Analysis with David Morris

Romney and the American Poor

2012-02-01T18:38:00.001-08:00

Romney's gaffe on the poorest Americans currently circulates across the media.

Herein lies a teachable moment however. Though Romney's poor choice of words rightly harms his political image, certain truths about American impoverished demonstrates that the poor scarcely requires a government that increasingly "cares" for them.

In the following video, Bill Whittle communicates what is essentially the same principle behind Romney's statement. The difference being that it makes more sense coming from Bill.

Even compassionate.

Romney Gaffe

2012-02-01T16:40:00.001-08:00

During his victory run around Florida, Romney let's slip that "he doesn't care for the very poor."

Not the most inspiring of attitudes from a potential commander-in-chief. America longs for a positive message not seen since Reagan: of an America that lifts all of it's citizens.

It's doubtful that the soundbite will cause too much damage on it's own, but it unfortunately adds to Romneys image as an out of touch member of the elite.

The Obaminable Machine

2012-01-31T13:38:00.001-08:00

As the Republican primary carries on, the Obama Campaign quietly prepares.

With the power of a billion-dollar warchest, the machine quietly reserves ad air over key battleground states, trains hundreds of campaign leaders in the art of voter turnout, and hires the best in the business in new media marketing.

The U.S.S. Obaminal has all the appearances of a mighty warship. Armed with an airwave monopoly for the crucial months of October and November, high caliber advertisements designed to cripple the opponent and embellish the achievements of the Obama administration will be poised to sell the public on 4 more years.

Such spending is all for naught if no one buys of course. History is filled with expensive flops afterall. New Coke anyone?

How about that Titanic?

As always with reelection politics, the state of nation come election day will prove the most potent advertisement of all, be it for or against the incumbent. The crew of the Obaminable has the work cut out for them on icebergs to evade.

1) The Real Unemployment Rate

2) Gas Prices

3) Obamacare in the Courts

4) The growth rate.

Such factors play into the most significant question of all in presidential politics: is the nation moving in the right direction?

No presidential campaign machine yet, no matter how exquisite, has proven to survive where the answer has been "no."

-David Morris

Gingrich Back in Center

2012-01-23T09:06:00.001-08:00

Newt Gingrich has once again surged following his decisive victory in South Carolina. In a true upset, Newt Gingrich secured 40% of the vote when just a week ago, Romney looked set to secure the state by 10 points.

If anything can be attributed to this gain, Newt's debate performance may once again be touted as a chief cause. The momentum gained by his address to his populist rout against the mainstream media on his personal past, always a savvy political tactic given that conservatives have learned to distrust by eighty percent margins, and just so happens to be a tactic he alone seems willing to play.

With this upset victory, Gingrich proves himself more than a flavor-of-the-month "not Romney," and early polls indicate a strong lead for Gingrich going into Florida. Time will tell if this momentum holds true.

~David Morris~

Will Gingrich Demonstrate How You Handle a Spotlight?

2011-12-02T11:34:00.000-08:00

Gingrich seems a strange political animal, as there would be as I like to call it, "many versions of him."

There's the "Regeanesque" version of Newt. The "Moderate Model" of Newt. The "viscous Newt" who shuts down the government and tries to impose labor upon children. The "friendly Newt" that reaches across the aisle to create balanced budgets and cares for the environment.

With such a career, many people will perceive Newt in many ways.

Of course, there is also the fiasco of his marital situation. Only one other president in our history has had a divorce (Ronald Reagan). However, I don't see how anyone could take political advantage of Reagan's circumstance, given that it involved a miscarriage and no ill will with his ex. Newt on the other hand...

Newt needs to continue what he's doing now: emphasize that he's had an epiphany with God since his divorce days, and keep appealing to voters as the "idea" person. There's little precedent for how a candidate properly handles personal baggage like Newt's but then again, it might be adequately old news enough for people not to care.

Fortunately for Newt, "morality appeal" is unlikely to be the decisive factor for Primary 2012. Rather, candidates seem to rise, fall, or stagnate based on whether they apostate from conservatism, fused with a general inexperience in communicating with a national audience.

Ron Paul
- An old front runner of 2008, his massive based is secured by a refreshing adherence to the constitution.

* He alienates on any instance of foreign policy. Inert overall.

Mitt Romney

- Mormonism. Little to no effect.

- "Generic." Little to no effect.

- Honed campaign skills. Source of a maintained frontrunner status.

* Romneycare. Stagnates potential. Would otherwise be frontrunner unchallenged. *Inert Overall

Rick Perry

- Racism charge connected to a rock on his ranch. No effect.

- Calls Social Security a Ponsi Scheme. No effect.

- Not the "best" at his first debate, but survives. Still a chance in future debates. Maintains frontrunner status.

* Talks about giving illegal's benefits. Suddenly crashes and burns.

Herman Cain

- Amateur Advertisement featuring Mark "The Smoker" Block. No effect.

- 999 attacked as a VAT. Defends it expertly. No effect.

- Infidelity Charges. Oddly his fund-raising goes up. Maintains frontrunner status.

* Has a series of major Foreign Policy gaffs (the "Rick Perry" moment on Libya). Throws off game. Shortly withdraws from the race.

Its most curious as to what Newt will do about his potential red flag on issues such as immigration, stem cell research, and moments such as the infamous global warming video with Pelosi.

Nevertheless, Newt seems extraordinarily adept at framing unorthodox stances in a manner that labels him as a centrist who delivers on conservative ideals.

