Will Trump and Putin Bring Peace to Syria? Not if Turkey Attacks American Troops.

/0 Comments/in , /by

A recent headline from The Hill offers a rare piece of good news about Syria: The U.S. and Russia are talking. They’ve agreed on a basic first step toward resolving this bloody and ruthless conflict: “Safe zones” should be established where civilians can live in peace, apart from the forces in combat. This is crucial for saving lives in the short run. So bravo, presidents Trump and Putin! Please make sure this happens yesterday. Thousands of lives of helpless old men, women, and children are at stake.

What the two superpowers need to do next is to build on this foundation. They must do so with an intelligible goal in sight: a decentralized Syria that allows ethnic and religious minorities to live in peace. The Stream laid out the broad sketch of such a plan last month. In fact, there’s a plan like this languishing on the negotiating table: the Astana talks, which looked toward devolving power to Syrian regions.

The alternatives are too ugly and futile to contemplate:

Let Assad’s vicious but anti-Islamist regime try a bloody reconquest of the country, with Russian help.

Allow al Qaeda allies and other Islamists backed by the Saudis and Turks to ethnically cleanse all the Christians, Alawites and Yazidis from the country.

Let Turkey use its massive, American-armed NATO military to obliterate the Kurdish/Christian alliance that the U.S. has backed so far in its war against ISIS and resistance to Assad. This would expel all American influence from the country and make it a Turkish colony.

There is no happy fourth option, where “moderate rebels” steeped in the U.S. Constitution install a liberal democracy in Syria via New England town meetings. At the urging of neoconservatives like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, we tried that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars and thousands of dead or disabled U.S. soldiers later, we learned: You can’t grow that orchid in the desert.

A Decent Outcome in Syria Is Possible

But there is a non-horrible option — which isn’t always true in the Middle East. Thanks to the courage and hard work of Christians and Kurds, moderate Sunni Arabs and brave Yazidis, there already is a potential safe zone in Syria. In fact, it’s larger than Lebanon. It’s called the Federation of Northern Syria, and The Stream has reported on it extensively. Its soldiers work with American advisors, and it already gets some (not enough) U.S. military aid.

It’s organized in Swiss-style cantons, with decentralized power and complete religious freedom. Women serve in its parliament. Its leaders have pleaded with President Trump to designate it the first “safe zone” in Syria. It deserves the title, since within its borders Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Christians and Yazidis live side-by-side in peace. They cooperate. Nowhere in that tortured country, or in most of the Middle East, can you say the same.

This mini-state should be the model for a Syria reborn. The Russians can pressure Assad to step aside and go into exile, allowing another Alawite to take control of the region now held by Syria’s government. The Islamist rebels would probably keep the region they already run. The regions reconquered from ISIS should be divided along religious and ethnic lines, and granted local governance. Slowly, in fits and starts, a Swiss-style decentralized Syria could emerge from the smoking rubble.

Turkey Threatens American Troops With Missile Attacks

Who threatens such a solution? The Turks. Tayyip Erdogan, their president, has just managed a massive constitutional putsch, granting himself sweeping new powers. He has imprisoned thousands of journalists. Erdogan blackmails the European Union for concessions with the threat of dumping two million more Syrian migrants across its border. He bullies European governments like Holland’s, trying to exert control over Turkish émigrés living there. Most recently he has called on all Turks in Europe to have five or more children per family, to outbreed the Christian natives.

And Erdogan is obsessed with crushing any hope of Kurdish autonomy, even in Syria. He fears it will stoke the hopes of the Kurds he represses in Turkey. Last week he even attacked the U.S.-allied Federation of Northern Syria. It took the U.S. moving its troops to the border to protect the Syrian Christians and Kurds whom Turkey was threatening.

What’s Turkey’s response? To threaten America. Erdogan’s close aide İlnur Çevik has warned the U.S. that Turkey might fire missiles at U.S. troops. So Turkey is contemplating an act of war against the United States of America. A civil war within NATO. That’s what we’re dealing with in this regime.

Turkey Is the Spoiler in Syria

The U.S. must see that Turkey, not Russia, is the spoiler in Syria. It is Turkish hunger for conquest and control of Kurds in Syria that is the biggest obstacle to peace. The Trump administration, along with Russia, should rebuke Turkey’s threats. It should designate the Federation of Northern Syria as the first “safe zone” where civilians will be protected. A no-fly zone that keeps out both Erdogan’s and Assad’s air force would be an excellent start.

But it can’t end there. The tortured people of Syria deserve an alternative to failed socialist nationalism and totalitarian Islamist regimes. Localism and liberty saved Switzerland from tearing itself apart, and allowed the fledgling United States to grow and thrive. They could do the same in Syria. Let’s pray that the U.S. and Russia give peace a chance. (For more from the author of “Will Trump and Putin Bring Peace to Syria? Not If Turkey Attacks American Troops.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Political Epitaph

/0 Comments/in , /by

Based on its current trajectory, history might capture the total significance of Donald Trump’s Presidency in a single three-word phrase, “He wasn’t Hillary.”

Perhaps that is all we should have expected given his inflated rhetoric and the Avogadro’s Number of campaign promises that gave his candidacy an air of P.T. Barnum:

“Although Barnum was also an author, publisher, philanthropist, and for some time a politician, he said of himself, ‘I am a showman by profession… and all the gilding shall make nothing else of me.’”

