Recently in Book reviews Category

Milton Friedman was a highly visible economist, statistician, and policy commentator during the Twentieth Century. Before he died in 2006, he wrote and co-wrote several books relating economic theory, policy studies, and statistics. He was the recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976.

I just finished reading “Free To Choose: A Personal Statement,” written by Thomas Friedman and his wife, Rose Friedman. The book is dense and full of well thought-out arguments for free markets, smaller government, and how policies that adhere to these principles will result in greater liberty and freedom for the people that live under them.

This book is almost thirty years old and it shows. Many of the numbers the Friedmans use in the book are laughable today, especially those they use as salaries for the common man or the cost of an average home.

It’s fascinating, however, they write at the end of the Carter administration that “the tide is turning.”

The failure of Western governments to achieve their proclaimed objectives has produced a widespread reaction against big government. In Britain the reaction swept Margaret Thatcher to power in 1979 on a platform pledging her Conservative government to reverse the socialist policies that had been followed by both Labour and earlier Conservative governments ever since the end of World War II.

“Free To Choose” is organized in chapters that each spend a liberal amount of print on a specific category of policy thinking. The first chapter, “The Power Of The Market” spends nearly 30 pages covering the ideals of a free market, the dangers of price controls, and the role of government with respect to markets. The second chapter is devoted to governments’ role in free trade and overall liberty and economic growth. Hint: Friedman isn’t a fan of tariffs or any other kind of government meddling with trade between nations. He offers a compelling historical argument for free trade by examining the governance and trade policies of Japan during the latter half of the 19th century and India during the latter half of the 20th century.

The third chapter, “The Anatomy of Crisis,” is perhaps the most relevant to readers today. It examines the modern banking system in the United States from the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the depression nobody remembers from 1920-21, and the Great Depression of the 1930s. For those who believe we are currently at risk of suffering from the same mistakes or making greater ones today in our vulnerable financial status, this chapter offers some brilliant insights.

In the conclusion of this chapter, the Friedmans write:

In one respect the (Federal Reserve) System has remained completely consistent throughout. It blames all problems on external influences beyond its control and takes credit for any and all favorable occurrences. It thereby continues to promote the myth that the private economy is unstable, while its behavior continues to document the reality that government is today the major source of economic instability.

The fourth chapter, “Cradle to Grave,” examines the development of the welfare state beginning in Europe in the late 1800s and then in the U.S. in the 1920s. Friedman spotlights health, education, and welfare in this chapter because at the time the book was written, they fell under a single department within the federal government.

The waste is distressing, but it the least of the evils of the paternalistic programs that have grown to such massive size. Their major evil is their effect on the fabric of our society. They weaken the family; reduce the incentive to work, save, and innovate; reduce the accumulation of capital; and limit our freedom. These are the fundamental standards by which they should be judged.

The following chapter challenges the popular notions of what “equality” means. The Friedmans distinguish between the following:

• Equality of outcome
• Equality of opportunity
• Equality before God

Concerning equality of outcome, they write:

Life is not fair. It is tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has spawned. But it is also important to recognize how much we benefit from the very unfairness we deplore.

This chapter goes on to examine the effects of egalitarian policies as practiced in the US and in other modern societies.

… a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with greater freedom and greater equality. Though a by-product of freedom, greater equality is not an accident. A free society releases the energies and abilities of people to pursue their own objectives. It prevents some people from arbitrarily suppressing others. It does not prevent some people from achieving positions of privilege, but so long as freedom is maintained, it prevents those positions of privilege from being institutionalized; they are subject to continued attack by other able, ambitious people. Freedom means diversity but also mobility. It preserves the opportunity for today’s disadvantaged to become tomorrow’s privileged and, in the process, enabled almost everyone, from top to bottom, to enjoy a fuller and richer life.

Next, the Friedmans attach “What’s Wrong with Our Schools?”

It’s no surprise their position is that centralized planning is a substantial culprit of the problem with schools. Again, freedom is the answer, they say. Vouchers, for example, tied with freedom to choose public schools, are an ideal way to encourage competition between private and public schools and drive education quality up.

