New Political Party Forming --- the New Blood Party (NBP)

-->

Here’s an idea for a new political party.  It won’t cost you a cent to join, but if you do join, it would make a monumental difference in your life and in the lives of all other Americans.

This new political party won’t hold a convention, won’t elect officers, and won’t ask you for money.  All you have to do to join is don’t vote for an incumbent.

This New Blood Party has only one party plank; vote every incumbent out of office in the next elections and in every future election.  You'll get more bang for your buck if you vote with the NBP at every political level --- local, state, and federal.  But it's exceptionally important at the federal level.

In other words, federal politicians would get one term, and one term only.  If you like, we can expand the term for a member of Congress to four years.  One 6-year term as a senator seems just about right as it is, in my judgment.
 

If you're Democrat, vote Democrat. Just don't vote for the incumbent Democrat.

If you're Republican, vote Republican. Just don't vote for the incumbent Republican.  Whatever your political stripe, just don't vote for an incumbent.  Join the NBP

Send a message to all politicians; we're tired of their B.S., and we’re not going to take it anymore. Use the ballot box; make a difference.  Don't simply vote for the "lesser of the two evils" as we've all been doing.  Join the NBP; don't vote for an incumbent. No exceptions.

It's pretty simple. Nobody needs to change parties or political philosophy. A few good politicians would lose their jobs, but don't worry; they probably have better retirement and health insurance than 95% of the American public anyway.  They'll be okay.
 

We’ve all had to struggle for the last five years. Have you had a raise?  Me neither.  Some of you have lost your job and may now be working a lower paying job just to feed your family.  You can thank Congress for that; The 545 have the power, you know.  Recessions don't just happen.  You can read more about that here , and for good measure, here.
 

It really doesn’t even matter who is President of the United States.  It is pleasant to have a President who can make a good speech, but that's not really what matters.  It wouldn't hurt if the President believed in personal liberty and voluntary exchange, either.  But in the end, it isn't who's President that really matters.

It’s the 535 members of Congress who pass laws and control spending that really matter.  Let’s review the record of the Incumbent Party, which is the party we have in Washington today.  Want the facts about that claim?  Check it out here.

       

• The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. Congress had 234 years to get it right, but it can’t compete with Fed Ex and UPS, but the Postal Service wants more tax-dollar subsidies (and higher rates), just same.

• Social Security was established in 1935. Congress had 74 years to get it right, but everyone knows it will be bankrupt without enormous increases in our taxes.  By the way, lots of us know how to fix Social Security.  Just make it an actuarial annuity program.  But wait; that wouldn't get the Incumbent Party re-elected, even though it would work.  Maybe that explains why we have the Social Security program we have?
   
• Fannie Mae was established in 1938. Freddie Mac in 1970. Any questions about these two financial debacles?  If so, read about it here.  They played a central role in the Great Recession we are still in the grips of today.

• The War on Poverty started in 1964. But even with $1 trillion of our money confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor," all we have gotten is a permanent class of “the poor” who want ever larger handouts.

• Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. Everyone knows that without massive increases in taxes, both programs will be bankrupt in 20 years.

• The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000employeeswith a budget of $24 billion a year, but we import more oil than ever before. Congress and its Incumbent Party had 32years to get it right, yet it is an abysmal failure.

Congress and its Incumbent Party has failed in virtually every "government service" it has shoved down our throats; meanwhile, the federal debt has ballooned to more than $12.5 trillion with no possibility of slower growth in sight.  Read about it here. This year's federal deficit alone will top a mind-boggling $1 trillion.  Simply stupefying.

Now, Congress and its Incumbent party want Americans to entrust health care to the federal government and its bureaucratic minions.  Simply unbelievable. 

Join the NBP; don’t vote for an incumbent, regardless of who it is or what she or he has done for you or your state.  If your politician did a great job, fine; thank them and then let’s move on.

If you like what’s going on in Washington, and you think voting out every incumbent is a bad idea, then keep voting for the same folks who are bringing you just what we've got.  But if you're fed up and think getting rid of long-term professional politicians is a great idea, then don't vote for an incumbent ever again.  Join the NBP.

Something Got Reformed, But It Wasn't Health Care

Here, Holman W. Jenkins explains what lies ahead for health care in America.  Read it and weep, for he is exactly right.

If the large health insurance companies had not wanted Obamacare as it got passed and will be amended starting almost immediately, it would never have passed in the first place.

Everyone should already understand that big pharma and big HC insurance are the BIG winners with Obamacare.  Yes, BHO understands all this and more, just as Jenkins says.  BHO isn't dumb; he just doesn't believe in personal liberty and voluntary exchange.

It isn't unusual for a politician to favor socialism.  But it is unusual for so many Americans to follow a socialist down the Road to Serfdom.  Will we the people continue to follow in November 2010, and again in November 2012?  Stay tuned.  I don't pretend to know.

Historic Health Care Bill Passes

News Alert

from The Wall Street Journal

"The U.S. House of Representatives voted 219 to 212 to approve the biggest transformation of the U.S. health system in decades, the culmination of efforts by generations of Democrats to achieve near-universal health coverage.

  

The legislation will extend health coverage to 32 million Americans now without insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It will mandate that almost every American carry health insurance—a provision that opponents are set to challenge in the courts."

The 2,000+ page bill that describes Obamacare is without doubt the largest, most far reaching piece of legislation the United States Congress has ever passed.  The bill is truly historic, but not because it will bring free health care to Americans who don't now have so-called health care insurance. 

It is utterly clear that about half the Congress is hell-bound for leather to ignore the will of the people, ignore the Constitution, discard liberty, and confiscate an ever growing share of GDP.

Click here to read about major features of Obamacare.  The first thing you will notice is that your taxes are going up.

Oh, by the way --- did I mention that your taxes are going up.  Read about it here.  But wait, you say.  BHO said tax increases would hit only the wealthy, right? Either BHO really is a liar, or he really is ignorant of economic reality. You decide which.  YOUR payroll taxes are going up, regardless of how much income you make right now.

Obamacare will turn out to be the largest transfer of income in the history of the planet.  If you're okay with that, then you will love Obamacare. But if you realize that a whole bunch of the people who earn the income will not be happy to have their income simply stolen, then you already understand that Obamacare is the Road to Serfdom.

Yes, the health care deformation bill passed on Sunday, March 22, 2010 is truly historic.  But not because it will bring free health care to people who do not now have health care.  The bill is historic for what it says America has become --- or is it just half of America?

Nearly 50% of American households pay no federal income tax.  I guess the Democrats are counting on their votes in November 2010.  Now the hard facts of economic life will be learned yet again --- just as they have been learned throughout all of human history.

Health care is real stuff.  It takes real resources to produce health care.  Who will produce the free health care Obamacare promises?  Will you?  Can you?   Even BHO cannot command free health care to appear magically, talented as he may be. 

It's Getting Really Crazy in Washington

Read here about how Nancy & Co. plan to violate the supreme law of the land.  If this doesn't make your skin crawl, you have really tough hide.

Here's a simple proposal.  Don't vote for anyone who runs as a Democrat in 2010, regardless of what they say or do between now and then, and especially if they are an incumbent.  While we're at it, don't vote for any incumbent in 2010, regardless of whether they run as a Democrat or a Republican.  Clean the House and a third of the Senate.  That will solve a whole lot of problems.

Yet Another Example of BHO's Propensity to Fabricate

Here, Alan Reynolds documents BHO's continuing lack of respect for telling it like it really is.  With Obama, reality doesn't much matter.  Any buyers' remorse out there?

Deficit Neutrality? What a Hoax

Here, Greg Mankiw tells it like it really is concerning "deficit neutrality."  Do you suppose that Nancy, Harry, and BHO ever read Mankiw?  No?  Me neither.

What Part About the Failure of Regulation Don't You Get?

Here, Harold Meyerson writes in the Washington Post about the need for more regulation of the banking industry. Just amazing.

There is no industry more regulated than the banking industry and the financial services industry. How can it escape the attention of people like Meyerson that government regulation just does not work? I've argued here that we should put all the regulators in jail, along with Madoff.

Regulation does not work because it cannot work. I've previously explained why here. Regulators are only people. Worse yet, they are people who don't have strong incentives to avoid the astonishing errors that lead to the financial debacle that led to the recent recession. People who do not understand the role that regulators played in the subprime mortgage meltdown and the credit default swap circus really need to take a step back and ask some rather obvious questions. Read this for a clear explanation of the point I'm making.

The Fed knew all about the subprime mortgage arena. The Fed and other bank regulators knew all about credit default swaps. Regulators knew all about off-book financial vehicles and obfuscation of sovereign lending. To say the regulators did not know just further damns regulators and makes my case in point.

It is not more regulation of industry that is needed. Just the opposite. We do not need regulation; we need only laws that punish deceit and fraud. Read here about the differences between laws and regulation

If the banking industry knew for certain that its bad deals, shaky derivatives, and miserable loans would not be covered by the Fed and the U.S. Treasury (via tax payers and additional federal debt), the banking industry would abstain from those very deals, shaky derivatives, and miserable loans. When is the last time you touched a red-hot stove-top burner? Why don't you? People who run banks and shadow banks are just like you. They won't touch a red-hot burner either, unless they don't have to feel the heat.

Thanks to the Fed, we have a banking industry that does not have to feel the heat. Meyerson evidently wants more of the same. I repeat, just amazing. Here's an idea; give it a read.

Tell it Orrin

Here, Orrin Hatch offers some perspective on "reconciliation."

Raise the Retirement Age?

Here Greg Mankiw opines that he hopes BHO and company will raise the retirement age. What nonsense from a smart guy.

How about people retire when they choose and are able to do so? Why would Mankiw or anyone else think that the President and Congress should be responsible for deciding when people retire?

The cracks and flaws that pervade the entitlement society are beginning to show in a big way in the EU. If you think what's going on in Greece and the rest of the EU right now is serious, just wait a few more years. America's problems with entitlement spending are just around the corner.

The very idea that a government can and should set a retirement age and then transfer income from current workers to retirees at that age is so riddled with flaws that the mind boggles. But the entitlement society does just that.

I did a calculation a few months ago that showed a startling fact. Had all the taxes I've paid in the form of Social Security "contributions" and Medicare "contributions" been invested in the S&P 500 portfolio, by the time I am 67, I would have had a portfolio that would have allowed me to draw $125,000 each year for 20 years. Instead, my Social Security benefit will be about $25,000 per year.

Raise the retirement age? That's just a red herring that diverts attention from the real problem.

Naomi Klein vs Milton Friedman

Bret Stephens chronicles here a proposition that those on the left will doubtless decry. No amount of empirical evidence will ever persuade the Naomi Kleins of the world that voluntary exchange is the engine of human prosperity.

Anne Applebaum adds additional observations here on the same topic.

Maybe Partisanship Isn't a 4-Letter Word After All

E. J. Dionne, Jr. writes in the Washington Post

"Democrats on the whole believe in using government to correct the inequities and inefficiencies the market creates, while Republicans on the whole think market outcomes are almost always better than anything government can produce.

That's not cheap partisanship. It's a fundamental divide. The paradox is that our understanding of politics would be more realistic if we were less cynical and came to see the battle for what it really is."

Bravo! Well said! So, maybe Harry and Nancy can quit talking about how they're all for "partisanship" and really just want to see the Republicans come to them half way. Same for BHO.

I believe in voluntary exchange under the rule of law. But I also believe that laws should be few, profound, and hard to pass.

Most of the laws we really need and want can be written on the back of a post card. The rest of what constitutes the United States Code is mostly about one set of people trying to compel everyone else to do what they say.

Here's an idea. Let's have a Constitutional amendment that stipulates that no bill can be passed with less than a super majority of two-thirds of both houses. Let the amendment further stipulate that no bill may address more than a single proposition, which must be stated in fewer than 200 words.

No more log rolling; no more special interest riders on appropriations bill; no more ear marks; no more debates about "reconciliation" to pass the worst bill ever written by Congress.

But, you say, nothing would ever get done if a super majority is required. Precisely. The only bills that could be passed would be bills that call for laws that a super majority of people want. Why would that be a bad idea?

Insane you say? Think about it. If it really needs to be a law, getting two-thirds of both houses to vote "yes" isn't unreasonable, or impossible. In my judgment, we would get far better laws with my super-majority proposition, and we would get lots more voluntary exchange instead of compulsion of the many by the few.

Worried About China and the Trade Deficit?

The United States needs to export more and import less to get rid of our troublesome trade deficit and create jobs --- right? Our trade deficit with China is ruinous, isn't it? They just won't buy our stuff! The Chinese practically own us already, and it's just getting worse. We're exporting our jobs to China, aren't we?

Here, Becker and Posner sort out these old chestnuts and a few other issues that have kept making the rounds at cocktail parties and backyard barbecues for the last 200 years or so. Just change the name of the trading partner of the day from China to Japan to England, and you'll get most of the 200 years covered. One has to wonder why we can't all just learn the truths that Becker and Posner so aptly explain and move on for the rest of our existence.

Bottom line; once again, voluntary exchange cannot be a bad thing, even when the trading goes on across political borders. But trade policies like those proposed by BHO seem to appeal to a lot folks. How can we explain that outcome, given the clear, straightforward explanations rehearsed by Becker and Posner? I am mystified.

By the way, I have a long-time, continuing trade deficit with the lady who cuts my hair. She never buys anything from me! Clearly a problem, isn't it? Since she won't buy anything from me, I should quit buying from her, right? That's what BHO proposes, anyway.