Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Saturday, February 8, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 460)

U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras at Maximos Palace in Athens, Greece November 15, 2016. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras at Maximos Palace in Athens, Greece November 15, 2016. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

Speaking in Greece on his valedictory trip to Europe as president, Barack Obama struck a familiar theme: “(W)e are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude form of nationalism, or ethnic identity, or tribalism that is built around an ‘us’ and a ‘them’ …

“(T)he future of humanity and the future of the world is going to be defined by what we have in common, as opposed to those things that separate us and ultimately lead us into conflict.”

That the world’s great celebrant of “diversity” envisions an even more multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial America and Europe is not news. This dream has animated his presidency.

But in this day of Brexit and president-elect Donald Trump new questions arise. Is Obama’s vision a utopian myth? Have leaders like him and Angela Merkel lost touch with reality? Are not they the ones who belong to yesterday, not tomorrow?

“Crude nationalism,” as Obama said, did mark that “bloodiest” of centuries, the 20th. But nationalism has also proven to be among mankind’s most powerful, beneficial and enduring forces.

You cannot wish it away. To do that is to deny history, human nature and the transparent evidence of one’s own eyes.

A sense of nationhood — “I am not a Virginian, but an American,” said Patrick Henry — ignited our revolution.

Nationalism tore apart the “evil empire” of Ronald Reagan’s depiction, liberating Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians and Bulgarians, and breaking apart the Soviet Union into 15 nations.

Was that so terrible for mankind?

Nationalism brought down the Berlin Wall and led to reunification of the German people after 45 years of separation and Cold War.

President George H.W. Bush may have railed against “suicidal nationalism” in Kiev in 1991. But Ukrainians ignored him and voted to secede. Now the Russified minorities of the southeast and the Crimea wish to secede from Ukraine and rejoin the Mother Country.

This is the way of the world.

Out of the carcass of Yugoslavia came Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo. As nationalism called into existence Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, it impelled South Ossetians and Abkhazians to secede from Georgia.

Was it not a sense of peoplehood, of nationhood, that drove the Jews to create Israel in 1948, which today insists that it be recognized as “a Jewish State”?

All over the world, regimes are marshaling the mighty force of ethnonationalism to strengthen and sustain themselves.

With economic troubles looming, Xi Jinping is stirring up Chinese nationalism by territorial disputes with neighbors — to hold together a people who have ceased to believe in the secularist faith of Marxism-Leninism.

With Communism dead, Vladimir Putin invokes the greatness and glory of the Russian past and seeks to revive the Orthodox faith.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan invokes nationalism, Attaturk, the Ottoman Empire, and the Islamic faith of his people, against the Kurds, who dream of a new nation carved out of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

“So my vision … may not always win the day in the short run,” Obama said in Greece, “but I am confident it will win the day in the long run. Because societies which are able to unify ourselves around values and ideals and character and how we treat each other, and cooperation and innovation, ultimately are going to be more successful than societies that don’t.”

What is wrong with this statement?

It is a utilitarian argument that does not touch the heart. It sounds like a commune, a cooperative, a corporation, as much as it does a country. Moreover, not only most of the world, but even the American people seem to be moving the other way.

Indeed, what values and ideals do we Americans hold in common when Obama spoke in Germany of “darker forces” opposing his trade policies, and Hillary Clinton calls Trump supporters “racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic … bigots.”

Did not the Democrats just run “an us and a them” campaign?

Less and less do we Americans seem to be one country and one people. More and more do we seem to be separating along religious, racial, cultural, political, ideological, social and economic lines.

If a more multicultural, multiethnic America produces greater unity and comity, why have American politics become so poisonous?

Trump’s victory is due in part to his stand for securing the U.S. border against foreigners walking in. Merkel is in trouble in Germany because she brought in almost a million Muslim refugees from Syria.

The nationalist parties that have arisen across Europe are propelled by hostility to more immigration from the Third World.

Outside the cosmopolitan elites of Europe and North America, where in the West is the enthusiasm Obama detects for a greater diversity of races, tribes, religions, cultures and beliefs?

“Who owns the future?” is ever the question.

In 2008, Obama talked of Middle Pennsylvanians as poor losers clinging to their bibles, bigotries and guns as they passed from the scene.

