Biased Media Reporting: National Public Radio

As I was driving north last Thursday afternoon listening to KTLK 100.3 FM it was encouraging to hear it reported that ten thousand people showed up at our nations Capitol to protest against the government takeover of the health care industry. It was reported that these people came from all across our country by any means possible. It was equally encouraging to hear the crowd chant "Kill the bill, Kill the bill." John Voight was also heard speaking about Liberty and Freedom, quoting our Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

As I was nearing Sandstone and the signal was growing weak, the need to change stations soon arose. My addiction to talk radio led me to stop the tuner at Wisconsin Public Radio. The show was fairly entertaining. An author of a book about poisonous plants was discussing common garden variety killers we tend to ignore in our daily lives.

Things took a turn for the worse at the top of the hour when the NPR news report took place. The National Public Radio reported "A couple of thousand people protested at the Capitol today." That was the extent of their report. No chanting crowd. No John Voight.

What an enormous contrast between the two news sources. Which source can I trust? KTLK for sure. As a participant in last April 15th's Tea Party at the Minnesota Capitol, and witness to the reporting discrepancies of the Twin Cities news outlets it is obvious that the only accurate estimate of rally attendees is Fox News and KTLK.

Just recently I have decide never to be interviewed by at least two local "journalists." Despite several interviews, I have seen first hand, my words misreported and twisted into something unrecognizable to what was actually said. Because of the tarnished history of our local and national media and their unabashed bias and dissemination of "yellow journalism," not to mention rising budget deficits, it is time to stop all tax payer funding, at all levels of government, of "public radio."

Keynes, then Friedman, now Hayek

Amity Shlaes, senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Rela­tions, is a Bloomberg News columnist.

Her e- mail address is amityshlaes@ hotmail. com.


Every economist has his day.

World War II was the era of John Maynard Keynes, who taught that a few great minds can improve an economy. The 1990s were the era of Milton Friedman, when markets proved they had the capacity to slip past government and regulatory obstacles.

The next few years? They belong to Hayek, and for that we can thank the effort to pass the health-care bill.

Friedrich von Hayek literally was an Austrian, born in Vienna in 1899. But Hayek also was a member of the Austrian school of economics, that group of scholars who built models that tried to explain the business cycle.

Having served as an artillery officer during World War I, Hayek learned that when the worst could happen, it often did. In the early 1930s he decamped to the U.K., where he taught at the London School of Eco­nomics. During the blitz, Hayek was an air warden and walked the rooftops with Keynes, the man who would become his great opponent.

As the war came to end, Hayek penned an apocalyptic tract, “The Road to Serfdom.” His thesis was that war gets people used to national plan­ning. So the planners continue to plan, even in peacetime. These incre­mental expansions of the social- wel­fare state aren’t benign. They foster the creation of ever- more-powerful interest groups. The economy becomes less productive. Political corruption in turn gives rise to dicta­tors. Foreign-policy tension or eco­nomic crisis accelerates the trend.

“‘Emergencies,’” Hayek wrote, “have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded.”

When Hayek started to make such warnings, he was focusing on Britain, where the Labor Party was pulling the country to the left even as World War II was being won.

For a number of decades the main thing about Hayek seemed to be that he was wrong. Britain did head to the left, far to the left. After the war, the U.S. also institutionalized govern­ment planning in new areas. Yet nei­ther Britain nor the U.S. went social­ist or trampled personal freedoms. On the contrary, they eventually turned toward Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Those expansions of government that had taken place — the introduc­tion of Medicare and Medicaid — did­n’t seem to be getting in the way of democracy or markets.

Hayek fell out of favor. Though he won a Nobel Prize, he had to endure the humiliation of sharing it with the socialist Gunnar Myrdal. Even con­servatives preferred Friedman to

Hayek.

But this low estimation of Hayek fails to appreciate his central thought: the economic damage is sub­tle and is evident only over time.

Expanded health care, which the Democratic-controlled Congress is attempting to adopt, provides the best example. In 1964 the Democratic Party platform document contained a passage on health care. “We will con­tinue to fight until we have succeeded in including hospital care for older Americans in the Social Security Pro­gram and have insured adequate assistance to those elderly people suf­fering from mental illness,” the plat­form said.

At the time, the idea seemed radi­cal. Something beyond Social Securi­ty for seniors? This was the new, final benefit. But once a hospital-care pro­gram was in place lawmakers decid­ed that wasn’t enough, and added doctor visits to the list. In later years they expanded yet more, including, under President George W. Bush, the inclusion of Medicare Part D and pre­scription drugs in the offering.

Even that didn’t suffice, which is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate leaders are trying to ram through a vastly expanded public health program this month. The vari­ous health- care bills, with their pro­posed mandates on individuals and their new taxes on wealthy earners or on gilded health-insurance poli­cies, are probably something Lyndon Johnson himself never envisioned.

But Hayek did. Hayek understood that a good decade where govern­ment expansion seems to stall — the 1990s — doesn’t mean government won’t expand when the next crisis comes.

The recent pattern of following a war and a financial collapse with the creation of a new entitlement is a per­fect example of the Hayekian dynam­ic in action. No doubt, a new health­care program would be only the first in a number of government incur­sions, no matter how Republicans do in the midterms.

The U.S. is on the road if not to serfdom then to less growth, less innovation, more rationing and more political corruption. Recognition of this has shown up in the spate of Hayek blogs and discussions; one economist, Don Boudreaux, has cre­ated a virtual Hayek Café.

Hayek was such a dire fellow that many tend to resist his ideas. Even those of us with serious concerns at seeing a great portion of the economy tip into the public sector were buoyed this past weekend by the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. If a big thing like the Wall can come down, then surely it won’t be impossible to kill off a small thing like the surtax on gold-plated health plans.

I and plenty of others think that Hayek is wrong. The U.S. won’t nec­essarily tip into socialism. It will eventually again embrace markets. Too bad we’ll all have to endure the long wait to find out if we’re right.

Bailout Nation

Bailouts are the new "normal". AP reports that one in five borrowers have been "reached", with permanent "mods" the next big challenge.

I shudder to think what this means long term.

This sort of program, once it has "reached" a large audience, does not end. Its constituency has a powerful voice, and politicians are not suicidal. What does it mean to have mortgages routinely "modified" by Uncle Sam? What lender will willingly originate a mortgage that is likely to be "modified"?

Though billed as good news, it is not. Voters are being bought, and taxpayers fleeced. Debtors are told they are victims rather than deadbeats. Uncle Sam is now a party in 20% of our mortgages.

How cheaply we sell our freedom and independence.....

Bailouts and Wall Street

You must read this article. It is a quick study on what is wrong with bailouts.

The bailouts must end. Each one erodes our character, and leads to a bigger collapse in the future.

We want these bad policies to end because we came to our senses, not because we have destroyed our economy.

Let Sarbox die

An unusual controversy is erupting as the US Congress panders to business interests and relieves the burdens of those with the right connections. This article describes some of the detail.

Sarbanes-Oxley should not be tweaked. It should be repealed. If Congress wants to help business, and keep the playing field "level", then it should reduce general regulatory burden.

The oversight that Sarbox is supposed to provide is not, and should not be, the province of the federal government, and no regulatory regime will take the place of care and diligence on the part of investors, bankers and customers. The market, competition, and fear of failure are the right mechanisms in business, not law enforcement.

To borrow from Jesse Jackson - "End it, don't mend it."

Time to shut down Fannie Mae

Take careful note of what has been happening in the mortgage market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the center of the mortgage mess, pressuring and enabling banks to let out bad loans, and then in late 2008, pleading for - and getting - tax money to cover the losses.

This article speaks volumes. The problem has not been fixed. The alcoholic has simply been given several more bottles of Jack Daniel's, and is on another bender. He now wants several more cases of booze, and a guarantee of a continuing supply.

It is time to shut down these Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). Their existence is based on the idea that they can be self supporting. Clearly they can't. We've made a mistake. Let's cut our losses, take our (massive) lumps, and shut them down before they do any more damage.

Beware of the Republican Establishment

by Bay Buchanan

Sent to me by By Minnesota Republican, Representative Mark Buesgens


Between the town hall meetings and the tea party rallies, millions
of Americans are taking to the streets to protest a government gone
berserk. They are angry and determined to take their country back. 
But there are snakes in the grass intent on using this movement to
return to power, not the people, but the Republican establishment.
If this happens we lose everything, including our country.

To succeed, the rebellion must produce candidates with fresh
faces--populists who share our outrage for the arrogance of
Washington, individuals who will fight for American workers and
American families.  We need primaries to nominate candidates that
aren't owned by party leaders, powerful special interests, nor
Corporate America.

Last year, seventy-five percent of Americans believed the country
was headed in the wrong direction and they threw out the bums --
Republican bums. Obama and his comrades misinterpreted the victory,
believing it was all about them, and proceeded to impose a big
government leftist agenda on a conservative nation.  Now voters are
ready to throw out this new set of bums.

