Why is this important?  Because Government has destroyed the value of our money, and the way of life we once enjoyed.  It is not how much you make, but what that money will buy you.  A hundred pennies 20 years ago, compared to having 100 pennies today, just isn’t the same.  All the economic wonks point the fact that we make more money as inflation rises.  Well I have news for them, this is bullshit.  I moved furniture to earn money through high School and College and made a whopping $11.50, 12 years later, I have moved on, but those movers are still making 10 dollars an hour.  You economists should look those workers in they eye and say inflation helps you.  The truth is it only helps those who have first access to it, ie banks.

So as the penny is laid to rest, so goes the American Dream.  Next the nickel, then the quarter, then the dollar.  How long until we retire the dollar and Americans are still making that $10 dollars an hour, how long can this squeeze by the Fed and Government last before something gives?

Liberal policies and conservative war mongering has come home to roost, spending what you don’t have by definition comes to an end.  I am not an expert, but it doesn’t take an expert to open your eyes, and realize things we buy everyday cost far more than any raise any of us have received the last 10 years.

People need to realize a dollar is only  worth what it buys, and as the Fed prints and Government spends, our savings is being destroyed.  Once the real wealth is wiped out, just like in a household, the standard of living will drop next.  We need to wake up quick and stop this madness.

Lets consider what obligations a home owner has, morally.  When a mortgage is signed, it is a contract.  Now to a libertarian, a contract is sacred and crucial to property rights.  By agreeing to a contract, two parties agree to terms.  Now consider a home mortgage contract, basically the buyer of the home agrees to paying back the loan or risk damaging his/her credit and potentially having a deficiency judgment placed against them in the event of defaulting.  They also agree that if they default, there is a formal process that will be adhered to and eventually they will vacate the property.  Nowhere in this agreement, is there any place that says “you have a moral obligation to pay as a debt slave for life” nor does the contract state “you must pay in order to keep the neighborhoods value from falling”.

Stossel notes that there is a moral claim on society to be a debt slave and to pay a mortgage regardless of how poor of an investment it could be.  This is liberal hogwash.  A home owner is only expected to do what is morally best for themselves and their family.  Ayn Rand would never expect a home owner who has lost 150k in a losing bet, to not walk away.  Why would an individual not have a greater moral obligation to their best interest, not societies?  A real libertarian view would be to look at this as any other business decision and a SWOT (Strength Weakness Opportunities Threats) analysis would be done. Consider if a business opened a new location, purchasing the land and building a property.  If it threatened to be a very bad long term investment, wouldn’t the business simply analyze the situation and make a smart decision?

The moral hazard in this situation is the Lender and Investor.  Lets consider a scenario; assume we have an investor who is willing to give $1,000 dollars to a lender.   The investor must perform the due diligence to ensure the investment they are making matches the return they expect.  Now the lender is responsible for making a loan that meets the investors guidelines.  They must morally make an honest loan that meets the investors criteria.  So then finally we have a borrower, who must meet the criteria of the investor who will be risking their capital.

So finally, let’s assume the investor says, “you can lend my $1,000 dollars to anyone you want, I am unconcerned about my investment”.  So the lender finds a borrower, who just so happens to be highly addicted to crack.  The lender warns this “highly addicted to crack” individual that if they do not repay this loan, their credit will be negatively impacted.  The lender also agrees to lend the entire $1,000 dollars at a very low interest rate of 6%.  Even better is the investor agrees to this term in addition to the crack user and the lender both agreeing.  So not much time goes by and the crack user defaults.  Is this a shock?  No; we expected it.  This should never happen in the real world, but is an example that helps to support my conclusion, where the real “moral” hazard is found.

The problem with the scenario above is that the investor did not perform the due dilegence.  In a free market driven society that would never happen.  Investors would never risk so much money on very risky loans.  The real moral problem however, is that investor is the US taxpayer.  However, this “true” investor has no say in the risk level.  It is Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac as well as other federal loan programs that determine the risk tolerance they will purchase.  They have a moral obligation to defend the investors assets.  The real problem here is that those agencies are quasi government agencies.  The investor that funds them is the taxpayer who have no choice but to say “yes” to it’s terms of lending.  A GSE can simply demand more from taxpayers and the Federal Reserve, never worrying about the quality of the investment or borrower because it is not their money at risk.

