Last night the United States was ‘treated’ to another dose of republican pageantry with the annual State of the Union address by the President to both houses of Congress. As I’ve probably mentioned before, traditions like this reveal the extent to which the United States borrowed from the British monarchy. The address is simply an American version of the “throne speech” given by the British monarch at the opening of each new parliament. In fact, in the past, some presidents chose not to deliver the speech in person because they considered it ‘too monarchial’. There is also the fact (never shown on television and rarely mentioned in the media) that the President must formally request permission from the Speaker of the House to address Congress because the President is not allowed on the House floor without such permission. There is absolutely no reason for this rule, it is simply carried-over from the tradition of England dating back to the time when King Charles I tried to have several members of the House of Commons arrested, after which time the monarch has been barred from the Commons and must send someone to request that the members attend the monarch in the House of Lords.
The speech the President gave this year was, to my cynical eye, rather predictable and uninteresting. I learned nothing watching it that I did not already know from the expectations put out ahead of time. There was lots of comparisons to other countries (all unfavorable) which was unusual and there were the expected calls for bi-partisanship and the need to cut spending, but also “invest” in the future; the need for greater economic growth but also the need to raise taxes on those dastardly rich folks. The truth, of course, is that none of the talk on the economy will accomplish anything even if it is entirely put into effect. I cannot say I have much faith in either party accomplishing that. The Democrats will tax the “rich” until there is not a job or major industry left in the country, everyone is on welfare and we go bankrupt. The Republicans talk a good game about the need to cut spending but when pressed on exactly what they would cut they can come up with nothing. They won’t risk reelection by touching huge money holes like Medicare or social security because a lot of those ‘Tea Party’ folks are counting on those government programs. Nope, instead they will revert to the Bush tactic of cutting taxes here and there but still spending like crazy and ignoring the big problems resulting in economic disaster.
Now, I am no economist and I tend to look with disgust and bewilderment at all the talk from both sides about free trade and globalization (what a horrific word). Personally, I have not seen what is so great about free trade and pretty much anything with the word “global” in it scares the hell out of me. On the economic front I tend to agree with the Libertarian journalist John Stossel (now on the Fox Business Channel) who said prior to the State of the Union Address that spending freezes will never be enough and he suggested cutting entire departments like the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. Both sound good to me. He also raised the point of the cost of maintaining some 60,000 U.S. troops in Germany and 10,000 U.S. troops in Great Britain. Unless someone tells me what vital interest these forces serve I would say cut those as well. Now, even though I’m no economics expert, I do know simple math and can see that our multi-trillion dollar debt will never be alleviated without taking on entitlements, which is the one thing no politician (even Republicans) really want to do -in any country. Observe what a stink was raised when “Call Me Dave” Cameron mentioned the slightest reform to the massive, bloated beast known as the National Health Service in Great Britain.
I also know that there will never be real economic recovery so long as so much of our economy is held hostage by the massive benefits of the unions. Businesses are going out of business and entire states are going bankrupt because of this. What is the solution? Well, here is where I make everyone freak out. The best idea I can come up with is putting a system in place by which owners and workers are forced to come to an agreement about industry guidelines that both sides can live with and that will be sustainable. Now, I realize that Glenn Beck scared everyone about the short-lived “Blue Eagle Program” and the National Recovery Administration set up by FDR and I realize that many people on the left are going to cry “corporatism” which, they will invariably say, is the same thing as fascism. That seems like quite a leap to make to me. Is having labor and owners working together instead of each trying to exploit the other really so terrible as to warrant the accusation of fascism? If you are that paranoid you perhaps should not watch the State of the Union Address at all or you just might notice those two big fasces on the wall on either side of the podium.