Yet, now, it’s looking like it may be Obama’s world headed for the proverbial ash heap of history.

Speaking in Greece on his valedictory trip

U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. (Photo: REUTERS)

U.S. President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel smile during their press conference at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 17, 2016. (Photo: REUTERS)

President Obama, in Greece, said world leaders should learn from the U.S. presidential election and pay attention to the public’s fears and frustration about the economy. Why? He never has.

How can a man living in such a fantasy world presume to tell other people how to perceive others and react to problems as if he’s been an innocent bystander witnessing these horrors for years?

Scratch that. He doesn’t think we’ve experienced horrors. He thinks the U.S. economy has been wonderful under his watch. Listening to him characterize his eight-year record is to witness willful blindness on a scale my willing suspension of disbelief is incapable of processing.

The American economy, said Obama, was contracting faster than it did during the Great Depression. “We had to fight back from the worst recession since the Great Depression. … But we were able to intervene, apply lessons learned and stabilize and then begin growth again.” He tastelessly bragged, in front of his Greek audience, that his economy recovered better and faster than most of Europe’s. Then he began critiquing Greece’s economy, as if he is a wizard of economics.

No American politician — and certainly no president — in my lifetime has caused such destruction and suffered so little personal accountability for it. It was ridiculous when he still blamed George W. Bush for his own lackluster economy and unconscionable deficits in the latter half of his first term. It was amazing that he kept making this argument with a straight face through the 2012 presidential election.

But why not? It worked. When you’ve got a liberal media covering your tracks and slanting everything in your favor, you can apparently fool millions.

But Obama is still making the same arguments today after eight straight years of malaise. So how did he fight against the worst recession since the Great Depression? Well, he spent money we didn’t have like a drunken sailor, increased taxes and smothering regulations, bad-mouthed entrepreneurship and producers, and vilified the “wealthy” for not paying their fair share.

How did that work out? Contrary to his bizarre self-assessment, we have had the worst economic recovery in 60 years. So he’s bragging about that? We’ve had a stagnant economy his entire tenure in office, and he is touting it as sustained growth? Of course he is, and the media continue to cover for him.

He talks about the unemployment rate’s going down, but this obscures the reality that tens of millions have opted out of the workforce in despair. The media know that the unemployment figure is meaningless when factoring in the labor participation rate. Whether Obama is able to accept it, given what this knowledge would do to his unreflective ego, is debatable.

Obama covers his bases. He gets to have his cake and keep it, too, and, if you haven’t noticed, he remains skinny. He tells us the economy’s great; then he kind of says it isn’t. Otherwise, why would he still have to blame Dubya? Why would he have to blame the recent election results on an angry populace? Why would he say, “The problem was I couldn’t convince the Republican Congress to pass a lot of (my agenda items)”? What problem? I thought things were rosy.

You see, he thinks the main economic problem we face is income inequality. He thinks people are angry because others are making more money than they do and so they had a temper tantrum and elected Donald Trump. But hasn’t there always been income inequality? Isn’t that guaranteed in a free system? But if the people are inconsolable with envy, that might have something to do with Obama’s constant harping on it, railing against the rich.

Nope. The hoi polloi are just restless; there’s nothing to see here. “The country,” he says, “is indisputably better off, and those folks who voted for the president-elect are better off than they were when I came into office, for the most part.”

But here was the punchline: “People,” he said, “seem to think I did a pretty good job. And so there is this mismatch, I think, between frustration and anger. Perhaps the view of the American people is that (we) just need to shake things up.”

Well, if there’s any mismatch or disconnect here, it’s Obama’s perception of his performance and reality. His narcissism makes him allergic to self-doubt, and his dogged ideology and oversize pride preclude him from admitting his failures.

This same ideology compels him to project onto others his own prejudices. He has been saying since before he was elected that “bitter” Bible toters who “cling to guns” in small-town America are just suspicious of people who don’t look like them. But that’s offensively false. He is the one who always has race on his mind, and he’s a virtuoso of bitterness.

Remember when his Homeland Security Department was on the lookout for returning military personnel and tea party types, rather than Islamists, as possible domestic terrorists?

