RTCS

Views on the News

Views on the News*

September 5, 2015

 

The American people are being badly hurt by too much big government forced on them by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress.  The remedy is to elect a new President of the limited-government populist variety.  A weakened America needs a compassionate, strong-minded leader who speaks and acts to empower people, not government; who returns to the people the freedoms and prosperity taken from them by Washington, and who restarts America's engine of upward mobility based on merit and civic decency.  The new President can rescue and restore America's economy, its Constitution, its competence, its integrity, its self-respect, its standing in the world and, ultimately, its soul.  By definition, a 21st century populist President will in heart and mind see things not from government's perspective but from the people's.  From their perspective, Washington's ubiquitous "mistakes" that destroy jobs and incomes are not just bad economics; they are moral crimes for which the people's new President should have zero tolerance.  Political correctness must be replaced with free speech and thought, falsehood with truth, failure with success and weakness with strength.  The mess Obama has made with the economy and with health care must also be fixed with firmness and skill.  So must the foreign policy mess that the Obama-Clinton-Kerry axis has made in Iran and elsewhere.  The much-needed disciplining of Washington and the essential reforms in domestic and foreign policy will not occur unless the voters elect a President who is the polar opposite of the present one.  What a tragic irony it would be if voters who are angry about the problems caused by big government were to be duped into electing an Obama clone who, while appearing different and promising success, seized power, expanded government and took the same destructive actions that Obama did in causing the problems in the first place.  A limited-government President will be respectful of the Constitution, the rule of law, the rights of the people, and the principles of fair play and decency manifest in the American Creed described by Samuel Huntington as secular Christianity.  Further a limited-government populist will know the way to cure what presently ails America is to make the federal government smaller, not bigger, and Washington bureaucrats less powerful while making people, families, private enterprise and the economy stronger.  Obama and the postmodern leftists who now dominate the Democratic Party have a wrong idea about the proper role of government.  They've expanded its size and used its power as a weapon in an effort to "transform" America.  They've damaged the economy, killed the jobs that would have enabled millions to escape the welfare trap, restricted free speech and religious liberty, interfered with the doctor-patient relationship, put bureaucrats in charge of medical care while raising its price, increased the cost of education while reducing its quality and weakened our military while strengthening Iran's.  Unless these depredations are reversed, they will rob America's young people of their birthright.  If Hillary Clinton or some other Obama-affiliated Democrat is elected Nov. 8, 2016, and President Obama effectively gets a third term, the downward spiral of America will almost certainly continue, propelled by high taxation, deficit spending, job scarcity, low productivity, low workforce participation, increasing welfare rolls, racial and ethnic strife, illegal immigration, constitutional violations and cronyism.  If a 21st-century, stand-up-for-America Republican populist is elected, the needed transition from a big government to a big economy can begin immediately and move forward in an efficient and sensible way.  If the new president has the support of a grass-roots, upward-mobility coalition of voters from all backgrounds, and if the Congress cooperates, the people can again be in charge of their own lives and the economy can soon return to a high-growth path of plentiful jobs and rising incomes.  The choice between two very different futures depends on the wisdom and moral integrity of the American people.  Will the strong backbone of America, the people of all races and origins who work hard, raise families and fight to defend our homeland go to the polls en masse to call a halt to Washington's destructiveness?  Elections are the foundation of freedom; they must be treated with prayerful reverence; especially the one in 2016, because it will change America.

(“America Needs a Limited-Government Populist for President” by Ernest S. Christian dated September 1, 2015 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/090115-769158-america-needs-limited-government-populist-to-clean-up-obama-mess.htm )

Modern-style socialism was born during the French Revolution and Joshua Muravchik wrote: “Once empowered, socialism refused to yield its promised rewards. The more dogged the effort to achieve it, the more the outcome mocked the humane ideals it proclaimed, yet for a century and a half, no amount of failure dampened socialism’s appeal.  Then suddenly like a rocket crashing to earth, socialism collapsed, and officially repealed in half the places where it had triumphed.  In the other half, it continued in name only.  It was an ideology that claimed well over 100 million innocent lives in the 20th century.  It denied people basic economic and personal freedoms, including the right to own property, and the ability to respond to incentives to better their own lives.  Bernie Sanders proudly calls himself a socialist and is welcomed in the Democrat Party presidential primary.  North Korea and Cuba are the best-known remnants of classic socialism.  Only the willfully blind think these places are anything other than economic and moral disasters.  For more than two centuries, people who are economically literate have understood the benefits of free trade, which is based on two indisputable propositions.  The first is the greater the extent of the market, the less expensive goods and services tend to be, because of economies of scale. The second is each country has comparative advantages.  As a result, the people in both countries benefit.  Sanders, Hillary Clinton and others seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between tax rates and tax revenue.  Sanders has mentioned putting tax rates in excess of 90% on the rich.  The experiment of very high tax rates has been tried in many places over the decades, and it always results in the same outcome: the promised tax revenues fail to appear, and economic growth is undermined, thus reducing incomes and employment, and the governments end up reducing the rates. The tax rate increasers running for President seem to have forgotten that people do not work, save and invest to pay taxes.  Then again, despite all of the evidence, some people still believe the earth is flat.

(“The resurrection of discredited ideas” by Richard W. Rahn dated August 31, 2015 published by Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/31/richard-rahn-dont-resurrect-discredited-socialism/ )

Liberal politics want total equality with men but they also want special treatment for women's issues.  It seems to me that you can't be totally equal if you are demanding to only be equal on certain issues or when it is convenient.  Physically and genetically women and men are different.   They have different musculature and different sex organs.  Planned Parenthood addresses only women's health issues.  While women have a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, both sexes have breasts.  Granted, male breasts don't have mammary glands which makes them incapable of breast feeding, but they as well as women get breast cancer.  Men, on the other hand have a penis, testes and a prostate.  Testicular and prostatic cancer affect men of all ages and both should be screened for in males.   From what I have read about Planned Parenthood all of the issues they address, including abortion, could be handled in a clinic, a doctor's office or a hospital -- and ObamaCare or other insurance should be paying for all the care.  Many clinics and hospitals offer these services for free.  Birth control is also seen by the left as a women's only issue.  Impregnation is a two person endeavor.  Unless in-vitro fertilization is used, both a male and a female are required.   So why is birth control a woman's issue?  It is an issue between two consulting people of opposite sexes.  If a woman wants to be sexually indiscriminate and chooses that her partner wear a condom, instead of opting for other birth control methods, she also has the ability to say 'no' to a man who refuses to use one.  Men also have the ability to take control of the birth control issue, insisting on wearing a condom to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.  Men, on this issue, seem to be more trusting than women.  If a woman says she is using a birth control method, most men won't get the woman to prove the fact.  ObamaCare, as everybody knows, also covers birth control, but only birth control for women.  I've never heard about any insurance paying for condoms.  Women also want to be equal in the military.  Now, for true equality, let all women between the ages of 18 and 25 register for military service in the event of a draft.  If a male fails to register there are severe penalties.  Do women want to be equal or more than equal?  I believe a woman doing the same job as a man, performing at the same standards should be paid the same.  I also believe that if a woman is qualified for something her sex should not be a barrier.  I don't believe the barriers should be lowered to make exceptions for women or that women should say they want equality and then demand exceptions.