In conclusion, homeowners walking away represent a completely logical approach.  Rather than being a debt slave for life, they choose a wise business decision to cut their losses and follow the contract for which they agreed.  Sorry John, I love your work and would work for you in a heartbeat, but I think you missed this one by a bit.

The War On Drugs has been a disaster, arming the enemy with the money and profits to become dangerous.  The government can no longer protect us from the black market the government has created.

Say goodbye to the mom and pop farmer, local farms.  The fields have just been handed over to Walmart and other major corporations who will be the only ones that can comply and kiss the governments pinky ring.

Republicans Suck.

Together with word this week that the Federal Communications Commission will be voting on net neutrality rules comes news that the United Nations is mulling new efforts that could shape Internet regulation.

“At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet – specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks,” wrote IT News.

The UN has announced that a “Working Group on Internet Governance,” made up solely of member states (governments), will consider changes to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a “forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on public policy related to Internet governance issues, such as the Internet’s sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development.”

The UN is now considering ways to censor the internet.  Could there be any thing worse than US taking its orders of internet freedom from China Russia, as well as all of those freedom loving countries.

Look out, liberals are always trying to take something great and destroy it.  They have done that to US currency, US manufacturing, and everything else that wrong with this country.

• Presentations on the Budget and Economic Outlook – The Prosperity Caucus was described in a recent article in The Hill newspaper as a group founded in 1986 with the purpose of “gather[ing] libertarian-minded economists, Hill staffers and academics … to hear someone talk about the …
• BloodhoundBlog.com | Defending Redfin: Sweet Digs weblog buried by … – The Northwest Multiple Listing Service has fined Redfin $50000 and asked them to stop publishing a popular blog in which contractors for the online real estate brokerage posted reviews of Seattle area homes. …
• Guest Editorial: The Cowboy Libertarian on the GOP Primary at … – (Editor’s Note: The Cowboy Libertarian is Patrick Dorinson of PD Communications in Sacramento. Previously, Dorinson has been a spokesman for NASA, communications director for California’s Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and, …
• The future of Right-wing politics – ‘libertarian Islamophobes’ or … – I was supposed to be going to the Dutch embassy tonight for an election party, but being unable to find a Geert Wilders wig anywhere I gave it a miss.
• Why I am not a Libertarian « Dead Man Blogging – I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I frequently find myself in total agreement with libertarians. This has caused quite a bit of self-examination and considering whether I fundamentally agree with libertarianism.
• Michelle Malkin » Trutheriness and Ron Paul – First, some corrections: Last week, on John Gibson’s Fox News Channel show, “The Big Story,” I was asked to comment on 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Ron Paul. Here’s the video. In the segment, I referred to “Students and Scholars for …
• Parties still don’t like Top 2 Primary – The Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties, getting ready for a court date in October, have submitted their papers to Judge Coughenour, often using identical language. One quote says the party is “irreparably injured by the …
• Mark Tushnet: “The Political Constitution of Emergency Powers … – American Constitution Society
  @ William height: 175px” height=”175″ alt=”Framers” src=”http://www. gif” width=”297″ align=”right” />powers situation?  Tushnet pointed to the Madisonian vision, expressed in Federalist No. 51, which explains that [a]mbition must be made to check ambition in times of emergency.
• The Unofficial Stanford Blog » Blog Archive » What’s the Matter … – What’s the Matter with Colleges? Answer: It’s You, not Us. He wants to know why colleges no longer lead our society in culture like they did in the 60′s and 70′s and even 80′s. The main reason is that there are a lot more people IN college today.
• Lloyd Alexander and Moral Instruction « Easily Distracted – Lloyd Alexander died late last week at the age of 83. His work, particularly his Prydain Chronicles, has been routinely recommended for kids who have enjoyed the Harry Potter series. The Prydain books were among my absolute favorites …