Pro tip: These peace-loving, ordinary, patriotic Americans have had their fill of his attacks on their traditions, their worldview and their lifestyle. They sent that message resoundingly in the congressional elections in 2010 and 2014, yet he escaped accountability with his own re-election in 2012. Another frightful disconnect.

But there can be no mistaking this year’s election results. The people’s rejection of his agenda and Hillary Clinton is so severe that we are seeing a major restructuring of the electorate. He, his media co-conspirators and the liberal punditry can blame Clinton’s flaws for this, and they are indeed part of it, but Obama’s leftist agenda got shellacked up and down the ticket and in state elections throughout the country.

This was not a glitch; this is a wave. And the longer he and his cohorts remain in denial about it the more it will grow. That, my friends, is a beautiful thing.

President Obama in Greece said leaders should

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, along with other groups of fringe radical leftists, burn American flags during protests against the election of President-Elect Donald J. Trump.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, along with other groups of fringe radical leftists, burn American flags during protests against the election of President-Elect Donald J. Trump.

The concept of secession (part of a jurisdiction breaking away to become independent) has a bad reputation in the United States because it is linked to the reprehensible institution of slavery.

But, as Walter Williams has explained, secession today may be an effective way of protecting liberty from ever-expanding centralized government.

And I’ve favorably written about secessionist movements in Sardinia, Scotland, and Belgium, largely because the historical data shows that better policy is more likely when there are many jurisdictions competing with each other.

So it was with considerable interest that I saw an article in Fortune about a secessionist movement in California.

“Calexit” didn’t start with Donald Trump, but his victory on Election Day certainly sparked more interest in the idea. A play on “Brexit,” it’s the new name for the prospect of California seceding from the U.S. The movement…seems to have gained steam in the past six months, thanks in part to the U.K.’s recent Brexit vote and Donald Trump being elected president. …The group’s goal is to hold a referendum in 2018 that, if passed, would transition California into its own independent country. …the movement has even grabbed the attention of some potential Silicon Valley bankrollers.

I like this idea, though I’m not sure it’s good for California since the state faces very serious long-run challenges.

Though this is one of the reasons I like secession. As an independent nation, California no longer would have any hope of getting a bailout from Washington, so the politicians in Sacramento might start behaving more responsibly.

And there are examples of secession in the modern world, such as Slovakia and the Czech Republic emerging from Czechoslovakia. That was a very tranquil divorce, unlike what happened in the former Yugoslavia.

As is so often the case, we can learn a lot from Switzerland. There is a right of secession, albeit dependent on a nationwide vote of approval. Municipalities also can vote to switch cantons, as happened in 1996 when Vellerat left Bern and became part of Jura. By the way, villages in Liechtenstein have the unilateral right to secede from the rest of the nation (though that seems highly unlikely since it is the second-richest nation in the world).

Notwithstanding these good role models, the secessionist movement in California presumably won’t get very far.

But maybe full-blown secession isn’t necessary. If Californians don’t like what’s happening in Washington (or, for that matter, if Texans aren’t happy with the antics in DC), that should be an argument for genuine and comprehensive federalism.

In other words, get rid of the one-size-fits-all policies emanating from the central government and allow states to decide the size and scope of government.

California can decide to do crazy things (such as regulate babysitters and give bureaucrats too much pay) and Texas can choose to do sane things (such as no income tax), but neither state could dictate policy for the entire nation.

This also happens to be the system envisioned by America’s Founding Fathers.

Think of federalism as a live-and-let-live system. New York doesn’t have to become North Dakota and Illinois doesn’t have to become Alabama. Red states can be red and blue states can be blue. And we can add all the other colors in the rainbow as well. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and all that.

And consider how well federalism works in Switzerland, a nation that doesn’t have a single language, culture, or religion.

Now, perhaps, you’ll understand why I even suggested federalism as a solution to the mess in Ukraine.

P.S. If California actually chooses to move forward with secession, the good news is that we already have a template (albeit satirical) for a national divorce in the United States.

P.P.S. Here’s an interesting historical footnote. There’s a small part of Germany that is entirely surrounded by Switzerland. This enclave wanted to become part of Switzerland many decades ago, but there was no right of secession notwithstanding overwhelming sentiment for a shift of nationality.

