followed the Constitution, there's no risk of default.

Of course, the actual language is about whether the US is on the hook for debts incurred by the Confederacy or any losses related to emancipating the slaves.

"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Unintended Consequences

Image via Wikipedia

Another sad story.  An infant was shot and killed, this time in Silicon Valley.

Its unfortunate that those who report these sad stories seldom identify our drug policies as the root cause of a lot of the violence we see.

When alcohol was illegal during Prohibition, there was a great deal of violence associated with distribution of alcohol.  And it evaporated when prohibition was repealed.

If we simply allowed each neighborhood to decide for itself what drug use was allowed, drug sales would become a peaceful activity governed by the same laws as other industries.  And it would take place in limited areas, away from where people raise their kids.

And I think that's what people really want.  They don't need to control everybody's lives.  That's not possible under any system.  But it is possible to limit where it happens and greatly reduce the violence associated with it.

Related articles

• 50 Years of Prohibition...and where has it got us? (blackpoppymag.wordpress.com)
• Why "The War on Drugs" Has Failed (psychologytoday.com)
• War on drugs continues south of the border (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Mothers Day Plea to End the War on Drugs (alternet.org)
• Former world leaders: War on drugs has failed (usapartisan.com)
• Prohibition Failed Then and It Fails Now (cafehayek.com)