MY ABSENCE
Forgive my long absence. There have been few things recently that have gotten my dander up enough to really think about blogging, and when I have been upset, I didn’t write about the incidents. That being said, the openly homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) recently upset me. I know it’s long, but hopefully you’ll find my arguments sound and compelling enough to read the whole thing.
THE OPINION PIECE IN THE FT
On Monday, January 14, 2008, Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had an opinion piece (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/cf807c4c-c241-11dc-8fba-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=ebe33f66-57aa-11dc-8c65-0000779fd2ac,print=yes.html#) published in the Financial Times. The piece appeared on the same day Frank was to give a speech at Harvard’s JFK School of Business entitled, “We Told You So: A Liberal Perspective on 21st Century Capitalism,” (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press011008.shtml). I suspect that the opinion piece closely reflects the indoctrination he planned to give the Harvard students. For all of Frank’s blazing wit on the House floor, in committee, and elsewhere, the article showed Frank to be either amazingly benighted; willfully ignorant; or deceptive, self-serving, and intellectually dishonest. My guess is the latter-most. Just about every assertion in the piece was flawed.
RADICAL DEREGULATION MYTH
Frank begins with a mischaracterization: that the US has been involved in radical economic deregulation since the Reagan Era. I wish! First, Reagan only suggested a minor roll-back of government and he was not successful on all his aims because he was saddled with a Democrat Congress. Second, Bush, Reagan’s VP, was far more moderate that Reagan was and was no champion of economic deregulation. The first President Bush was also saddled with a Democrat Congress as well, so because of partisanship, he could not advance much of an agenda at all, much less a deregulatory one. Third, Clinton followed Bush, and Clinton was no red-tape cutter. He was a fan of big government no matter how much Clinton and Gore claimed they were going to reform government while they were campaigning and making appearances on late night TV shows. Additionally, even if Congress tried to advance a deregulatory agenda, because of partisanship, Clinton would have vetoed any such legislation. The current president is so moderate that he’s been compared to Nixon. He’s a big spender and has supported big government programs like the prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind. At best, Frank’s claim is hyperbole and it’s not a good way to begin an opinion piece when you’re attempting to sway an audience.
NEEDLESS INCOME INEQUALITY WORRIES
Frank states that income inequality has risen. Leftists seem obsessed with income inequality, and the statement marks Frank as a socialist if not a communist. Only socialists and communists want to redistribute wealth so that the masses all have equal income. Those who believe in the free market have no interest in income redistribution. If you haven’t already, read Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron.” You can find the short for free on the Web, just search for the terms. While Vonnegut cannot be classified as a conservative, the story clearly demonstrates that everyone cannot be made equally strong, beautiful, or smart. The masses may only be made equally weak, ugly, and stupid and it would take a leviathan government entity with incredibly invasive powers to enforce such. Even Friedrich Nietzsche argued that human equality is a pipe-dream. Milton Friedman stated, "The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both." Flatly stated, freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. Society MUST sacrifice one for the other. So, for Frank to even refer to income inequality not only betrays his socialism, but it also exposes him as a fanciful dreamer, someone with his head in the clouds, someone who tilts at windmills. It also exposes him as an enemy of freedom. Additionally, while there may be a growing gap between the rich and the poor, the poor are still increasing their wealth despite Frank’s claim that the poor have seen their incomes drop in real terms. By way of a simple word-picture, the rich are rising faster and the poor are rising slower, but BOTH are rising. Leftists are absolutely hand-wringingly worried about income inequality causing an uprising. This would only be the case if the poor could not obtain what they NEED. Most poor can not only obtain the things they NEED, but also indulge in buying some luxuries. As long as the poor have what they NEED and maybe some baubles and distractions, they’re not going anywhere. Later in the opinion piece, Frank states that economic growth alone is not enough to reverse income inequality. There could be a couple of meanings to this, but I suspect that Frank means that even if the poor are getting what they need and have a few baubles, the growing gap is not fair because the poor are jealous. Frank is just pandering to the poor and the guilt-ridden upper- and middle-class leftist elites for votes. For a good discussion of income inequality, take a look at this Hoover Institution discussion and pay particularly close attention to what Bruce Bartlett has to say: http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/3003921.html. There is an old adage: you have to have money to make money. You have to have disposable income to put that capital to work via investments. So, in the crudest terms, the poor’s wealth can mainly be increased by wages whereas the wealthy can accelerate the growth of their wealth through investment. It stands to reason therefore that the gap between the rich and poor will grow naturally. But as long as the poor have hope of mobility and they can acquire what they need, who really cares about their petty jealousy? The Bible states that we will always have the poor, so, while charity is encouraged, it is relatively fruitless. Finally, who’s to say that the poor make the best choices with their resources? They are human and can make spending decisions that are detrimental to their financial futures. Also, who’s to say that government resources are going to be put to their highest and best uses in attempts to help the poor. Governments are ham-handed and they can be susceptible to waste and fraud. Both the discussion on income inequality and the short story reflect that it would take an enormous amount of YOUR taxpayer dollars to reallocate wealth, and even then, there’s no guarantee that any such programs will work.