A whopping 96 percent of the inhabitants voted for annexation by Switzerland. The people had spoken loud and clear, but their voices were ignored. As the Swiss were unable to offer Germany any suitable territory in exchange, the deal was off. Büsingen would remain, somewhat reluctantly, German.

Since Germany is a reasonably well-run nation, I guess we shouldn’t feel too sorry for the people of Büsingen (unlike, say, the residents of Menton and Roquebrune in France, who used to be part of a tax haven but now are part of a tax hell).

P.P.P.S. Let’s close with some additional election-related humor.

Here’s some satire from the twitter account of the fake North Korean News Service.

And here’s another Hitler parody to add to our collection.

[brid video=”78796″ player=”2077″ title=”Hitler finds out Hillary Clinton has won the presidential election (Alternative Universe)”]

And here’s Michelle Obama feeling sad about what’s about to happen.

P.P.P.P.S. We also have some unintentional humor. When Trump prevailed, Paul Krugman couldn’t resist making a prediction of economic doom.Since markets have since climbed to record highs, Krugman’s forecasting ability may be even worse than all the hacks who predicted Brexit would result in economic calamity for the United Kingdom.

The concept of secession (part of a

A journalist writes a material as she watches a live telecast of the U.S. presidential election standing at portraits of U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Union Jack pub in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016. Russia's lower house of parliament is applauding the election of Trump as U.S. president. (Photo: AP)

A journalist writes a material as she watches a live telecast of the U.S. presidential election standing at portraits of U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Union Jack pub in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016. Russia’s lower house of parliament is applauding the election of Trump as U.S. president. (Photo: AP)

Citing sources in the Republican Party, the notable Russian newspaper Izvestya is claiming that President-Elect Donald J. Trump will pay a visit to Russian President Vladimir Putin shortly after his inauguration.

The paper further noted that a meeting prior to Mr. Trump assuming office, while desirable, is not possible as it may raise objections from the outgoing Obama administration.

This article first appeared on Tsarizm.com

Citing sources in the Republican Party, a

War on Drugs protest in Washington, D.C.

War on Drugs protest in Washington, D.C.

When writing about money laundering laws, I’ll sometimes highlight gross abuses by government and I’ll periodically make the usual libertarian arguments about privacy.

But I mostly focus on how the laws simply don’t make sense from a cost-benefit perspective. Anti-money laundering laws and regulations impose large burdens on the private sector, which creates disproportionate hardship for the poor. Yet there’s no evidence that the laws actually hinder criminal activity, which was the rationale for imposing the laws in the first place.

I have the same attitude about the War on Drugs. Yes, I get upset that people are mistreated and it irks me as a libertarian that people aren’t free to make their own choices (even if they are dumb choices) about what to put in their bodies.

But what really gets me angry is the absurd misallocation of law enforcement resources. Consider this info from a recent WonkBlog column in the Washington Post about the ever-expanding efforts of government to harass drug users.

Federal figures on drug arrests and drug use over the past three decades tell the story. Drug-possession arrests skyrocketed, from fewer than 200 arrests for every 100,000 people in 1979…, hovering near 400 arrests per 100,000 people. …despite the tough-on-crime push that led to the surge in arrests in recent decades, illicit drug use today is more common among Americans age 12 and older than it was in the early 1980s. Federal figures show no correlation between drug-possession arrests and rates of drug use during that time.

But here’s the part that should upset all of us, even if we don’t like drugs or even if we think they should be illegal.

Instead of focusing on the fight against crimes that actually have victims (such as robbery, murder, rape, assault, etc), the government is squandering an immense about of time, energy, resources, and money on drug arrests.

…arrests for drug possession continue to make up a significant chunk of modern-day police work. “Around the country, police make more arrests for drug possession than for any other crime,” the report finds, citing FBI data. “More than one of every nine arrests by state law enforcement is for drug possession, amounting to more than 1.25 million arrests each year.” In fact, police make more arrests for marijuana possession alone than for all violent crimes combined.

That last sentence is breathtaking. Does anyone think that busting potheads is more important than fighting genuine crime?!?

Do you want an example of law enforcement resources being misallocated?