• soapbox » Blog Archive » Election Results – The non-official physics and astronomy blog at Dartmouth. Well, it looks like everything is turning out ok. I don’t think a lot of you folks were really politically aware in 1994 when the Republicans swept into office with the Contract with America Newt Gingrich, an impressive-sounding list of things that congress was largely already doing, followed by dramatic cuts to social services and science spending.
• comment on libertarian troll bingo by hypocee – yah, i love heinlein but despise libertarianarchists (starship troopers, for example, should be like garlic-flavored holy water to any good teabagger). the rest seems to fit pretty well.
• Finland for Thought » Finland the most libertarian & second most … – According to PoliticalCompass.org (which offers a great test if you haven’t tried it already), Finland is the most libertarian country in the EU and the second most leftist country in the EU. I took the test three times (results shown …
• Libertarian Web-comics – I expect that quite a number of our regular readers enjoy webcomics. I want to introduce you to a pair of them sponsored by Big Head Press. The first one, Roswell, Texas, is written by L. Neil Smith, an award-winning science-fiction …
• small l libertarian – we had a spirited discussion around the breakfast table yesterday morning. topic: politics. always good for some heated debate. and if you followed my facebook profile yesterday, you saw the evidence of the progression of that …
• libertarian chick fights boobs with boobs – while most of the dialogue during this campaign has been sex-negative, there have been a few cases in which women candidates have tried to use their ample bosoms to attract positive attention. by ru sirius,
• Is Singapore a Libertarian Utopia? – Matthew Yglesias kindly comments on “Guests in the Machine”: I’d definitely recommend that you give Kerry Howley’s Reason article on guest workers in Singapore a read. It’s a very thorough and balanced discussion of the way it works. …
• The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul :: Liberty Maven – Liberty Maven has uncovered a letter from the office of the “Main Stream Media Czar”. Unfortunately, the letter was not signed by name, on.
• The Stupidest Thing I’ve Ever Heard a Politician Say The Phoenix . – Let’s face it, sometimes politicians say the dumbest things. And on March 25, 2010, Ron Paul (R-TX) may have taken first prize in the Stupidest Thing a Politician Has Ever Said contest. Madam Speaker, today I introduce legislation to permanently extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit and to make the credit available to people whose homes have been destroyed by a natural disaster, such as a hurricane.
• Home Buyer Tax Credit Extension: Yet another bill introduced — The … – UPDATE Nov 5, 2009: The Senate and House have both passed legislation extending and expanding the home buyers tax credit. See details here! uscapital Back in June, I wrote an article, Homebuyer Tax Credit to be Extended? Expanded? …
• The 25 most difficult questions – The 25 most difficult questions you’ll be asked in a job interview.

“Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) … said his staff is exploring options through nonprofit and antitrust laws to approach the realignments.

‘I’m concerned about what’s happening the Texas universities and the PAC 10 and what would possibly be leaving some Big 12 teams out in the cold,’ Grassley said in a Wednesday conference call. ‘All I can tell you is my staff’s looking into what can be done from a non-profit, anti-trust standpoint.’”

When will Congress realize private sports leagues are none of their business?  Amazingly, big government fan Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) seems to get it:

“I just don’t know if this is a proper place for Congress to get involved…”

Those words are wonderful to hear from a Democrat.  Oops — then Harkin finishes his sentence:

“…unless there is something dealing with anti-trust or something like that, like interstate commerce.”

The best point made is when a new drug is approved and everyone celebrates how it will save 50,000 people a year.  That means that for the 15 years of testing, it killed 750,000 by not being available.

The FDA should be voluntary just like Underwriters Laboratories or UL.  Who are they?  Look at nearly every single thing you plug in to the wall that is more than just a wire.  That charger is UL tested.  Everyone does it even though it is completely voluntary.

If the FDA were voluntary, anyone wanting only FDA approved would have that option.  It would be the Gold Standard of approvals.  If you are willing to go without the FDA it is your choice, some will some will not.  By having different voluntary levels of accreditation would allow us to judge how thoroughly tested it has been.  Liberals read this and say, “I would be smart enough to make a good decision but others are not”.

