Tag Archives: Pete Buttigieg

Hold On To Your Country: Vote Down the Leftists

27 Tuesday Oct 2026

Posted by in Election, Socialism, Tyranny

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Babylon Bee has it just about right. But putting aside important medical, ethical and cultural issues for the moment, lots of voters are pissed off about “affordability”, or a lack thereof. Will that, or something else, keep GOP voters away from the polls? Or will it cause them to switch allegiance to Democrats, or persuade independents to swing left this time? That would be a huge mistake.

Dumb Policies and Own-Party Turnout

The trend of rising prices isn’t new, of course, and it will continue as long as federal spending continues to escalate. In that context, voters should recall that Democrats, enabled by the Fed, left us with much higher prices after Joe Biden’s term in office, and Dems aren’t offering workable solutions to reduce the cost of living — they don’t have any.

But for his part, Trump hasn’t exactly restrained the growth of government, and his protectionist (and almost certainly illegal) tariff policies have taxed businesses and consumers. The Iran war and blockade have completely washed out the price effects of other pro-energy policies, at least for now, though it would be crazy to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

I’m unhappy with Trump on a number of other scores, such as his push for the federal government to take wasteful and ultimately coercive equity stakes in hitherto private companies, which might ultimately offer Democrats a treasure chest to fund their favorite NGOs. Furthermore, Trump’s political motivations are so baldly obvious, like his promise to have the Treasury pay every American $5,000 if both houses of Congress remain in GOP hands for the next two years.

So yes, there are reasons to wonder whether the GOP will struggle in this year’s midterms that go well beyond the usual explanations for incumbent underperformance (own-party apathy and a motivated opposition).

What Motivates Me

Since I’m not drooling over the prospect of a $5k payout, and in fact I hate the profligacy it would represent, what do I care if the Democrats take control of Congress? Well, there’s plenty to fear from a Congress controlled by Democrats, and I will discuss some of risks below. I fully confess that what follows is a rant, but right now it needs to be said.

The Democrats have become preoccupied with fervid anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, and vengeance against their political enemies. (Don’t tell me about Trump’s Justice Department… what do you expect after years of immigration fraud and criminally bogus government actions against him.) The Dem’s platform this time is largely focused on the chanting of words like “affordability”, “government health care”, and “Free Palestine”, without explaining exactly what policies they’d implement. But their real agenda is far worse than any of that sounds.

The thing is that ultimately Trump will move along. Disenchanted Trump voters should keep that in mind, even as they keep a suspicious eye on him and potential successors. Despite Trump’s penchant for expanded executive power, I believe that in the long run our public and private institutions, and our constitutional order, are in much safer hands with a Republicans majority in Congress than a Democrat majority. As a matter of fact, certain Democrats have as much as promised to demolish many of our key institutions if they are elected or control Congress. They would pull out all the stops to eliminate anything they think might place the left at a disadvantage.

Even Dumber Policies

I’ve dealt with the pros and cons of most of the following issues in the past, so I won’t elaborate much on any of them. And it is by no means a complete list! Suffice it to say that the kinds of positions shown below would be disastrous for the nation, our prosperity, and for the cause of individual liberty. Just so I’m not accused of painting with too broad a brush, let me qualify this by noting that there are centrist democrats who do not support all of the listed positions. Nevertheless, this is where their party is headed, as it’s members continue to normalize and drift toward ever-more extreme positions:

  • Abolish the Senate? This would destroy the key basis of the Great Compromise that enabled the founding of our nation. Without it, a simple majority in the House could enable a tyrannical regime or destabilize the country.
  • Abolish the electoral college? Again, an effort to destroy a compromise that was and is critical to our union.
  • Pad the Supreme Court with extra justices? Get a Democrat supermajority? Like hell!
  • Rewrite the constitution? Well, only if you want to remove limits on the power of the federal government to confiscate, regulate, and spend without restraint.
  • Restrict speech? Because the left does not recognize the distinction between words (opinions or honest disagreement) and violence, or pretends not to. Hurting feelings is not violence!
  • Legalize abortion? It’s somebody else’s body in your body. A person. Let them live!
  • Legalize infanticide? Because they view children as inconvenient and basically worthless!
  • Confiscate the means of production? Sure, and the victims of this theft will simply have to explain to these geniuses how it all works. Break out the Richard Scarry books. No problem!
  • Tax wealth? Goodbye standard of living.
  • Impeach Trump? For being elected and for governing!
  • Demonize success? Because they think profit has nothing to do with creating value.
  • Prosecute Elon Musk? Because we must punish the most productive man on Earth! This threat long preceded the Starlink shutdown in Ukraine, which was arguably justified.
  • Assassinate Elon Musk? Because we must eliminate the most productive man on Earth!
  • Universal healthcare? As PJ O’Roarke once said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” People aren’t as crazy about it when they learn the details.
  • Stop the data centers? No one should fall for this. Data centers can be great opportunities for local communities, so why prohibit them outright? No, they seldom use much water and they aren’t pushing up retail power costs. Negotiate!
  • Abolish ICE? Zero immigration enforcement. Get real!
  • Wide open borders and no vetting? Please, take my land, my home, my daughters!
  • Defund the police? Guess what’s coming to your neighborhood. Who you gonna call?
  • Abolish prisons? Same.
  • Crime and Release: Sympathy for aggressors. Victims… meh.
  • Revoke gun rights? You can forget about self-defense. But disarm and conquer is the final objective.
  • Outlaw voter ID? Kiss electoral integrity goodbye.
  • Abandon Israel? Exterminating Jews, from the river to the sea. Oh, and apparently here too! Genocide in Gaza is a fiction enabled by Hamas’ strategic ploy to forcibly embed with civilians.
  • Higher oil prices? Yes, much higher than even now, because the left hates fossil fuels.
  • Publicly ostracize Republicans to diminish their career and social prospects? Because they differ!
  • “Reeducate” Republicans? Because they differ!
  • Shoot Republicans? Because they differ!

Much of this adds up to a putsch for a one-party state. Don’t tell me I’m exaggerating: I’ve heard members of my own extended family engage in eliminationist rhetoric. And I’m far from alone. It’s not a joke. Yes, those are just words, but nevertheless, the left is actively normalizing even the most extreme and nonsensical positions. These people are insane.

The Clown Car

Who do the Democrats wish to elect in November? Well, for starters, a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool, big government lefties who would push for many of the agenda items listed above. This includes Senate candidates such as Roy Cooper (NC), Sherrod Brown (OH), and DSA member Angie Nixon (FL). But the worst of the worst for the Senate might be Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, a fake physician with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see this ridiculous ad from a supportive PAC, especially the end). Then we have James Talarico in Texas, a wokie who has played up his pastoral ambitions and has flipped on critical issues (youth transgender medical care and sports, abortion, and energy). And what about Graham Platner? … Oops, no, the Maine Oystergrüppenführer had to drop out due to accusations of sexual abuse — but this guy received 70% of Maine Democrats’ vote in the primary and support from prominent Democrats elsewhere. Nice people!

Some of the Democratic House candidates are even more extreme, including Democratic Socialists Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY), Melat Kiros (CO), Donavan McKinney (MI), William Lawrence (MI), and DSA-backed Claire Valdez (NY). Don’t allow them to waste the next two years of congressional time and energy trying to make ridiculous charges against Trump stick, or even worse, waste our time debating a socialist policy agenda.

The Democrats’ gubernatorial candidates include another collection of radical nut cases. Oregon Governor Tina Kotec is one of them. So is Gina Hinojosa of Texas, who has received an endorsement from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which in turn defends Sharia law. Others include Amanda Janoo (VT), Deb Haaland (NM), and Hannah Pingree (ME), all for big taxation and grandiose plans for big government.