Well, this story from New Hampshire tells you everything you need to know.

…an 81-year-old grandmother had been growing…the plant as medicine, a way to ease arthritis and glaucoma and help her sleep at night. Tucked away in a raspberry patch and separated by a fence from any neighbors, the plant was nearly ready for harvest when a military-style helicopter and police descended on Sept. 21. In a joint raid, the Massachusetts National Guard and State Police entered her yard and cut down the solitary plant…authorities are using budgeted funds, prior to the end of the federal fiscal year Saturday, to gas up helicopters and do flyovers. …“Is this the way we want our taxpayer money spent, to hassle an 81-year-old and law-abiding patients?” Cutler said.

Gee, I don’t know about you, but I’ll sleep more comfortably tonight knowing that lots of taxpayer money was squandered to seize a pot plant from this dangerous granny!

Still not convinced that law enforcement resources aren’t being wasted? And still not upset that lives are being disrupted and harmed by heavy-handed government.

Then consider this horror story from Reason.

James Slatic, a California medical marijuana business owner, found out all his family’s bank accounts had been seized by the government one day in January when his 19-year-old daughter tried to buy lunch at the San Jose State University cafeteria and her card was declined. Slatic’s wife tried to transfer money to their daughter, figuring she had simply overdrawn her account, as teenagers are wont to do, but her account wouldn’t work, either. What the Slatics soon learned was the San Diego police had frozen all of their bank accounts: $55,258 from Slatic’s personal checking and savings account; $34,175 from his wife Annette’s account; and a combined $11,260 from the savings accounts of their two teenage daughters, Penny and Lily. …The Slatics’ crimes? None. Or at least, the San Diego District Attorney’s Office hasn’t charged them with any in the nine months since it seized their accounts.

His business also was shut down, which wasn’t good news for him or his employees that are now out on the street.

The trouble for James Slatic began five days before his family’s accounts were frozen, when around 30 San Diego police officers and DEA agents raided Slatic’s medical marijuana business, Med-West Distribution, and seized nearly $325,000 in cash from a safe. …The raid was a crushing blow to Slatic—not to mention his 35 employees, who lost their jobs and benefits without notice.

Here’s a video detailing this disgusting abuse by government.

[brid video=”78648″ player=”2077″ title=”Watch California Cops Steal Every Penny from an Innocent Family”]

There is some good news. Voters in several states voted last week to decriminalize pot.

And for those who worry that legalizing marijuana will be a gateway to decriminalizing harder drugs, I encourage you to read this Cato Institute study on what happened after Portugal legalized all drugs early last decade.

This isn’t an argument about whether you should use drugs, like drugs, or approve of drug use. You can be the drug equivalent of a teetotaler like me and still realize that it makes no sense for the government to squander lots of money and hurt lots of lives simply because politicians want to control what people choose to put in their own bodies.

Libertarian and CATO economist Dan Mitchell reviews

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who wanted out of the role after Obama left office, submitted his resignation Wednesday evening. Director Clapper, was forced to apologize to Congress in a letter in 2013 for giving a “clearly erroneous” answer under oath to a question about whether the government collects data on millions of Americans.

“My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize,” he wrote in a letter to then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

He told NBC News last year that more than 50 years of service was enough. Mr. Clapper, who started as a young intelligence office reporting to his father in Vietnam, said he was counting down the days until he could step down.

His resignation comes as the Trump transition team “methodically” goes about the business of building a new administration. On national security, it has been reported that Gen. Michael Fylnn has been selected as National Security Advisor.

Meanwhile, Mr. Clapper, in testimony to the House Select Intelligence Committee, said submitting the resignation ” felt pretty good.”

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who

Vice president-elect Mike Pence arrives at Donald Trump's Trump Tower in New York, NY, November 15, 2016. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

Vice president-elect Mike Pence arrives at Donald Trump’s Trump Tower in New York, NY, November 15, 2016. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

Media headlines suggest the Trump transition team is in disarray going a week without an appointment, but a look at past transitions shows President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence are right on pace.

Thus far, President-elect Trump has already announced the appointment two posts; Reince Priebus as the White House chief of staff and Steven Bannon as Special Counsel, or chief strategist.

