This Is Your Government...

...and this is your government on stupid. Ahh, yes, nothing like the sweet smell of government takeovers to start your week off right, huh? Indeed, having decided that Chapter 11 was too harsh for it to accept and that 'bailout' was its only option, GM now gets to find out the hard way what us free-marketers were warning them about all along - that public funding for your business also means public management of your business.

Not that the folks at GM have any illusions about what they're getting into though, Rick Wagoner was happy to go, and he'll take the $20 Million dollar retirement package that comes with termination of his job to go with him thank-you-very-much, and the new CEO has already said he knows that he's not going to be the one who's actually in charge.

The result is that President Barack Obama, the man who is a lawyer by training and a Law Professor/Community Organizer/Professional Campaigner by vocation is now fully and totally in charge of running, nay saving, the 9th largest corporation in the entire world. Oh yes, and he'll be accompanied in this task by a Treasury Secretary who can't properly fill out his tax returns and has an entire staff of people who are....yet to be appointed by the President. (And likely Congress too, but you really don't want us to get started on those fuckers right now.)

Anyone else really wish a guy like Mitt Romney, who, you know, understands this kind of shit, was President right about now? Of course, Mitt suggested, way back in December, that we shouldn't have bailed these bastards out in the first place because, shocka, by not making them file for Chapter 11 we were 'bailing them out' of the serious internal restructuring that they needed to do to remain viable. Instead, with bailouts, we would just be turning them into another welfare recipient (albeit an insanely expensive one).

Here's the thing though, as the nice little parting gift that former CEO Wagoner got helps to demonstrate, by bailing these assholes out we have subsidized their bad decision-making process. Instead of being forced to account for the $38 billion in losses they took last year by doing things like eliminating bad Union deals, cutting out their CEO's golden parachute, or generally figuring out what the hell they were doing so terribly wrong that it cost them $38 Billion, they're going to simply sit around and wait for whatever the government's next batch of instructions are. Moreover, how can we possibly blame them for doing just that?

Afterall, by giving them this bailout(/subsidy) we've now incentivized this corporate laziness; because now the company's money isn't coming from it's ability to sell automobiles, but rather its ability to grovel like a cheating husband at the feet of its new Government overlords. In other words, we're expecting this company to be able right the metaphorical ship despite having eliminated the incentives that might make it profitable again, and having turned its management over to people who have neither a direct financial stake in its future profitability nor the proper credentials to hold such positions.

Brilliant.

Of course, that, in a nutshell, is why the Government shouldn't run businesses - because their intervention, particularly on this massive of a scale, screws up the profit motive that is the driving force of capitalism. And honestly, if you don't understand why that's a bad thing (or why Capitalism is a better corporate manager than the effin Government), then you're either a hippie, a fascist, or a communist - in which case you'd be too far gone for me to give a damn about you at this point anyways.

Now, with apologies for all the cussing above, and in an attempt to make you feel even worse, here's the internet's newest viral video star, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Party member of the European Parliament for England, on how, in addition to spending ourselves into oblivion, the Anglo-Saxon world now has to endure the additional humiliation of having the Germans and the French being the ones telling us that we must step away from the bailout trough:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(For those of you who have, sadly, missed out on the Daniel Hannan craze, please, for the love of God, go watch this short video of the speech he made eviscerating Gordon Brown (and bailouts) at the European Parliament last week. I promise it'll make your day.)

***Update***

Irony alert: the new CEO of GM now says that Chapter 11 actually looks pretty good. It only took them a few months, a government takeover of their management structure, and a few billion taxpayer dollars, but at least they might finally be on the right track...

Masking Mediocrity

Ah, the joys of "free" healthcare:

"A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients...

He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.' "

Lovely, huh?

The great thing about this story is that it's a perfect example of why the type of "Universal Health Care" system desired by President Obama, other liberals, and even some 'Conservatives' (hello, Mitt Romney...) here in the U.S won't, ultimately, work.

Many a time during the campaign, when asked to defend himself against charges that his Healthcare plan was a thinly veiled attempt at socialized medicine, President Obama responded by saying that, since those who so desired would be able to opt out and get private health insurance, his plan couldn't be dubbed socialized medicine. Indeed, the point of the "universal" part of his plan, he argued, was simply to ensure that those millions of uninsured Americans would never have to go without, thanks to the government sponsored insurance he would be offering.

