Let's talk about poverty

So I see that John Edwards has finally hopped off the fence and picked a candidate. It seems like he was waiting for a winner to become apparent before making his endorsement. As I laid in bed, suffering through Edward's speech, my ears perked up when he mentioned poverty. The main reason he is supporting Barack Obama is because Obama plans to cut poverty in half within ten years. Those words seemed to echo of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society'. Those words sent shudders through my body; not because I favor poverty, but rather I fear the means used to eliminate that poverty. If there is one thing the state can never do, it is eliminate poverty.

Lyndon Johnson had good intentions when he proposed his war on poverty in the 1960s. America saw a great bloating in social programs, aimed at eliminating poverty. Welfare and Medicare are both prime examples of this farcical mission. Until the mid 1990s, Welfare payments were enough for a single mother to subsist. If someone is able to subsist at the teat of the government, then why work? Instead of lifting up someone's lot, the state guaranteed a permanent underclass by paying people simply for being poor.

Whenever I hear of a politician speak about eliminating poverty, I just shake my head. The state replacing a free market in allocating capital is bound for failure. It's what we saw with Welfare, and it most certainly is what we will see with Social Security. These are all bloated programs that are aimed at eliminating poverty. The only way for poverty to truly be reduced is through growth in private business.

The state has tried to hire people for make-work projects (Tennessee Valley Authority) and they've tried paying them for doing nothing (Welfare). Programs that aim to eliminate poverty only end up perpetuating poverty. It's no wonder that the times where we see poverty decrease is through real income rises, due to higher demand for labor. If business is growing, they need more hands to help them grow. The more they grow, the higher wages that business will pay for labor. Business growth will always do more in alleviating poverty than either John Edwards or Barack Obama can ever imagine. I'll just keep my fingers crossed, and hope the next president doesn't repeat the mistakes of FDR or Lyndon Johnson.
Read more...

And the race drags on...

This week's Economist.com KAL cartoon.


As you might have heard, Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania on Tuesday. I was hoping for her to lose so that this race could be over. So, that didn't happen. Instead she's still in the race, brandishing her unique brand of populism. Chris Matthews suggested that Obama be more of a "firebrand" and a "torch-bearer" speaking for the working man. It really made me think about the contrast of this race. If you know some political science, then you know that the bulk of the voters are in the center. On the extreme left and extreme right are the minority. Most of the time the one who becomes elected President is the one most successful in collecting the majority of the center (moderates). But, this isn't so in these Primaries, why not?.

It seems that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama used to be far more center than they are today. Perhaps it was their centrist appeal that made them each "inevitable," albeit it at different times. Hillary was unstoppable when she declared her candidacy in 2006. How far she has fallen. Barack Obama seemed inevitable after a decisive Wisconsin vote, remember? Then a shellacking in Ohio, Texas(popular vote) and lately, Pennsylvania. It seems they've each flown from the center to the left. It seems the longer this race goes on, the more populist it becomes.

Look at the key issues, Universal Health Care, the Economy and good ole fashioned gossip! Each of these issues offers a vision for a better tomorrow, what they fail to mention is the cost. Populist sermons tend to leave out those pesky details. But who really cares about that when we hear that someone's preacher gave a bad sermon, or that someone conjured up memories of past battle in Bosnia? This is what the race has come down to: who can appeal most to both a populist media (Thank you Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews and Lou Dobbs), and a blue-collar worker who just lost his job. This is a recipe for some government intevention. That is why Hillary Clinton will be the next FDR.

Social Programs, Price Controls (she proposed them in her previous medical care plan in 1994), and so on can be relied upon if she is elected. She will have a friendly congress, she will probably have a friendly majority. Spend, Spend, Spend. Historically, this has gotten us into big trouble. We're just coming off a spending Republican Congress and President. In with a spending Democrat? I may not like either candidate right now, but I can't see Hillary as president, it's a scary proposition. I just hope the one who is the least left wins. Democrat or Republican, our economy will thank you in the end.
Read more...

Please don't politicize the Olympics

Anyone who has been following the news this week knows that the Olympic torch relay, which precedes the Olympic games is under way. You may also know that that relay has been fraught with interruptions, protests and lots of grand-standing. The subject of all this distress is China's treatment of Tibet, a small region that most Americans would have trouble finding on a map. It is true that China has been represssing Tibet for over 50 years now, and it is true that they are heavy-handed in dealing with the small Himalayan region, but my question is what does this have to do with the Olympics? I understand that the Olympic Games cast the host city into a limelight, but that doesn't mean they need to be politicized. The Olympics are supposed to be beyond politics, Hu Jintao won't be throwing the javelin, Nicholas Sarkoszy won't be running the 100m dash, and George Bush and Vladimir Putin won't be involved in synchronized swimming this summer. These world leaders have nothing to do with the Olympic Games, it should stay that way. I truly hope, for the athletes sake, that this doesn't turn into the 1980 and 1984 Summer Olympics.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter believed it to be the duty of the United States to boycott the Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan. Sixty-two other countries joined in this protest. The Soviets retaliated by boycotting the Los Angeles Games in 1984. Political posturing won the day, but it was the athletes who lost. These athletes trained their entire lives to compete against the best in the Olympics. They gave their proverbial blood, sweat and tears to get to compete, and they could not. Why? Because their home country didn't like the politics of another's.

Politics and Policy have their time and their place. Every day, there is some speech by some politician, either applauding or decrying some country's foreign or domestic policy. That opinion can change from day to day, as politicians are notorious for this activity. The summer of 2008 will come and go, and eventually the world will again forget about Tibet, as they have for the last half-century. But, if we boycott the Olympics for that purpose, what have we gained? A headline today and a Wikipedia article tomorrow, not much else. All these athletes who have worked all their life for the opportunity to compete on the world stage, they will lose. For many, this is their only chance to compete. Politics and the Olympic Games should not mix. The world leaders can say what they want, they always do, but leave the games to the athletes.
Read more...