In 2008, the most recent example, Big Media didn’t seem to care that President Barack Obama didn’t make his first appointment until the third week. And he only made one appointment. The following week he made 4, then 2 and 4, following with another 4 in the seventh week.

Week Nixon Carter Reagan Bush 41 Clinton Bush 43 Obama
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
6 All 2 8 3 4 1 4
7 0 7 4 5 6 5 4
8 0 2 0 0 6 8 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

On Wednesday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the soon-to-be president’s former top rival during the Republican primary, spent roughly 5 hours at Trump Tower strategizing how the new administration will deliver on promises to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Sen. Cruz is also being seriously considered for Attorney General.

General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Trump advisor throughout the campaign, has reportedly been selected for National Security Advisor. While Trump spokesman Jason Miller said there has been no official announcement, he added that Gen. Flynn is more than qualified for that job and several other still needing to be filled.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is reportedly the top pick for secretary of state and dismissed the job of attorney general. Former Ambassador John Bolten is also in contention.

The media has insinuated the Trump transition team is in disarray after they made good on a major campaign promise to “drain the swamp,” firing state and national lobbyists that were brought on while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was in charge of the transition. This week, the team was taken over by Vice President-elect Pence, who gave the members an ultimatum. Those on the team must also agree not to become lobbyists for five years after their service in the administration.

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, is also in the running for secretary of the Treasury Department. Ironically, Dimon was one of only a handful of financial sector heads who didn’t support the TARP bailout during the 2007 to 2008 financial crisis.

Media headlines suggest the Trump transition team

Estonia

Estonia

I’m a big fan of the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

These three countries emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Empire and they have taken advantage of their independence to become successful market-driven economies.

One key to their relative success is tax policy. All three nations have flat taxes. Estonia’s system is so good (particularly its approach to business taxation) that the Tax Foundation ranks it as the best in the OECD.

And the Baltic nations all deserve great praise for cutting the burden of government spending in response to the global financial crisis/great recession (an approach that produced much better results than the Keynesian policies and/or tax hikes that were imposed in many other countries).

But good policy in the past is no guarantee of good policy in the future, so it is with great dismay that I share some very worrisome news from two of the three Baltic countries.

First, we have a grim update from Estonia, which may be my favorite Baltic nation if for no other reason than the humiliation it caused for Paul Krugman. But now Estonia may cause sadness for me. The coalition government in Estonia has broken down and two of the political parties that want to lead a new governmentare hostile to the flat tax.

Estonia’s government collapsed Wednesday after Prime Minister Taavi Roivas lost a confidence vote in Parliament, following months of Cabinet squabbling mainly over economic policies. …Conflicting views over taxation and improving the state of Estonia’s economy, which the two junior coalition partners claim is stagnant, is the main cause for the breakup. …The core of those policies is a flat 20 percent tax on income. The Social Democrats say the wide income gaps separating Estonia’s different social groups would best be narrowed by introducing Nordic-style progressive taxation. The two parties said Wednesday that they will immediately start talks on forming a coalition with the Center Party, Estonia’s second-largest party, which is favored by the country’s sizable ethnic-Russian majority and supports a progressive income tax.

And Lithuanians just held an election and the outcome does not bode well for that nation’s flat tax.

After the weekend run-off vote, which followed a first round on October 9, the centrist Lithuanian Peasants and Green Union party LGPU) ended up with 54 seats in the 141-member parliament. …The conservative Homeland Union, which had been tipped to win, scored a distant second with 31 seats, while the governing Social Democrats were, as expected, relegated to the opposition, with just 17 seats. …The LPGU wants to change a controversial new labour code that makes it easier to hire and fire employees, impose a state monopoly on alcohol sales, cut bureaucracy, and above all boost economic growth to halt mass emigration. …Promises by Social Democratic Prime Minister Butkevicius of a further hike in the minimum wage and public sector salaries fell flat with voters.

The Social Democrats sound like they had some bad idea, but the new LGPU government has a more extreme agenda. It already has proposed to create a special 4-percentage point surtax on taxpayers earning more than €12,000 annually (the government also wants to expand double taxation, which also is contrary to the tax-income-only-once principle of a pure flat tax).

So the bad news is that the flat tax could soon disappear in Estonia and Lithuania.

