Today, we watch an insecure America, rendered impotent by a nine year long “war on terror” (as though you can fight an inanimate object), with high unemployment, and massive government deficits.

Even worse, America is no longer the country of it’s founding, secure in the knowledge that they are right.

We witness the absurd spectacle of someone named Terry Jones, a self-proclaimed Florida Pastor who announced that he and his flock would burn the Quran, the Muslim holy book, to mark 9-11.

Before this week, no-one had ever heard of Terry Jones.  His congregation apparently has about 50 members (although the true number may be closer to 30).  He is irrelevant.  If me and 50 of my friends decided to go and do something stupid, like turn over cars, would it make the national news?  Of course not, because I am nobody.

And yet this nobody was covered by the national media as though he was somebody.  He isn’t, and shame on CNN, and all the rest, for giving air time to this guy.

And shame on President Obama for weighing in on this “controversy”.  Why is the President of the most powerful nation on earth wasting his time commenting on the proposed actions of some nut in Florida?  There are millions of unemployed, thousands of young men and women have died in senseless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet the President is worried about some guy’s barbecue?

This is a sad day for the once great nation of America.  Instead of worrying about important matters, we now worry about irrelevancies.

It’s a sad day indeed.

Sense of Urgency

Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House adviser, said the president “feels a sense of urgency” about unemployment and the summit is part of an “ongoing effort to jumpstart the economy and create jobs.” She said other forums would be organized around the country.

At the same time, Jarrett said the administration is constrained by a budget deficit that reached a record $1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 and is projected to be $1.4 trillion again this year.

“There are definite limitations to what the federal government can do,” she said in an interview.

Ya think? Ya think there are definite limitations to what the federal government can do? Here’s the problem, Valerie: the President is trying to “jumpstart the economy and create jobs.” That’s the problem. A President cannot create jobs. All a President can do is take money from someone, and give it to someone else. That doesn’t create jobs.

What creates jobs is a business man or woman who takes a risk, invests some time and money, and creates a product or service of value that people are willing to pay for. If the business is successful, the owner hires people to serve their customers. That’s how jobs, and wealth, are created. If the owner makes a bad product, or performs a bad service, the business fails, and the owner loses their investment. That’s capitalism. There are winners, and losers.

Here’s a trivia question for you: in the entire range of human history, how many jobs has government created? Answer: none. Zero. Zilch.

But wait, you say: what about all of those construction workers employed to build roads; are they not jobs created by the government? No, the government taxed me, to get the money to hire the people to build the roads. If they hadn’t taxed me, I would have more money, which I would have spent, or invested, and I would have created jobs.

And what about President Obama, who got elected on a promise to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and is now doing the opposite, with a “surge” of 30,000 more troops on the way. A surge? Who is this guy; George W. Bush? Here’s a quote, from Der Speigel’s report on his speech announcing the increased war effort:

Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the “world’s great religions.” He promised that responsibility for the country’s security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai — a government which he said was “corrupt.” The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But “America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars,” he added.

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the average person is now gradually realizing that rhetoric is empty, and only actions matter. The average person on the street understands that the “war” in Afganistan is an un-winnable war. The Russians occupied for many years, and left in defeat. The Americans (and Canadians, and others) have been there since 2001, and despite the most sophisticated weaponry in the world, and billions of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, nothing has changed. A fancy airplane is no match for a local who knows which cave to hide in. We haven’t found Bin Laden, and we won’t win this war (which really isn’t a war; I don’t recall Afganistan ever attacking us).

The sad truth is that the words “Bush” and “Obama” are interchangeable. Both have engaged in un-winnable wars for political reasons, and both will continue to spend money to stay in power. Obama’s plan is exactly the same as W’s: big surge now, that can be drawn down to declare victory just before the next election. It didn’t work for W, and it won’t work for O.

Sorry to be such a downer, but government’s don’t create jobs.

They tax, and they fight wars.

So spare me the job summits, and spare me the “surges”, and, Mr. Government, stand aside so that real people can take risks and create real jobs.

Today our biggest investment, after our house, is our car.  Back then, after our house, the biggest single investment was a piano.  Everyone wanted one, both as a status symbol and as a means of entertainment (before TV, the internet, and iPods).  Eventually demand dropped, and piano production moved overseas.

Mr. Tucker makes the point that a once vibrant industry declined, but the world did not end.  What would have happened if FDR had done what Obama is doing today and nationalized the piano industry (like Obama is doing with the banking and automotive industry)?  Presumably the industry would have limped along for a few more years, at a huge cost to taxpayers, before eventually collapsing due to lack of demand.

It’s sad to lose an industry, but it’s even sadder to spend billions in taxpayer money to try to prop up a dying industry.  Obviously the automotive industry creates millions of jobs in North America, but if we decided to buy cheaper and better cars overseas, so be it.  Strong auto makers will survive in North America; the  rest won’t.  It’s sad, but that’s how it works, and all the government meddling in the world cannot change reality.

Dick Morris, a former President Clinton official, is very pessimistic about Obama’s legacy.  That may be nothing more than sour grapes that his candidate didn’t get the Democratic nomination, but his thoughts are worth repeating.  You can read his Obama thoughts here.

Personally, I hope Obama moves to the center, and abandons some of his damaging interventionist ideas.  Time will tell what actually happens.

I am struck first by the euphoria surrounding the Inauguration. Millions of Americans have done everything in their power to travel to the heart of Washington to “be a part of history.” I don’t fully understand why someone would want to brave the crowds and the cold and the security to witness a 20 minute speech, when you can get a much better view watching at home.

I don’t fully understand it, because I am a white Canadian living in Canada. I suspect if I was black, living in the United States, and if I had witnessed racism first hand, I would probably have a very different view. I was born in Toronto, a city that today has more “non-whites” than whites. My best friend growing up was Jewish. I had many friends who were black, Chinese, East Indian. I even had one or two American friends. Obviously there is racism everywhere, but growing up in my middle class neighbourhood on the outskirts of Toronto, I never experienced serious racism first hand.

My father, also a Canadian, went to university in Indiana in the late 1950s. I remember him telling me the story of a fellow college student, who happened to be black, asking my father where he got his haircut. My father gave him the name of a local barber, and my father’s friend came back to tell him that the barber refused to cut his hair, due to the colour of his skin. My father immediately passed the word around campus, and none of my father’s friends ever got a haircut from that barber again. So I understand that racism exists; I’ve just never experienced it directed at me.

I also understand that as late as 1970 there were many college football teams in the U.S. that had no black players. That’s astounding.

I guess if I couldn’t get a haircut, or couldn’t play football, or if I was ostracized or mis-treated because of my skin colour, I too would be rejoicing today. Being black no longer means you can’t be President.

And that’s a very good development.

And that is why there is such euphoria in the States today.

Today there is euphoria, but what will there be tomorrow? Will President Obama actually be able to do anything? Can he solve the economic crisis? Can he eliminate the massive burden of debt we are carrying? Can he fix the horrendous structural problems now facing the U.S.?

Personally, I don’t think so. I don’t believe the government can actually solve any problem. The government can raise or lower taxes, and they can spend my money, but that does not change reality.

Obama’s only chance for success is if he can convince the American people to fix this mess themselves. If he can convince people to live within their means, to pay down debt, and to not expect the government to take care of them, he will be America’s most successful President. He will succeed if he can convince Americans to take care of themselves.

I’m pessimistic on that front, because government officials tend to want to us government power to fix things. Why go into government if you want to lessen the role of government?

One final thought: President Obama owes a huge debt of gratitude to George W. Bush. President Bush greatly expanded the role of government. He has dramatically curtailed individual freedoms. Thanks to George W. we now think it’s normal to have to take our shoes off before boarding an airplane, stupid as that is. We are used to government intrusion in every aspect of our lives.

If President Obama wants to use the full power of government to enforce his agenda, the American people will not resist, and for that he can thank George W. Bush.

The central problem, I believe, is that Americans actually believe the government can do something. They believe governments can actually create wealth and make things better. For the most part, that’s not true.

The only real power that government have is the ability to take money from one person (through taxation) and give it to someone else (through spending). That’s it. That’s all government can do. Unfortunately, when government does that, it messes up the economy, and makes things worse for everybody. Here’s why:

Someone wants to get elected, so they promise to make things better for the voters. Perhaps they promise to give everybody $1,000 to buy a new, energy efficient, environmentally friendly, solar powered lawn mower. Everyone thinks it’s a great idea. It will help the environment, and create jobs.
Sure enough, when everyone gets their $1,000 lawn mower cheque from the government, demand for solar powered lawn mowers goes up. Lawn mower companies hire more staff, which creates jobs. Banks lend more to lawn mower companies, because it’s a great business. Everybody is happy. Companies continue to expand. Life is great. The boom times are here.
But then, at some point, the demand for solar powered lawn mowers starts decreasing. Lawn mower sales decline. Employees are laid off. Banks have trouble collecting loans. Unemployment rises. The economy goes into a recession. The people are not happy. They call for more help from the government.
In order to get re-elected, the politicians realize that the simplest answer is to spend more money. So they create another new program. Perhaps this time it’s tax credits for wind powered snowblowers. The cycle repeats. Demand increases, jobs are created, demand peaks, jobs are lost, and more government intervention is needed to pump the economy back up.

Over and over it goes. Boom and bust. It’s as simple as that. Government intervention causes booms and busts. If it wasn’t for the government meddling in the economy, there would be no recessions.

Yes, you read that correctly. Prices would rise and fall in a free market based on supply and demand, but recessions only exist because the government caused them.

I fear that until people realize that the government is not the solution to all of their problems, this cycle will continue.
Here’s a video of an American who appears to honestly be live that Barack Obama as President will "pay for my gas and my mortgage."

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Mr. Obama does not have any money of his own. The government does not have any money of their own. All they have is the money they have either borrowed or raised through taxation.

If the government gives you money to pay for "gas" and your "mortgage", they have to take that money from someone else. It’s that simple. Taxes mean they took the money from someone else today; borrowing means they are taking it from a future generation.

Now please, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying we shouldn’t help people less fortunate than ourselves. We should. If your family member or neigbour can’t afford to buy gas, by all means help them out. Give them some money, or even better help them find a job so they can support themselves. I also have no objection to giving money to charities to help people either. Charities are run, for the most part, by volunteers, so their cost to provide a service is much lower than the overhead cost when government gets involved.

It would be great if…..

It would be great if a politician stood up and said "I can’t take care of you. Only you can take care of you. So starting today I am going to gradually wind down this massive, unproductive government we have built. I won’t do it all at once, but I will do it. At the same time I will drastically reduce your taxes, so you will have more money to support yourself and your family. The government will still control law enforcement, and the military to protect our country from outside aggressors, but for the most part the government will no longer control your lives."

Yes, that would be great, but it won’t happen. There are estimates that more than half of the population receives more from the government in subsidies than they pay in taxes, so it is highly unlikely that there will be any will to change.

And that’s sad.

Americans are faced in this election with the same choice we Canadians were faced with in October: a bunch of people running for office that I would never hire to run my own company. In Canadian we had a wacky professor, a wacky socialist, and a "conservative" who has spent more than any socialist before him. (The "conservative" won). At least in Canada we are still running surpluses, although that will probably end this year.

In the U.S. you get to choose between a 72 year old former soldier, who actually thinks it’s in America’s best interests to be fighting wars in foreign countries, and a lawyer who believes in redistributing the wealth. The lawyer is very good with a teleprompter, and he will probably win.

Regardless, taxes will increase in America to pay for universal health care, more bailouts, and more redistribution. I have no idea whether or not it’s true, but many commentators estimate that 50% of the American public receives direct financial support from the government. In other words, half the people work to support the other half. I don’t see how a society can survive long term under those conditions.

Good luck, America. I don’t envy your choice.