GOVERNMENT MISPLACES CONSUMER CONFIDENCE
Frank claims that government presence in the market is ESSENTIAL to consumer confidence. In all frankness, the government’s imprimatur quite often leads consumers astray. Later in the article, Frank criticizes the originate-to-distribute models for mortgages. This means that a lender makes a mortgage loan to a borrower and then sells the mortgage to a securitizer. The securitizer masses lots of mortgages together then sells securities, or a fractional share in ALL the mortgages, to investors in return for a fraction of the combined mortgage payments, or a dividend. Now, the key players in securitizing mortgages are GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The federal government set up Fannie Mae in 1938 under President Roosevelt. The government set up Freddie Mac in 1970 under President Nixon, the moderate. The GSEs are now private, but they have a government entity to regulate them (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight or OFHEO). By the way, the government is unhappy with OFHEO and may soon change OFHEO’s name and expect the name change to produce changes in the regulator’s behavior. Now, these government–spawned behemoths are largely viewed, rightly or wrongly, to have government backing, so that if the investments go bad, the government will bail out the investors. So, here’s a case where the government involvement leads consumers astray: the government will not repay investors for their losses. Without the perceived government backing via setting up the GSEs and OFHEO regulatory oversight, investors may not have bought securitized mortgages. In fact, Frank calls such securities opaque. Well, had investors not seen the government’s role in securitizing mortgages as meaning that investors could be less careful, perhaps investors would have demanded more transparency. Additionally, no one forced investors, foreign or domestic, to buy these securities. If they gambled by investing their money and the dice come up snake-eyes, they need to absorb their losses without any tears. Additionally, the GSEs have affordable housing goals. That means the government forces them to get people who have no business owning a home into homeownership. In essence, Fannie and Freddie are forced to try to buy up risky mortgages to low- and middle-income individuals. These risky mortgages get packaged up with good mortgages to be securitized. So, by their very definition, Fannie and Freddie sold securities that contained a high risk of loss because the securities were backed, in part, with bad mortgages. This DIRECTLY implicates Fannie & Freddie, government created and regulated entities, in the precipitation of the credit crunch.
One could also argue that the FDIC also encourages consumers to have confidence in banks they should not be confident in. Case in point would be NetBank, an internet bank that failed. Consumers trusted the bank to be solvent, but it engaged in behavior that caused it to fail. Had the government not offered it’s stamp of approval to NetBank, in the form of deposit insurance from the FDIC, consumers may not have trusted the bank. Let’s examine one more example: the government forces you to pay into Social Security. Do you believe it will be there for you when you retire and will it be enough for you to live on? The moral of all this: government involvement in the economy is not essential or even beneficial.
GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM
Frank tries to blame the current lack of easy credit on free markets. This is patently wrong, and demonstrably so. First, the Democrats in Congress at the time of the Savings and Loan collapse in the 1980’s pushed for government intervention to get more people into home ownership. Second, most economists will point to the unreasonably low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, a government entity, under Greenspan as a major cause of the housing bubble. Third, as Barney Frank points out, the government created Fannie and Freddie were buying and securitizing mortgages, which allowed lenders to be quickly recapitalized so they could make more and more mortgages. There was money to be made here by the unscrupulous. Mortgage brokers were paid by yield-spread premiums, which meant that the greater the difference between the rate at which the lender could borrow money and the rate at which the broker could get the borrower to borrow for, the greater the broker’s compensation. Since the broker was only getting paid and had NOTHING to lose, brokers did their best to soak borrowers. There were other problems in the mortgage system as well, such as appraisers being pressured to inflate the price of houses, prepayment penalties, low- and no-documentation loans, 100% financing, and most significantly, the insane idea that the housing bubble couldn’t burst. As investors began receiving less and less in dividends on their investments in mortgage-backed securities (MBS), it was clear that mortgage originators had made plenty of bad loans in the mad dash to make a killing. When the Fed, under Chairman Bernanke, restored some sanity to interest rates, it contributed to the credit crunch. This means, that because lending standards had been so lax, and because the market foresaw losses, lending standards tightened hard and only the credit-worthy were loaned to at all. While originators bear some of the blame for the credit crisis, the government is most at fault because it pushed those who had no business owning homes into homeownership, kept interest rates artificially low, and created the monsters to securitize mortgages. So, Barney Frank is ignoring the fact that the government created the problem, and is now calling for more government to solve the problem. This is absolutely typical of Democrats: they create a problem with government intervention, then claim that there is a problem which requires more government intervention. The end result is that we end up with more and more government to fix the problems that the Democrats have created.
Frank decries the loss of easy credit, but this shows him to be ignorant of banking history…and for someone who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, that’s horrifying. Take a look at banking history, even in West’s Nutshell series. You’ll see a pattern of banks being easy with credit associated with bank failures. The truth is that easy credit is bad. Credit should be tight. Loans should be made only to those who can repay them, and that means, not everyone should be getting mortgages. Some people should be renting and not owning.
OFFSHORING
Frank claims that the warning that financial services will go offshore if there is not significant deregulation is false. Then Frank changes the subject to confuse readers. He claims that the rest of the world has been affected by unregulated mortgage brokers. First, due to free markets overseas, many insurers are setting up reinsurers offshore. Also, as evidence that US insurance are overregulated by the states, there has been much discussion of an optional federal charter which would allow a new federal regulator to allow insurers to be licensed to operate nationwide with one stop. Under the current system, insurers have to obtain licenses in every state in which they wish to operate. That’s an inefficient system that is costly, and we all know that costs are ultimately passed on to the little guy. That’s prime evidence that Frank is wrong. Additionally, while mortgage brokers are unregulated, brokers would not have been out of control had 1) the government not set up entities to securitize mortgages, 2) the government not pushed to get more people into houses after the S&L collapse, and 3) the government not held interest rates artificially low under Greenspan. Again, it is the government that has caused the crisis and Frank’s remedy is more government. If government is going to do anything to help financial services, it needs to do things like allowing foreign financial services to compete in America, going full bore in kicking down barriers to US financial services competing in foreign countries, and reducing the regulatory and tax burden on financial services. Again, the answer is less government, not more.
GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS SLOW
Barney decries the fact that government did not keep pace with market innovation. Well, duh!!! The government is ALWAYS behind the market, and it always will be behind the market. Government is never a leader, it only reacts to political whims. If government could create the next hottest product on the market, then the workers who conceptualized the idea would go into business themselves or patent the idea. Markets innovate because entrepreneurs want to make money. Government isn’t in the markets to make money. Government meddles in the market to slam on the brakes. If there is economic growth, it is because the private sector is able to overcome the burden that government places on it.
CLOSING
Frank sums up by saying there should be a robust debate over the role of government in “supporting” a capitalist economy. First, I’ve set forth arguments of how the government does more harm than good when it meddles in the economy. Unless it is lowering taxes, reducing the regulatory burden, or knocking down barriers, government does nothing to “support” the economy. Secondly, the debate should be over, and the socialists should have lost. If the Democrats want to continue some kind of debate, it’s because they are too stupid to know they lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Forgive my long absence. There have been few things recently that have gotten my dander up enough to really think about blogging, and when I have been upset, I didn’t write about the incidents. That being said, the openly homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) recently upset me. I know it’s long, but hopefully you’ll find my arguments sound and compelling enough to read the whole thing.