Although we had all hoped Trump would follow through, I think deep down we knew that he wouldn’t. Yet, he wasn’t Hillary and perhaps that is enough.

President Trump is now rapidly discarding campaign promises in a manner not unlike a thief shedding the loot after a failed burglary.

Swamped by the self-interest and self-preservation of a corrupt federal government, Trump may have already succumbed to its laissez-faire attitude toward the performance of duty, where the appearance, rather than the substance of fulfilling voter sentiment is a satisfactory outcome.

During the campaign, Trump said “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

In true Washington D.C. fashion, that 30-foot Mexican-financed concrete wall has now been politically transformed into a taxpayer-financed barrier resembling the chicken wire my father used in a futile attempt to protect his strawberry plants from the bunny rabbits.

If Americans are confused as to what is the “Trump Doctrine,” it appears to be determined by ratings, where national policy comes in the form of Tweets, easily changed or deleted according to what is favorably “trending.”

Ratings as a measurement of success emanates from the same false premise as inherited wealth is a measure of accomplishment. In any environment where money and social status comprise the currency of “competence,” vapidity can be easily mistaken for intellectual rigor.

As football coach Barry Switzer noted: “Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple.”

There are reasons for what we are seeing.

President Trump needs affirmation like others need oxygen. He was sustained during the campaign by enthusiastic rallies and primary victories based entirely on his promises.

Now an inhabitant of the Beltway bubble, Trump has apparently adopted the traditional Republican Party recipe for obtaining affirmation, which is to ignore the voters and offer political capitulation to the Democrats in exchange for a few kind words in op-ed columns or an appearance on one of the Sunday morning talk shows.

If the Democrats, media and the lobbyist-controlled Republicans are collecting administration scalps, then Trump is handing them the knife, dismissing loyalists who are unpleasant reminders of campaign promises and aligning himself with those who are eager to make his tenure as chief executive inconsequential.

President Trump still has an opportunity to be more than just not being Hillary, but only by recognizing that he was elected, not for who he is or isn’t, but for what he said he would do, and then delivering.

Under present circumstances, pleasing the political establishment and representing the people are mutually exclusive endeavors.

Trump must choose between going with the flow or rising above it and to remember, as President, history will determine his final rating. (Reprinted in full with permission of the author. Article originally appeared HERE.)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Are Now Officially the Party of Death

/0 Comments/in , /by

There is no more room in the Democratic party for pro-life Americans. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee has made that clear. As clear as the water Pontius Pilate used to wash his hands. Townhall reports:

Top Democrats recently told their party to get in line with their radical abortion agenda or step aside. As a way to bury the controversy over the Democrat National Committee campaigning with a Democratic mayoral candidate, Heath Mello, who once voted for pro-life legislation, DNC Chair Tom Perez and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) insisted that it was a mistake and that Roe v. Wade is non-negotiable.

The magazine America, whose liberal Jesuit editors are at least pro-life, pointed out what this really means:

Abortion is now the single issue defining the Democrats, and Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, is the de facto head of the party. … NARAL is at least as powerful within the Democratic Party as the National Rifle Association is within the Republican Party.

Bad News? Or Just Reality Emerging?

It’s hard to know precisely how to feel about this development.

We are Christians, pro-lifers and conservatives — in that order. There’s no conflict among those things. In fact they go together. But each is a different angle from which to view political questions.

We live in a democracy. We bear a solemn responsibility under God: making just laws for ourselves. So abortion is a political question. It isn’t in China, Cuba or other totalitarian states. There the people’s masters simply impose the practice on them. (You know, the way liberals want the Supreme Court to keep on doing.)

It’s key to keep our priorities in order. So let’s scrutinize this news about the Democrats under each of those three categories.

As Christians, We’re Saddened

From a spiritual perspective, this is tragic. One of our nation’s two political parties is now completely dedicated to a fundamental evil. Abortion is even worse than segregation. (Democrats defended that for 100 years). It’s on the level of slavery. To be an active Democrat, going forward, is now to participate in evil. If you raise money for Democratic candidates, give to Democratic causes, or in any way participate in that party’s bid for power. … You are implicated.

Our hearts go out to lifelong Democrats who care about unborn life. And to candidates like Heath Mello who tried to save their party from plunging over the cliff. But it has taken the plunge.

And that is something to mourn. It should lead us to prayer. It should lead pro-lifers who’ve belonged to the Democratic party to take a good hard look at leaving. Maybe they should start a third party that’s clearly pro-life, which also represents their views on other issues, where morality is not so black and white: such as poverty programs, immigration policy and other liberal priorities.

But they can’t go on cooperating with the party of NARAL — any more than pro-life Republicans could stay in that party if it endorsed euthanasia to cut back on Medicare costs.

As Pro-Lifers, We’re Conflicted

As citizens committed to protecting the vulnerable from violence, we’re deeply saddened. We honor pro-life Democrats of the past, like the great Ellen McCormack and Robert Casey. They championed the human rights of unborn children in a party that was being hijacked by hedonism and feminism. They fought the good fight. And failed.

Strategically, it’s a bad thing for a cause to be trapped in just one party. Defenders of Israel are glad that pro-Israel candidates exist in both political parties. The National Rifle Association cultivates pro-Second Amendment Democrats. So have pro-lifers, as long as that party made room for differences of conviction. The danger is that Republicans will take our votes for granted, and continue to shove the life issue to the back burner.