A wily old pro in dealing with a media spotlight, Newt is not to be underestimated. Perhaps he'll show previous frontrunners how its done.

--David Morris

Sigh. Another Fiscally Momentous Occasion

2011-11-16T12:38:00.001-08:00

The national debt surpassed 15 Trillion today.

Hurray.
~David Morris~

True Irony Noted In Obamacare

2011-11-16T08:44:00.000-08:00

With Obamacare to be reviewed by the Supreme Court come February, the outcome of the historic case carries dangerous implications for federal power. Ironically however, Obamacare may still leave a legacy of downsizing the government, regardless of outcome.

According to a recent report by Gallup, the American People favor the repeal of the Affordable Care Act 47% to 42%. This continues to coincide with other major polling agencies such as Rasmussen, which as found a median disfavor of 56% for bill since its original passage in 2009.

Regardless of the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court, one cannot help but note a certain irony also included in the Gallup report: the negative impact on the principle of government mixing with health care. To think that only five years ago, 69% of the people conceded "that to provide health coverage" was among the chief duties of government. Thanks to Obamacare evidently, this sentiment has dropped 19 Points, now at 50%.

The "third rail" of politics holds that certain "sacred" programs (such as Medicare) are politically suicidal to reform. Changes towards the general attitude of government involvement such reported here however, perhaps offers a new hope for those who have long sought to reform our government's ultimate spending program before its too late.

Could Obamacare's historical legacy be a tale of such backlash against government, that the people finally grew ready to reform programs that were already in trouble? Only time will tell, but it would be an true irony if such proved to be the case.

2011-11-03T10:44:00.000-07:00

My thoughts on the Herman Cain alleged maybe-so-maybe-not sexual harrassment charges from supposedly over a decade ago.

Something tells me that authentic conservative voters feel the same way. If anything, its the media that is looking foolish in the manner they are attempting to destroy the man over something that is such a non-issue.

Can we get back to talking about tax and entitlement reform please?
~David Morris~

A United States of Adult Dependence

2011-10-27T08:10:00.000-07:00

The youth is the future, as often said. Thanks to the crushing effects this economy however, our youth is finding it difficult to grow up.

To move from one's parents is often a crucial step towards full maturity. This crucial phase is being stifled, delayed, and curbed by the Great Recession however, given impact reports by the Pew Research Center. Of those living in what they define as "multigenerational homes"; seven in ten of these households are with adult children under the age of thirty.

Furthermore, Pew finds that 37% of adults ages 18-to-29 are either unemployed or out of the workforce. In an effort to evade poverty, more individuals are moving back in with relatives or acquire a roommate as a form of informal charity shelter. Many have been forced to return to a state of childhood dependence despite their best effort at independence. Among those of age 25-to-30 who living with their parents, 35% claim that they once lived independently on their own.

College enrollment has also sky-rocketed as of late as another avenue of escape. Unfortunately, disappointment often waits on the other side of graduation. To illustrate, take the number of graduates in May 2011 compared to the number of jobs created that very same month.

A total of 3,205,000 post high school degrees were accredited in May of 2011, yet only 54,000 new jobs were created at that month. With a labor market already approximated at around 198 million people, such a ratio of new-jobs-to-new-graduates spells easily falls short of whats necessary to launch the promise of a new generation into the labor market. Even the most optimistic of estimates places a rate at 130,000 jobs per month if a return to pre-recession levels is to be obtained. The 84,000 jobs created in October, though a "recent high" still falls woefully short of a solution.

Since the days of the baby-boomers, college enrollment has gone up by 15.6%. Never before has a generation arisen with the promised of highly developed talent and education, prepared to lead us into the new, service-based economy of the Information Age. Without the opportunity to put these talents to practice however, suppressed income and dismal dependence will prove to be the killer of this Dream.

~David Morris~

2011-10-21T07:07:00.000-07:00

When doing research on how much an iPhone would cost if it were made in America, I came upon a random comment on the interwebs about China.

One of those random yet incredibly articulate types of comments that you just can't help quoting for truth.

It carries my thoughts about China precisely. Being unethical to flat out plageriaz of course, I simply wish to make sure due credit is due.

michael reynolds January 22, 2011 at 9:42 pm: You guys know there’s always a “China,” right? Just in my lifetime “China” was the USSR, OPEC, Japan and the EU.

There’s always some super-villain out there that’s going to outwit us, buy our crown jewels, outwork us and so on. In retrospect it’s always obvious that it wasn’t going to happen. Obviously the USSR was backward and under the thumb of a genuinely asinine political regime, obviously OPEC would eventually crumble, obviously Japan was a small, culturally isolated country with an aging population, obviously the EU was never going to be as smoothly integrated as they hoped.

Here’s what I think is obvious about China. They are poor. Dirt poor. There’s money in Shanghai and Hong Kong, but most of China might as well be Kazakhstan. They suffer from an imbalance between rural and urban that makes Nebraska and Manhattan look like identical twins. They are poisoning their rivers and air. They offer no freedom of expression or democratic political recourse while at the same time the poor out in the provinces can see Chinese billionaires and free Americans and South Koreans and understand for the first time just how screwed they are. They have one hope for continuing stability: an endless upward growth rate that is never, ever going to happen because as we’ve learned from our own real estate market, nothing goes up forever.

