Past Performance as Predictor: Romney Pt. 1

     From the outset it is important for me to draw a clear picture of what the goal is with this post. The idea is not to smear Romney or his campaign for the presidency. Smearing requires ad hominem attacks or half-truths. I will attempt to steer far clear of either of them. I am merely reproducing Romney's own statements on various topics in order to persuade the reader to consider again whether Romney is really for "small government." With this said, I don't need to remind you that the other party's candidate, our current president, is most certainly not for small government. We now have close to four years of experience, which is enough to convince voters one way or the other.

On to the question at hand, "Is Romney pro-small government?

First, Romney seems to support government involvement in corporate governance and compensation. He uses the word "encourage," but we don't know what his type of encouragement may include:

From his book, No Apology

• 17) Encourage shareholders and boards of directors to adopt reasonable compensation and long-term incentives for CEOs and executives.
• 18) Encourage measurement of corporate CEOs and union CEOs on the basis of teamwork, productivity, and long-term success of the enterprise.

His eleventh item in this same list says "Get the government out of General Motors - and other private companies." This further muddles our understanding of Romney's intent with items 17 and 18. We're left to wonder, but with some uneasiness.

Source: GoogleBooks

Next, Romney apparently believes that one of the president's duties is to create jobs:

"One is, is [Obama] going to get more jobs in this country? Is he going to find a way to have paychecks in people's hands at the end of the week?" -Fox News

Source: FoxNews Transcript

Further, Romney's foreign policy includes using military force outside our borders without a declaration of war. To be fair, this is not unique to him. Obama, G.W. Bush, Clinton, etc. have  all waged war, engaged military in battles on foreign soil without formal declarations of war. However, just because "everyone's doing it" doesn't make it right... or constitutional:

The GOP candidate stood by his position that the U.S. should "keep a military option available" to handle Iran, should diplomatic efforts and sanctions not "dissuade them from becoming a nuclear capability nation." 

Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/romney-to-blitzer-nuclear-iran-is-number-one-national-security-threat/

To be continued...

What is Freedom? Can We Keep It?

As we approach another election season, the temperature begins to warm with each passing day. Tempers flare and the temptation to resort to personal attacks grows stronger. The USA enjoys a high level of freedom of speech, and is just one of many freedoms in America.

Americans are legally allowed to share their opinions on religion, politics, government, and even sports. Can we keep this freedom? In this I'll defer to Frederic Bastiat who explained it much better than I could. The Law was written by Bastiat in France in 1850. I encourage all to read it with the intent to understand it.

Freedom is not inherently immortal. Once established, it can be destroyed. How?

An excerpt from The Law:

"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder."


In today's terms, "special-interest groups" hire "lobbyists" to consistently and persistently "lobby" members of Congress in order to "persuade" them to vote in a certain way that, of course, favors their clients.


Unfortunately, this has become the norm. Every member of Congress receives visits from lobbyists. Whether they "buy-in" or not varies, I'm sure, but the fact remains that the law "may be diverted from its true purpose."


Special interests are not new and neither is lobbying. We do owe it to ourselves, however, to ask "How much longer can the freedom-preserving laws of our Republic withstand the destructive waves caused by the persistent onslaught of competing special interests?" Sadly, the circus of Congress has become a spawning ground for lobbyists who are employed to counter-lobby against other special-interest groups. 


More eloquently and succinctly, Bastiat writes:

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system."

The United States Congress operates in this system today. It needn't be so. I invite you to read the remainder of Bastiat's essay. It's worth the effort.

-Matthew Nielsen

IVLG

Recommended video from CATO Institute:

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/reasons-you-are-libertarian

For all, regardless of political persuasion.

-IVLG

The Ideal President

Republicans want a president who will get spending under control, make jobs, education, and seniors a priority. They want a president who will get health care working correctly and make meaningful improvements to other social programs.

Democrats want a president who will get spending under control, make jobs, education, and seniors a priority. They want a president who will get health care working correctly and make meaningful improvements to other social programs.


Hmmm... Notice any similarities? Here's the Libertarian / Classical Liberal ideal:

Libertarians want a president who will drastically reduce spending by shrinking the size of government. They want a president who will set in motion the elimination of government involvement in jobs, education, and senior / health care, as well as all social programs.

Well, that sounds harsh, you say. Why? Given the history of incredible monetary efficiency in government (tongue-in-cheek), everyone should be clamoring for a libertarian president. If that was the only consideration, we'd still be in trouble, but not much less. Our freedoms depend on our ability to choose for ourselves. When presidents and Congress call themselves "lawmakers," I cringe! Please! No more laws! We have too many already, and if politicians didn't feel the need to meddle in every single facet of Americans' lives, we'd all feel and be more free.