But the two-party strategy might be falling apart for other causes too. The anger and intolerance of leftist activists is driving the Democratic party away from a true defense of Israel. Ever more liberal organizations are backing the bigoted “Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions” movement that targets Israel and even American Jews for open discrimination.

On the gun issue, Democratic leadership still prudently allows candidates in selected regions to dissent from the overwhelming party consensus against private handgun ownership. But how long that will last, in our current atmosphere of a rush to extremes? Of hooded leftist demonstrators silencing campus speakers with impunity? Ten years, max, we predict. Sooner rather than later, there will be no more room for Jim Webbs in the Democratic party.

Now the Stakes Are Obvious

On the positive side, the Democrats’ decision to side as a party with baby-parts merchants like Planned Parenthood does … clarify matters. It shreds for once and all the phony “Seamless Garment” that leftists within the churches have used to bury the unborn under a pile of other, more popular priorities.

As we wrote here last summer, members of Democrats for Life were essentially giving political cover to rabid pro-choicers like Hillary Clinton. How? By pretending that issues where people of good will can differ over the wisest policy for enhancing human life were somehow comparable to abortion. No, health insurance, welfare, wages or even gun violence cannot be classed with abortion. Like genocide or unjust wars of conquest, it’s a practice that’s purely evil which no just government should enable. Period.

As Conservatives, We’re Hopeful

Of course, as citizens with strong, clear convictions about the sanctity of human life, we don’t like to see the party that represents half the country oppose us. It pushes the common good a little further out of reach. We wish that Democrats would come around on a whole range of issues. In an ideal world, both parties would accept core conservative principles — as both parties did on many issues, back in 1960 or so. Then elections could be about competency, honesty and character.

Just as slavery and segregation denied the founding principles of our country, so does abortion. It is profoundly toxic to have one of our two major political parties aligned against the nation’s very founding. The Democratic party at first clung to slavery, then to segregation. Now it clings to abortion. How long will it take political reality to peel its white knuckles off its latest fetish of evil? Only time will tell.

That said, from the point of view of accomplishing things: The Democrats’ move is wicked, vicious and helpful. To us. It demonstrates in flesh and blood the left’s commitment to an ideology of suicide.

The left in America has increasingly embraced a whole set of convictions that fit together like a puzzle. What holds the pieces in place is a dark, insidious view of human beings.

We Represent Different Species

Conservatives (especially Christians) believe that human beings are free, responsible creatures — the image of God. We only enjoy our freedoms as part of a compact; each one comes paired with a solemn responsibility. We don’t expect to “get away” with enjoying our rights while abandoning our duties. We don’t want to be paid for work we didn’t do. Nor to fund other people’s willful idleness. We don’t expect to enjoy all the pleasures of life and evade the consequences.

What better example could we find of a reckless abuse of freedom and disregard of duty than the practice of legal abortion? Everyone knows that sex is connected to having children, as eating is to nutrition. But the Sexual Revolution came along and offered us all the “benefits” of bulimia. Contemporary hedonism wants to totally sever that connection — to change the very nature of sex itself. God made it to be the glue that holds two people together in love for life, and generates new lives. Modern man wants it to be a low-investment, low-commitment (but much more enjoyable) game of Twister.

No real conservative can support that. Few liberals today have the stomach to oppose it. So of course the Democratic party is monolithically pro-abortion. It’s the logical consequence of the secular leftist view of man: a lumpy featherless biped who seeks out pleasure. We can win his votes, the Democrats reckon, by offering him a bigger pile of bananas. (For more from the author of “Democrats Are Now Officially the Party of Death” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Despite the Rhetoric, US Trade Deficit With China Is Not a Big Problem. Here’s Why.

/0 Comments/in , /by

When we discuss international trade and balance of payments, there are two types of accounts.

There is the current account, which includes goods and services imported and exported and receives the most political attention.

In 2016, the American people imported $479 billion worth of goods and services from Chinese producers, and we sold $170 billion worth of goods and services to Chinese customers.

That made for a $309 billion current account deficit. In other words, we purchase more goods and services from Chinese producers than Chinese consumers purchase from American producers.

How much of a problem is it when there is a deficit, or a negative imbalance, on current accounts? Let’s look at it.

I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me. Our Department of Defense buys more from General Dynamics than General Dynamics buys from our Department of Defense.

With just a bit of thought, one could come up with thousands of examples in which one party buys more from another than that party buys from it—creating deficits in current accounts.

But a current account deficit is always offset by a surplus somewhere else. That somewhere else is known as the capital, or financial, account.

This account consists of direct foreign investment, such as the purchase or construction of machinery, buildings, or whole manufacturing plants. The capital account also consists of portfolio investment, such as purchases of stocks and bonds.

In our capital account, the U.S. has a huge surplus with China. That means money is flowing into our country from China.

In other words, Chinese people are investing more money into the U.S.—in the forms of home and factory purchases, stocks, and bonds—than Americans are investing in China.

Of necessity, the deficit that we have with China on our current account, ignoring timing issues, must equal the surplus we have with China on our capital account.

It turns out that foreigners own $30 trillion worth of U.S. assets, such as stocks, Treasury bonds, manufacturing plants, and real estate.