They have potential trouble on every border: Vietnam, North Korea, Russia, the Stans, India. And then there’s history. Show me where and when China was ever a dominant power in the world at large. It’s been a long, long time. And it’s been a long time because China is a barely-governable mess and has been for centuries. It is still a barely-governable mess.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t react, just that we shouldn’t freak out.

~David Morris~

How Much Is the 99% Anyway?

2011-10-20T11:49:00.000-07:00

The Occupy Protesters claim that they represent "the 99%" of Americans. Of course, this is but exaggeration and rhetoric. So just who are these people, what do they belief, and what do they represent?

An interesting article by the Wall Street Journal catches my eye in addressing the issue.

~David Morris~

Herman Cain and the 9-9-9

2011-10-20T09:47:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain has recently shot up in the GOP polls, demonstrating himself even as a general election threat to President Obama. With such positioning however, comes increased scrutiny. To that cause, critics have chosen the centerpiece of Cain's message as their attack point: the 999 Tax Plan.

The scrutiny is hot concerning the proposal, and the power of articulate persuasion in light of such criticism will be critical if Cain is to maintain momentum. Among the largest concerns is that the business portion of the plan amounts to a defacto Value Added Tax.

A value added tax is a consumption based taxed levied on every stage of production, which ultimately leads to a higher tax incidence for the consumer. Most European nations have adopted such a tax structure in modern times, and the reputation of their results cause unease among some American tax reformers. With background training in economics, I was able to personally conclude that this charge a defacto VAT was indeed palatable (with the exception of exported products, which are exempt under 999).

The latest debate did not grant Mr. Cain the opportunity to truly address his critics, but the American Enterprise Institute recently granted him a better platform from which to defend himself. Cain acknowledges that one could technically describe the business portion of his tax as a VAT. He reminds us however, that the primary fear of a Value-Added Tax is to have it imposed on top of other tax codes, as opposed to having such plans replace such codes.

"It is frustrating when people want to call it a VAT Tax. It doesn't matter what you call it." said Herman Cain. "The reason that some of my opponents want to call it a VAT, is because they want scare people because of what happened in Europe. They have both. They have a VAT tax, but they got multiple VAT Taxes. Technically, that last retail tax of 9%, you can call it VAT, but it only happens one time. The difference is that in Europe, it happens multiple times."

Mr. Cain then made the point that at every stage, profits are already taxed in an invisible VAT-like manner. In a loaf of bread, a farmer must pay taxes on his profit, truck driver who delivers the flour pays taxes on his profit, as does the baker, the grocery store owner, ad nausea. Ultimately, these compound taxes are still paid by the consumer in the final pricing of items. The difference is that his plan makes such taxes more visible.

Mr. Cain went on to explain that in the long run, as one who has been studying tax policy for 15 years, the Fair Tax would be superior over the long run, as it puts the consumer completely in charge in how much they pay in taxes. WIth a 100% consumption tax he believes, we would see a significantly boost the economy.

Personally, this economist held doubts concerning the 999 Plan as a viable reform plan. Mr. Cain himself remains confident in his carefully constructed plan. In the aftermath of his AEI defense, I concede that the plan is nonetheless a viable improvement to the current tax
structure.

So long as in practice, his claim of a "single VAT" rather than a multiple one holds true.

~David Morris~

Protesting the Status Quo

2011-10-14T10:41:00.000-07:00

I wrote earlier about the threat Herman Cain poses to the race business. Come Sunday, at the Martin Luther King dedication ceremony, a group of African Americans intend to protest the black establishment that has so eroded the black community.

Martin Luther King Jr was a registered republican according to his niecce. To see black conservatives protest those who have hi-jacked his dream as race-baiters is encouraging. It is for such reasons I pray that, should Herman Cain take the nomination, an incidence of black conservatives begins to rise.

He will have to win on his ideas and merit of course. So far, so good however. The major test it seems shall be his skill in defending his 999 plan. Such a plan appears to take elements of the flat and fair tax, leaving me with little doubt that it would boost the economy over the current tax code.

The real scrutiny of course, is whether or not it is passable. To be so, such a plan would likely require republican supermajorities in the House and Senate, similar to how Barack Obama held the same advantage his first years.

Time will tell whether such a plan will truly be on the table however. Again, Herman Cain has to officially earn the nomination first afterall. The primaries are next year. In the meantime, Cain cannot afford to stumble. Should this occur, we could see an upset by Newt Gringrich, or, disappointingly, Mitt Romney.

~David Morris~

I'm with the 99%!

2011-10-13T14:35:00.000-07:00

Down with corporations!

Burn it! Burn it all down man!

Ignore that the computer I'm typing this on is by Apple, the mouse by microsoft, while using headphones by Sony to listen to videos by Youtube.

The corporations, we gotta take them all down man!

Am I the only one who sees the true threat of Cain?

2011-10-04T11:10:00.001-07:00

Herman Cain just may represent the greatest threat to the viability of the democrat party since the 1960s. The reason why is simple:

Because he is black. And he's a republican.

Worse yet: He could be remembered as the successful second black president who immediately followed the failures of the first black president. With such a legacy, he just might create a new wave of open-minded voters within the black community.

Such a wave would carry truly dangerous implications for the democrat party.

For the past 40 years, Democrats could more or less take the African American vote for granted. Paradoxically however, many of these minority voters are not invested in the standard liberal agenda that the Democrats have come to represent. Particularly amongst those within the minority demographic who are middle class and church going.