I found this passage about public subsidies of higher education shocking considering what we have observed in 2009:

When we first started writing about higher education, we had a good deal of sympathy for the (justification that public subsidies was an investment in future productivity and economic growth of society). We no longer do. In the interim we have tried to induce the people who make this argument to be specific about the alleged social benefits. The answer is almost always simply bad economics. We are told that the nation benefits by having more highly trained people, that investment in providing such skills is essential for economic growth, that more trained people raise the productivity for the rest of us. These statements are correct. But none is a valid reason for subsidizing higher education. Each statement would be equally correct if made about physical capital (i.e., machines, factory buildings, etc.), yet hardly anyone would conclude that tax money should be used to subsidize the capital investment of General Motors or General Electric.

Milton Friedman is undoubtedly spinning in his grave today.

Following education is the question of “Who Protects the Consumer?” This chapter discusses the development of the Interstate Commerce Commission, The Food and Drug Administration, The Consumer Products Safety Commission, The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Friedmans raise some very valid questions about the government’s role in establishing these authorities and whether they are effective in their stated objectives.

For example, many are familiar with Ralph Nader’s book, “Unsafe at Any Speed,” in which he supposedly documents the safety risk the Chevrolet Corvair was to its occupants. This book ignited a firestorm that eventually crushed the Corvair out of production and resulted in new government regulations pertaining to the manufacture of automobiles. It’s difficult to argue that the outcome was a bad thing, but what about the original premise? Was the Corvair that bad? My dad was a Corvair collector and had two that he tinkered with, restored, and drove around on occasion. I always thought they were odd cars because the engine was in the back. The Friedmans point out that ten years after Nader’s book landed, “one of the agencies that was set up in response to the subsequent public outcry finally got around to testing the Corvair that started the whole thing. They spent a year and a half comparing the performance of the Corvair with the performance of other comparable vehicles and they concluded, ‘The 1960-63 Corvair compared favorably with the other contemporary vehicles used in the tests.’”

Next is “Who Protects the Worker?” Here labor unions land square in the crosshairs. Also addressed are government interventions into work such as regulations against child labor, minimum wage laws, OSHA oversight, workers compensation, and more.

Chapter 9 is about inflation. This isn’t very relevant right now, but likely will deserve a re-read in a year or so.

Here, Friedman puts his statistician muscles to work and establishes through numbers a strong correlation between monetary control and consumer prices. When the the Treasury and the Federal Reserve flood the market with money, prices respond by going up.

The final chapter is a nice capstone on the book and discusses how the U.S. Constitution relates to many of the policies discussed and how it is eroded by some.

Appendix A is an interesting inclusion. It is the party platform from the Socialist party during the 1928 presidential campaign. The Friedmans go through each of the 14 items in the platform and demonstrate that despite the Socialist Party not having a chance in Hell of ever having a candidate elected, since 1928, just about each and every one of these ideas put forth by the Socialist Party has been enacted.

That’s something to think about.

“Free To Choose” is available in paperback at a MSRP of $15.00. It’s not a quick read, but definitely an informative and educational one.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Evolution of Thomas Paine's Revolution by Glenn Beck

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
Anyone who knows me or has read some of my previous reviews probably knows that I'm one of Glenn Beck's biggest fans, so it will come as little surprise that I now have 4 copies of this book and plan to distribute it to family and friends.

As with his previous non-fiction work, An Inconvenient Book Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems, this book is, for the most part, a repackaging of things Glenn says every day on his television and radio shows. It discusses the corruption in government, the loyalty to special interests among those in congress, the amassing of power by the executive branch, and the cancer that is the Progressive movement.

That being said, this is definitely a book you can give to your friends who aren't necessarily one of Glenn's biggest fans. And, encourage them to pass it on when they're done. Sign your name on the inside cover and include the date your read it and encourage others to do the same. This book is a rallying cry to all those who feel their voice is held in contempt or just plain ignored by the political class in America.

I would like to share one of my favorite parts of this book. It is very near to the end of the book (before the Thomas Paine section starts) and addresses religion in a democracy.

So why is religion so important to the proper functioning of a democracy? Well, once again, our Founding Fathers had the answer. In a letter to the president of Yale University, Benjamin Franklin once wrote:

Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.

It wasn't about any one particular creed, dogma, or church, but rather about all religions that inspired men to selflessness, virtue. and godliness. Our Founders understood the thing that we try so hard to forget today: there is far more than unites us than divides us. Virtue, honesty, and character aren't the purview of any particular congregation; they can be found in any church that has God as its foundation. We have forgotten this lesson and instead of using religion as our anchor, we use it to shame or blame. To many in this country, those who attend church regularly aren't pillars of their community, they're freaks or extremists.