One of the reasons that foreigners hold so much U.S. capital is that our country is one of the world’s most attractive places to invest.

Secondly, our capital markets, unlike our goods markets, are open to foreigners. Foreigners can buy and sell any U.S. asset in any quantity, except in cases in which national security is an issue.

One of the troubling aspects of foreign confidence in America is that foreigners invest so much in U.S. Treasury bonds. That in turn gives the U.S. Congress greater latitude to engage in profligate spending.

Japan owns $1.1 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds, and China owns $1 trillion.

What about President Donald Trump’s call to reduce our current account trade deficit?

By the way, we know that we’re being deceived when a politician talks only about the current account deficit, without a word about the capital account surplus.

If foreigners sell us fewer goods, they will earn fewer dollars. With fewer dollars, they will be able to make fewer investments in America.

But that’s fine with politicians. The beneficiaries of trade restrictions are visible. Tariffs on tires, clothing, and electronics will mean more profits and jobs and more votes for politicians.

The victims of trade restrictions, such as people in the real estate market and other areas where foreigners are investing, are less visible.

Last year, Chinese citizens alone purchased record amounts of residential and commercial real estate, bringing their five-year real estate investment total to more than $110 billion.

Let’s put trade deficits into historical perspective.

If trade deficits were something for a president to fret about, every U.S. president from 1790 to today ought to have been fretting. For most of our history, we have had current account deficits.

I should say every president except Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose administrations ushered in the Great Depression. Nine out of the 10 years of the economic downturn of the 1930s, our nation had a current account trade surplus.

Should we reproduce the economic policies of that era and recreate the “wonderful” trade surplus? (For more from the author of “Despite the Rhetoric, US Trade Deficit With China Is Not a Big Problem. Here’s Why.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Elizabeth Warren: A Factory of Bad Ideas

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the fallout of President Donald J. Trump’s historic victory, the Democratic Party is in a state of panic. They suffered record-breaking defeats across the country. Now they’re trying to clean up the mess caused by Hillary Clinton, a candidate who explored uncharted depths of political corruption.

One of the Democrats’ biggest problems is how their grassroots base was ignored by elites who used a complicated process of “Superdelegates” to steal the primary election from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Now, there’s new leadership at the Democratic National Committee. Chairman Tom Perez on a “Unity Tour” has committed himself to bringing back the “Bernie Bros” and embracing a far-left agenda. In the latest rebranding effort, the official DNC website now sells t-shirts with Perez’ vulgar words printed: “Democrats Give a S*** About People.”

Bad Ideas

But all the marketing and tacky clothing will not save them from the looming disaster known as “Elizabeth Warren.” The Massachusetts Senator, who once received more than $400,000 to teach a single class at Harvard, has made a name for herself as a shrill defender of income redistribution. Now, she is quickly emerging as the most likely 2020 Presidential candidate.

In the United State Senate, Warren has been a factory of bad ideas. She wants to raise corporate-tax rates, which scares companies out of the country. She protests crony capitalism in the financial markets, yet supports the Import-Export bank. She wants to lower student interest rates which only encourages more irresponsible borrowing. She supports taxpayer-funded, late-term abortion. She wants to raise the minimum wage to $22 per hour and have IRS prepare your taxes. The list of her bad big-government ideas is endless.

When it comes to health care, Warren is a staunch defender of Obamacare. As premiums skyrocket, conservatives in Congress are trying to negotiate a new health care law to get rid of Obamacare’s heavy-handed mandates. But Warren and her fellow Democrats are standing in the way.

Targeting the Hard of Hearing

One of the more unusual ways Warren is keeping health care expenses high involves regulating over-the-counter hearing aids. Warren has introduced a special-interest backed bill to increase FDA regulations for over-the-counter hearing devices.

The stated goal of the legislation is to “increase access” to hearing devices. But in practice, imposing new regulations on existing over-the-counter devices would restrict access to auditory health care. The bill would drastically disrupt the doctor-patient relationship.

The problems with these new, complicated regulations would be immediate and severe. For example, veterans and Medicaid patients could potentially no longer receive health coverage for doctors’ visits to diagnose and treat hearing loss, as preemption language in the bill would likely prompt insurers to drop audiology screenings and fittings. This would overrule state laws while incentivizing states to drop hearing aid and audiology coverage entirely. Then, by removing doctors from auditory health equation, it would leave the most vulnerable patients uninformed and untreated.

Elizabeth Warren: Move Over

In short, Warren’s bill does two things: drastically increases FDA regulations, and eliminates states’ rights to govern their Medicaid systems as they see fit. Why would Republicans support that?

And why is Warren so intent on pushing a bill on behalf of big corporations? Perhaps she is taking the Hillary Clinton-route by signaling to major donors that she is willing to sell-out to the highest bidder?

It seems like bizarro world on Capitol Hill. But this is a classic example of why the process of repealing and replacing Obamacare is so complicated. Americans deserve more market innovation to provide quality health coverage at lower prices. It is time for special interests and Elizabeth Warren to get out of the way. (For more from the author of “Elizabeth Warren: A Factory of Bad Ideas” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

You Can Defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but Not Conservatism

/0 Comments/in , /by

With UC Berkeley’s unwillingness to provide actual security measures for conservative speakers, the school has made it crystal clear that there is no room for free expression on its campus.