Such members of the black community tend to not be too keen on homosexuality, are critical of abortion, value the presence of God, and are concerned about a cultural war on Christ. These African-Americans desire a return to values whereby a young man pulls up his pants, fathers are present for their children, and that one takes responsibility for one's life. The Pew Research Center describes such voters as New Coalition or Hard-Pressed Democrats, and make up the majority of the minority wing of the democrat party.

The issue of race has habitually guided the vote of such centrist African-Americans, despite an alignment more in tune with social conservatism. Under the popularized notion that democrats best represent minority interests, they minds have been generally closed to the idea of voting republican. It is among such members of the community that Herman Cain describes as "brain-washed," given that much of their news diet resides in traditional media.

Obama received 95% of the black vote in 2008. At present however, his approval among blacks is at a historic low of 58%. Among the disillusioned, some might turn to Herman Cain as a potential redeemer to the "historical narrative" of the nation's first minority presidents. Doubtlessly, democrats would still consume the majority of black turnout. With Cain however, a record number of the demographic would (for the first time in many of their lives) vote republican.

That's when they begin to see the contrast. And where the possibility for long term democrat damage begins.

Obama, as our first black president, has governed from a hard left stance that has put liberalism on full display. Never before has the failure of big government been more prevalent to the American people, with 75% of the people agreeing that the nation is on the wrong track.

Assume Cain takes the presidency. With a reputation a "problem solver," presume he succeeds everywhere Obama (and to an extent, Bush) has failed. He delivers on restored fiscal sanity, sensible yet sensitive reforms to entitlements, and above all else, jobs. An ideologue and communicator of the same clothe as Ronald Reagan, presume he's remembered just as well; as a president that oversaw the return of "Morning in America."

Under this premise, such contrast between the first and second black presidents would deeply resonate within the African American community, enough to possibly shift voting patterns permanently. Under eight long years of a Cain success story, future democrats may one day discover that they control the black vote only to the extent that they control the hispanic vote.

The consequences to the democratic base would be disastrous.

"[In 2004]...the strongest Democratic groups are African Americans, non-Christian whites, and New Minorities" writes Earl Black, a professor of political science at Rice University. "No other group matched African Americans in the magnitude of partisan advantage. Among black voters there was a 71-point gap in party bases."

Since 1972, blacks have voted for the democrat candidate for president at an average of 86.6%, with a deviation of only 4.1 points. Compare to the Latino vote, by which only 62.8% of the demographic is cemented within the democrat party at a much higher deviation of 6 points.

Democrats rely on a contestable though solid majority of Hispanic support. Without the edge provided by a veritable monopoly on African Americans however, the party could have long found itself without the numbers to win elections.

Herman Cain possesses the greatest threat to this monopoly in 50 years. Electorally, the democrat party is already a half sinking ship due to the actions of the Obama Administration. The results of his presidency has already resulted in the lost of independents, and embarrassing stronghold defeats from New Jersey to New York.

If history determines that the long term political consequences of Obama equated to a new open-mindness among blacks thanks to the ascension of Herman Cain, such a blow could prove to be the final death nail of the democrat party as we know it.

~David Morris~

2011-09-30T09:43:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, a certain celebrity made claims that the tea party was racist.

Sadly, this is but a microcosm of what is wrong with black america. In the meantime, republican's continue to display their fiery racism by elevating Herman Cain to frontrunner status following the Florida Straw Poll.

~David Morris~

Solydra Factory: Only the Best for Government Company

2011-09-28T10:40:00.000-07:00

Solyndra may be belly up, but at least it goes out with style. Constructed by union workers at a total cost of $733 million (of which proceeds from the government's $535 million loan guarantee was utilized), the Solyndra facility featured robots that sung Disney toons, 19 loading decks, and localized rail lines for moving product across its 300,000 square feet (approximately 5 football fields).

“The new building is like the Taj Mahal,” said John Pierce, 54, a San Jose resident who worked as a facilities manager at Solyndra.

Situated in "Silicon Valley;" which hadn't seen factory construction in 10 years given that its the 4th highest real estate area in the nation (and as such, most developments are simple offices), further frills included professional landscaping for the front, 4 electric car recharge stations, and a glass covered conference room. It even featured a fully equipped spa with state-of-the-art shower displays; to enable employees to relax after the daily grind, comfortable in profitability of their work.

Of course, the problem was that the factory never was worthy of profit to begin with. Despite the lack of prevalent demand for their signature "cylindrical" panel design, in 2009 such modules were touted to the Department of Energy as superior in the cost effectiveness of their construction and installation. This in comparison to traditional flat panels, whose production is currently dominated by Chinese manufacturers.

However, this cost advantage could hold only as long as the price of a primary component for flat panels, polysilicon, remained high. A comparable parallel would be citing a "cost advantage" for electric cars given the premise that oil prices never recede. This was the assumption in 2009, but by the time Solyndra became operational in January of 2011, commodity prices for flat panel components had plunged. Solyndra's claim of cost competitiveness with the conventional design of Chinese flat panels was completely nullified.

Even without the price fallout, hasty construction of the factory left the company with equipment that proved both high maintenance and unreliable.

“A significant percentage of the product we built went into a dumpster because it was defective,” said Craig Ewing, 55, a former maintenance technician. “It seemed like the company accepted that,” he said.