What America needs in a President is someone who will reverse the tsunami of government meddling in the personal lives of its people. So far, no one from either party seems willing to "lay off." So, we're left to decide on the speed at which we move toward more government control rather than whether we want it at all.

Not much of a choice at all, is it?

Obamacare's Not For Everyone

Obamacare is a divisive piece of legislation. You all know which side of the issue IVLG lands on, of course.

But it makes me wonder why anyone would want the government to tell them what to do... again. Supporting legislation like this only diminishes your own right to choose.

Reason.com has a very interesting article that discusses and outlines the unenforceable nature of Obamacare. I suggest everyone read it.

-Matthew Nielsen
IVLG

Free? Trade

How "free" is Free Trade?

It's not. The only thing free about free trade is the freedom to push for any special treatment you want. Which quickly and regularly negates the first half of the operation's name... Free.

Individuals with influence do this all the time. Special treatment.

I once was talking with an employee at a zoo. During our conversation, a big-name movie star, celebrity type came into the zoo with her children. Immediately she wanted special treatment: a golf cart to shuttle her and her kids to each exhibit, food and beverages, and a gift bag for the kids when they left. This person paid for nothing. Amazing? Normal. Too normal.

The same goes for any of the world's economic leaders. All of them have gained their economic status as a result of foreign trade. This trade between nations is typically governed by trade agreements. The details of these agreements are not always free of elements of protectionism. Often, and nearly always, trade agreements include "provisions" for tariffs and duties on products which a nation is attempting to discourage other countries from exporting to them. They are "protecting" their economy from the competitive imports they receive from other countries.

Crazy!

If you're not competitive with your trading partners, improve or find something you are competitive at!

What is your government really protecting you from? Lower prices. That doesn't seem like protection, though, does it?

"Well, they're protecting our jobs, though." How so? If everyone could buy everything cheaper than they are now through the removal of tariffs, do you think there's a possibility that some of that money may be invested in technologies and industries in your home country? The quick answer is "Of course it could and most likely would, as a normal part of any healthy economy."

I'm ready for free trade.

Bring it on.

Nuclear Iran: US Foreign Policy

In today's "global village" foreign relations is immeasurably important. First and foremost, a nation has a responsibility to its citizens to engage in relationships with other countries for economic reasons. When you're the United States, it's an absolute necessity. How about politics? Today the United States gives away billions of dollars to other countries in the name of... Charity? Good Sportsmanship? Fairness? Economic Interest?


But, how far is too far? Should we be telling other countries what they can and can't do? If you think so, should other countries be telling the USA what to do?

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." -George Washington, 1796

Why do politicians tax our incomes then throw it over an ocean or two? WHY!?

They believe they're better judges of who needs my money than I am. Why else would they do it? WHY!?

WHY!?

Who Can We Trust?

Trust is a complicated thing. It's difficult to gain and easy to lose... or is it? How difficult is trust to gain, really?

Do you trust the media? Probably less now than ever, right?
But, honestly. Do you still believe what the talking heads tell you? 

Okay, another question. Do you trust your school teachers, whether yours or your children's or grandchildren's, as the case may be? "Trust them in what arena," you may ask. Do you trust teachers to educate? To tell the whole truth? Yes, Somewhat, No? If you answered anything other than "Yes," then you are more likely involved personally in the education process which will only help. That's my opinion.

Do you think it's possible that teachers' views may possibly purposely or accidentally get spilled into their curriculum, lesson plans and lectures? Do you think it's possible that they feed their views with the nightly news program of their choice? Do you think that the producers and anchors of these channels have their own views that may get mixed into the program?

Hmmm...

Do you think it's possible that a bit of doubt has crept into any trust you may have had in anyone? Well, there is no suggestion here that you should trust no one. That would be absurd at the least and maddening at worst.

However, there is an important idea here related to government and its ideal limitations. If seemingly everyone is susceptible to bias which shapes their worldview, and the spreading of it through their circles of influence, what prevents government from creating their own bubble where everything contrary to their position is ludicrous? Nothing, of course. You've seen it. You're experiencing it and it's been going on since 1789. That's the truth. I happen to believe that the Republic was created in the form that was most likely to succeed. But, we could not "keep it," as Ben Franklin famously quipped as he exited Independence Hall in Pennsylvania.

So, can I trust politicians? Hmmm... That's a tough one. My answer is, rarely. It's rare to find a politician who recognizes the bloated state of government and then votes to reduce its size. Why would an employee vote to reduce the size of his/her company? Fair question.

Who do I trust? Libertarians. People who will keep me safe from physical harm (foreign invasions, etc.), protect my property, preserve my freedom and then leave me alone.

Who can YOU trust?

Both Parties are Guilty

Great post from John Stossel.