The academic institution has, however, welcomed prominent radical Islamists with open arms. Speakers who have openly called for violence and bigotry are granted space at Berkeley, so long as they fit within the accepted political framework.

Since the turn of the century, the California school has become a cesspool of radical indoctrination that is rampant with Islamic supremacists. The school has not only turned into America’s chief promulgator of anti-American ideals, it also has become a breeding ground of anti-Semitism.

April 13 marked the 10-year anniversary of an overtly pro-Osama bin Laden speech hosted by the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Berkeley.

The shocking audio, in which the speaker demands that fellow Muslims not condemn the international terrorist, has been preserved by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

“Osama bin Laden … I don’t know this guy. I don’t know what he did. I don’t know what he said. I don’t know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear?” Amir Mertaban, the former MSA West president, said at a MSA conference of the now-dead al Qaeda chief.

“If you sit here and you start saying ‘jihad is only an internal this and that,’ you are compromising on your faith,” he added.

In 2004, a Berkeley MSA conference hosted Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who called for fellow “mujahids” (warriors for Islam) to take up arms and form a Muslim theocracy. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center has described him as “a charismatic imam who promotes anti-Semitism, violence and conspiracy theories that blame the U.S. government and Jews for attacks by Islamic terrorists.”

Two years later, Mr. Ali spoke at a UC Irvine pro-Hezbollah (which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization) conference and was received by chants of “Allahu Akbar!”

Later that year, to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, Islamic supremacists at Berkeley held an anti-Semitic hate fest, shouting for the destruction of Israel.

The UC’s Islamic supremacy complex is far from a thing of the past.

In 2015, Berkeley hosted Omar Barghouti, leader of the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against the state of Israel. Today, Berkeley continues to be a cesspool of Islamic supremacist indoctrination.

The California school partners with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in American history, and a suspected Hamas front group – on annual “Islamophobia” reports and conferences.

The annual confab, which took place last week, featured Zahra Billoo. She is the director of CAIR’s San Francisco-Bay Area chapter. Billoo has, in the past, accused U.S. soldiers of engaging in terrorism and has advised her allies to thwart FBI investigations.

The Berkeley-CAIR “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project” was started by Dr. Hatem Bazian, a professor at the school. Bazian is the founder of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), an anti-Semitic hate group that seeks to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. Bazian has, in the past, called for an intifada (violent uprising) in America.

Berkeley’s indoctrination efforts have clearly had an effect on the individuals matriculating there. Check out this shocking video released in 2014 by filmmaker Ami Horowitz. It highlighted how students reacted much more negatively to an Israeli flag than to an Islamic State flag.

Berkeley is no place for conservatism, yet the school seemingly has no issue with radical Islamists who seek to overthrow the country and impose a theocracy on America. (For more from the author of “You Can Defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but Not Conservatism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Good Economics Matters Now More Than Ever

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a newsletter published in 1970, economist Murray Rothbard wrote, “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

This is an oft-quoted platitude within circles of libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics.

Today, we are seeing the embodiment of Rothbard’s fears. The woeful state of economic understanding has reached a critical mass. Economics has taken a back seat to issues deemed more important. What’s worse is that when economics is discussed, millennials tend to lean socialist.

I have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money flourish as I work in the field. Yes, I believe that tying a nation’s currency to gold keeps government spending in check. This is hardly professional bias though, as we all have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money championed, many just don’t recognize it. This piece is aimed at anyone with a vested interest in maintaining a standard of living higher than that of the depression-era breadline vagabond. Economics transcends race, gender, and political identification.

Let’s begin by examining the first of two reasons that good economics is paramount.

Good Economics Is Important Because We Are Seeing a Rise in Bad Economics

Despite the corruption and backhanded actions of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to win the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders experienced a meteoric rise reminiscent to that of Ron Paul’s, whose 2008 presidential campaign trained his supporters’ focus on economics. Paul championed policies in the spirit of economists that I personally revere: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Nobel Prize Laureate Friedrich Hayek, among others.

Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign had an equal but opposite effect. From teenagers to senior citizens, many loved Sanders’s critique of the broken system that favors the wealthy and stifles the poor. His “solutions” are abysmal, yet despite the countless examples of current (and more importantly, collapsed) socialist-Marxist/Leninist calamities, a self-described socialist found a foothold in the United States.

The revolution inspired by Sanders is anti-intellectual. The “economics” that stemmed out of the Sanders campaign was not economics at all. His school of economics was built on people shouting about their feelings and promoting egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism.

Good economics is grounded in axiomatic truths and empirical facts about the world around us. Sound money keeps governments and central banks (called the Federal Reserve in the US) from endless money printing and devastating inflation. Yes, that means the government won’t be able to provide every service that one desires. That is a good thing. Government is the bastion of inefficiency and the epitome of waste. Strictly from an economics standpoint, the market is far better suited at providing products and services.

The espousal of socialist policies in economics is dangerous and irresponsible. Fortunately, it doesn’t take much intellectual firepower to write off socialism as wildly inefficient. But it does take some. Socialism falls apart quickly when one understands the economic calculation problem, which explains the importance of prices based in subjective value in a free market system and explains how centrally planned economies, devoid of market prices, are doomed to suffer from inefficiencies in the form of widespread shortages and surpluses. Without these rudimentary economic blocks, “free college, health care for everyone, and massive taxation on the 1 percent to pay for these policies” sounds desirable.