Solyndra executives also neglected to perform a proper cost analysis on their procedures. According to solar industry analyst Peter Lynch, the factory spent $6 per device. To remain competitive, they would have to resale it at $1 to $3 per device. The mass scores of defective product aside, Solyndra's business model wouldn’t even cover half of its costs.

The more we learn about the company, the harder it is to believe that such a waste of taxpayer money could occur. To review, without real demand to prop it up Solyndra's business model laid precariously on a presumption of high commodity prices for competitors. Creating products, many of which didn't even work, Solyndra soon found itself backlogged with overly expensive inventory. Fifteen months of decline later, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6th. 1,100 jobs "created or saved" by Obama's stimulus package went with it.

As for the factory itself, the taxpayer may be stuck with it for the time being, a harrowing reminder for anyone driving down Interstate 880 in Fremont, California.

~David Morris~

Vice Presidential Picks

2011-09-21T08:51:00.001-07:00

As the GOP Presidential debates continue, speculation begins to arise on who would make for the perfect running mates for the current front runners.

Mitt Rommey is designated as an "establishment republican" type who can appeal to the center under more generalized electoral conditions. From a tactical standpoint, a tea-party running mate capable of energizing the base would be thus be indispensable to a Rommey campaign. Ones such as Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann would bring a positive intensity among tea-partiers that would address Mitt's weakness in that area.

Rick Perry on the other hand, is already a tea party draw. However, his style credits him as less suited than Rommey in the art of dealing with the other side in a manner that doesn't scare moderates. As such, running mates such as one such as Newt Gringrich or Paul Ryan would be ideal. In addition to their detailed ideas on the issues, potentials such as these carry the political experience of dealing staunchly yet safely with the other side.

For either candidate however, Marco Rubio would prove an excellent running mate. Young and charismatic, he would lock down the Florida vote while simultaneously making certain other Latino states, such as New Mexico or perhaps even California, far more competitive. Even if California went to the democrats regardless, money spent defending their stronghold would assist Republican efforts abroad.

The coming months will be crucial to the future of the nation. With Obama looking to be a one term president, the efficacy of the next republican ticket to seriously tackle the nation's issues will be extra-ordinarily watched. As Americans, we can only pray for a ticket capable of restoring hope.

~David Morris~

CNN Debate - Non-Issues Drag Down Perry

2011-09-13T18:44:00.000-07:00

During the CNN debate last night, much hoop-la was made about Governor Perry signing an executive order to mandate vaccination against STD for teenage girls. Though he apologizes for his methodology, I believe the way he handles the response successfully lead to his embarrassment among his rivals, among whom Micheal Backmann gained the most.

He also allowed himself to be embarrassed on his stance on those wishing to seek citizenship while in study. My inner libertarian found this stance appealing, but my inner conservative shook his head on how Perry lost the initiative on the framing battle. He should have made mention of how it was a LEGAL path that he implemented intended for guest workers with Green Cards. He should have emphasized that as Governor of Texas, he understood that there was a fine line between being anti-ILLEGAL immigration, and simply being anti-immigration. From this position of strength, he could turned the issue back on his rivals on whether they understood the difference.

For all the stumbling Perry made, I could not help that these attempts to pull him down were based on non-issues. Personally, I took somewhat of a liking to Perry for having the courage to call our current entitlements the Ponsi Scheme that it is. In order to get rid of the 800 pound gorilla in the room, acknowledging is presence is necessarily the first step towards removing it. And ultimately, it takes a president to lead on this. With the nation in a crisis mentality, now has never been a more perfect opportunity to educate the nation on the issue, especially considering evidence that the people are becoming ever wary of the program's condition.

Rommey's insistence on sticking to the tried and true framing methods of social security however was discouraging, for it brings doubts as to whether he would take the steps to seriously address the entitlement crisis. Somehow, I find myself drawn to the case of Perry the more that establishment republicans refuse to show a courageous commitment to addressing all of the nation's entitlement woes, not just simply Obamacare.

~David Morris~

2011-09-09T15:57:00.000-07:00

I bumped into an old friend of mine as I paid a visit to my university today.

Being in the bubble of campus life, he was surprised to learn that Obama had fallen so utterly in favor lately, and inquired on how this has happened. Let us informally count just some of the ways shall we?

-He is the first to see a credit downgrading of the USA.
-He has quadrupled down on failed stimuli after failed stimuli.
-The American people now owe $50,000 in debt for every man woman and child.
-He shoved an unconstitutional healthcare reform that threatens to exacerbate that industries cost issues.
-Demagog rhetoric has increased despite his promises to make the discourse more "civil."

-Unemployment remains at 9%. With underemployment, 18%. After you account for the shrunken labor market. Without such accounting, the unemployment rate would hang at 10% (underemployment 20%).
-His departments and regulations harass the people who create jobs and wealth.
-Unions are the only ones he apparently cares for.
-He fails repeatedly to negotiate even moderately to the center.
-He shows no empathy given his lavish vacations and stunts such as the death star bus.
-He diminishes the office with unpresidential ploys such as directly blaming the opposition, fear-mongering calls for real reforms, and calling joint sessions that are but campaign speeches.

And the big one: People are simply terrified for the future of this nation. Thanks to him.

~David Morris~

My Job Creation is Bigger Than Your Job Creation

2011-09-07T17:15:00.001-07:00

During the RNC debate, there was a bit of a spat where candidates took shots at each other over who had the bigger job growth percentage.

Either way, so long as its better than Obama's, I'm liking what I'm seeing from these candidates.

~David Morris~

Low Congressional Approval Numbers. What Else Is New?

2011-09-06T17:19:00.001-07:00

As Obama's approval numbers crumbles to newer levels of low, those who'd front for the president lament in the knowledge that he is electable no longer. Some attempt to take solace however, in citing the historically low approval of Congress as well. Perhaps this a sign that opponents will be seen as equally undesirable; that a glimmer of reelection hope would yet remain upon a level-field of equally dispersed scorn.

There is are fallacies within this retreat however.

Problem #1: Congress is a multi-headed hydra.
-Ask say, a Missourian what he thinks of "congress" and he'll likely tell you that he disapproves. Ask him what he thinks of HIS congressman and you might get a completely different answer.

Problem #2: Only constituents matter.
-Individual congressman don't need to worry about what the entire nation thinks of them. As such, congressional approval has varying degrees of relevance based on the one's area of their district.

Problem #3: Its much less visible compared to executive elections.
-Unlike the president, whose every move is tracked and every multi-issue approval rating is daily documented, for the hydra that is congress, data on the approval of a specific member is difficult to track unless he's been making headlines as of late. Even then, these approvals take the nation into account as well, a repeat of same flaw of Problem #2.

Take this relatively recent poll on Paul Ryan for instance. Bear in mind, most congressmen are not tracked at all.

Congress has always possessed relatively low approval ratings as an entire entity due to such issues. Therefore, a clear understanding of the entity is generally on display only at around election time, when a map detailing the race of specific districts is on display, creating a clearer picture over who is in politcAL safety and who is at risk.

Unfortunately, such maps are scarcely maintained afterwords in a manner that enables us to tell for whom congress' approval is a particularly bad omen. Citing the approval of Congress, an entity with 535 differing people composed of it, therefore holds 535 differing cases of electoral correlation. If you are Barny Frank (who won his 2008 re-election 52 to 43%), the approval of the congress may mean little to you. If you hailed from a contestable area district, then perhaps it would correlate with your elective outlook.

One thing is for certain however:. The congressional rating tells nothing of the Presidential election. His ratings on the other hand, do. And right now, were the election today, Obama would lose. Simple as that.

There is no solace in blaming Congress.

~David Morris~

Republican Debate:The Return of Gringrich Relevance?

2011-08-12T01:49:00.001-07:00

Nearly everyone "won" during the Iowa Caucus debates last night. However, if I had to give my top three picks, I'd say that Rommey, Cain, and especially Newt Gringrich came out on top.

Gringrich was an especial surprise given the "fight the press" offensive style he took, and clearly established himself as the one not only with the most ideas, but the specifics on how to pass his ideas. It was almost "Chris Cristici-ish" how he conducted himself in that debate: as a fighter with the know-how and no-prisoners attitude to get things done.

Rommey and Cain lived up to expectations, coming off as the most presidential with their clear messaging and allusions to executive experience. Rommey's compliments to Cain himself as a fellow executive also elevated both. Nonetheless, I opine that Cain could have gone even further had the debate shifted in a manner that would have enabled him to relate his background specifically to the questioning.

Overall, it was a night of excellent ideas that sharply contrast to the failed presidential administration we deal with now. If one candidate elevated himself the most however, I would give it to the conviction of Gringrich.

~David Morris~

Obama Economy Facts

2011-07-15T01:00:00.000-07:00

I stumble upon the following post recently. It makes a cutting point worth remembering.

Obama Economy Facts

~David Morris~

Memos in Pressured Writing

2011-07-13T15:27:00.000-07:00

Lately, my final graduate course drills me in the art of writing policy memos.

Being timed, I maintain these samples unedited or touched up, for to do so would defeat the purpose of such exercises.

The following I am particularly proud of:

--

One page limit, under the fictional premise that I am a staffer of Paul Ryan (R-WI). The phone suddenly rings. Its Ryan himself, requesting a snap memo in response to a recently published research document challenging his block grant proposal. I must summarize and recommend on how to counter-argue. He's due on television in one hour.

I have 30 minutes to respond.

Link #1 - Regarding Medicaid Counter Arguments

--

One page limit, under the fictional premise that I am a staffer of Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He has skimmed Chairman Kent Conrad's (D-ND) March 9, 2011 opening statement on elements for tax reform and expenditures. He requests a critique of the statement and a recommendation of whether he should support or oppose the position of Senator Conrad.

I have 30 minutes to respond.

Link #2 - Regarding the stance of a opposing party Senator.

--

Four pages, under the fictional premise that I work for Reince Priebus, Chairman of the RNC. With the 2012 campaign under draft, I'm requested of a short memo on how to treat the issue of Paul Ryan's proposal for Medicare.

One week time limit.

Link #3 - Regarding Ryancare Strategery

~David Morris~

Same Old Song; Hard New Tunes

2011-06-27T18:15:00.000-07:00

To resolve our current budget problems, some amongst the democrat elite have desperately exposed tax rates as high as 70%.

The main problem with the tired old song of simply "raising taxes" is that our debt is quickly exceeding our revenues. To review, U.S. GDP currently stands a approximately $14.4 trillion, with the U.S. Government receiving ~$2.2 trillion of this via taxes. At 14.7% of GDP, these revenues are the second lowest as of 1950. Spending however, is expected at ~$3.7 trillion for FY2011, resulting in a deficit of $1.71 trillion that must be borrowed to pay for other services. With such exploding deficits as of late, our total National Debt quickly grows beyond 70% of GDP.

Simply "raising taxes" out of this fiscal hole remains the primary mantra of Democrats. However, even with a 100% tax rate effective immediately, current spending levels would continue to push us towards crisis. The following video illustrates:

~~

It is clear that prior to any talks of raising taxes rates (supposedly in order to raise revenues), spending cuts are required. Now the subject of intense negotiation amongst leaders within the Democrat and Republican parties, the primary political caveat however, is that outside potential reductions in military spending, the details of such cuts are to be quite painful for all sides. Particularly in regards to entitlement spending.

To better one's understanding of why our crisis shall require hard decisions, try your own hand at returning the United States back to solvency here, via a simulator brought to us by the Committee for a Responsible Budget.

~David Morris~

House Courage Under Crisis

2011-06-27T16:53:00.000-07:00

It is admirable that House Republicans are displaying backbone concerning the negotiation of a credible plan to cut our deficit.

How did we come to this current standoff in Washington? It begins earlier in March, as Representative Paul Ryan(R) authors a serious challenge to democrat spending policies with his "Roadmap for America's Future," now adopted as the official House Budget Proposal for FY2011. In a display of leadership, President Obama then punts to Vice-President Joe Biden in developing a democrat counter-proposal to this so called "Ryan Plan," due by this month of June. Unsurprisingly, this counter-proposal essentially amounts to "raise taxes on the rich" as the principle solution to the crisis. In negotiating with Biden's committee last week, House Republicans staunchly rejected their recommendations in the face of looming concerns regarding the debt limit of the U.S. Government. With little time left on the clock, tonight the punter-in-chief will have no option other than to directly negotiate with the Senate Majority and Minority leader.

A test of leadership is upon Obama. Will he demonstrate true bipartisanship by negotiating a plan that House Republicans can support? Failure to do so not only further undercuts his electoral chances, but brings us closer towards failure in the acquisition of House authorization in raising the debt limit. To fail in raising this limit would lead to a default by the federal government, forcing a crisis of austerity measures upon the American people.

With so much at stake both politically and economically, House Republicans continue to hold position regarding debt limit authorization, demanding first from democrats serious measures to reduce spending levels. This decision to risk government default is not easy for the GOP. Without a true plan to reduce our deficit however, it nonetheless remains the courageous and responsible choice. May they continue to demonstrate such spine for the good of the republic.

~David Morris~

Mitt Romney the Frontrunner?

2011-05-17T23:49:00.000-07:00

According to our media, that is the case.

That makes no sense.

Here is why.

~David Morris~

Welp, we can give Obama Credit. Applauds to USAF.

2011-05-02T14:18:00.000-07:00

Last night, I, like most of America, was pleasantly surprised to learn that they finally found Osama bin Laden and delivered closure to the tragedy of 9/11 by means of a bullet to the head.

I applaud the careful approach the military took in patiently piecing the intelligence together concerning the infamous Saudi's location. Most of all, I applaud the manner by which they decided to strike.

Reportedly, there were several options for staging their assault, options that could've included airstrike, or raiding to capture rather than kill, and whether to communicate our intent with local allies. Instead, Obama took what I agree was the best course of action: Sending in the Navy Seals unannounced to the Pakistani officials in order to personally deliver his neutralization and capture his resistless shell for U.S. custody, in order to provide true verification that indeed, the shadow of bin Laden was dispelled.

Burial "at sea" (with the exact coordinates unknown) in accordance to Islamic values was also a excellent strategic maneuver. Islamic Extremists would no doubt spin the death of bin Laden as a recruiting tool regardless of how we struck. A physical burial site, combined with the notion that he was buried under the "barbarous" ways of western infidels would've added potency to this inevitable propaganda. Potency that is otherwise mitigated.

Overall, I'll concur that Obama did the correct thing in how the raid was handled. A simple airstrike would have been framed as cowardly by our enemies, risked the escape of bin Laden (adding to his mythos), and had it slain him we would've lacked verifiable evidence, leaving America feeling somewhat less satisfied. By having boots on the ground, this raid once eventually declassified will be documehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnted as one of the most celebrated examples of a successful military operation in our modern history, adding greater mythos of the expertise of the American military compared to aerial strike. There is an extra element of relief for the public in knowing that that his death at American hands was truly hand-delivered.

For once, Obama inarguably did right by the country. Pity this seems to be the exception and not the rule. If only he could make it a habit to be favorably decisive.

With new found closure over the threat of Public Enemy #1, hopefully we can resume work on addressing the current greatest threat to our national security. Were only Obama able to tackle that one with similar competence. Unfortunately, he's seems content to vote "present."

~David Morris~

What lunacy be this?

2011-04-20T21:33:00.000-07:00

Truly, what nonsense be this?

The answer, is that its the type of nonsense now in charge of our government, and I postulate that the majority of Americans do not agree with the impact of policies born of this sadly defunct mindset. The following quote comes to mind as part of my response to this advertisement:

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." --Thomas Jefferson.

Clearly, vigilance was meant against those such as these. Those who are woefully misguided on the basics of economics, conned into believing that life was better and somehow more "moral" prior to the advent of that terrible system called capitalism, and that the forced destruction of said system would improve the quality of life for all. Alas, if only we could flip a switch and return to the tribal days. Or at least our feudal era. Ah nostalgia.

