Economic Policies and the Standard of Living

It is regrettable that we keep forgetting what history has shown over and over to be true, because truly, it is a hard and destructive lesson to keep learning. Perhaps it is just something that every generation has to learn for itself. The political and cultural changes that come from these economic transitions will be key to the direction and quality of life for future generations. But I am hopeful because of the strength of the American people and the increased number of voices recognizing that liberty really is the only way to peace and prosperity.

This is from Ron Paul's blog Texas Straight Talk. Many feel as though the government is simply growing out of control. It is important to remember a simple rule: big government gets bigger, not smaller. There are a few ways to stop this:

1) Elect people who run on the platform of making government smaller (and holding them accountable to that).

2) Make it clear to your representatives that you will not be supporting them if they support expansionary governmental policies.

3) Educate yourself and educate others about the pitfalls of big government.

The very best thing you can do is all three. Unless people understand why certain economic policies and approaches by government are faulty, nothing will change in Washington. At the very least it is important to understand why big government is the wrong policy if you care about prosperity.

What struck me in Paul's post this week was how he emphasized that the quality of life of future generations will be directly affected by the economic policies that our government implemants. This could not be more true.

As you may know, I have started reading the excellent book The End of Prosperity. So far they have explained how cutting tax rates across the board has raised the standard of living for all. By cutting tax rates on the rich, the government can actually take in more, thereby increasing tax revenue. This is because when tax rates on the wealthy are very high such as 60, 70, 80 percent there is less incentive for them to produce more. Why should they work hard if every additional dollar they make they only receive .20 (based on 80% tax rate)? But if the tax rate was, say, 20%, they would have much more incentive to produce. This theory (which has been proven to be correct) of increased tax revenue through decreased taxes comes from The Laffer Curve.

What is going to hurt the quality of life for ALL Americans is going after the wealthy and taxing them more. The top 10% pay for more than 50% of all taxes. What has happened in the past, according to statistics in The End of Prosperity, is that while the rich do in fact get richer when taxes are lowered, everyone else's standard of living is increased. Would it not make sense that when more is produced and there are incentives in place (lower taxes) to produce and earn more, that the standard of living for all would increase?

This is why the standard of living statement by Paul struck me. The economic policies that Obama has proposed, where the wealthy have an even higher tax rate and the government grows even larger will not raise the standard of living for all Americans. This has been proven time and again over the past century.

Paul is correct, though, when he says it is inevitable that the American public will see that these policies simply don't work.

Reflections of 2008

Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto was found to be the most-loved book of 2008 on Amazon. This means that it was the most positively reviewed book on the site for 2008. This is exciting for me and everyone else who read (and undoubtedly loved) Ron Paul's latest book. If you have not read this book - READ IT. It is easily the most influential political book I have ever read, which might not be saying much as I'm only a twenty year old college student, but nevertheless I know many others feel the same way.

When I look back at how my political views have changed over the past year, I honestly do not see how my views could ever change so drastically over the course of a year at any time in my future.

• I went from basically 'enjoying' politics without really fully understanding underlying issues or make arguments about the views I have, to being a passionate libertarian who couldn't justify voting for the Republican presidential candidate or Senate candidate.
  
• I have gone from being wishy-washy on the war in Iraq to believing that our entire foreign policy is flawed and is the root of many of our problems.
  
• I went from not really caring about marijuana legislation or the war on drugs to being a huge advocate of ending the war on drugs.
  
• I went from not being overly concerned about tax legislation, to believing that the income tax should be eliminated and replaced with a flat tax rate across all income levels.
  
• I went from not caring about education reform to now advocating ending the Department of Education and giving parents and local communities the power when it comes to education.

But the most important thing that has changed: I went from writing off Ron Paul, to now seeing him as a huge influence on my views. Seeing him speak at the Rally for the Republic was inspiring.

Think about it: he has been advocating the SAME POLICIES for decades! The more I research and learn about historical American Politics, it is amazing how much each party has flip-flopped on issues. I can only hope that one day I can have that same sort of track record that he has had - standing up for my views even when they are extremely unpopular.

In 2009 we have a President coming in who has socialist-leaning policies, and economic policies that are inevitably going to hurt our economy. If Obama (and the liberals...and the 'conservatives') looked at what tax policies caused the greatest increase in production and prosperity, he would see that whenever there was a large tax cut, tax revenues actually increased. Perhaps he should take a few hours out of one of his busy days to read the book The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen. He would realize that JFK's tax cuts in the 1960's (three times as big relative to the Bush tax cuts) led to increased tax revenue and more prosperity across the board. But then again, Republicans almost unanimously opposed those tax cuts. Ironic isn't it?