These Democrats are cheered on by such luminaries as:

  • the noted anti-Semite and socialist Hasan Piker;
  • Kamala Harris, whose patter is nearly 100% vapid drivel;
  • the oily, DSA worshiping Gavin Newsom;
  • the inimitable socialist Bernie Sanders, who has never done an honest day’s work in his life;
  • the former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, who thinks highways are racist; and
  • the former narcissist-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama, who has played an instrumental role in radicalizing Democrats over the past two decades and would love to have another opportunity to pull strings.

Electoral Mischief

One of the policy issues bulleted above requires elaboration: our country has a major lack of election integrity. Our electoral process is not free and fair. It is rife with fraud. Already, well before Election Day, we have a major scandal with noncitizens voting, and you can be assured that it’s not confined to LA or California (see here for the latest case). In Georgia, various kinds of voter fraud in this election have already been identified, which may interfere with certification of the results. Cybersecurity has now become an additional concern with respect to electronic voting.

Of course, the manipulation of elections is nothing new. Local vote counts in jurisdictions dominated by a single political party are the most vulnerable to shenanigans, and those areas tend to be heavily urban with reliable Democrat majorities. These distorted and exaggerated vote counts can certainly have an impact on national results. The best means of bringing this kind of manipulation under control is voter identification, strict deadlines, and eliminating cyber threats via paper ballots. Of course, the election process is once again a major issue this cycle. If you want secure elections, DO NOT sit this one out!

Seditious Conspiracy?

Finally, in a dramatic illustration of how crazy and seditious some high-level Democrats have become, there is strong evidence that insiders, including prominent office holders, are attempting to lay plans for a so-called color revolution after the mid-term election. Here is Glenn Reynolds’ summary of the alleged plan:

“If the Democrats take the House and Senate (and maybe if they don’t), various leftist groups will stage violent protests, intended to press Trump into invoking the Insurrection Act and sending in troops. Once he does, Democratic governors in blue states will denounce his acts as illegal (whether they are or not) and mount resistance on various levels. The goal is to destabilize things enough that they can seize power and replace the Constitution.“

This might sound far-fetched, but again, there is solid documentation to back up the allegations. Chuck Devore in The Federalist gives more detail here (and there is more here). The Trump Administration certainly knows about this plot, but the excellent X poster Cynical Publius believes they want to avoid abetting these plans by deferring any necessary actions until after the midterms.

Final Thoughts

The people behind the plan to stage a color revolution are skunks, and one hopes they’ll be punished. But Democrats have other broad problems, I mean, other than the sheer stupidity of expecting big government to solve problems and protect basic liberties. Factions like the DSA, and a significant share of Democrats overall, really do want a one-party state. But today, the far left wing includes an Islamist faction whose beliefs are fundamentally at odds with ideals the left had championed for decades, like the rights of women, gays, lesbians and more recently, the trans community. Left-wing Jews need a loud wakeup call as well.

I think this clip from Bill Maher and Justine Bateman represents a pretty accurate take on what could happen if the leftist Democrats “get it all”. Do not allow them to take control of our country. They will bring disaster. Get out and vote, and make your vote count against Democrats, even against more moderate Democrats, because they are unlikely to present an obstacle to the radical agenda. Hold your nose if you have to, but you just might help to preserve our safety, our liberties, and our country.

A Fiscal Real-Bills Doctrine? No Such Thing As Painless Inflation Tax

14 Tuesday Jun 2022

Posted by in Fiscal policy, Inflation, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A remarkable proposal made recently by Representative Ro Khanna (D -CA) would have the Biden Administration impose price controls, which would be bad enough. Khanna also would like the federal government to cover the inflation losses incurred by Americans by having it directly purchase certain goods and services and resell them “cheap” to consumers. In fairness, Khanna says the government should attempt to take advantage of dips in prices for oil, food commodities, and perhaps other necessities, which of course would limit or reverse downward price changes. When asked about Khanna’s proposal, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden’s Transportation Secretary, replied that there were great ideas coming out of Congress and the Administration should consider them. Anyway, the idea is so bad that it deserves a more thorough examination.