The way things are now, and it seems anyone can take a look around and see this, the unions are only looking out for themselves (leaders more than members I would argue but I will confess to having a bias towards unions ever since the Russian Revolution). They don’t care if they drive their companies out of business because the federal government will bail them out and then taxpayers are on the hook to continue paying them. On the other hand, owners (not unnaturally) are in business to make money, not to provide their workers with heaven on earth. They will always want to pay as little as possible and if union demands and government regulations become too great they have no moral qualms about moving to Red China where they can profit from the virtual slave labor of the Chinese Communist Party. Unions are pulling our economy down and owners are shipping it all overseas. Jesus said the poor will be with us always. I think the same could be said about the rich. They have to work together to stop the ruin both sides are bringing down on everyone.
Anyone who has read this blog for long knows that I despise government, politicians and ideologies in general. I am not married to any “ism” save perhaps for ‘monarchism’ which covers as wide a variety of specific situations and systems as possible. When it comes to issues like this I try to look for what will work with my only guidelines being that private property and the right of people to what they produce are not infringed upon. If that makes me unreasonable I can only be astounded by what passes for “reasonable” these days. Certainly, looking at things as they stand now, I cannot see how anyone can argue that we are doing fine or are headed in the right direction. Those who do, I suspect, are purposely trying to ruin us to further their own revolutionary agenda of international communism, atheism and globalization. That, I will always be against and that is why I remain … The Mad Monarchist.
The speech the President gave this year was, to my cynical eye, rather predictable and uninteresting. I learned nothing watching it that I did not already know from the expectations put out ahead of time. There was lots of comparisons to other countries (all unfavorable) which was unusual and there were the expected calls for bi-partisanship and the need to cut spending, but also “invest” in the future; the need for greater economic growth but also the need to raise taxes on those dastardly rich folks. The truth, of course, is that none of the talk on the economy will accomplish anything even if it is entirely put into effect. I cannot say I have much faith in either party accomplishing that. The Democrats will tax the “rich” until there is not a job or major industry left in the country, everyone is on welfare and we go bankrupt. The Republicans talk a good game about the need to cut spending but when pressed on exactly what they would cut they can come up with nothing. They won’t risk reelection by touching huge money holes like Medicare or social security because a lot of those ‘Tea Party’ folks are counting on those government programs. Nope, instead they will revert to the Bush tactic of cutting taxes here and there but still spending like crazy and ignoring the big problems resulting in economic disaster.
Now, I am no economist and I tend to look with disgust and bewilderment at all the talk from both sides about free trade and globalization (what a horrific word). Personally, I have not seen what is so great about free trade and pretty much anything with the word “global” in it scares the hell out of me. On the economic front I tend to agree with the Libertarian journalist John Stossel (now on the Fox Business Channel) who said prior to the State of the Union Address that spending freezes will never be enough and he suggested cutting entire departments like the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. Both sound good to me. He also raised the point of the cost of maintaining some 60,000 U.S. troops in Germany and 10,000 U.S. troops in Great Britain. Unless someone tells me what vital interest these forces serve I would say cut those as well. Now, even though I’m no economics expert, I do know simple math and can see that our multi-trillion dollar debt will never be alleviated without taking on entitlements, which is the one thing no politician (even Republicans) really want to do -in any country. Observe what a stink was raised when “Call Me Dave” Cameron mentioned the slightest reform to the massive, bloated beast known as the National Health Service in Great Britain.
I also know that there will never be real economic recovery so long as so much of our economy is held hostage by the massive benefits of the unions. Businesses are going out of business and entire states are going bankrupt because of this. What is the solution? Well, here is where I make everyone freak out. The best idea I can come up with is putting a system in place by which owners and workers are forced to come to an agreement about industry guidelines that both sides can live with and that will be sustainable. Now, I realize that Glenn Beck scared everyone about the short-lived “Blue Eagle Program” and the National Recovery Administration set up by FDR and I realize that many people on the left are going to cry “corporatism” which, they will invariably say, is the same thing as fascism. That seems like quite a leap to make to me. Is having labor and owners working together instead of each trying to exploit the other really so terrible as to warrant the accusation of fascism? If you are that paranoid you perhaps should not watch the State of the Union Address at all or you just might notice those two big fasces on the wall on either side of the podium.
The way things are now, and it seems anyone can take a look around and see this, the unions are only looking out for themselves (leaders more than members I would argue but I will confess to having a bias towards unions ever since the Russian Revolution). They don’t care if they drive their companies out of business because the federal government will bail them out and then taxpayers are on the hook to continue paying them. On the other hand, owners (not unnaturally) are in business to make money, not to provide their workers with heaven on earth. They will always want to pay as little as possible and if union demands and government regulations become too great they have no moral qualms about moving to Red China where they can profit from the virtual slave labor of the Chinese Communist Party. Unions are pulling our economy down and owners are shipping it all overseas. Jesus said the poor will be with us always. I think the same could be said about the rich. They have to work together to stop the ruin both sides are bringing down on everyone.
Anyone who has read this blog for long knows that I despise government, politicians and ideologies in general. I am not married to any “ism” save perhaps for ‘monarchism’ which covers as wide a variety of specific situations and systems as possible. When it comes to issues like this I try to look for what will work with my only guidelines being that private property and the right of people to what they produce are not infringed upon. If that makes me unreasonable I can only be astounded by what passes for “reasonable” these days. Certainly, looking at things as they stand now, I cannot see how anyone can argue that we are doing fine or are headed in the right direction. Those who do, I suspect, are purposely trying to ruin us to further their own revolutionary agenda of international communism, atheism and globalization. That, I will always be against and that is why I remain … The Mad Monarchist.
Indeed, the world today is becoming messed up. I always cringe whenever I see world powers say "democracy should be here" whenever it is irrelevant. The continued whining by the general public, the false promises of officials, and the annoying response government bodies tend to deliver during a crisis. Always the same.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous I agree. The word “Democracy” is for the most part a Magic word like “Abracadabra”. it’s a panacea that ours all ills, and all our woes are caused by its Lack.
ReplyDeleteA good deal of the time, “Democracy” is just a label given to something that’s not actually Democracy, EG, giving more money to the banks so they can lower Mortgage payments their Mortgage holders expect is not in any definition of he term “Democracy“, it’s a Financial Bailout.
But the term simply is used to generate an Emotional Response, and thus to fill in for the fact that we have nothing credible to say or else to lend legitimacy to our present Ideas. Its use is common only because Democracy has been accepted as a Self Evident Good, and it is the basis of our entire now global Culture, that Democracy is the most basic Human Right and only legitimate form of Governance.
As to the President’s speech, lets face it, it was long, somewhat Rambling, and utterly meaningless. He is not in charge of the setting of new Economic Policies and has only influence in those matters, which is now greatly reduced, though not Eliminated, in the House of representatives by the recent Election. He has more sway in the 112rth Congress than in the 111th.
I also want to know how we can continue to Invest in the future and Economic recovery like he says (No I don’t buy the Theory) while at the same time cutting spending. Isn’t investing also spending?
Hear hear good sir. Although on a sadder note I doubt many people in America would ever see reason enough to even consider some of the thoughts you espouse here on the economy in any serious smatter, or if they do it'll be in a negative fashion. I made a post not too long ago on my own thoughts on the Irish economy and how we are, effectively still a developing nation economically and industrially and that European involvement here has only blighted and stunted growth overall. I am in favour of more protectionist policies, for the time being at least, in the Irish sense, and luckily monarchism allows for such change of economic policy without endangering credibility.
ReplyDeleteBut alas...
No I couldn't because I didn't say I think it's wrong, I just have not seen the benefit. Free trade with Mexico hurt my business, I would prefer people buy from their own countrymen if possible and there are some countries I don't think any decent country should trade with at all. It also seems to me that too much 'free trade' can cause one country to become dependent and thus beholden to another. I have no problem though with countries trading with each other. I do have a problem with so much international business going on that a "world economy" emerges which leads to situations where debt problems in Greece cause economic woes from the Americas to Asia.
ReplyDelete