But that mind-set can be changed by setting an example of tolerance and unparalleled acceptance toward each other. Let's stop using our religious symbols to score political points. Are we that insecure in our own faith that the religious symbols or public prayers of a different religion cannot be welcomed with open arms? As Thomas Jefferson once said:

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homeage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear... Do not be frightened from this inquiry from any fear of its consequences. If it ends in the belief there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise...

Religions and their followers must stop turning on each other. We are a land founded through divine Providence, a land where, as James Madison said, the "spirit of liberty and patriotism animates all degrees and denominations of men."

Very well said, Glenn.

View all my reviews.

Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One by Thomas Sowell

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
While on vacation in southern California, I hit a Barnes & Noble in Costa Mesa to look for something to read and something for my wife's birthday. I was looking for a book I'd read about like New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America, but the store I was at seemed chock-full of books about President Barack Obama, Global Warming, what was wrong with the Republican Party, and not much of anything that would interest a conservative like me. I did find, however, this book: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.

There was one small problem. My B&N discount card membership had expired one month prior. I'd only used it make one book purchase in that entire year and, coincidentally, it was at that same store in Costa Mesa. I wasn't about to blow more money on their stupid discount plan and I wasn't going to spend $35 on "Applied Economics". I bought a different book instead and got something for my wife's birthday and went on my way.

When I returned home, I ordered Applied Economics Thinking Beyond Stage One from Amazon along with some other books, all at much more reasonable prices. I decided to read this one first.

Thomas Sowell is a very interesting guy. He's scholar in residence at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and has taught economics at Cornell, UCLA, Amherst and other schools. He's written several books on economics. This book is the revised (and enlarged) edition and aims to help members of the general public understand complex economic systems.

Shooting for the general public is a lofty goal. I don't think Sowell quite made it. It was hard for me to absorb some of this material and I think I've been exposed to more economics material than the average member of the general public. I think this is a testament to how difficult of a task Sowell had taken on rather than his inability to achieve his goal.

The book is divided into eight chapters, each tackling an issue from the standpoint of pure economics. The first chapter, "Politics versus Economics," serves as a primer for the rest of the book and explains the "stage one" concept in the subtitle. Sowell states that most politicians (and many regular people, for that matter) fail to consider (or admit knowledge of) the long-term effects of economic policies (or any policies, for that matter.) This is, as Sowell puts it, "stage one thinking."

Sowell's intention in this book is to help the reader understand the longer-term effects of legislation and policy decisions.

In the first chapter, Sowell explains:

Laws and policies that will produce politically beneficial effects before the next election are usually preferred to policies that will produce even better results some time after the next election. Indeed, policies that will produce good results before the next election may be preferred even if they can be expected to produce bad results afterward.

As an example, a few paragraphs later:

... it is an open question whether drug prevention programs actually prevent or even reduce drug usage, whether public interest law firms actually benefit the public, or whether gun control laws actually control guns.

Later, he examines the consequences of a series of wage and price controls instituted in the 1970s by the Nixon administration and upheld or carried further by the Ford and Carter administrations. What seemed like a good idea at the time resulted in terrible economic consequences in the long run.

Sowell points out that many politicians just feel an overwhelming need to "do something" whenever there is a crisis at hand.

Doing something almost always seems like such a good idea, to those who do not look beyond stage one, that they see no need to look back at history or to apply economics. The alternative to a "do something" approach is not to have the government always do absolutely nothing but,rather, to recognize that governments can only do something specific-- and that these specifics must be assessed in terms of their specific erffects, both immediate and long-term, as well as the general effects of extended experimentation.

The second chapter, "Free and unfree labor" begins by talking about the history of slavery. It was interesting reading a book by one of the handful of famous black people in the field of economics discussing the pros and cons of various types of slavery. Sowell actually points out that slaves in the southern United States prior to the U.S. Civil War were treated very well compared to other forced labor situations throughout history.

This chapter also touches on crime as an occuptation, and indentured servitude.

The third chapter dives into the economics of medical care. It's no surprise that Sowell makes a strong case against government-subsidized healthcare (i.e. "Universal health care"). His most pronounced argument is simply that government healthcare is another way for saying "price controls" and he already discussed the disastrous effects such controls have on a market in the first chapter. He shows these effects are obvious when you look at government health care systems in Great Britain, Canada, and other countries that offer such programs.

He also discusses the economics of malpractice insurance, pharmaceutical drugs, drug advertising, and finally an extremely enlightening treatment on organ transplants and how much sense it makes to allow a legal market for organs for organ transplantation. That was really eye opening.