THE OPINION PIECE IN THE FT
On Monday, January 14, 2008, Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had an opinion piece (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/cf807c4c-c241-11dc-8fba-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=ebe33f66-57aa-11dc-8c65-0000779fd2ac,print=yes.html#) published in the Financial Times. The piece appeared on the same day Frank was to give a speech at Harvard’s JFK School of Business entitled, “We Told You So: A Liberal Perspective on 21st Century Capitalism,” (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press011008.shtml). I suspect that the opinion piece closely reflects the indoctrination he planned to give the Harvard students. For all of Frank’s blazing wit on the House floor, in committee, and elsewhere, the article showed Frank to be either amazingly benighted; willfully ignorant; or deceptive, self-serving, and intellectually dishonest. My guess is the latter-most. Just about every assertion in the piece was flawed.
RADICAL DEREGULATION MYTH
Frank begins with a mischaracterization: that the US has been involved in radical economic deregulation since the Reagan Era. I wish! First, Reagan only suggested a minor roll-back of government and he was not successful on all his aims because he was saddled with a Democrat Congress. Second, Bush, Reagan’s VP, was far more moderate that Reagan was and was no champion of economic deregulation. The first President Bush was also saddled with a Democrat Congress as well, so because of partisanship, he could not advance much of an agenda at all, much less a deregulatory one. Third, Clinton followed Bush, and Clinton was no red-tape cutter. He was a fan of big government no matter how much Clinton and Gore claimed they were going to reform government while they were campaigning and making appearances on late night TV shows. Additionally, even if Congress tried to advance a deregulatory agenda, because of partisanship, Clinton would have vetoed any such legislation. The current president is so moderate that he’s been compared to Nixon. He’s a big spender and has supported big government programs like the prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind. At best, Frank’s claim is hyperbole and it’s not a good way to begin an opinion piece when you’re attempting to sway an audience.
NEEDLESS INCOME INEQUALITY WORRIES
Frank states that income inequality has risen. Leftists seem obsessed with income inequality, and the statement marks Frank as a socialist if not a communist. Only socialists and communists want to redistribute wealth so that the masses all have equal income. Those who believe in the free market have no interest in income redistribution. If you haven’t already, read Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron.” You can find the short for free on the Web, just search for the terms. While Vonnegut cannot be classified as a conservative, the story clearly demonstrates that everyone cannot be made equally strong, beautiful, or smart. The masses may only be made equally weak, ugly, and stupid and it would take a leviathan government entity with incredibly invasive powers to enforce such. Even Friedrich Nietzsche argued that human equality is a pipe-dream. Milton Friedman stated, "The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both." Flatly stated, freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. Society MUST sacrifice one for the other. So, for Frank to even refer to income inequality not only betrays his socialism, but it also exposes him as a fanciful dreamer, someone with his head in the clouds, someone who tilts at windmills. It also exposes him as an enemy of freedom. Additionally, while there may be a growing gap between the rich and the poor, the poor are still increasing their wealth despite Frank’s claim that the poor have seen their incomes drop in real terms. By way of a simple word-picture, the rich are rising faster and the poor are rising slower, but BOTH are rising. Leftists are absolutely hand-wringingly worried about income inequality causing an uprising. This would only be the case if the poor could not obtain what they NEED. Most poor can not only obtain the things they NEED, but also indulge in buying some luxuries. As long as the poor have what they NEED and maybe some baubles and distractions, they’re not going anywhere. Later in the opinion piece, Frank states that economic growth alone is not enough to reverse income inequality. There could be a couple of meanings to this, but I suspect that Frank means that even if the poor are getting what they need and have a few baubles, the growing gap is not fair because the poor are jealous. Frank is just pandering to the poor and the guilt-ridden upper- and middle-class leftist elites for votes. For a good discussion of income inequality, take a look at this Hoover Institution discussion and pay particularly close attention to what Bruce Bartlett has to say: http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/3003921.html. There is an old adage: you have to have money to make money. You have to have disposable income to put that capital to work via investments. So, in the crudest terms, the poor’s wealth can mainly be increased by wages whereas the wealthy can accelerate the growth of their wealth through investment. It stands to reason therefore that the gap between the rich and poor will grow naturally. But as long as the poor have hope of mobility and they can acquire what they need, who really cares about their petty jealousy? The Bible states that we will always have the poor, so, while charity is encouraged, it is relatively fruitless. Finally, who’s to say that the poor make the best choices with their resources? They are human and can make spending decisions that are detrimental to their financial futures. Also, who’s to say that government resources are going to be put to their highest and best uses in attempts to help the poor. Governments are ham-handed and they can be susceptible to waste and fraud. Both the discussion on income inequality and the short story reflect that it would take an enormous amount of YOUR taxpayer dollars to reallocate wealth, and even then, there’s no guarantee that any such programs will work.