(“The Schizophrenic Left and Women” by Claire Hawks dated September 2, 2015 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/the_schizophrenic_left_and_women.html )

It is no secret that the recovery from the recession that ended in June of 2009 has been virtually non-existent.  More striking is the impact that this recession and its aftermath have had on the conventional wisdom in Washington regarding America's long-term economic future.  This is clearly seen in current forecasts of America's future economic potential from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which predicts that a large portion of America's economic potential has been permanently lost.  The CBO's June 2015 estimate of America's potential real GDP for this year is nearly 9% lower than the CBO forecast 2015 made in 2007.  Our actual economic performance now is even worse, over 12% below the 2007 estimate of where we should be after a full recovery from this recession.  Economic growth is the result of higher employment and higher worker productivity, and the CBO expects both to be much lower in future years than they did in their earlier forecast.  Relative to their 2007 report, the CBO now expects the labor force to be about 3% lower on a permanent basis, which represents a deficit of about 4 million workers.  The CBO also expects that those who do work in the future will be about 6% less productive than they expected in their earlier report.  The labor force participation of those aged 16-34 has dropped four percentage points from 2007 to 2014, which is a larger drop than occurred for the population as a whole.  We should not accept such a dismal forecast as the new normal.  The failure of our economy to achieve any economic recovery to the pre-recession trend is unprecedented in our history.  This means that the economy always grew more rapidly than average following periods of below normal economic growth, and that economic disruptions, no matter how severe, did not permanently affect U.S. prosperity.  For comparison, previous severe recessions, such as the 1974-75 and 1981-82 recessions, were followed by three years of real GDP growth that averaged around 5% per year, and that grew the economy back to trend.  Today's economy is much further below pre-recession estimates of trend than either the 1974-75 economy or the 1981-82 economy.  This means far more room for the economy to rebound today than after previous recessions.  If our economy were to achieve 4% growth per year, it would return to the 2007 CBO trend line by late 2023 or early 2024.  Expecting more from our economy, however, means expecting more from our policymakers, and policies will need to change considerably to job opportunities and raise productivity.  Safety-net policies should not discourage work through high implicit tax rates resulting from means-tested programs.  Regulatory policies should not erect barriers to competition and raise costs.  Education policies should expand competition and reward the most successful teachers.  Immigration policies should expand the number of skilled workers and immigrant entrepreneurs.  And tax policies should simplify the tax code, reduce business and personal marginal income tax rates and broaden the tax base.  Getting people back to work and boosting productivity should lie at the heart of the next President's economic agenda.

(“4% Economic growth? Yes, We Can Achieve That” by Andrew Atkeson, Lee E. Chanian and William E. Simon, Jr. dated September 3, 2015 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/090315-769633-four-percent-economic-growth-is-well-within-our-reach.htm )