Well, guess what? In the U.K, people with the financial resources do have the option of getting private healthcare; and furthermore, in a manner that would seem to dovetail nicely with President Obama's plan, those who can't afford such a luxury are given all the health coverage they need via the NHS. Nevertheless, despite being fully provided for by their government, the British folks who were supposed to have been saved from the pain of being uninsured by the almighty hand of a government health care program still aren't getting the health care that they need.

Indeed, despite having a truly "Universal" system of health coverage at his disposal, Ian Boynton was unable to do something as simple as find a dentist to examine his toothache.

What this particular story illustrates so well is a point, which I have made on many an occasion before, that neither socialized medicine nor Universal Health Care (not that the difference is all that substantial...) will solve the current Health Care problems in the United States. This is due the fact that, like all big-government programs, they are inherently flawed solutions because they fail to address the real problem facing the system. In this case, both in the U.K and U.S, the real problem is that Health Care is to expensive. What Socialized Medicine and Universal Health Care both do to address this problem is to offer you either "free" or insanely cheap Health Insurance to make sure that you have enough money to cover this high cost. In other words, instead of directly addressing the problem of expensive health care, and trying to bring down these high costs, these programs are designed to simply mask it through government welfare.

Of course, the problem with masking crises instead of confronting them is that they tend to fester and come back - usually with a much greater degree of monetary pain than they hit you with on the first go-round.

That's why, if we want to try to offer real health care reforms here in the United States, we can't fall into the trap of simply offering up ideas that don't address the real problem. If we want to make Health Care in the U.S better, we need to look at solutions that will actually reduce the costs of health care and thus make it affordable to an even greater number of Americans - without us having to give them a welfare check, first. Two quick and easy ideas to jumpstart such a change would be to allow insurance companies to compete across State lines and to reduce our Doctors' operating costs through Medical Malpractice reform.

Just anything but Big Government, please. Because, afterall, I can already pull my own teeth out with pliers for free - and I don't even have to bankrupt my country's future in the process.

From The Department Of Duh...

Here's a real shocking story out of Great Britain, it seems that a full two-thirds of Brits who are about to be approaching their later, retiree years have no plans to save up any money to help pay for any of the medical care they might need in their old age. The even bigger shocka, the reason they're not saving is because most expect the government to just give them money when they need it.

What a surprise, raising a bunch of people on government handouts causes them to stop being responsible for themselves. Indeed, conditioning people to expect government welfare does, in fact, create a disincentive for saving (or making) one's own money. It's really not that hard to figure out, assuming you have a basic understanding of human nature and a little bit of common sense. I mean, would you save your money for retirement if you knew the government was going to give you whatever you might need anyways?

Alas, this is why, many years ago, Benjamin Franklin disliked the idea of public welfare - because he knew that people would just take advantage of the system and use it to avoid responsibility for their actions and futures. Plus, allowing people to live freely without having to seriously plan for their futures, and, instead, expecting the government to bail them out, creates nothing more than a nation of government-owned slaves.

A Reason To Care

One would think that by now, given all the statistics that have been compiled and predictions that have been made on the subject, Washington politicians would have realized that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Welfare reform is an issue that needs to be brought to the forefront and dealt with immediately. Sadly, of course, they haven't, and our oversized, bloated federal programs remain on track to create a fiscal catastrophe in the not-so-distant future.

Thankfully (or rather, frighteningly), we have evidence of what will happen if we continue down this path towards Democratic Socialism. The evidence, of course, is Europe. We have the high unemployment rates in France and Germany, the horrors of Britain's National Health Service, and the stagnated growth rates in Scandinavia, all of which, understandably, should warn us of the perils of Democratic Socialism. Even more frightening than the consequences of such programs, however, are the solutions that one must implement if one refuses to downsize or privatize these massive programs in the face of a rapidly ageing population. The obvious one is to increase the tax burden on the young and force them to finance the handsome pensions of their parents' and grandparents' generations; and in Britain, that's exactly what they've decided to do.
This article, from The Times, reports a shocking new statistic: that British college graduates could lose up to one-half of their starting salary to taxation. What a terribly large amount of money to have removed from one's paycheck to help finance government welfare programs - but, unfortunately, this is what has to happen in Britain. With declining birthrates, increased spending on welfare programs, and increasing longevity, increasing taxes on the young is one of the few ways to make the numbers work. The reason is simple; one of the most profitable taxes, from a government perspective, is the income tax - and old people don't work! So, youngsters will begin to see less and less of their paychecks if the system is to be maintained.