Matt

http://talkofliberty.com

The ultimate goal of any government program should be to lower the amount of individuals using assistance not grow it.  With that goal in mind, first we need to look at where we are in order to create a plan of where we are going.

In scouring the internet to figure out the average cost of a Medicaid recipient since this is how the most of those not covered will be covered under this healthcare reform. This report gives us a quick idea of what the average cost per Medicaid recipient is.  Keep in mind most doctors are now not even accepting new Medicaid patients even with the average cost being $10,918 per year in Arizona.

Rather than spending $10,918 per person on a plan that then requires the individual to not pay any money out of pocket, we can simply issue a voucher to that individual for that amount, deposited directly into an HSA.  The Health Savings Account should be able to be used to pay any medical expenses including premiums as well as deductibles and medications.  So now that we are depositing this money into a savings account, let’s now look at what a non government option would look like for individuals.

Using www.ehealthinsurance.com I simply did a quick look for insurance plans for someone who I consider expensive.  So I could make this very difficult I used a female who is 55 years old living in Arizona.  We can find the highest deductable where we can get the most bang for the buck if you will.  This would be the United Health One Plan 100 policy.  The choosing the highest deductible that this person could use the voucher with this plan makes the deductible $7,500 per year and has a monthly cost of only $156 dollars..  What this means is that after $7,500 is spent, the insurance company will pay for 100% of all medical expenses beyond that amount.  This plan also covers prescription drugs in it as well.  It would be important, that any money saved and not spent after one year from the HSA would be allowed to be withdrawn by the individual as earned income or rolled into an IRA.  This way it is their money if they do not waste it rather than use it or lose it.

Ok so here is how it will work. Individual would be given the voucher for $10,918 instead of being forced to take an expensive government plan.  This private insurance plan will only cost $1,872 per year.  Subtract that cost from the voucher cost and the difference; $9,046 would be deposited into the individuals HSA.

Over the course of an entire year, under the policy above the most an individual could have to pay if they are sick would be the deductable of $7,500 leaving $1,546 left over to start since this is above what 100% coverage with all co-pays and deductable covered.  I just saved America $1,546 per person already.

What is better about this plan is how it would empower individuals to save.  The individual will be rewarded for living a healthy lifestyle.  Those who smoke, eat unhealthy foods, and do not work out, are also those who need medical care more often.  This means they will use their deductable money for health care.  Those who live a healthier lifestyle will be rewarded financially.  Consider if a married couple is actually healthy and just need their regular checkups.  They may only spend $500 dollars for the year on medical expenses total.  This would actually reward them for being healthy with over $15,000 dollars in additional income for the year.

Anyone wanting a free power chair will think twice about the cost since it will come out of their HSA savings and they will receive that much left in income at the end of the year.  This plan would also lower lawsuit issues with doctors since individuals will decide for themselves if they should use their savings for medical tests.  Doctors and patients will make decisions together rather than insurance companies or bureaucrats.  If an individual decides not to get a treatment, they own that decision; therefore they will not likely sue the doctor since they made the decision themselves.  This is who should decide if a service should be rendered or not.

In the bigger picture having a voucher will freeze the growth of medical costs.  Clearly in this plan there is plenty of money to be saved.  Giving the poor and needy vouchers rather than a plan they do not control savings leads to over use.  They will think twice before going to an ER rather than waiting until the next morning to see their doctor.  This will begin to turn this massive ship around.  We need to control health care costs.

As a libertarian, I can support this because I have realized the transition is more important than an all or nothing battle.  This model makes it easier to scale back the amount of subsidies i.e. vouchers are given based on need.  If someone makes enough money, it would be reasonable to see the voucher amount decreased accordingly. The ultimate goal of this would be to get all individuals to the point of prosperity where they do not need subsidies.  Attaching the welfare checks into the subsidies like this would be far more beneficial to society by rewarding healthy behavior.

This is a scalable plan that gets a handle on costs and will help unleash the free markets for health care.  This will be good for individuals.

Matt

http://talkofliberty.com