We must learn, though. We must strive for intellectual growth. We must take the lessons we’ve learned from history and apply them to the word we live in today: socialism does not work. Socialism kills. (Even Scandinavian socialism isn’t as great as socialists say it is).

Socialism has been proven to be a terrible economic policy repeatedly. At some point, the value of human lives outweighs the desire for a politician to conduct a social experiment on how quickly he or she can rid their country of any and all valuable resources. That point is now. We must understand that socialism is an exercise in futility and inefficiency. Understanding good economics kills off the allure of central planning that continues to be peddled by politicians on the left. In fairness, understanding good economics helps wade past the bad economics posited by the right as well.

For a multitude of reasons, it’s a good idea to take a politician’s statements with grains of salt. As far as economics goes, economist Thomas Sowell said it better than I ever could.

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.

Sound economics based in sound money policies make it possible to eat reasonably priced meals because inflation tends to be lower in countries that practice these policies. Sound money policies make enacting socialist policies difficult. Understanding fundamental economics is the linchpin to cultivating an environment conducive to having meaningful debate on other social issues. Which brings us to the second reason why economics is crucial.

Economics Is the Most Important Social Issue of Our Time

We should start by understanding that economics is a social issue. In fact, economics is the social issue. No issue influences individuals (read: all the individuals) within a society more than its economic practices.

Living in the United States in 2017 means exposure to all sorts of social issues including – but not limited to – same sex marriage, police brutality, safe spaces, drug legalization, and firearms ownership. To be sure, these issues are important and should be examined with sober eyes. But the issue of economics supersedes this list and every other list.

I believe consenting individuals should be allowed to do whatever their hearts desire so long as they aren’t violating the rights of another. I stand in solidarity with those who favor legalized same-sex marriages. I stand with those who want to see marijuana legalized nationwide and those who want to own automatic weapons.

But herein lies the danger of ignoring economics at the expense of other issues: Being “allowed” to smoke marijuana legally seems insignificant when a loaf of bread costs a month’s salary and your loved ones are dying of starvation, doesn’t it? I concede the subjective nature of this evaluation, but if I had to choose between the legality of same sex marriages and economic stability, I would choose economic stability without pause. Not because I don’t value personal freedom to do as one wishes, but because I understand that with economic stability comes the ability to fight another day for other issues.

Brazil, according to Bloomberg, was the second-worst economic performer of 2016. The other side of the coin is more uplifting: Brazil recognizes same-sex unions; allows same-sex marriages; allows adoptions by same-sex couples; allows individuals who identify as LGBT to serve in the military; and so on. Brazil’s removal of the proverbial shackles on homosexuals to live as they see fit is a big win for personal liberty, undoubtedly.

But one can’t help but wonder if the married same-sex couple in Brazil suffering from the terrible economic policies enacted by their country thinks, “13.2 percent of our entire country’s population is unemployed. That’s close to what the US faced between 1930-1931 as the Great Depression destroyed their economy. We can’t afford to feed ourselves or our family and we’re subjected to danger and crime as others are desperate to obtain food and money. But hey, at least the government recognizes our marriage!”

Greece is another example of the result of poor economic policies. Riots and crippling tax hikes to pay for irresponsible economic policies are commonplace in Greece, but hey, at least small amounts of cannabis have been decriminalized, right?

I don’t mean to belittle the importance of issues such as these. But as millennials, as members of the citizenry, and as people with a stake in the economic health of the nation we inhabit, our efforts are often misplaced. Sound economic policies should be pursued with at least the same amount of fervor as the myriad issues that don’t potentially end in economic collapse, death, crime, and general hysteria.

America finds itself on the cusp of revolution, but not necessarily the kind you might imagine. The revolution we are headed towards is an intellectual one. Good economics lies at the heart of this revolution.

Without good economics, we are powerless against the abuses of the Federal Reserve, the central bank that intentionally devalues the money in your bank account while it finances foreign wars and domestic programs that the government wouldn’t have the means to pay for otherwise. Without good economics, we are defenseless against the bad economic policies that lead to extreme levels of pillaging that socialists lovingly refer to as taxation. Without good economics, we subject ourselves to tangible, real-life danger and lose the opportunity to bring about the changes we wish to see. (For more from the author of “Why Good Economics Matters Now More Than Ever” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Tax Plan Is Brilliant Politics and Even Better Economics

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump’s tax plan seems to mark a new chapter in his presidency, from floundering around with strange and sometimes scary policies (bombings, border closings, saber rattling) to focusing on what actually matters and what can actually make the difference for the American people and the American economy.

Under Trump’s plan, taxes on corporate profits go from 35% to 15%. They should be zero (like the Bahamas), but this is a good start. Taxes on capital gains go from 23.8% to 20%. Again, it should be zero (as with New Zealand), but it is a start. Rates for all individuals are lowered to three: 10%, 25%, and 35%. The standard deduction for individuals is doubled (politically brilliant). The estate tax and the alternative minimum tax is gone. Popular deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest are preserved. The hare-brained idea of a “border adjustment tax” is toast.

All of this is wonderful, but the shining light of this plan is the dramatic reduction in taxes on corporate profits. The economics of this are based on a simple but profoundly true insight. Economic growth is the key to a good society. This is where good jobs come from. This is how technology improves. This is what gives everyone a brighter outlook on life. If you can imagine that your tomorrow will be more prosperous and flourishing than today, your life seems to be on track.