There is, of course, another downside to this that any good supply-sider will have already recognized; and that is that drastic tax increases on your workers' paychecks translates into less disposable income. This, in turn, means that people will be less likely to spend money and contribute to the overall economy. In other words, as President Reagan proved, higher income taxes means less overall economic productivity and an all-around, weaker economy.

And that brings me back to the United States, a country where we still have the pleasure of deciding whether we want our future to be like Britain's (or France's, or Sweden's....) or if we want it to be, well, as American as it's always been.

It's hard to talk about things like privatizing Social Security; or to tell our Senior citizens that they just might have to endure a benefit cut; hell, these days it's becoming hard to simply oppose, outright, all forms of socialized medicine; but at the end of the day, these are the things that we need to talk about - and must do. Especially considering that the alternative is figuring out how to distribute a massive tax burden.

As Painful As Pulling Teeth

Ah, the wonders of Socialized Health Care, they just never stop coming:

"[In the U.K,] large numbers of people are going without dental treatment and some even report extracting their own teeth because they cannot find an NHS dentist in their area"

Gosh that sounds like fun, having to pull my own teeth out because I can't find a dentist - hey wait a minute, I guess this means you really do get free health care under socialized medicine!! I mean, you're certainly not going to pay yourself for doing your own Dental Work.

But hey, at least this dental shortage has spawned some of that good ol' creativity:

"Some of the respondents show considerable ingenuity. 'Filled own teeth - clove oil and Polyfilla,' said one in Essex. Another fixed a crown with Superglue and a third used a screwdriver to scrape off plaque."

There's some crafty ol' chaps still left in Britain, yes sir; and good thing too, because I can't say I really expect their MPs to do anything about it - anything that will work, at least.

Indeed, one Liberal Democrat spokesman, quoted in the article, noted that "this survey shows the system is at breaking point." Really?!? Maybe it's just me, but if you have a system that's been around for 8 years (as this one has) that's supposed to provide Universal Dental Care, and people are still having to pull their own teeth, the system ain't at a 'breaking point' - it's already busted.

Moreover, the solution of the London politicians, whether Liberal Democrat, Labour, or even Tory, will be to 'reform' the program - you know, make some changes so that the NHS will 'work better' and 'be more responsive to peoples' needs,' and all those other tried and true slogans politicians use. But none of the reforms they can propose will work.

Why? Because, ultimately, the problem isn't a kink in the system - it's the system itself.

Saving The Planet: One Tax At A Time

With Great Britain's continual build-up of inefficient social welfare programs, sickening political correctness over radical Islam, and recent retreat from the Military arena in Iraq, many American Conservatives might be wondering if the British people are beginning to slowly lose the political common sense for which they are known. Then, however, we read stories like this, which give us a slight bit more faith in our Allies across the Pond.

It seems that Britons have begun to accrue some doubt concerning their government's motives when it comes to tax increases aimed at offsetting carbon-emissions. You see, the British Government believes that part of its job is to help the British people atone for their 'sins' - and of course by 'sins' what I mean is 'sins committed against the almighty global warming gods.' So in an effort to pay for what amounts to a National CO2 offset, the British Government has decided to force its citizens to pay for carbon-offsets via taxation - because, hey, what better way for the government to solve a problem than to raise a tax, right?

Well, actually, its really taxes. But hey - details, schmetails.

Nevertheless, a new poll suggests that some 2/3 of Britons feel that their Government is using environmental issues as a front, and that behind this front they are simply raking in extra tax dollars. And, as it turns out, those 2/3 of Britons are right. It seems that the U.K Parliament is taking in far more in environmental taxes than it might need in order to pay for the Nation's carbon offsets.

The estimated cost of this off-set scheme? 11.7 billion Pounds. The amount of money the Government raked in in eco-taxes? 21.9 billion Pounds. A full 10.2 billions Pounds more than they actually needed.