But the good news, based on my discussions with people in these two nations, is that the battle isn’t lost. At least not yet.

In both cases, policy can’t be changed unless all parties in the coalition government agree. Fortunately, they haven’t reached that point.

And hopefully that point will never be reached if Estonia and Lithuania want long-run success.

All of the Baltic nations get reasonably good scores from Economic Freedom of the World. Ditching the flat tax will cause their scores to decline.

Given that fiscal policy is only 20 percent of a nation’s grade, adopting some bad tax policy may not seem like the end of the world.

But the flat tax isn’t just good policy. It also has symbolic value, telling both domestic entrepreneurs and global investors that a country has a commitment to a system that won’t impose extra punishment just because a person contributes more to national economic output.

By the way, the LPGU Party is very correct to worry about emigration. The Baltic nations (like most countries in Eastern Europe) face a very large demographic problem. And every time a young person leaves for better opportunities elsewhere (even if that better opportunity is a big welfare check), that makes the long-run outlook even more challenging.

But imposing a more punitive tax system is exactly the opposite of what should happen if the goal is faster growth so that people don’t leave the nation.

Let’s close with a famous quote from John Ramsay McCulloch, a Scottish economist from the 1800s.

To be sure, progressive taxation didn’t lead to total catastrophe, so McCulloch’s warning may seem overwrought by today’s standards.

But the so-called progressive income tax did lead to the modern welfare state. And the modern welfare state, when combined with demographic change, is threatening immense economic and societal damage in many nations.

So what he wrote in 1863 may turn out to be very prescient for historians in 2063 who wonder why the western world collapsed.

P.S. If Estonia and Lithuania move in the wrong direction, Latvia could be a big winner. That nation already has received some positive attention for being fiscally responsible, and it also has withstood pressure from the IMF to impose bad tax policy. So Latvia is well positioned to reap the benefits if Estonia and Lithuania shoot themselves in the foot.

Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania emerged

For only the second time since the early 1950s, a Republican president will wield power with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. With that incredible power, small-government advocates can’t help but hope that this change will bring about good policies and much less government than under President Barack Obama. Maybe.

The first time we had a unified Republican government since the ’50s occurred just a little more than a decade ago, when then-President George W. Bush enjoyed Republican control of Congress for 4 1/2 of his first six years in office. Four months into Bush’s first term, Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont declared himself an independent and caucused with the Democrats, thus breaking a 50-50 tie and giving Democrats slight control of the Senate until the GOP recaptured it just over a year later.

Most readers have probably forgotten about Jeffords, but what shouldn’t be forgotten is the massive growth in federal power under a Washington dominated by the GOP. Allow me to quickly refresh your memory.

The following is a rogues’ gallery of Republican-engineered expansions of the federal government’s size and scope: the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a bloated farm bill, the expansion of Medicare through the creation of a prescription drug benefit, a crony energy bill, a pork-ridden transportation bill and war, war and more war.

In President Bill Clinton’s last year in office, the federal government spent $1.86 trillion. Six years later, under Bush and a Republican-dominated Congress, the figure was $2.73 trillion. As a share of the economy, spending went from 17.6 percent of gross domestic product to 19.1 percent of GDP during that time, and it went on to be well over 20 percent by the time Bush finally left office. Critics of the Obama administration rightly scold it for the large growth in federal debt under its watch, but the Bush years set the table; Obama delivered the turkey.

That last point is critical to understand. The Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress played a major role in making the excesses of the Obama administration possible. The present concern should be that excesses of both administrations will help lay the foundation for the excesses of the new one. That means it isn’t just liberals who should be worried about President-elect Donald Trump and a complicit Republican Congress. Conservatives, libertarians and anyone else who cares about free markets and the need to constrain our overgrown federal government should be just as concerned.

If we are to take Trump’s campaign promises seriously, then his anti-free market stances on international trade are alarming enough. Unfortunately, we shouldn’t underestimate the willingness of congressional Republicans to throw trade under the bus if it means appeasing parochial demands for federal protection.