We need to fix the climate of fraud, corruption, and policies that kill jobs, hope and people.  EPA’s 2,691-page Clean Power Plan is designed to eliminate coal mining and coal-fired power plants – and minimize natural gas substitutes.  The CPP requires that gas use can increase by only 22% above 2012 levels by 2022, and just 5% per year thereafter.  On top of that, new natural gas-fueled generating units that replace coal-fired power plants absurdly do not count toward state CO2 reduction mandates.  That means millions of acres of new wind and solar installations that generate expensive, unreliable electricity, and survive only because of subsidies, tariffs, anti-fossil fuel mandates, and exemptions from endangered species, environmental impact and other requirements that block fossil fuel projects.  Anti-energy, anti-growth policies imposed in name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” impact everything we do.  For minority, elderly and working class families, they bring soaring electricity costs, rising unemployment, unproductive lives on government assistance, diminished health and welfare, and shorter life spans.  They hogtie economies and kill jobs, prolong and worsen economic quagmires, crush aspirations and opportunities, perpetuate poverty, and foster anger, unrest and conflict.  Earth’s climate is doing pretty much what it always has: responding to powerful natural forces, changing, and driving atmospheric patterns and weather events that benefit some, harm others and sometimes wreak devastation.  It is not doing what gloom-and-doom computer models and headlines predicted.  We do not need to “fix” or “control” the climate. We couldn’t if we tried. We do need to fix the climate of fraud, corruption and destructive policies that kill jobs, dreams and people.  Obama said that he would use executive decrees to “fundamentally transform” the United States and ensure that electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket,” and he has kept his word.  He and his friends in the UN, EU, Big Green and Climate Crisis Industry have also made it clear that they intend to use the Paris conference to negotiate the future distribution of the world’s wealth and resources, determine what economic growth and living standards are “ecologically feasible,” and transform the global economic development model: replacing sovereign nations and free enterprise capitalism with global governance and decision-making based on “sustainable development” and “dangerous manmade climate change” mantras.  Impoverished people in developing countries want sustained development, not sustainable development.  They want decent jobs and modern houses, hospitals and living standards.  Only developed countries will be required to slash fossil fuel use.  Poor” nations (including China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Russia) will not be obligated to reduce their carbon-based energy use or carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions by any specific amounts or dates, though some say they “intend to try” to reduce emissions or may present non-binding targets some years from now.  The real bribe to induce poor nations to sign a new treaty is a binding commitment that increasingly less developed, less energy-powered, less rich countries will give “poor” nations (or at least their ruling elites) $100 billion per year in climate adaptation, mitigation and reparation payments.  That’s to cover damages that developed nations have supposedly inflicted on Earth’s climate.  Even more insane, the entire basis for this agenda, this treaty, these commitments and non-commitments, is bald assertions, driven by garbage in/garbage out computer models and deceptive, fraudulent science that humanity faces “unprecedented” global warming, rising ocean, weather and other calamities.  Too many environmental laws do not focus on protecting the environment.  They have become bureaucratic weapons to protect chosen industries and destroy those connected to carbon-based fuels.  It is a crime against humanity to implement policies that pretend to protect the world’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate dangers decades from now, by perpetuating energy deprivation, malnutrition, poverty and disease that kill millions of them tomorrow.  Our next President and congress must focus on job and economic growth, and overall human health and welfare and  must review and roll back destructive regulations, root out the fraud and corruption, and restore honesty, transparency and real science to our political and regulatory system.

(“Climate issues we do need to address” by Paul Driessen dated August 29, 2015 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2015/08/29/draft-n2045169 )

Climate change is the single most complex scientific question of human history.  Human nature has managed to morph politics and science together into a repulsive, philosophic monstrosity, half science and half religion, specifically designed to reduce multifaceted, chaos-based theory and its inherent, profound complexity to absurdly simple computer modeled abstractions.  This was accomplished for a reason, of course: specifically so that billions of dollars in global taxes may be levied at the point of a gun against the specter of anthropogenic climate change.  It was carefully planned that way from the outset, and it was successfully leveraged upon a single event embedded within Western thought:  the undetected collapse of the most fundamental understanding of the philosophy of science itself.  Science’s first line of defense against encroachments of ignorance, superstition and error is its own base of scientists and technical field experts. It is the task of every scientist to be on the alert for failures in basic philosophy and to defend the integrity of the scientific method when necessary.  Science is not built upon its aggregate hypotheses, but instead the hypotheses are built upon and supported by science.  The task is made even more difficult by an across-the-board failure of ethics within the profession, created by the billions of research dollars poured into anthropogenic climate change by a government that is entirely biased against any approach, study or theory except the one championed and paid for, solely reflecting the government’s predetermined, ethically conflicted, politically and economically motivated, self-serving theories.  Anthropogenic climate change is philosophically defined as a religion for the simple reason that it is based on faith and miscarried dogma.  It is based on faith because nearly all of its modeled predictions grounded on various abstruse hypotheses of atmospheric dynamics have failed, almost without exception.  In the most recent full frontal assault on scientific integrity, in a single sweep, U.S. federal agencies changed (increased) 15 years of recorded temperature measurements specifically to match its version of the state’s faith.  Supporting the central argument of this essay, when the data alteration happened, there was very little outrage from the scientific community.  It was simply accepted as business-as-usual in this brave new world of government enforced scientific faith where anyone who speaks against the creed is labeled, ostracized, marginalized and defunded.  To refuse to accept this surreal level of open fraud and enthusiastically join in the religious assembly, or to criticize in any way, is to invite vitriolic personal attacks against professional standing and personal character.  One of the many tools used to manage the true believers and keep them from drifting into certain skeptical apostasy is called consensus, the numbering of the faithful.  The term itself belies the failure of the most basic tenet of the philosophy of science, which argues forcefully against consensus seeking.   The process of science is unambiguously intended to manage an ever changing understanding of truth.  Science is purposefully designed to argue against itself, and even disprove itself, through a constructive intercourse of internal skepticism.  It is that skepticism that comprises the energy that drives science to a new, always evolving understanding of truth.  When an authentic scientist hears the amorphous, antithetical, oxymoronic term “scientific consensus,” it is immediately clear to anyone having a most elementary understanding of science that the discussion has drifted out of the scientific arena and into realm of social politics and religion.  For scientists to actually join in this mantra explicitly exposes their lack of fundamental knowledge of the philosophy of science.  In so doing, they have exposed themselves as card-carrying members of the government’s cult.  The damage thus far inflicted to the scientific process and the profession’s integrity by the religion of anthropogenic climate change and its relentless tyranny of consensus, is immense.  Like Diogenes seeking about the wilderness for but one honest man, it is becoming rare to find a scientist who will refuse to be counted on the list of the faithful, or speak up as a courageous, honest skeptic, challenging dogma, as a true master of scientific philosophy.  It is a distorted, weird-science-religion whose doctrinal proof is based upon its characteristically bizarre 21st century scientific raison d'être, “Because everybody says so.”

