About This Blog

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.

Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.

In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Debate Post Mortem

My overriding sentiment after watching two hours of the FOX News Presidential debate last night was: Is this really the best we got?

First a word about the FOX production... Those pundits who compared the debate to a game show almost got it. The debate was more like a video game with Google supplying the technics. Does a major news company really need YouTube, live internet polling and Google search statistics to determine the best questions to ask a wannabee President? And why do the questionnaires get two or three minutes to frame their question and the candidates only one minute to respond? And did anyone else watching get irritated by these windbag questions being asked of only a single candidate? Wouldn't it have been instructive to hear less questions and more answers from each candidate?

MICHELLE BACHMANN I guess her heart's in the right place but where's her head at. To me she comes across as a bit too Washingtonian, too over-coached. Lady, drop the stupid grin and get real. Did she really say we get to keep every dollar we earn because the money is ours but that we also have to give some "back to the government" to "run the government?" Did she really say the very first thing she would do as President is repeal ObamaCare? I didn't know Presidents could do that. Her best answer was to the question of whether or not states should enforce national borders. She said she'd do her job as President and have the federal government enforce its borders. Yawn...

JON HUNTSMAN Another bigger yawn. This guy tries hard to be politically correct. He weaseled out of Chris Wallace's accusation that he subsidized "clean energy" as Governor of Utah by saying "we've" learned that subsidies don't work. Then he proceeded to talk about how "we" should begin the conversion process to natural gas for our energy needs. He also believes that living abroad for a period of years makes him a qualified expert in foreign policy. If this guy isn't another Bush, I'll eat his birth certificate.

RICK SANTORUM Speaking of foreign policy, this guy is just plain scary. He makes Barry Goldwater look like a pacifist. Not only don't I want this guy's finger on the trigger, I don't even want him within 50 feet of the gun cabinet.

RON PAUL/GARY JOHNSON Paul still makes the best arguments despite his screechy, ranting style. Johnson would make the best President of anyone on stage. Plus, he bought himself a suit that fits. I was put off by his endorsement of the FAIR Tax which seems to me to be a way to fund huge government. The truth is the Washington elite wouldn't let either one of these nerds get close to the oval office, even if it were only on a tour bus passing by. Remember JFK?

HERMAN CAIN The most personable guy on stage, but I worry about his naivete. His 9-9-9 plan doesn't stand a prayer of passing as he conceives it. Congress would twist it into a way to fund big government. The guy reminds me of a black Herbert Hoover. He's got the solution to every problem imaginable. Washington would eat him alive.

NEWT GINGRICH The best debater of the lot, but too smart for his own good. The guy is a closet Woodrow Wilson. When asked whether it was right that individuals can receive unemployment benefits for 99 weeks, Newt answered "No," except if they were forced to get some "training." Are you kidding me? It's not that Newt doesn't have the balls to say "No" and stop there. He just believes too much in government solutions.

RICK PERRY This guy looks, smells and acts like a career politician without an ideological rudder. He reminds me of "W." He's memorized all the conservative things to say, but whent he time comes to act he lets his heart lead him around by the nose. Could it be the guy is another compassionate conservative? Lord save us.

MITT ROMNEY Slippery as a greased pig. If he ever got to debate Obama, the stage would be neck deep in bullshit. The guy is a wildcard, a loose cannon. Elect him and I'm afraid power would go to his head. He's another Nixon. No, such a comparison would do a disservice to Nixon. The guy is the definition of a RINO. If he were elected, he'd set Republicans back further than McCain did...and that's pretty far back.

SARAH PALIN (Come on, Sarah. It's time!) 


Anonymous said...

Most of your assessment about the candidates I agree with. I do have an issue of your negative opinion of the Fair Tax. It will never happen because it takes to much power from the elected class but it is the best way to fund the government.

Sarah, It's time to go back home and lock the door. She is the reason we now have the disaster known as Obama.

Sherman Broder said...

Thanks for your comments.

I am opposed to the Fair Tax for a number of reasons:

First, because it does indeed "fund the government." At the 23% rate that advocates recommend the Fair Tax would be, by most accounts, "revenue neutral." This is unacceptable. The goal should be to drastically cut the size of government and the taxes it collects.

Second, the Fair Tax is a "passive" tax which the government collects in thousands of small transactions rather than in one lump sum. This makes the tax far too invisible and far too easy for the taxpayer to discount. The government should be forced to collect all taxes once a year via a single payment from each individual. If this were law, I guarantee you taxpayers would insist that government be cut.

Third, I don't believe that the taxes the Fair Tax is designed to replace will go away and stay away. It's a risk not worth taking.

Fourth, I don't believe the Fair Tax is immune from tinkering. In time, Congress is sure to offer exemptions and special rates to favored industries, etc.

As for Palin, I don't agree she was responsible for the 2008 debacle. McCain, as the GOP standard-bearer must shoulder that responsibility. I do agree that Palin must explain her alliance with and defense of McCain's RINO policies.

ralph said...

You seem to have a distrust in the federal government and their ability to do anything except screw the working taxpayer.

The reason I favor the Fair Tax is because it takes power away from the politicians. The "you make to much so we are going to take more of it" punishes success and rewards failure. Obama and his band of incompetents have proven the only thing they are good at is demonizing success.

McCain was the wrong choice but there was little choice. I do believe if he selected a different female running mate, Hutchinson for one, the outcome would have been different. With the media doing everything they can to elect Obama, he didn't need a questionable running mate and she came off as not having a clue.

Sherman Broder said...

Thanks for the comment, Ralph.

I respect your opinion on the Fair Tax. I like the idea of every individual paying the same percentage. If it were a low, low percentage, like five or six percent, I could be persuaded. However, I do distrust politicians and I do believe they would screw the working taxpayer eventually.

I admit that I cringed everytime Palin opened her mouth in the 2008 campaign. I've been reading her stuff in the last few years and she's done her homework.

Ultimately, I'm for anybody but Obama or his ilk.