(For us Americans, that would probably be, like, somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion, given the exchange rate and all.....)

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Needless to say, this system the British Government came up with to try and reduce Britons' CO2 emissions hasn't really done anything other than, well, swell the coffers of the British Parliament; and, hell, that's assuming that this whole carbon offsets-purchasing program isn't a big crock of bullshit to begin with. (Which it is.)

So, Americans, beware of the Global Warming doomsayers who warn of catastrophe if we don't increase our taxes on gasoline use; because the only thing that the government does to any great degree by increasing these taxes is increase its available funds - evidence the extra 10 billion Pounds sitting around Westminster Palace.

Finally, there's no question that we need to reduce our consumption of oil - much of that foreign oil serves as a financial lifeline for Islamists - however, the way to do that is most certainly not through increased taxation.

Besides, the idea that we (or our government) could buy 'indulgences' to atone for our sins so went out of style after the Protestant Reformation.

Those Crazy Brits

Q: What happens when big government gets between an Englishman and his cigarettes?

A: He uses his (classically British) sense of determination to get around it in any way possible; which, in this case, happens to mean turning his Pub into an Embassy for some remote Caribbean Island. (story)

20 bucks says that, by the end of this week, a cannabis joint near you will check into whether or not the Dutch already have an Embassy here in the U.S.

The British Edge

All over the world, Freedom is hailed for its positive influences and outright necessity. Of course, when we speak of Freedom, we typically reference political Freedom - things like free speech, free press, etc. However, in doing so, we omit a crucial component of the term: Economic Freedom. Recently, I happened upon the annual Index of Economic Freedom, released earlier this year by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, which ranks the Nations of the world in terms of their Economic freedom. Unsurprisingly, the top 7, (Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland) was a clean sweep for the former British Empire; which founded economic systems based on British Capitalism in all 7 of the list-topping countries.

Indeed, Capitalism, it seems, after all these years, (and for all the vileness of its evil, Imperial, British inventors,) still works; and those Nations who are smart enough to continue implementing it do pretty well - especially when it comes to the question of that Freedom which we all value so highly.

So here's to the Adam Smiths, Milton Friedmans, Sir John Cowperthwaites, and Margaret Thatchers of the world for giving us, and maintaining, the best Economic system there ever was.

Oderint Dum Metuant?

Well, well, well - it seems as if my post from last Thursday (2 down) was, unfortunately, somewhat prophetic in its nature. Whilst I was busy writing about how Western powers needed to beware of Iran calling some of their military bluffs, Iran was but hours away from capturing 15 British soldiers, making a mockery out of the (once) Mighty British Empire, and proving my point in the process. Indeed, it seems that right now, the Iranian Government has about as much respect for Tony Blair as it did for Jimmy Carter when he crashed those helicopters in the desert back during the last major go-round of Iranian hostage taking. As a result, Iran feels perfectly safe venturing into Iraqi waters to capture 15 of Mr. Blair's troops; and, so far, their fear of reprisal, or rather, lack thereof, has proved singularly correct in the face of Prime Minister Blair's rather bland and unsuccessful attempts at rescue.

What I believe Mr. Blair should be doing is using this as an opportunity to, ahem, remind the Iranians who the World Power is in this inter-national relationship; because, honestly, if you were new to International Politics, at this point you might think it was the Iranians. So Jason, you might say, are you suggesting that the British need to go in and indiscriminately bomb Iran until they release the soldiers? Absolutely not. Such action would be unethical and unnecessary.

Yet, we obviously can't sit around and do nothing. The question is what, precisely, we should do that would be forceful and assertive, yet, at the same time, not over-the-top, Stalin-esque? Let's turn to the British playbook to review our options. Tony Blair has already gone to work turning up the heat in the rhetorical oven, and while that's certainly a viable option, it's, uhh, not very likely to achieve any results. So let's move on to the next page in the playbook, which involves turning up the 'diplomatic pressure.' This, of course, is option number one in the, widely acclaimed, European Union Playbook, making it a widely popular choice in hostage situations throughout the world. Sadly, this option was also number one in the, much-less acclaimed, Jimmy Carter Playbook and, uhh, well, I think we all know how smashingly well that particular Playbook worked.

A third option (not technically in any Playbook), and my personal favorite, would be for Tony Blair to simply get the hell down to MI6 and send James Bond in after the bloody hostages! I mean seriously, this option involves twice the destruction, triple the sweet-ass tech toys, and, for kicks and grins, he'll destroy their atomic reactors on the way out. Heck, as an added bonus he'd also manage to find the only chic in Iran not wearing that stupid head-scarf thing. You know you want to use this option.

Nevertheless, while James Bond might be my favorite modus operandi, there are more realistic and reasonable ones which could easily be pursued. The best of these, in my opinion, seems to be the one which centers around attacking Iranian oil production. However, let me note that these are British soldiers which are being held hostage, which ultimately makes this Tony Blair's call, not ours. Given that, perhaps the best way to read this next part is as my suggestion for what might be done if the hostages taken had been Americans.

Now, the problem, for Iran, is that they have only ONE oil pipeline which carries all of their exportable oil. Furthermore, they also import a fair amount of oil through their few ports on the Arabian Sea; and these two sources of oil are the lifeblood of their economy. Consequently, the idea behind this strategy is to tell the Iranians that, if they don't release the captives within a day or two, we'll simply destroy their only oil pipeline and blockade their ports. It's very simple, and likely would cause few if any casualties on either side. Of course, the concern is, given our addiction to oil; can we possible withstand destroying Iran's oil producing abilities? I believe the answer is yes. Would oil prices soar? Absolutely. Would this cause problems for us? Certainly. However, it's probably not as bad as you might think. For starters, take a look at the data here, which shows the top importers of oil to the United States.

Take note of the fact that Iran is not even in the top 15 of oil importers to the United States.

Again, this is not to say you wouldn't be paying a fair bit more at the pump the day after such an incident were to occur, the point is that, while bad, the loss of Iranian oil would not be completely destructive for the United States (or the U.K, for that matter). On the other hand, it would be catastrophic for Iran. It seems to be no real secret that the Iranian economy, despite its oil revenues, just flat-out stinks right now; indeed, one might easily conclude that Iran has virtually no economy productivity outside of its oil sector. Thus, were its oil revenues sent from billions to $0 in a single day, I believe the Iranian economy would collapse, which, needless to say, would have some serious consequences for Iran.

Perhaps most importantly, such an operation would clarify to Iran the point we have been (unsuccessfully) trying to make with all those Naval Task forces sitting off their coast: that we are the Superpower here, not you. This goes back to my last post: we have to make them fear us, and respect the fact that we are more powerful than they are - and what better way to do that than to cripple their entire economy with one well-aimed bomb and a few Battleships. A sort of 'crash course' in Peace Through Superior Fire Power.

I know, you're probably wondering about the effects this might have on regular Iranians. Won't they hate us more? Won't they like America even less after such an incident? The honest answer: probably - and let me tell you why I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

First, I'm not sure if the Iranians really can hate us much more than they already do; and second, I don't care if they hate us. In fact, it doesn't matter to me whether or not they like us - I just want them to fear us. This post's title is a quote from the Roman poet Lucius Accius, which translates as "let them hate, so long as they fear." It applies perfectly to Iran. Sure, we might incite the few supporters we have left there to change their opinion of us and to turn to terrorism; but honestly, when your approval rating in a country is down in the single digits, doesn't it make more sense to spend your time and effort fighting the 90+% who already hate you rather than trying to preserve that 7% who might, possibly still like you? And also, if Iran were to retaliate by sending troops and resources over the border to ferment conflict in Iraq.....oh wait, they've already been doing that for 2 or 3 years now. Iran just has to know that certain things just won't be tolerated, and the only way they will learn that lesson is if they fear our potential retaliation, just enough.

The best of luck is to be wished for Tony Blair in his negotiations with Iran. If he can resolve this quickly and 'diplomatically' much kudos to him and (depending on how little he gives up in return) much admiration for the bargaining chips of the British Empire will be in order; but the longer this crisis goes on the weaker he and his Nation will look. Indeed, the one lesson that I think he can learn from Jimmy Carter's disastrous performance in the '79 Iranian hostage crisis is that World Power status is not for the faint of heart; and weak-willed Superpowers garner little respect from radical, rogue states - and deserve even less.