While there is a real possibility of repealing the Affordable Care Act, the risk of a replacement plan that is best described as “Obamacare light” is also very real. And it isn’t difficult to imagine that no reforms of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will take place, either, especially because many in Congress will be happy to embrace the magical thinking that “growing the economy” will sufficiently cover the escalating bills for entitlements. We already know that Trump has the Republican support to turn the spending spigot back on for the Pentagon and defense contractors.

For those who think Trump’s campaign promises will turn out to be much more malleable, there’s always the hope he will be persuaded to pull back from the more destructive ideas and instead focus on much-needed reforms, such as corporate tax reform. But Trump comes into office with no government experience and a small network of loyalists. That means that with thousands of appointments to make and not nearly enough true believers available to fill those roles, the president-elect will be forced to rely on the very same political insiders he decried during his campaign. So rather than a draining of the swamp as Trump has promised, there is a risk that the swamp won’t shrink at all.

Finally, a good number of his appointees will probably have served time in the aforementioned Bush administration and the Bush-enabling offices of Republican members of Congress. If that isn’t cause for concern, then I would suggest rereading the beginning of this piece.

For only the second time since the

Dear Facebook friends,

If you don’t see me gushing over the pix of your Thanksgiving pies, take no offense. It’s not that your pie is a bore (though, frankly, it is). And it’s not because I unfriended you. It’s because Facebook has become a platform for the sort of fake news stories that helped elect Donald Trump. In doing so, Facebook undermines our civic culture — its creepy smile floating overhead.

I’m so out of there. I’ve wanted to quit for a long time, having wearied of friends’ pictorials of their idyllic family and personal lives. I know for a fact that some of the most glowing portrayals come from (mostly) women who couldn’t make it to noon without a fistful of meds. I still love them, and if they wish to connect, they have my number.

Though hyper-partisan fake news stories have come from both the left and the right, Facebook entrepreneurs know that the money is in plowing the Trumpian fields. And for all the patriotic memes, foreigners are behind much of the manipulation of the American public.

Kids in a town in Macedonia (that’s near Greece) created over 100 pro-Trump websites, spreading phony reports such as FBI plans to indict Hillary Clinton. The Make America Great page outsources the writing of fraudulent news to a couple in the Philippines.

Compounding the evil, Facebook’s design makes fake stories from fake sites such as the nonexistent Denver Guardian look like stories from the very real Denver Post. And no, blocking fake news sites from ad revenues is not going to stop politically motivated lying.

Facebook further degrades the national conversation by creating echo chambers. Its algorithm directs the “news” people like to their like-minded friends.

No chains shackle us to Facebook.

Aleks Krotoski, a technology journalist for BBC, saw a wave of Britons leaving Facebook after the Brexit vote — mostly people opposed to leaving the European Union. “They were shocked by the fact that they had found themselves in an echo chamber, in a bubble,” she told me.

Adding to my disgust with Facebook’s amoral business model is founder Mark Zuckerberg’s excuse for it. Facebook is not a media company; it’s a technology company, he explained.

So why has Facebook been so joyfully ravaging the advertising base of real news media companies, which put sweat, pride and dollars into reporting? As just one example, Facebook last year siphoned about $27 million in digital ads from The Guardian, according to a former editor.

Zuckerberg says he doesn’t want Facebook making judgments on what “news” is acceptable for its site. Funny, Facebook bans pictures of female breasts in the name of decency but sees nothing indecent about putting lies into the mouth of Pope Francis. We refer to the total falsehood, seen almost a million times, that the pope had endorsed Trump.

Public-spirited Trump voters should object to such corporate dereliction. But Clinton supporters have more reason for rage at Facebook for letting con men poison Clinton’s candidacy — at a profit to both Facebook and the cons.

I know quitting Facebook would be hard for many. It has something of a lock on group communications. But there’s something of a monkey-see, monkey-do element of Facebook that when someone announces she’s leaving, others do likewise.

“If you have a critical mass of people who get fed up and leave, Facebook would be in trouble,” Krotoski said.

An alternative would push that day closer. We need something to challenge the nature of the commitment and the connections that people have to one another on Facebook. Surely, there are innovators working feverishly on a replacement. If they succeed, they’ll make a fortune. I will help them in my microscopic way.

In the meantime, I’m leaving Facebook. Follow me.

Though hyper-partisan fake news stories have come

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial