Philosophy Learn more about our
organization and the moral basis of capitalism.
Campaigns Find out about the
Center's many activism projects.
Media Center
News mentions, press releases and
speakers.
Feedback
Send us a comment or ask
a question--we want to hear from you!
Contribute This website and the
Center's advocacy programs are not free--we depend on you to support our
efforts. Invest in your freedom today! Donate once or set up a monthly
withdrawal plan--we accept all major cards.
The Mission of Goverment: Curbing the appetite for spending
Richard Rahn says government spending has dramatically increased under George W.:
Did you know total federal government spending grew 17 percent during the last three years (inflation adjusted)? This compares with 6.8 percent, 8.3 percent, and 3.5 percent for the first three years respectively of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations.
During the latter Bush I and Clinton years, defense spending was falling as a percent of GDP, which, in part, explains the modest growth in spending during 1991-2001. What is particularly troubling now is that nondefense discretionary spending (leaving out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) has grown by 23.2 percent during the last three years, as compared to minus 13.5 percent, plus 11.6 percent, and minus 0.7 percent of the first three years of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations. (My colleague, Dr. Veronique de Rugy of the Cato Institute, prepared this and a much more detailed spending analysis that may be found on www.cato.org.)
Federal spending has risen to a little more than 20 percent of GDP, up from only slightly more than 18 percent of GDP three years ago. High levels of government spending are dangerous both to our fiscal health and our liberties.
All government spending must be financed either by taxing or borrowing, both of which hurt economic growth and job creation. Many politicians and others focus on the benefits of government spending while ignoring the huge extraction cost of obtaining the funds to spend. There is not only the direct cost of collecting the tax from the taxpayer by both government and the private sector but, more importantly, taxation discourages the productive activities of working, saving and investing. Economists refer to these costs as the dead-weight loss of the tax system, which many estimates now show may exceed 100 percent of the tax collected.
Few government programs have real rates of return exceeding or even approaching 100 percent and, in fact, many government programs, such as most transfer payments and subsidies, actually have negative returns.
This explains why those economies with very large government sectors tend to grow much more slowly and have higher unemployment rates than those economies with more modest government sectors.
President Bush is vulnerable to charges of being irresponsible on the spending front because of the spending hemorrhage on his watch. He can argue he inherited an economy sliding into recession and the September 11, 2001, attacks — both out of his control. But he has in fact supported many questionable domestic spending programs and has failed to veto any spending bills, even though some contained items most reasonable people would view as wasteful, unnecessary or counterproductive.
With a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress, perhaps its time to acknowledge that the real enemy of progress are big government Republicans.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 9:13 AM | link
| donate |
Name some of the things that make us so much better off than Americans of just a couple of generations ago.
One of the most important things are new medicines that not only prolong life but leave us vigorous at ages when old folks used to sit around in rocking chairs. Airplanes have put the whole world within our reach. Computer operating systems have enabled people with no understanding of the science and technology of computers to use them nevertheless to do innumerable things.
You might think that those who created these things would be among our heroes. On the contrary, they are demonized in the media, harassed by the government and sued by lawyers.
Pharmaceutical drug companies are regularly denounced for charging higher prices than politicians want them to charge. How these companies are supposed to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars required to develop just one new medicine is not something that politicians -- or much of the media -- seem at all interested in discussing.
The doctors who save our lives are sued with great regularity by lawyers, often on flimsy grounds that nevertheless result in millions of dollars in damages awarded by juries more responsive to emotional rhetoric than to hard evidence.
Boeing is being sued because its planes's doors did not keep terrorists out of the cockpits on September 11, 2001. Microsoft was sued because so many people bought its operating system that Microsoft was said to "control" too much of its market.
The October 6th issue of BusinessWeek magazine has a feature article on the Wal-Mart chain in which it quotes an estimate by a consulting firm that Wal-Mart saves American consumers $20 billion a year. Yet it also criticized Wal-Mart for not paying its sales clerks enough to support a family of three and complained that the company won't sell music with dirty lyrics or magazines with dirty pictures.
It used to be said that nothing succeeds like success. Today, nothing draws fire like success.
Troube is, the successful are not exactly lining up to defend themselves.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:35 PM | link
| donate |
Capitalism and the Law: If the Christian Coalition is happy, it has to be bad
The Christian Coalition is pleased that the US Supreme Court has decided to hear the Pledge of Allegiance case and has said so in a press release.
The Christian Coalition of America applauds the Supreme Court today for allowing the "Pledge of Allegiance" case to be heard in the court. This comes after the infamously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco 16 months ago struck down the recitation of the "Pledge of Allegiance" because of the words "Under God". As a result of this tyrannical decision, tens of millions of children in the western States have been unable to recite the Pledge of Allegiance this year.
Roberta Combs, President of the Christian Coalition of America said, "This case is an example of a liberal court taking away the foundation of our Godly heritage upon which this great country was founded. I applaud the Supreme Court and trust that the justices will make a decision that will benefit the future of our land and restore our Godly principles. Anything less than a 9-0 rebuke of the lower federal court would be a slap in the face of the overwhelming majority of Americans (80-90 percent) who support school children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance."
Combs is wrong of course. The job of the 9th Circuit was to judge the constitutionality of the state requiring students to listen to a teacher-led recitation of the pledge, not take a poll of all Americans and act on the results. There is one question a judge ought to ask when deciding such a case: does the government act in question fit within the constitution as animated by the principle of individual rights. If you hold that individuals are philosophically sovereign, there is no reason to justify teacher-led recitations of the pledge in state schools that include mention of a deity.
The Christian Coalition’s very treatment of teacher-led recitations of the pledge as a venerable institution bolsters the argument that it ought not to be. Beyond the foolishness of leading youth in a pledge that they are not intellectually mature enough to understand, the text of the pledge is clearly an attempt to establish that God has dominion over the United Sates—that’s why the Christian Coalition seeks to fight for it. Yet in a free and secular society such as ours, no one has the right to put such a baseless claim into the law.
There will be a multitude of interest groups filing briefs with the Supreme Court on this case, including, without a doubt, the Christian Coalition. There also should be a brief submitted to the court by a coalition of reason, with the goal of firmly establishing the boundaries between the state and the people in the realm of ideas.
UPDATE: The American Legion has issued a press release today supporting teacher-led recitations of the pledge as well.
"The American Legion filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance at federal court in San Francisco. The American Legion is committed to take this fight all the way to the highest court in the land. Teachers leading students in the Pledge of Allegiance is as constitutional as "In God We Trust" stamped on our nation's currency and references to "God" in the oaths taken in our courts.
"But this case is bigger than the Pledge. What is really at stake here is the moral direction of the nation. The right of the people to declare their patriotism by voluntarily reciting the Pledge is but one battle. The right of the Boy Scouts of America to select its leaders consistent with its founding principles is another battle. The right of the people to protect the U.S. Flag from acts of physical desecration is a battle that The American Legion has been fighting since the Supreme Court in 1989 invalidated flag-protection laws in 48 states; a constitutional amendment approved by the House and soon to come to a vote in the Senate is the remedy."
I left the Legion over its support of anti-flag burning amendments. Too bad you can’t leave an organization twice.
The Legion is correct though in saying that the pledge case is about the moral direction of the nation. If the leaders of the Boy Scouts ought to be able to direct their membership policy to reflect their moral principles, a parent ought to be able to direct the ideas their children are exposed to reflect their moral principles as well.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:41 AM | link
| donate |
The War: something here is a lot like the other . . .
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) gave a talk on Tuesday to the students at George Washington University. This is how the campus paper reported one of the questions a student asked:
Responding to a student's question, Hagel said Israel's retaliatory attacks against terrorists need to stop for the sake of peace.
But when the student followed up by asking if the United States should stop its similar retaliatory strikes against terrorists, Hagel said "no." The student was flustered by Hagel's contradiction, but the senator said he wanted to move on to the next question in the interest of time.
"He said what we are doing wasn't the same thing (as what Israel's doing)," the audience member said. "I think that's ridiculous. It's absolutely the same thing, and Israel needs to protect itself."
Bravo. Sen. Hagel could not differentiate the difference between the U.S.'s war against Islamic militants and Israel's because there is no difference.
I’m going to write a letter to Sen. Hagel on this one. I’ll post it in the next day or two.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:06 AM | link
| donate |
Wednesday, October 15, 2003 :::
The War: Gaza Strip Blast Kills Three Americans
The AP reports Americans were the victims of a terror attack in the Gaza Strip:
A remote-controlled bomb exploded under a U.S. diplomatic convoy Wednesday, ripping apart an armored van and killing three Americans in an unprecedented attack on an official U.S. target. The U.S. Embassy advised U.S. citizens to leave the Gaza Strip after the attack.
The bombing, which also wounded an American, will likely intensify U.S. pressure on the Palestinian Authority to take action against militant groups.
There was no claim of responsibility. But if Palestinian militants were to blame, it could signal a dramatic change in strategy. While targeting Israeli soldiers and civilians for years, groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad repeatedly insist they do not target U.S. officials — apparently to avoid a harsh retribution from the Americans and the anger of Palestinian officials trying to work with Washington.
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat condemned the attack as an "awful crime" and said he ordered an investigation.
Attacking the United States and its citizens ought to win one an instant trip into martyrdom. Yet will that be the case with this attack? In 1982, 241 American marines were killed by a suicide bomber while sleeping in their barracks in Beirut. The organizers of that plot have never suffered retribution for their deeds.
The Islamic militants are right to think the U.S. is a paper tiger—when have our deeds followed our rhetoric? Yet now we have the opportunity to change that. The American response to this vicious attack on our diplomats should be unequivocal—those who were behind it should be hunted down and killed.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:16 PM | link
| donate |
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 :::
The Culture: A question of Faith
As many of you know, I'm a big proponent of college Objectivist clubs. I was introduced to Objectivism via the George Washington University’s Objectivist Club, which I later came to lead myself. I think campus clubs are a great way to both learn about Objectivism and engage in intellectual activism.
My friends at the George Mason University Objectivist Club, (I frequently attend their meetings and in my view, they are one of the most focused and active clubs in the country) sent me the following article by a Muslim student that appeared in their campus paper:
Islam is not merely a religion. Islam is a complete and comprehensive way of life. Ideally, its teachings encompass all of a Muslim's actions and dealings in life.
The teachings of the religion extend from the simplest notions, that to smile in the face of your brother or sister is considered charity, to the most sophisticated understandings of inheritance law.
Included in the teachings of the religion is a heavy focus on preserving the integrity of the family as well as maintaining a healthy environment for the children of a society.
Gabriella Gabrielsen seems to indicate in her last Broadside column ("Puritanical Islamic Beliefs in Nigeria Need Reform," Sept. 29) that human rights violations are a concern to her. However, what must be understood is that the Western model of human rights cannot and should not be superimposed on the rest of the world.
For example, in Islam, it is considered a violation of the child's rights not to know who her parents are, whereas this is not the case in our own country, here in the United States.
Our understanding of the concept of "law" should also not be superimposed on other countries. These people have fought to live under these laws because they believe that its principles befit their society. As such, we should let people live the way they want to live, instead of being closed-minded and labeling their choice of life as "ancient" and "barbaric."
In fact, according to the Associated Press, Amina Lawal has herself said, "It is a fair procedure, and so I was never afraid throughout my trial." Lawal understood that she would have a fair trial and has chosen to go back to Katsina, one of the states in northern Nigeria that implements Shari'ah, the Islamic legal code that she was originally tried under.
Well what do we have here? Don’t judge Islam—it’s our right to live under Islamic law. Our way is as good as yours. Don’t superimpose your views on the rest of the world. Classic faith and multiculturalism.
As most of my readers know, trouble is, not all ways are equal. There is a difference between a culture animated by faith and a culture animated by reason. It’s no accident that the West is happy and prosperous and the Islamic world is suffering and poor, both cultures are the product of their core values.
But what I found most interesting about this piece is that its author attempted to use a western argument to justify her claim for Islam. I wager the author of this piece got her Islam they way most people get their religion (from their parents), but I wonder where she picked up her cultural relativism. I doubt it was from Islam—cultural relativism is a Western innovation. I wager the author picked it up in college.
I’ve encouraged the GMU Objectivists to write a reply to this piece—I’ve even sent them a draft of my own ideas. For those who may be interested, this is what I wrote:
Shaimaa Alazzawe argues that the Western model of individual rights should not be forced on the world and the practice of Islamic law should not be denigrated as "ancient" and "barbaric." She’s wrong.
Under Islamic law, women are stoned to death for the ‘crime’ of adultery and murder is served to those who speak against Mohammad. It’s no coincidence that every Islamic state is a dictatorship and that Islamists hate the West. Under Islamic law, it’s blind faith to the edicts of Mohammad and Allah that reign supreme.
In contrast, the West is dominated by reason. Individual rights and scientific and technological achievement are respected because the human mind and reason are respected. The result has been an increase in freedom, wealth, health, life expectancy and happiness unprecedented in human history. The Islamic world has not shared in this advance because it rejects the very things that make it possible. If peace, freedom and happiness are the standards, there is only one honest conclusion: Islam is barbaric. The faith-driven ravings of the followers of Mohammad that claim otherwise are not an argument.
And that Alazzawe states her claim for Islam from the comfort of a modern and civilized Western university named after a pioneer in the advancement of mankind makes it all the more ironic and absurd. It is not faith in Allah that makes institutions like George Mason University possible. Let Alazzawe claim that Islam is equal to the West and ought not to be judged from within an Islamic slum; here in America, we know better.
Notice that as much as it I think it was wrong, I didn’t come out and label the author as a cultural relativist and leave it at that. Cultural relativism is something that is too well accepted to refute just by identification. I attempted to show how cultural relativism is corrupt by contrasting the two cultures in question, and let the reader make the broader conclusion.
At best, in a letter to the editor, you can attack one argument and support another. I think the best letters are ones that lay the foundation for the right conclusion, but rely on the reader make it himself. I reduce the author’s article to a question of faith vs. reason and the view that both are equal. I don't have the space to examine the different attributes of faith and reason, but I can list their consequences. Yes, the West is superior to Islam, so much so, that the basic case can be encapsulated in a short four-paragraph letter. (I think it would be a mistake to say much more. The author’s argument is so ridiculous, to exhaustively refute it would give it a credit it ought never enjoy. She more or less admits that the Islamic world is barbaric; Islamists just have a different sense of justice, so we ought not to judge them. I say to hell with that.)
I think the only dicey line comes in my conclusion. I say “here in America, we know better.” Well, not really, or the original article would never have found newsprint. But I do make a proper implication, albeit with a little audacity: Islam is a mess, I know it, and you (the reader) should know it to.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 2:08 PM | link
| donate |
Monday, October 13, 2003 :::
CAC News: Gone Fishin'
I'm taking a sabbatical from blogging to work on other projects that require my attention. I've set no firm date for my return, but I expect to be away until at least Thanksgiving. In the meantime, Nick will still be around to spread the joy.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 10:48 AM | link
| donate |
The War: The Choice Between Action and Inaction
I received this in mass e-mail from the Bush '04 team:
The Choice Between Action and Inaction in Iraq
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice discussed protecting the American people from the terrorist threat in three important speeches this week.
"American cannot retreat from our responsibilities and hope for the best. Our security will not be gained by timid measures. Our security requires constant vigilance and decisive action. I believe America has only one option: We must fight this war until the work is done," President Bush said.
Critics question the administration's pre-emption policy, but offer no solution for dealing with the threats facing our nation. Vice President Cheney made clear the choice that President Bush has made, "As long as George W. Bush is President of the United States, this country will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies."
President Bush's decision to act in Iraq has not only made America safer, it has liberated an oppressed people. President Bush said, "Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Surely not the dissidents who would be in his prisons or end up in mass graves. Surely not the men and women who would fill Saddam's torture chambers, or the women in his rape rooms. Surely not the victims he murdered with poison gas. Surely not anyone who cares about human rights and democracy and stability in the Middle East. There is only one decent and humane reaction to the fall of Saddam Hussein: Good riddance."
I think we need to get over the idea of preemption. Attacking a dictatorship is not preemption--the Islamic tyrants have been initiating force for time immemorial. If the US judges it in its interest to remove them, it has every right. But that makes me wonder—why has the choice been action in Iraq and inaction in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:06 AM | link
| donate |
The success of the Center for
the Advancement of Capitalism is made possible thanks to
voluntary contributions by people like you. If you would like
to help support the Center's efforts, please make an
online contribution. We accept all major credit cards.