Enter the Republican establishment.  They sold this country out
when they were in power and can't ever be trusted again.  But they
see an opening and are setting the stage for their own return. They
are handpicking candidates -- Bush-likes and Bush-lites -- to run
against conservatives in primaries. Many are retreads, all are
available for purchase. Then the party elite endorses their
candidate early in the primary, fills their coffers with millions
from corporate PACs and special interests, pressures party regulars
to get in line, and sends word to the grassroots candidates:
"Drop out -- you can't win".

Their game plan: shut out the conservative populists.  But if
candidates running for office because of love of country are
marginalized by the party elite, in favor of career politicians
beholden to party leaders, we are lost -- and so is America.

Look at the Senate races. The National Republican Senatorial
Committee (NRSC), led by Sen. John Cornyn, has already endorsed in
half a dozen Republican primaries, with more to come. Solid
conservatives with great credentials -- new faces, future leaders,
threats to the party elite -- were already announced candidates in
many of these races. But Cornyn and his cronies aren't about to let
the rank and file choose the candidates -- too risky. A man of the
people might slip through and too many of them could lead to
government by the people.  

In Florida, the NRSC endorsed Gov. Charlie Crist, an Arlen Specter
Republican, who is running against a young conservative Cuban-
American Marco Rubio.  Rubio was a long shot but the NRSC
endorsement so outraged conservatives nationwide it breathed new
life into his campaign.

In Colorado, District Attorney Ken Buck, a tough prosecutor of
illegal aliens, was gaining traction in his campaign for U.S.
Senate.  Enter John McCain.  He calls Jane Norton, former Lt
Governor and state chairman of his presidential bid, and convinces
her to run against Buck, promising the NRSC endorsement, plenty of
money, and a lock on the nomination.  Le Moine Dowd, a grassroots
activist, summed it up perfectly: "Do we want the NRSC deciding our
candidate?  Does this action by the NRSC make the primary election
irrelevant?  Does it make the Colorado Republican Party irrelevant?"

In Ohio, Rob Portman, a former pro-amnesty congressman and Bush
trade rep, announced his bid for the U.S. Senate earlier this year.
Then Tom Ganley, a conservative businessman from Cleveland
infuriated by the massive uncontrolled spending of Washington,
decided to run.  Mortal sin, declared the party, which told this
self-made successful businessman to get out of the race, that
"the U.S. Senate isn't an entrylevel position." The NRSC endorsed
Portman and are in full campaign mode.  (Do these nitwits really
think one of the architects of the Bush policy that sent our jobs
overseas is going to win the general election in a state with 11%
unemployment?)

This same scenario is being repeated in a dozen other states.  The
political bosses are adamant that our candidates look and talk like
them -- the kind that will get in line behind them.  Leaders that
rise up out of the rebellion and run for office will be a problem
for them.  So the snakes are out to stop them.

The rebellion must start to focus on producing candidates that will
do represent the American people in Washington -- then we must
rally behind them and defeat the establishment candidates in the
primaries. If that doesn't work, we must field candidates to run as
independents in the general. The country is too important to let the
 establishment of either party continue to have their way with her.

Pay me to move?

It is hard to keep up with the torrent of Bad Ideas coming out of the Democrats in Washington. The latest is the extension of a scheme to borrow billions of dollars from Chinese investors to induce people to change residences, as long as you make the move by November 30th of 2009. The proposal would change the deadline to April 30th, 2010.

What is this, you ask? Why in the world should we spend tax money to get people to move?

Exactly, but after all, this is Washington, and any time politicians can buy favor with tax money, temptation and stampede comes before the dawning of common sense.

In this case, it is realtors, moving companies and house buyers who win. As usual, there are a lot of those who vote, and the program is naturally popular. Who is against free money?

As usual, it is harder to finger the losers, but two of the big losers are clearly the Taxpayers, and their children.

Mr Obama was talking today about a "post bubble" economy, while doing everything possible to ensure that bubble-sustaining incentives remain.

This is insane. Until the taxpayers wake up and refuse to pay the bill, the insanity will continue.

The Obama Note

Click on photos for larger, more detailed image.

Theft and the Mob

Those of you who value freedom, and want to support the idea of private property should visit http://openinternet.gov which was set up by the FCC to "discuss" upcoming rule-making to ensure "Net Neutrality".

"Net Neutrality" boils down to "government control", but the shocking thing is the comments on the web site.

Those who barely know what the internet is, much less know how it works are claiming a "right" to broadband access, and the necessity of FCC regulation of the internet. This is the same internet that has provided unprecedented freedom and openness throughout the world precisely because it has been beyond the reach of governments. There is a good write-up here on the implications of government control of the net.

Please visit the site and post comments in support of freedom and defending the property rights of the network owners. Defend one of the last few truly free areas of our economy by defending the right of network owners to operate in freedom.