Chapter Four discusses the economics of housing and illustrates how government action and regulation affects pricing. He also discusses rent control, creative financing programs, segregation in housing, and other housing issues.

Chapter Five is titled "Risky Business" and is generally about the economics of insurance, but it goes beyond just the business of insurance. Most people, and certainly some politicians, don't consider risk issues when considering an issue.

One of my favorite sections of this chapter discusses how the family was traditionally the main risk reduction instutition in people's lives. This makes perfect sense when you consider how important family honor was, say, 2-300 years ago.

...the family-- the oldest insurer of all -- cautions its members, both when they are growing up and one specific occasions afterward, against various kinds of risky behavior. When families had the burden of taking care of an unwed daughter's baby, there was more chaperoning, screening of her associates, and moral stigma attached to unwed motherhood. All these things declined or disappeared after mean of these costs were shifted to government agencies.

Sowell attacks the issues of risk and insurance from a number of surprising and enlightening angles.

In Chapter Six, Sowell takes on immigration. Expecting him to jump right into the overwhelming costs to the system the illegal immigrant issue burdens our government, I was a little taken back when I a rather comprehensive look at immigration across history. He discusses cultural implications, income implications, health implications, legal and illegal immigration, economic benefits and costs to immigrants and the society they are immigrating to. It is, perhaps, the most unbiased and clearly focused treatment on immigration I've ever read.

In his conclusions, he does touch on some points specific to the hot issues in the US illegal immigration debate. For example, in comparing import of products versus import of labor:

When Americans buy a Toyota from Japan, the Toyota does not demand that the United States accomodate the Japanese language or that Americans adjust themselves to Japanese customs in their own country, much less introduce diseases into the American population. Moreover, Toyotas do not give birth to little Toyotas that can grow up with the problematic attitudes of some second generation immigrants.

Chapter seven is about discrimination. It begins by educating the reader on the distinct differences between bias, prejudice, and discrimination. Sowell points out that bias, prejudice, and discrimination are not "bad" by themselves. There are circumstances, history, and more criteria to consider before we can judge that they are bad.

From there, Sowell discusses anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action regulations and legislation, and the pros and cons (mostly cons) of each. One statement from the summary section reads:

...those who fail to qualify for particular benefits are often said to be denied "access" or "opportunity," when in fact they may have had as much access or opportunity as anyone else, but simply did not have the developed capabilities required...
...a mental test may be characterized as "culturally biased" if one group scores higher than another, as if it is impossible for different groups to have different interest, experience, upbringing, education, or other factors that would lead to a real difference being registered, rather than a biased assessment being made.

Chapter eight discusses the economic development of nations. This chapter discusses the misnomers of "developing nations," the effects of foreign aid, the importance of formal property rights, the geographic issues related to economies as well as bunch of other implications.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, Sowell's book is pretty heady content, but I found it refreshing as it is so clear cut. All of his statements came down on the side of common sense. Isn't that what we all wish our policy makers employed more of?

View all my reviews.

This book— Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell— is just chock full of gems. A lot of this stuff I already was aware of, but Sowell frames it exceptionally well.

Here is another blurb from the chapter on insurance which addresses social insurance (e.g. social security), which isn’t a real insurance at all:

Government-run social insurance programs seldom have enough assets to cover their liabilities, but rely instead of making current payments out of current receipts. These are called pay-as-you-go programs— and sometimes they are called pyramid schemes. Pyramid schemes are privately run pay-as-you-go plans— and they are illegal because of their high risk of default and the opportunities for those who run them to take part of the money for themselves. The most famous pyramid scheme was run by a man named Charles Ponzi, who went to jail back in 1920. He used the same principles behind the pension plans of many Western governments today.

Ponzi had promised, within 90 days, to double the investments of those who paid into his program. The first investors who were not deterred by warnings from skeptics were in fact rewarded by having their investments pay off double in 90 days. Ponzi simply paid the first wave of investors with money from the second wave of investors, and the second wave from the even larger number of those in the third wave, as enthusiasm for his plan spread. So long as the number of people attracted to this plan formed an expanding pyramid, both the earlier investors and Ponzi profited handsomely. But, once the pyramid stopped growing, there was no way to continue to pay off those who sent Ponzi their money, since his scheme created no new wealth.

The American Social Security pension system and similar government pension systems in the countries of the European Union likewise take in payments from people who are working and use that money to pay the pensions of people who have retired— paying the first generation who paid into these pension plans with money received from the second generation, and so on.