Tax Capital, Wreck Prosperity

Where does economic growth come from? For decades dating back perhaps a hundred-plus years, people imagined that it could come from government programs and policy manipulation. Surely there are some levers somewhere in the center of power that can cause this thing we call economic growth. We just need solid experts with power, resources, and intelligence to manage the system.

This turns out to be entirely wrong. It hasn’t worked. Since 2008, government has tried to mastermind an economic recovery. It has floundered. We are coming up on a full decade of this nonsense with economic growth barely crawling along. We are surviving, not thriving, and income growth, capital formation, and entrepreneurial opportunity restricted and punished at every turn.

The Trump tax plan is rooted in a much better idea. Economic growth must come from the private sector. It must come from investment in private capital. The owners of this capital who are doing well and earn profits should be allowed to keep them and invest them. This creates new job opportunities. It allows for more complex production strategies. It expands the division of labor.

The crucial institution here is capital. Sorry, anti-capitalists. It’s just true. Capital can be defined as the produced goods for production, not consumption. It is making things for the purpose of making other things. Think about it. Without capital, you can still have markets, creativity, hard work, enterprise. But so long as you have an absence of capital, you are forever floundering around just working to make and sell things for consumption. This is called living hand to mouth.

Without capital, and the private ownership of capital, and security over your property rights, you can’t have economic growth. You can’t have complex production. You can’t raise wages. You can’t live a better life. Every tax on capital, capital formation, capital accumulation, and business profit reduces the security of property rights over capital. This is a sure way to attack economic growth at its source.

And this is precisely what American policy has done. The rest of the world has been wising up about this, reducing taxes on capital for the last 15 years. But the US has languished in the mythology of the past, regarding capital not as a font of prosperity but rather a fund of stagnant resources to be pillaged by planners in government. It is not surprising that this strategy results in slow growth and even permanent recession.

What This Can Do for Growth

There is so much pent-up energy in this country. This tax cut will unleash it.

I have no regression to present to you but this much I can say out of experience and intuition. If this tax plan goes through, the entire class of entrepreneurs, investors, and merchants will receiving a loud signal: this country is safe for you to realize your dreams and make the dreams of others come true.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see GDP growth go from an anemic 1-2% to reach 4% and higher in one year. There is so much pent-up energy in this country. This tax cut will unleash it. And think what it means for the next recession or financial crisis. It prepares the entire country to weather such an event better than we otherwise would.

The beauty of unleashing the power of private capital is that the brilliant results will always be surprising. We don’t know what kind of experimentation in investment and business expansion this will create. This is the nature of a capitalist economy rooted in the freedom of enterprise. It defies our every expectation. No model can forecast with precision the range of results here. We only know that good things will come.

Now, of course, the opponents will talk of the deficit and the national debt. What about the lost revenue? The problem is that every revenue forecast is based on a static model. But an economy rooted in capital formation is not a static one. It is entirely possible that new profits and business expansion will produce even more revenue, even if it is taxed at a lower rate.

If you want to cut the deficit, there is only one way: cut spending. I see no evidence that either party wants to do this. Too bad. This should change. But it is both economically stupid and morally unsound to attempt to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers. Letting people keep more of what they earn is the right thing to do, regardless of government’s fiscal problems.

In the meantime, these pious incantations of the word “deficit, deficit, deficit,” should be seen for what they are: excuses to continue to loot people of their just earnings.

The Politics of It

Already the opponents of this plan are kvetching in the predictable way. This is a tax cut for the rich! Well, yes, and that’s good. Rich capitalists — sorry for yet another hard truth — are society’s benefactors.

But you know why this line of attack isn’t going to work this time? Take a look at the standard deduction change. It is doubled. Not a single middle-class taxpayer is unaware of what this means. This is because they are profoundly aware of how the tax system works. If you take the standard deduction from $6,200 to $15,000, that means people are going to keep far more of their own money. There is not a single taxpayer in this country who will not welcome that.

This is why it strikes me as crazy for Democrats to inveigh against this plan. Doing so only cements their reputation as the party of pillage. Do they really want the United States to be outcompeted by every other nation in the OECD? What they should do is rally behind this, forgetting all the ridiculous pieties about the deficit and the rich and so on. Do they favor the interests of the American people are not?

It’s also fantastic politics to retain the deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest. These are popular for a reason. They are two of the only ways that average people can save on their tax bill. It always pained me when the GOP would propose a “flat tax” that eliminated these provisions. People are very aware: taking away an existing tax break is a terrible foreshadowing of bad things to come. So this Trump plan dispenses with all that. Good.

As for compliance costs of the current system, the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax will do worlds of good.

What I love most about this plan is its real-world economic foundation. It embraces a truth that so many want to avoid. If you want jobs, rising wages, and economic growth, you have to stop the war on capital. You have to go the other way. You need to celebrate capital and allow rewards to flow to those who are driving forward economic progress.

It’s a simple but brilliant point. Finally, we’ve got a tax proposal that embraces it. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Tax Plan Is Brilliant Politics and Even Better Economics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

25 Thoughts on Trump’s First 100 Days

/0 Comments/in , /by

God was able to create the universe in six days because He hadn’t yet created Democrats or the media.

Maxine Waters and other Democrats began calling for Trump’s impeachment before the inaugural parade made it down Pennsylvania Avenue. That’s right. Return him to a life with a supermodel wife, five great kids and a career building resorts in the most beautiful spots on earth.

Some Democrats refused to accept that Donald Trump was actually elected. That’s okay. I refuse to accept that I’m unable to dunk.

The reporter who falsely tweeted that Trump removed the Martin Luther King bust from the Oval Office on his first day did not apologize. What’s the old line from Love Story? “Good liberal intentions means never having to say you’re sorry.”

A study shows that 87 percent of Trump’s media coverage has been negative. The other 13% must own stock in Twitter.

You know the media’s attitude: “Why give him a honeymoon when he’s had three already?”

Trump had only been President a few hours before Madonna said she dreamed of blowing up the White House. If anyone knows about bombs, it’s the star of Swept Away.

Now Trump’s efforts to hold Sanctuary Cities is being blocked by a liberal judge in San Francisco. But I repeat myself.

Trump wants to stop giving some federal money to cities that openly refuse to enforce federal immigration law. Judge says no. Fine. Here’s an idea: Have the checks processed by the same people who process appointments at VA hospitals.

Barack Obama’s half-brother said the former President was born in Kenya. So? The Free Speech Movement was born at Berkeley. And we see how much that matters now.

Donald Trump is said to work 14 to 18 hours a day. He does know it’s a government job, right?

Trump has taken to inviting lawmakers over to the White House for bowling. Regardless of their score the Democrats expect participation trophies.

Meanwhile, @RealDonaldTrump is still tweeting — prematurely aging KellyAnne Conway 140 characters at a time.

Still, the president has cut down on the wild, over-the-top tweets. If we had a dollar for every time Ivanka yells, “Dad, put down the phone!” we’d have the wall paid for by Christmas.

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice insisted she knew absolutely nothing about the unmasking of names of Trump associates. Then when it was proven otherwise she admitted she had done it, but claimed it was a routine part of her job. When that was proven false, she blamed it on an internet video.

Former State Department official and Hillary advisor Evelyn Farkas was seen on MSNBC explaining how she had desperately tried to get classified intelligence on Trump out to the public. The public was shocked. Somebody actually tuned in to see MSNBC?

Farkas later backpedaled. How fast did she backpedal? ESPN predicted she’d be the first cornerback picked in the NFL draft.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow got hold of a Donald Trump tax return. She trumpeted it like it was the lost Ark of the Covenant. The return showed … wait for it … that Trump paid a higher tax rate than Bernie Sanders. It was the biggest TV flop since Rosie O’Donnell’s return to The View.

Worries continue that Obama administration hold-overs are deliberately undermining Trump administration’s efforts. Just waiting for them to try replacing “Hail to the Chief” with “For the Love of Money.” Or “Back in the USSR.”

Why make Russia into a villain? Because China makes too much money for Hollywood, Iran would draw attention to the shameful Iran Deal, and putting focus on Islamic Extremists would force Democrats to admit there’s a problem with Islamic Extremism.

Congress is investigating the allegations that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. The story went from “hacked the election” to “interfered with the election” to “meddled with the election”? Next week it’ll be “dabbled in the election.” A month from now it’ll be “followed the election.” Liberals will still be shocked.

Hillary Clinton blamed her loss on misogyny, James Comey, WikiLeaks, the Russians and her staff. There must be no mirrors in her home. She is yet to “Blame It on the Boogie.”

President Trump has eliminated countless useless regulations, saving an estimated 18 billion dollars a year. When will he eliminate the regulation that says you have to wait 30 minutes after eating to get back in a pool? Or maybe that was my mother’s rule.

President Trump dropped a MOAB, the “Mother of All Bombs” on ISIS fighters in Afghanistan. The blast was so loud it could be heard in Pyongyang.

A New York Times columnist claims Trump has had the worst opening 100 days of any president ever. By his 100th day, William Henry Harrison had been dead two months.

What’s our final thought on Trump’s first 100 days? Grab the gallons of Red Bull. We’ve got 1,360 days to go. At least. (For more from the author of “25 Thoughts on Trump’s First 100 Days” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Berkeley Didn’t Birth ‘Free Speech’ but Seems Intent to Bury It

/0 Comments/in , /by

Demosthenes, the Athenian rhetorician and champion of liberty, pointed out around 355 B.C. that residents of Athens were free to praise Sparta’s regime, but Spartans were banned from praising Athens.

In 1689, the British passed a law guaranteeing freedom of speech in Parliament. A century later, French revolutionaries incorporated into law the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which established free speech as a universal right. Two years later, the Americans ratified the First Amendment, which guarantees that the state shall not infringe on the right to free speech. Roughly a century and half later, in 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression….”

I mention all of this because every time I read or hear about the pathetic state of affairs at the University of California, Berkeley — where conservative speakers and rabble-rousers alike are banned from speaking lest they be assaulted by a mob — journalists and other commentators insist on pointing out the irony that this is all happening “where the Free Speech Movement was born.”

Yes, I know there was a thing called the Free Speech Movement. And, yes, its members and leaders talked a good deal about free speech.

But the movement for free speech is thousands of years old and runs like a deep river across the landscape of Western Civilization. (Read more from “Berkeley Didn’t Birth ‘Free Speech’ but Seems Intent to Bury It” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.