Central Planners Have No Clothes

First, such a program would represent a massive expansion in the scope of government. It would also present ample opportunities for graft and cronyism, as federal dollars filter through the administrative layers necessary to manage the purchases and distribution of goods. Furthermore, price and quantity would then be shaded by a heavy political component, often taking precedence over real demand and cost considerations. And that’s beyond the crippling “knowledge problem” that plagues all efforts at central planning.

One of the most destructive aspects of allowing government to absorb a greater share of total spending is that government is not invested with the same budgetary discipline as private buyers. Take no comfort in the notion that the government might prove expert at timing these purchases to leverage price dips. Remember that government always spends “other people’s money”, whether it comes from tax proceeds, lenders, or the printing press (and hence future consumers, who have absolutely no agency in the matter). Hence, price incentives take on less urgency, while political incentives gain prominence. The loss of price sensitivity means that government expenditures are likely to inflate more readily than private expenditures. This is all the more critical at a time when inflation is becoming embedded in expectations and pricing decisions. Khanna thus proposes an inflation “solution” that puts less price-sensitive bureaucrats in charge of actual purchases. That’s a prescription for failure.

If anyone in Biden’s White House is seriously considering a program of this kind, and let’s hope they’re not, they should at least be aware that direct subsidies for the purchase of key goods would be far more efficient. It’s also possible to hedge the risk of future price increases on commodities markets, perhaps simply distributing hedging gains to consumers when they pay off. However, having the federal government participate as a major player in commodities options and futures is probably not on the table at this point … and I shudder to think of it, but it might be more efficient than Khanna’s vision.

A Fiscal Real Bills Doctrine

Khanna’s program would almost surely cause inflation to accelerate. Inflation itself a form of taxation imposed by profligate governments, though it’s an inefficient tax since it creates greater uncertainty. Higher prices deflate the real value of most government debt (borrowed from the public), assets fixed in nominal value, and incomes. Read on, but this program would have the government pay your inflation tax for you by inflating some more. Does this sound like a vicious circle?

Khanna’s concept of inflation-relief is a fiscal reimagining of a long-discredited monetary theory called the “Real Bills Doctrine”. According to this doctrine, rising prices and costs necessitate additional money creation so that businesses have the liquidity to pay the bills associated with ongoing productive efforts. The “real” part is a reference to the link between business expenses and actual production, despite the fact that those bills are expressed in nominal terms. The result of this policy is a cycle of ever-higher inflation, as ever-more money is printed. This was the policy utilized by the Reichsbank in Weimar Germany during its hyperinflation of 1922-23. It’s really quite astonishing that anyone ever thought such a policy was helpful!

In Khanna’s version of the doctrine, the government spends to relieve cost pressure faced by consumers, so the rationale has nothing to do with productive effort.

Financing and the Central Bank Response

It’s reasonable to ask how these outlays would be financed. In all likelihood, the U.S. Treasury would borrow the funds at interest rates now at 10-15 year highs, which have risen in part to compensate investors for higher inflation.

My bet is that Khanna imagines the Fed would simply “print” money (i.e., buy the new government debt floated by the Treasury to pay for the program). This is the prescription of so-called Modern Monetary Theory, whose adherents have either forgotten or have never learned that money growth and inflation is a costly and regressive form of taxation.

Most economists would say the response of the Federal Reserve to this fiscal stimulus would bear on whether it really ignites additional inflationary pressure. Of course, rather than borrowing, Congress could always vote to levy higher taxes on the public in order to pay the public’s inflation tax burden! But then what’s the point? Well, taxing at least has the virtue of not fueling still higher inflation, and the Fed would not have a role to play.

But if the government simply borrows instead, it adds to the already bloated supply of government debt held by the public. This borrowing is likely to put more upward pressure on interest rates, and the federal government’s mounting interest expense requires more financing. What then might the Fed do?