We can be assured that he won't and that the next two to eight years will be a rough time for all Americans. If only the government let failed companies fail, aggressively cut taxes, and drastically cut the size of government, I think we would see a huge turnaround within the next decade.

But sure enough, we can expect the effects of both big-government "conservatives" (It is so hard for me to call someone who pushed for a $700 billion government bailout a conservative...) and the incoming liberal majority to be felt for decades to come. I think there are many clear-cut solutions that could lead us in the right direction. Problem is, the current officials in office are pursuing the opposite.

To end on a positive note, failed policies cannot last forever. Eventually enough people will be fed up with how things are going and realize that the person they voted in (or simply the people who are in office) are pursuing the wrong policies. It might not happen soon, but it will eventually happen.

Moving to Wordpress?

Sometime over the course of my break I will be moving my entire blog from blogger to wordpress. Blogger worked for a while, but it seems incredibly dificult to change the format, and the wordpress pages I have seen look sharper and more 'professional' than blogger pages. I have been avoiding moving it over, but now with a lot of extra time in January I have no excuse! Hopefully it is a clean (and easy!) transition.

I also have been thinking about what direction I would like this blog to go. Do I stick to strictly politics? Or should I write about many different things, particularly anything that is on my mind? The most effective blogs are usually somewhat specialized, but in my opinion I would rather write about what I enjoy than have 10,000 visitors a day and feel 'forced' to crank out posts on a single topic.

I am considering writing about a few more topics outside of politics. Particularly online poker and making money online. As some of you know, my friend and myself have launched a website just a couple weeks ago, Minnesota Casino Index. We have been working on USA Casino Index, and it is looking great. I can't wait to launch it, and we are committing a lot of time towards it in the upcoming weeks. I think many people will find it a useful resource for casino information.

So to say the least, I have a few decisions to make. Do I start a seperate blog and keep this blog up and only post the political posts? Or do I combine everything onto one blog? It should be an interesting time couple weeks as I decide what exactly I want to do blogwise the next year.

Merry Christmas from David Carlson Politics!

First of all I would just like to say Merry Christmas! I hope everyone is having a good time with friends and family. We just opened gifts with my close family, and my sister got me the book The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging. It was totally unexpected and I am very excited to read it and gain some knowledge from the most successful political blog on the net (very liberal, but that is beside the point). I have a lot of books to go through, and I can't wait to share about them in the near future.

What I love about blogging is that I can get my ideas, opinions, and viewpoints down on paper. I often get into discussions about politics, and before my blog I had found myself repeating myself over and over and over. Now when I find myself in a political discussion and the question is "why do you support ending the war on drugs?" I can point them to my blog where I have written a number of posts on the issue. I have met a number of really cool people through my blog, as well as gotten to know some people better who I already have met.

I would like to recognize everyone who has helped (and motivated) me as I have started blogging this year:

• Judd at hanging on to nothing
• James at DINKS finance
• Bert, Dane, and everyone else at the National Party Times

Thanks for all you have done and here's to another successful year of blogging.

More of the Same

Well, looks like we can expect more of the same from the new administration concerning marijuana legislation, and certainly the broader war on drugs. At the Change.gov site they had questions that people could vote on and in turn the administration would respond. The question with the most votes was concerning marijuana legalization, and the response was exactly what I expected.

This is what was posted in response to the question:

Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, Denton

A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

This did not come as a surprise to me at all. The people he has been surrounding himself with have already hinted at this kind of stance. It is just 'too risky' of an issue for Obama to take on. He cannot risk letting it come back and bite him. I respect politicians like Ron Paul who will openly say that this is wrong, we are pursuing a failed and harmful strategy, etc. Obama hinted at the fact that he thought medical marijuana should be legalized, but that it would not be very high on his priority list. I believe what he meant to say was "It would not be on my priority list."

If the government wants to restrict certain age groups from purchasing and using certain drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) I can give them that. But if they ban grown adults from inhaling a plant, I just shake my head. It can not be about it being "more dangerous" than other drugs because you just have to look at how many deaths are caused by the legal substance that is tobacco or alcohol, and therefore it must be political. In this day and age, politicians are all about 'fixing' things. They want to fix income distribution and 'spread the wealth.' They want to fix companies that are doomed to fail. They want to fix countries that do not have a democratic setup similar to ours. They want to fix global warming. They want to fix the education system.

The problem is, whenever they try to fix something, they make it worse.

That is why to 'fix' the problems that are caused by making marijuana illegal are so much harder than they should be. It would require government saying "We failed." But of course, no one in government wants to believe that government EVER fails (unless of course, it is the other parties policy). Marijuana legalization is not a partisan issue! Just another example how government fails to serve the people.

Busy Busy Busy

I apologize for the sever lack of posts in the past two weeks. The past few weeks I have been busy with a number of things:

1. School - I just finished my second final and I have just one more left on Friday. I can't wait for it to be done. This semester went by really fast but at the same time I am ready to be done with these classes and move on.

2. Launching of a new website - My friend and myself launched our first joint venture last Friday. The site is Minnesota Casino Index - http://www.mncasinoindex.com/ It is not done (the about and contact buttons do not work just to warn you, but that will be fixed soon). We have been working on this idea for a website that indexes casinos (and doesn't suck...as every single other one we have run across does). Our next project is the launch of http://www.usacasinoindex.com/, it's going to be great!

3. Online Poker - My friend Judd who writes at hanging on to nothing (check it out) told me about a new sit and go offered by pokerstars called double or nothing sngs. Basically, ten people buy in, and when there are only five left, the game is over. The top five each get twice their buy in. So naturally I thought "wow that sounds amazing!" and started to play a bunch. My goal was to run at 60% or higher. Each sit and go costs .20 to buy in, so for each 100 you play you have to count 4 as simply lost. So to get that 60%, I actually have to win 60/96. I am running right around there, with 6 left to get to 96. I need to win 4/6 to reach my goal, so hopefully I can get it done!

With all that being said, I will definitely be posting more often as time frees up. One thing in particular that I will be working on is a letter to B.J. Lawson (Republican Nominee for North Carolina's 4th District, nicknamed "Ron Paul Jr.") laying out the reasons why I think he should run again in 2010. My friend James who writes at Dinks Finance told me that he was emailing with Ron Paul's press secretary and he thinks B.J. is a strong candidate and should run again. He is a candidate that anyone who loves liberty can get excited about and I hope he makes another run at it.

Gun Control

I saw this on the Daily Paul, posted by one of the users. They said it was from an email that is going around. Not sure of the source, but check it out:

'Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups'
A Little Gun History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 194 5,
a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated

------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977,
one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australia n society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. All news in this country is "coached" by government thru influence-peddling to AVOID telling you things you SHOULD know.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

The purpose for guns other than food, is: (1) to protect your property (2) to protect you and others from injury and (3) to protect your common law unalienable rights. [These go FAR beyond Constitutional Rights and are a gift from the creator.] The history of government is one of usurpation of people into slavery. For anyone who doesn't believe this then go back and examine the Declaration of Independence and understand that "the People" declared themselves INDEPENDENT of government. [Never to be told again by government that they are NOT to have the means to insure their freedom.] When you have no weapon, your slavery is guaranteed by government it's just a matter of time.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! When only government has guns, they will force "law for government" [aka statutory law"] upon you --when ironically it's really meant to control them. With guns, the People declare the independence of their separate lawfulness only common with people.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns....... .. ....We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........ We Are 'Subjects'.

When there was NO INCOME tax was when EVERYONE understood EVERYONE had a right to a weapon ..coincidence?

Gun Owners and Tax Deniers defined the freest and most prosperous time in the history of the world. Never forget this heritage.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

During WWII the Nazi's decided not to invade Switzerland for each Swiss common man was a trained sharp-shooter with a gun. Hitler
used the German word for "porcupine" to describe how his troops would suffer.

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attach to the
U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his
reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!

AND NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SURRENDER YOUR GUNS!!!

You must use these light bulbs...OR ELSE!

Yesterday I was listening to talk radio and the discussion was on light bulbs. Now why would light bulbs be discussed on a politics show? Well, for good reason: The government wants to phase out traditional bulbs for fluorescent bulbs, which are more energy efficient. The problem? They want to make it mandatory that these new bulbs be used! Over eight months ago my representative Michelle Bachmann introduced a piece of legislation called The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act. Her rationale is that the government has no right to tell consumers what kinds of light bulbs they can use. This argument should be enough!

Why am I writing about this now? Well, the only time I remember hearing about this is when a girl in one of my political science classes got worked up over it, to which she apologized. There was not a heated debate about it, in fact, I don't think any of us really cared. But now that I think about it, I should care and you should too! Once the government starts mandating what light bulbs we can and can not use, what is next? Are restaurants going to be shut down that use styrofoam?

Here is the major problem with 'green' legislation. Is our environment important to our sustainability? Yes. Should we be concerned about pollution? Yes. Should the government force us to make changes? Absolutely not. I believe that if enough people start to care about the environment, the free market will react.

For example - McDonalds used to use styrofoam packaging for their fast food. When people (and the company) realized what a detrimental effect this had on the environment, they switched over to a cardboard-based packaging. I can't remember the last time I went to McDonalds and there was styrofoam packaging. A more recent example - Davannis. I believe at many locations they still use styorofoam packaging. If enough people who care about the environment make a fuss about it, management will switch over to a different form of packaging. There is demand for a Davannis with-out harmful packaging, so inevitably it will be supplied.

I have just started looking into how the 'green' movement in government has been a movement of control. I'm not going to straight out say that there is nothing good about the movement to go green, but I am realizing more and more the problems with trying to push this agenda through Congress. The worst part is anyone opposing certain facets of it, as Bachmann has with the lightbulbs, gets labeled as someone who hates the environment. Just look at the comments the people over Tree Hugger had in response to the news about the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice act. I have nothing against energy efficient light bulbs, but I do have a problem with the government telling me these are the only bulbs I can use!

Violence in Juarez - Direct Effect of the War on Drugs

Today when I paged through the most recent article of Newsweek, there was a long article about Juarez, Mexico. I always find articles and videos about Juarez interesting, as I went on a mission trip down there a couple years ago. Basically the article talked about the violence that they have been experiencing due to drug cartels and traffickers.

To me it is blatantly obvious what is the cause of almost all of the problems Juarez is facing: the war on drugs. Juarez is a gateway for drugs to be smuggled into the United States. There have been countless murders and deaths that have been attributed to drug traffickers. I don't know how many times I will end up saying this in my lifetime - The war on drugs has failed.

Not only has it failed, it has failed miserably. On Monday John Sharkey wrote a piece in the Minnesota Daily about the failed war on drugs. At one point it talked about a group called the Partnership for the Americas Commission and a report they released about Western Hemisphere relations. Members included former Presidents and Prime Ministers of various Latin American Countries. An entire section was devoted to the failed war on drugs. Latin American Countries have been hurt severely by the United States failed drug war. Stepping up the fight in Juarez to subdue violence is not going to to work. Locking up more and more has not worked. In the United States alone over 20 million have been imprisoned on drug-related charges!

Imagine for a minute a United States that legalized drugs. It's hard to do. But in reality, there will not be such a HUGE price markup that makes it profitable to smuggle drugs into the country. Law enforcement will be able to concentrate on real crimes instead of somebody inhaling a plant. Tax dollars will not only be saved, but immense amounts of tax dollars will be raised through the inevitable huge markups (just like on cigarettes). Instead of arresting people who use drugs, we can concentrate on helping them. There would be less violence along our border in places such as Juarez because the entire system that makes drug traffickers and drug cartels 'work' would not exist.

But no, our government instead wastes billions of taxpayer dollars pursuing a failed policy that has created so much violence and injustice. There are a million problems our government is facing and trying to 'fix.' Some/most of the time they just make a problem worse that they are trying to 'fix.' With just a little education on the issue, I think everyone would realize what common sense it is to end this atrocity.

Government Regulation of Alcohol

This past weekend was two of my friend's twenty first birthdays. They both had their first legal drinks, and we had a good time going out to eat and playing bingo. This really got me thinking about the legal drinking age.

I then decided that I did not want to drink on my 21st birthday. Don't I know better than the government when it is best for me to have a drink? Drinking on my 21st would just confirm the belief that government has the best ability to decide when I am 'ready' to drink. But there is also an obvious argument for a minimum drinking age: to prevent teenagers from drinking and driving, in which case fatalities will increase. This was Barack Obama's response to a soldier questioning why he is old enough to serve and die for our country, but would be committing a crime by consuming an alcoholic beverage.

Many, many, many people drink before their 21st birthday. Are they responsible enough to consume alcohol? Debatable. But then again, do you become responsible overnight when you turn 21? Absolutely not. I am sure there are many in their 20s and 30s who are still not responsible 'enough' to consume alcohol (just look at the number of people who drink and drive any given day). There is a fundamental problem when it is possible for a 16 year who cannot legally drink for nearly five years is much more responsible than a 30something who has been able to legally drink for years. There must be some sort of regulation to ensure the safety of a countries citizens. But, what would the minimum drinking age be replaced with? That is a question that may never be answered.

I have heard that a human's brain is not fully developed until they are in their early twenties, and alcohol can affect this development. But then again, cigarettes are damaging to someones body regardless of age and they are legal. Would more teenagers drink if the minimum age was 18? Perhaps, but at the same time there is something about doing an 'illegal' activity that makes it attractive to those taking part in it. Especially if they don't see a problem with it or believe they should be legally allowed to partake in the activity.

Dean Barkley advocated lowering the drinking age to eighteen. Will this ever happen? I doubt it. Politicians are not going to win a ton of votes by advocating this policy, as most people who vote are older than 20 so they really do not care at that point. Whenever it comes to substances, such as tobacco, marijuana, or in this case alcohol, the role of the government and what restrictions should be set becomes blurry.