GOVERNMENT MISPLACES CONSUMER CONFIDENCE
Frank claims that government presence in the market is ESSENTIAL to consumer confidence. In all frankness, the government’s imprimatur quite often leads consumers astray. Later in the article, Frank criticizes the originate-to-distribute models for mortgages. This means that a lender makes a mortgage loan to a borrower and then sells the mortgage to a securitizer. The securitizer masses lots of mortgages together then sells securities, or a fractional share in ALL the mortgages, to investors in return for a fraction of the combined mortgage payments, or a dividend. Now, the key players in securitizing mortgages are GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The federal government set up Fannie Mae in 1938 under President Roosevelt. The government set up Freddie Mac in 1970 under President Nixon, the moderate. The GSEs are now private, but they have a government entity to regulate them (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight or OFHEO). By the way, the government is unhappy with OFHEO and may soon change OFHEO’s name and expect the name change to produce changes in the regulator’s behavior. Now, these government–spawned behemoths are largely viewed, rightly or wrongly, to have government backing, so that if the investments go bad, the government will bail out the investors. So, here’s a case where the government involvement leads consumers astray: the government will not repay investors for their losses. Without the perceived government backing via setting up the GSEs and OFHEO regulatory oversight, investors may not have bought securitized mortgages. In fact, Frank calls such securities opaque. Well, had investors not seen the government’s role in securitizing mortgages as meaning that investors could be less careful, perhaps investors would have demanded more transparency. Additionally, no one forced investors, foreign or domestic, to buy these securities. If they gambled by investing their money and the dice come up snake-eyes, they need to absorb their losses without any tears. Additionally, the GSEs have affordable housing goals. That means the government forces them to get people who have no business owning a home into homeownership. In essence, Fannie and Freddie are forced to try to buy up risky mortgages to low- and middle-income individuals. These risky mortgages get packaged up with good mortgages to be securitized. So, by their very definition, Fannie and Freddie sold securities that contained a high risk of loss because the securities were backed, in part, with bad mortgages. This DIRECTLY implicates Fannie & Freddie, government created and regulated entities, in the precipitation of the credit crunch.
One could also argue that the FDIC also encourages consumers to have confidence in banks they should not be confident in. Case in point would be NetBank, an internet bank that failed. Consumers trusted the bank to be solvent, but it engaged in behavior that caused it to fail. Had the government not offered it’s stamp of approval to NetBank, in the form of deposit insurance from the FDIC, consumers may not have trusted the bank. Let’s examine one more example: the government forces you to pay into Social Security. Do you believe it will be there for you when you retire and will it be enough for you to live on? The moral of all this: government involvement in the economy is not essential or even beneficial.
GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM
Frank tries to blame the current lack of easy credit on free markets. This is patently wrong, and demonstrably so. First, the Democrats in Congress at the time of the Savings and Loan collapse in the 1980’s pushed for government intervention to get more people into home ownership. Second, most economists will point to the unreasonably low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, a government entity, under Greenspan as a major cause of the housing bubble. Third, as Barney Frank points out, the government created Fannie and Freddie were buying and securitizing mortgages, which allowed lenders to be quickly recapitalized so they could make more and more mortgages. There was money to be made here by the unscrupulous. Mortgage brokers were paid by yield-spread premiums, which meant that the greater the difference between the rate at which the lender could borrow money and the rate at which the broker could get the borrower to borrow for, the greater the broker’s compensation. Since the broker was only getting paid and had NOTHING to lose, brokers did their best to soak borrowers. There were other problems in the mortgage system as well, such as appraisers being pressured to inflate the price of houses, prepayment penalties, low- and no-documentation loans, 100% financing, and most significantly, the insane idea that the housing bubble couldn’t burst. As investors began receiving less and less in dividends on their investments in mortgage-backed securities (MBS), it was clear that mortgage originators had made plenty of bad loans in the mad dash to make a killing. When the Fed, under Chairman Bernanke, restored some sanity to interest rates, it contributed to the credit crunch. This means, that because lending standards had been so lax, and because the market foresaw losses, lending standards tightened hard and only the credit-worthy were loaned to at all. While originators bear some of the blame for the credit crisis, the government is most at fault because it pushed those who had no business owning homes into homeownership, kept interest rates artificially low, and created the monsters to securitize mortgages. So, Barney Frank is ignoring the fact that the government created the problem, and is now calling for more government to solve the problem. This is absolutely typical of Democrats: they create a problem with government intervention, then claim that there is a problem which requires more government intervention. The end result is that we end up with more and more government to fix the problems that the Democrats have created.
Frank decries the loss of easy credit, but this shows him to be ignorant of banking history…and for someone who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, that’s horrifying. Take a look at banking history, even in West’s Nutshell series. You’ll see a pattern of banks being easy with credit associated with bank failures. The truth is that easy credit is bad. Credit should be tight. Loans should be made only to those who can repay them, and that means, not everyone should be getting mortgages. Some people should be renting and not owning.
OFFSHORING
Frank claims that the warning that financial services will go offshore if there is not significant deregulation is false. Then Frank changes the subject to confuse readers. He claims that the rest of the world has been affected by unregulated mortgage brokers. First, due to free markets overseas, many insurers are setting up reinsurers offshore. Also, as evidence that US insurance are overregulated by the states, there has been much discussion of an optional federal charter which would allow a new federal regulator to allow insurers to be licensed to operate nationwide with one stop. Under the current system, insurers have to obtain licenses in every state in which they wish to operate. That’s an inefficient system that is costly, and we all know that costs are ultimately passed on to the little guy. That’s prime evidence that Frank is wrong. Additionally, while mortgage brokers are unregulated, brokers would not have been out of control had 1) the government not set up entities to securitize mortgages, 2) the government not pushed to get more people into houses after the S&L collapse, and 3) the government not held interest rates artificially low under Greenspan. Again, it is the government that has caused the crisis and Frank’s remedy is more government. If government is going to do anything to help financial services, it needs to do things like allowing foreign financial services to compete in America, going full bore in kicking down barriers to US financial services competing in foreign countries, and reducing the regulatory and tax burden on financial services. Again, the answer is less government, not more.
GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS SLOW
Barney decries the fact that government did not keep pace with market innovation. Well, duh!!! The government is ALWAYS behind the market, and it always will be behind the market. Government is never a leader, it only reacts to political whims. If government could create the next hottest product on the market, then the workers who conceptualized the idea would go into business themselves or patent the idea. Markets innovate because entrepreneurs want to make money. Government isn’t in the markets to make money. Government meddles in the market to slam on the brakes. If there is economic growth, it is because the private sector is able to overcome the burden that government places on it.
CLOSING
Frank sums up by saying there should be a robust debate over the role of government in “supporting” a capitalist economy. First, I’ve set forth arguments of how the government does more harm than good when it meddles in the economy. Unless it is lowering taxes, reducing the regulatory burden, or knocking down barriers, government does nothing to “support” the economy. Secondly, the debate should be over, and the socialists should have lost. If the Democrats want to continue some kind of debate, it’s because they are too stupid to know they lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
posted by New American Rebel at 10:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home