The Fed is an independent, quasi-government entity, so it would not have to accommodate the additional spending by printing money (buying the new Treasury debt). Either way, investors are increasingly skeptical that the growing debt burden will ever be reversed via future surpluses. The fiscal theory of the price level holds that something must reduce the real value of government debt (in order to satisfy the long-term fiscal budget constraint). That “something” is a higher price level. This position is not universally accepted, and some would contend that if the Fed simply set a nominal GDP growth target and stuck to it, accelerating inflation would not have to follow from Khanna’s policy. The same if the Fed could stick to a symmetric average inflation target, but they certainly haven’t been up to that task. Hoping the Fed would fully assert its independence in a fiscal hurricane is probably wishful thinking.

Conclusion

There are no choke points in the supply chain for bad ideas on the left wing of the Democratic Party, and they are dominating party centrists in terms of messaging. The answer, it seems, is always more government. High inflation is very costly, but the best policy is to rein it in, and that requires budgetary and monetary discipline. Attempts to make high inflation “painless” are misguided in the first instance because they short-circuit consumer price responses and substitution, which help restrain prices. Second, the presumption that an inflation tax can be “painless” is an invitation to fiscal debauchery. Third, expansive government brings out hoards of rent seekers instigating corruption and waste. Finally, mounting public debt is unlikely to be offset by future surpluses, and that is the ultimate admission of Modern Monetary Theory. A fiscal real bills doctrine would be an additional expression of this lunacy. To suggest otherwise is either sheer stupidity or an exercise in gaslighting. You can’t inflate away the pain of an inflation tax.

Biden Brainstorm: Nationwide Lockdown, Mask Mandate

01 Sunday Nov 2020

Posted by in Liberty, Pandemic, Tyranny

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Ah, so Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, one of garbling Joe Biden’s campaign surrogates, says Biden will indeed consider a national lockdown if elected. Oh, fine. And Biden accused Trump of destroying the economy? These dumb-asses must think people have memory spans of about a second.

There are several gigantic problems with foggy Joe’s idea: first, it’s not within a president’s power to impose a nationwide lockdown, as the chorus of experts reminded us last spring when Trump mentioned it. Second, the evidence suggests that lockdowns don’t work to eliminate the virus; they delay its spread at best. Third, as we’ve witnessed, lockdowns themselves have enormous public health consequences, leading to a variety of severe maladies, despondency, and excess non-COVID deaths. That’s simply unacceptable. Finally, the economic damage imposed by lockdowns is horrific and often permanent. We’re talking about destroying the independent livelihoods of people. Permanently! Lockdowns are especially hard on those at the bottom of the economic ladder, who are disproportionately minorities. That’s so obvious, and yet very difficult for elites to gather in.

Here’s another one: today Biden said he would impose a “national mandate” on masks and social distancing on Day One of his presidency. Like lockdowns, evidence is accumulating that masks do not work to contain the virus, and in fact they might be counter-productive (also see here, here, here, and here). Biden’s people will probably also insist on a mandating a government-approved contact-tracing app on your cell phone. Not if I can help it! But don’t get me wrong… I wear a mask in public buildings as an act of voluntary cooperation and to be polite. I also hold out some hope that it will keep the viral load minimal should anything float my way, but whatever lands on the mask might stick with it … and me!

Measures like those Biden contemplates are major assaults on our liberty. And the thing is, if any of it comes to pass, the restrictions might never go away. We’ll be asked to do this every flu season, or perhaps permanently to protect each other from “germs”. This is an authoritarian move, one that we should all resist, even if you’re freaked out by the virus. The best way to resist right now is to vote for Donald Trump.

And please, don’t give me any bullshit about our “responsibility” to lock down, and how mandatory masks are necessary to protect the vulnerable. Is poverty now a “responsibility”? The most highly vulnerable can be protected without masks, and maybe better. Beyond that, people must be free to determine their own level of risk tolerance, just as they have for millennia with respect to a broad spectrum of serious risks, pathogens or otherwise. That’s a dimension of freedom about which no one should be so cavalier.