(“The Tyranny of Consensus” by Dennis Cumberland dated September 2, 2015 published at American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/the_tyranny_of_consensus_.html )

For four years while Sysia burned, the Obama administration has engaged in a “pantomime of outrage,” of strongly worded protests, and urgent meetings and calls for negotiation, the whole drama a sickening substitute for useful action.  People were talking to drown out the voice of their own conscience.  In 2013, President Obama lectured the U.N. Security Council for having “demonstrated no inclination to act at all,” Psychological projection on a global stage.  Always there is Obama’s weary realism: ”We must be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil.”  The largest humanitarian failure of the Obama era is also its largest strategic failure.  At some point, being “modest” becomes the same thing as being inured to atrocities.  The Islamic State forces have used skin-blistering mustard gas and deployed an army of suicide bombers.  We have seen starvation sieges, kidnappings, beheadings, and more than 10,000 dead children.  It was a crisis at the heart of the Middle East that produced a vacuum of sovereignty that has attracted and empowered some of the worst people in the world.  Inaction was a conscious, determined choice on the part of the Obama White House.  Sunni friends and allies in the region begged for U.S. leadership, but all requests were overruled or ignored.  In the process, Syria has become the graveyard of U.S. credibility.  The chemical weapons “red line.” “The tide of war is receding.” “Don’t do stupid [stuff],” are global punch lines.  Now the goal to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State looks unachievable with the current strategy and resources.  The Syrian regime is Iran’s proxy, propped up by billions of dollars each year.  Obama wanted nothing to interfere with the prospects for a nuclear deal with Iran, so the effective concession of Syria as an Iranian zone of influence is just one more cost of the President’s legacy nuclear agreement.  Never mind that Assad’s atrocities are one of the main recruiting tools for the Islamic State and other Sunni radicals.  All of which is likely to extend a war that no one can win.

(“The horrific results of Obama’s failure in Syria” by Michael Gerson dated September 4, 2015 published by The Washington Post at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-horrific-results-of-obamas-strategy-in-syria/2015/09/03/c16c117a-526c-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html )

 

There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news.  I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning.  Updates have been made this week to the following sections:

·    Employment at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/employment.php

·    Terrorism at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/terrorism.php

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/