…

Those who warned that these government pension plans were essentially Ponzi schemes without enough assets to cover their liabilities— that they were “actuarially unsound” in the financial jargon— were either not believed or were brushed aside for having made objections that were theoretically correct by in practice irrelevant. One of those who brushed these objections aside was Professor Paul Samuelson of MIT, the first American winner of the Nobel Prize in economics:

The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in… Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real incomes growing at some 3% a year, the taxable base upon which benefits rest in any period are much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generations now retired… A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.

By the end of the twentieth century, however, the day of reckoning began to loom on the horizon for these government pension programs, as it had for the original Ponzi scheme. Contrary to Professor Samuelson’s assertion, there are not always “more youths than old folks.” As birth rates declined in the Western world and life expectancy increased, vastly increasing the number of years in which pensions would have to paid to growing numbers of people, it became painfully clear that either tax rates were going to have to rise by very large amounts or the benefits would have to be reduced in one way or another — or both— or the system would simply run out of money.

I am currently reading Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell and have found it full of awesome quotes and data. For example, this from the chapter section on insurance and risk:

As a matter of financial self-protection, both families and insurance companies must seek to discourage risky behavior in one way or another. For a government agency, however, financed by taxpayers’ money, there is no such urgency about discouraging the increased risks that people may take when those risks are covered by others. Moreover, the agency gets its biggest political support from helping those suffering the consequences of the risks they have taken, however unwisely, not by criticizing them.

Stay tuned for more great nuggets.

I've been reading the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. The title of the book is guaranteed to set people off, one way or another and for this reason, Goldberg seems to spend a extraordinary amount of effort defending his premises and explaining that he's not saying that today's liberals are anti-semetic, genocidal maniacs. What he does say, and says very well, is that history's most common tales of fascism, such as Adolf Hilter and Benito Mussolini, were largely influenced by progressive thought--the same progressive thought that rules the Democratic party and liberal politics today.

In a July 2007 debate, Hillary Clinton responded to the question of whether she would refer to herself as a "liberal."

"You know, ['liberal'] is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

"I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

"So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics."

At the time of this debate, I was reading The Forgotten Man by Amnity Schlaes which provides a new look at the political forces at play before and during the 1930s when the United States was enduring The Great Depression. What Schlaes reveals--and what many people don't know--is that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies were formed with the help of a team of progressive advisors and cabinet members who had varying degrees of infatuation and admiration for Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini and the forms of government they were managing and/or advocating.

Schlaes offers that the policies of the Roosevelt administration were a significant input into why the Great Depression lasted for the entire decade of the 1930s while other industrialized nations around the world suffered an economic hit in 1929 and then recovered relatively quickly.

I mention this because, thanks in part to my friend Glenn Beck, I recently came across a number of platform statements and congressional records belonging to presidential candidate (and current frontrunner) Barack Obama that suggest he is ready to (blindly?) take us right into a repeat of the 1930s.

National work programs

The Roosevelt administration, in the interest of stimulating the economy and helping the large number of unemployed, created a number of government work plans including the Civilian Conservation Corps, a work program for young men, 17 years old or older. The CCC put these men to work in camps on various projects around the country such as clearing out dead wood in forests and building bridges, walkways, and roads, and other construction projects, usually in rural or undeveloped settings.

Last week, Barack Obama announced to Wisconsin auto industry workers that, as president, he would propose over $200 billion in programs to create new government jobs. The bulk of this spending would go to create a workforce of "green-collar workers" that would tackle environmental issues like finding new forms of enviro-friendly fuels. Other jobs would go to infrastructure projects such as highways and bridges.

While I agree that good hard work is good for the mind and soul and would benefit individuals who would otherwise be unemployed and potentially idle, I can't help but be concerned that Sen. Obama hasn't studied his history. Quite frankly, it doesn't seem like many on the left have studied their history because these types of programs are becoming quite a popular topic of discussion among liberals. If we know we're going into a period that may be like the 1930s, why would we do the same things that prolonged the suffering and the stagnation then?

The less-fortunate

Many Americans believe we have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate around the world. Liberals believe this should be a function of the federal government. Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer this be done by private organizations and charities. One of the reasons conservatives feel this way is because the charitable feeling is completely lost when your money is forcefully taken from you by the federal goverment in the form of taxes and fees, no matter how good the intentions are. Plus, there is the issue of how efficiently those funds will be handled.

Senator Obama, along with fellow senators Chuck Hagel and Maria Cantwell, have sponsored legislation known as the "Global Poverty Act" which passed the Senate Foreign Relations committee this last week. If passed, this legislation would require that the federal government provide a small percentage of the economic GDP as financial aid for countries where people live in poverty. The US would not send this money directly to the people or their governments. Instead, we would give that money to the United Nations to administer the funds.

Again, when will people learn?! Our government created a formal "War On Poverty" after World War II and spent plenty of money on programs to help the poor improve their station in life. Did anyone actually rise out of poverty? Not according to statistics. Because of this and because the government continued to rise the poverty level to include less and less poor households, those who qualified for assistance under these programs grew.

1964, Ronald Reagan gave a speech titled "A Time For Choosing". In it, he addresses the inefficiency of the government's welfare programs.

"We are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead."

He also talks about the overall ineffectiveness of cutting checks to those "in-need:"

"If government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? ... But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater."

Again, haven't we learned anything from our past mistakes? Why can't our political leaders learn what works and employ those techniques instead of playing the same old card again and again?

What works for poverty, unemployment, etc.? Not free handouts.

The LDS Church here in Utah has its own welfare programs which are available to anyone, regardless of church affiliation. These programs are not handouts. Instead. they are structured, compassionate programs that encourage the recipients to "give in" to receive. Meals, clothing, and other assistance are available to those in need and, in turn, the recipients are asked to give of their time and effort to help provide the same services to others. This is a perfect example of why private charitable organizations are much better equipped to deal with these kinds of problems than the bureaucratic nightmare of the federal government.

Obama's legislation states that it is all part of an international agreement to help combat poverty. This means that all participating countries will be taking a portion of their national revenue and giving it to the United Nations for distribution to poor areas. Two alarm bells go off when I ponder this: Global redistribution of wealth, a socialist policy tenet, and international taxation by the United Nations! When will the madness stop?

The United Nations is supposed to help keep the peace in sensitive areas of the world and it can't even do that well. Why would anyone think this organization would be effective and act responsibly in an effort to combat poverty? Oil for food, anyone? Do progressives, liberals, and socialists simply lack the ability to learn?!

Debt

The United States government, and by association, the citizens of the United States, are between $9 and $100 TRILLION dollars in debt. I fail to see the sense of spending more than what is required to maintain bare essential services until this debt is eradicated. Social programs, earmarks, museums, assistance programs... They should all be stopped or shrunk so that some of the government's revenue can be applied toward the outstanding debt.

History tells us Thomas Jefferson had much to say about debt, both personal and national. He stated it was vital that the country not take on debt and if it did, that it should be no more debt than could be paid for in one generation.

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

As a country, we have ignored Jefferson's advice since the beginning of the 20th century and now we are witnessing the effects of years of irresponsible borrowing in our economic outlook.

And speaking of irresponsible borrowing, Barack Obama has proposed a $10 billion federal fund to help "innocent victims" caught in the subprime loan mess. Are there really innocent victims? I don't think so. When you borrow money to purchase a house, you have plenty of opportunity to learn what you're getting into, what your obligations are, etc. The lending institutions are certainly not innocent either because they have time-tested methods for determining risk when lending money. What Obama is suggesting is essentially saddling us with more national debt because of a few people's irresponsible behavior.

Fiscal discipline and revenue

Barack Obama's website says a lot about a need for fiscal discipline and responsibility. I'm glad his website says these thing, but if he really believes in these things, how are these billions upon billions of federal programs going to be funded? There will have to be greater revenue to the federal government and/or less spending on programs that are already there. Obama's honest about this, if not direct about it. If you peruse his website, you'll learn he wants to cut spending on various programs and he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Well, only for the rich, not for the poor or middle class taxpayers.

While repealing tax cuts for the rich is a popular thing to do (because there are a lot more people who aren't rich than are), it is, by definition, not fair. I would really like someone to explain to me why it makes sense that we pay a different percentage of our assets in taxes based on the amount of assets we have. To be fair, equal, and all that, shouldn't we each pay the same percentage?

What are the economic repercussions of saddling the "rich" with more taxes? The rich are more likely to spend more than those who are less wealthy, so this would cut into their spending power. The rich are more likely to employ others than those who are less wealthy, so this cuts into their hiring power. Hello?! Tax hikes on the rich is a direct attack on important driving forces of the economy: consumer spending and employment!

I recently finished Laura Ingraham’s latest book Power To The People and present a review of it.

Laura Ingraham is a nationally syndicated conservative talk-radio host. In Salt Lake City, she is heard on 1430 AM (KLO) from 7-10 a.m. She’s probably a second or third tier conservative host as most people don’t know who she is — they know Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and even Glenn Beck, but may have never heard of Laura Ingraham before. It wouldn’t surprise me if people thought she was “Dr. Laura” but, believe me, she and Laura Schlessinger are completely different. For one thing, Ingraham is, like, really educated and not just some physiology grad.

Some people probably confuse Laura Ingraham with Ann Coulter. There are some similarities in their “acts,” but I find Coulter to be much more vitriolic in her attacks of liberal democrats where Laura Ingraham is just entertaining.

Laura’s radio program features lots of soundbites and clips from TV news programs with witty analysis by Laura and her studio cohorts. She is also frequently joined by this or that politician or pundit to talk about the issues of the day.

One of Laura’s program’s trademarks is the opening montage of soundbites that accompany the theme music. Unlike Limbaugh’s opener (classic) or Hannity’s (*rolls eyes*), Laura’s gets changed quite frequently as she mixes it up weekly or daily with funny, idiotic, or inspiring clips of people. These montages always end with a shrill “Power to the peeeeeeople!” at the end. The screamer is a leftist human rights activist named Efia Nwangaza and the clip sounds like she’s being dragged away by security as she’s screaming.

Now you know where the title of the book comes from.

The book was an easy read, maybe too easy for me. Power To The People can be summarized as follows: Conservative talk-radio listeners should be aware of the following problems with our society. As talk-radio listeners, you have the power, collectively, to make a difference and influence action on these problems.

I fear Glenn Beck’s book coming out in November may be a similar set of recipes. We’ll see.

Laura begins by talking about the attack on the family. This was one of the more interesting chapters in the book. Laura — not married and not a parent — talks about how mainstream society looks down on large families and families in general. She discusses the value of the traditional (and natural) family model and how it must be defended. She touches on other topics that resurface later in the book, like sexualization of children and government usurping the authority of parents.

Next, illegal immigration. Who saw that coming? This section was just another dose of common sense solutions all of the talk radio world is screaming about while Washington collectively holds its fingers in its ears and says, “La la la la la.”

After that: national security. Laura talks about terror, terrorist states, and China.

Chapter four is about the courts and I thought it was the standout chapter in the book. Laura has a lot more perspective when it comes to judicial issues because she spent time working as a clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas in the U.S. Supreme Court. In this chapter she uses the nomination of Harriet Miers to argue who should and should not be a judge. I learned a lot more about the judiciary and its modern issues and controversies than I expected to.

The next chapter covers smaller government, or putting the power closer to the people. Another typical dose of conservative common sense.

Then: Porn. Laura explores just how explicit news, popular culture, and society has become and what we can do to squelch it. It’s not clear what we can do about it, to really make a difference, but Laura has several ideas.

Other chapters include topics such as schools and science. It was a little embarrassing to see Laura mention Utah twice in her book as a state that’s got it right by passing a school choice voucher law. Maybe she didn’t know about the legal appeals and the referendum when she wrote about it.

Finally, Laura spends a chapter talking about her fight with breast cancer. This was a stark deviation from the rest of her book, but it definitely humanizes the author a great deal. I found that chapter quite moving.

So, all in all, it’s an okay book. I’ll give it a 6/10 for what it is, basically a political propoganda book. It’s good reading if you’re a fan of Laura Ingraham. If you’re not (and I’m kind of in between), it may or may not be your cup of tea.

Holy cow! Isn't it time for something already?!?!

Alright, I promised before I would deliver a review of the book, The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes. You can get this book from Amazon.com.

The Forgotten Man is a look at the events of the Great Depression in the United States during the 1930s from the perspective of policy. I found it to be a fascinating look into the lives and viewpoints of people who were involved in the landmark political events during this decade.

The book begins in 1927. Floods in the midwest caused widespread damage through a burgeoning heartland. Herbert Hoover -- Commerce Secretary for U.S. president Calvin Coolidge -- went to areas affected by the flooding to be of help. Hoover's presence on the scene of natural disaster like this set a new precedent of federal government involvement in disaster response.

Hoover was a paradox in the Coolidge administration and joining him in the Coolidge Cabinet was Andrew Mellon who served as Secretary of the Treasury. I'd heard of Andrew Mellon before. I think we all have. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grants funding for museums, performing arts, information technology and more. I'm sure I've heard the name a gazillion times announced as a major donor responsible for various public television programming.

I think Hoover and Mellon, personify the two core attitudes about policy in the late 1920s and going into the beginning of the Great Depression. Hoover's political philosophies were exemplified by his actions. He was an engineer who seemed to delight in architecting and managing solutions to problems. As a government official, he transferred that enthusiasm onto the government and a belief the federal government should be involved in helping people with big problems.

Hoover was elected president in 1928 and inaugurated in early 1929. In office for only a few months, Hoover presided over what became known as Black Tuesday in October 1929 -- the crash of the U.S. stock market many believe set off the Great Depression.

Like Coolidge, Hoover was a Republican. Hoover retained Andrew Mellon as his Secretary of Treasury, but Mellon had different policy ideas than Hoover. He was clearly more conservative and, as a result, became an unpopular figure as the country plunged into the worst economy ever.

Hoover was, of course, superceded by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 who then presided for an unprecedented 4 terms.

While Hoover was a moderate Republican who had leanings toward building a larger federal government with increased social programs, Roosevelt was a moderate Democrat who was popular among the rich business elite of the northeast.

While Hoover had smart businessmen in his camp to keep him somewhat tethered to more conservative policy, Roosevelt brought in clearly progressive and academic people to run the federal government with him. Roosevelt's cabinet used the Great Depression as an excuse to grow the government's role in people's lives. Many were fans of Joseph Stalin's rule in Russia and aspired to make the United States more like that country. This was, of course, before word got out that Stalin was slaughtering millions of people to "make things work."

The Forgotten Man traces the political, business, and personal lives of dozens of remarkable players during the 1930s. Besides the presidents and their cabinet members, outspoken religion leaders like Father Divine and business leaders like Wendell Wilkie are covered in amazing depth.

The book covers the contention between Roosevelt and the aging Supreme Court and Roosevelt's fuming animosity toward utility companies and the rich men that ran them, or pretty much any rich men at all. There were trials, witchhunts, and smear campaigns all orchestrated by the Roosevelt administration against men who had lost much of their wealth after The Crash, but still had more money than most people.

After reading this book, I think F.D.R. did a horrible job of managing the country during his first two terms in office. This book doesn't really expose much of Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, but we know Roosevelt is revered as a hero that helped The Allies win World War II. Before that, however, he seemed to have no clue how to effectively dictate healthy domestic or foreign policy.

I found out about this book after hearing about it on Glenn Beck's radio show. Glenn found this book particularly relevant today because the conditions of the financial markets today is similar to conditions prior to Black Tuesday. It is a frightening prospect to think we could see such an extreme and disasterous downturn in our economy and possibly see the country plunge into another lengthy depression. This book illustrates the best cure for a depression is not a leader that tries to bring government services to every man, woman and child, but a leader who will exercise conservative economic policy and limit federal spending.

Prior to reading this book, I really didn't know much about the political struggles of the Great Depression. All I really knew about F.D.R. was related to his wartime years. I generally believed stupid financial markets, bankers, traders, etc. were largely responsible for the Great Depression. Now... not so much.

Highly recommended reading for all Americans.

I recently finished reading the book Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis and would like to present a mini-review of it.

This isn't a new book. It's been out for quite a while and has even spawned an A & E miniseries by the same name which is available on DVD. Could be a good Christmas gift. (*hint hint*)

Without going into too much of the detail of specific historical events surrounding the Revolutionary War and the creation of the Declaration Of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Ellis's book explores the character and personality of some of the major players involved in these events.

Ellis doesn't really sugarcoat much. He tries to show the merits and flaws of each of the people he profiles in the book. Drawing from letters, journal entries, and newspaper articles written by, to, or about the people, this book shows some brutally honest aspects of the people and the times they were living in.

It was fascinating to follow the relationship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as they bonded closely during the first congress meetings up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence (which Jefferson penned after Adams recommended him.). They continued as close friends as they reprepsented colonial interests abroad in France and England. Politics divided them during Adams' presidential administration and the election of 1800. It would be many years before they re-connected via letter-writing after they both retired from public life.

The book also talks about Washington, Hammilton, Burr, and Franklin as well, but the relationship of Adams and Jefferson is what really stood out to me, maybe because it parallels the left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican battles we see in politics today. The story gives hope that, in the end, we can find common ground.