Not that such archaic systems could support our population, meaning that many of these young people shown above would not have been given the opportunity to even in the absence our modern free societies. The possibilities created by the post industrial system have proven to be boundless over the past few centuries, but without proper education they nonetheless go unappreciated. Explaining how lunacy such as that witness'd above can be feasible. Bringing to mind another widely cited quote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."--Edmond Burke

Education. That is the key. In this time of tumult and crisis, those who believe in freedom cannot afford to remain silent. It is the only manner by which we can hope to stop the damage caused by those who have been ill educated on why the modern era is the best in history, and why their ideas are a regress towards depressing conditions.

For the greatest depression the world has ever known, was not the one in the 1930s that lasted for 15 years. Nigh, its the one that lasted for 10,000 years. The depression that was the pre-industrial world.

~David Morris~

Chris Christi: Leadership Towards National Solvency

2011-02-16T12:17:00.001-08:00

I was able to get a front row seat at AEI today, as Chris Christi delivered a speech on fiscal discipline. He essentially articulated of the achievements obtained by means of holding fast on conservative policy without fear of "public backlash" on doing the right thing, and the need to extend such principals of leadership to the federal level.

Most memorable to me shall be the Q&A session, considering that I was able to personally ask him a question. My query pertained to the notion that before the third rail is to be de-electrified, some republicans argue the need to target "low hanging fruit" first. To win so called "symbolic" victories before public opinion can permit the green light on reforming the true threats of insolvency found in entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.

As I had hoped, Christi's response was one of optimism that the political game had indeed changed, and with it, the time has now come to throw away the old playbook. When he first started his job, he too was told that his approval ratings would be punished for the bold decision of "talking to people like adults" regarding their government expectations; to explain to constituents that they've been lied to and deceived all these years, and that the time to climb out of the finiacial hole shall be rough but fully necessary. Such honest tactic has rewarded him according to Christi (who now enjoys a 54% approval rating), such courage is working for Andrew Quomo in his backyard of the state of New York (enjoying a 77% approval with a platform that mirror's Christi's), and such courage will work on the national stage.

To this particular concerned citizen, the account was a shot of optimism. At last a politician no longer looking to make excuses. It is well known that there isn't much "low hanging fruit" out there in the form of earmarks to begin with, and for many who voted for fiscal discipline in 2010, a fear remains that "spending cuts" will once again amount to nothing more than inconsequential trimmings.

To paraphrase Christi's theme on the topic of fighting the necessary battle, we must understand that people will feel lied to and decieved as we explain the bad news regarding beloved programs. They will initially boo and jeer at the messenger. As leaders for financial solvency, it is up to us to explain that they have every right to feel that way, considering they've been lied to and decieved by generations of politicians. It must be explained that we who are the first to be telling people the truth. Do that, and such courage shall be rewarded.

Were only there were more politicians out there willing to take the risk of leadership that our impending crisis requires. Time shall tell of those who were willing to answer the Governor's call.

~David Morris~

Partisanship at every level.

2011-01-28T16:45:00.000-08:00

The Finiacial Crisis panel issued its analysis today on the roots of the Great Recession. Unsuprisingly, given the deadpaned theme of rulership that has come to be associated with this administration, it was found biased heavily towards the left.

~David Morris~

QE2 Expansion: Explained With Puppies To Ease the Shock

2010-11-16T17:27:00.000-08:00

More refreshing news to make you feel outright chipper about the future!

[Warning: The previous sentence is sarcasm.]

~David Morris~

State Legislators. Don't count them out.

2010-11-05T15:51:00.000-07:00

One thing being under-reported in the post election aftermath is the number of state legislators that have gone republican. As of the 2010 election, 34 State Legislators are now of the GOP, more than they've ever had since the 1920's.

This is extremely significant for a number of reasons beyond the simple short term. Of course, the greatest stab in the heart for democrats lies on how these losses occured with the worst possible political timing. The fact that this landslide occurred on a census year could have Democrats in the wilderness for yet another decade.

Then you consider that consider that it takes 36 State Legislators to pass a Constitutional Amendment...

~David Morris~

The Failed 2010 Election Mantra of the Democrats

2010-11-02T12:31:00.000-07:00

The day of the 2010 election arrives.

Remember, Democrats would like to remind voters that it was the failed policies of Bush that got us into this mess, and that we should stick with them in order to get us out of it.

Yet this raises an interesting counter question. Accepting their premise of "the failed Bush policies of the past" one has to ask, where were these oh-so-trustworthy career politicians in stopping these "failed policies?"

Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and many others were there for decades. They could have been able to stop these so called failed policies. Yet evidently, they stood on the sidelines and allegedly let Bush bully them into enacting such failed economic policies such as...I'm not quite sure (democrats never seem to specify what Bush did that's directly correlated to the recession).

They were there to witness it though, even if they did nothing! So for that reason alone, we the people should send them back to Washington, where they can sit around and do nothing about the failed policies of Obama.

Such is the electoral message of the Democrats this day. Is it any wonder why so many choose to stay home?

~David Morris~

Both Sides to Find Their Parties' Pooped

2010-09-13T17:05:00.000-07:00

Ever since the era of the Great Depression, from 1930 to 1992, democrats had been an unshakable force that could not be moved as far as the House of Representatives is concerned. Only following the politically transformative presidency of Ronald Reagen would republicans ever again experience control over the House. Now, having been ousted already in 2006, democrats apparently presumed that they could solidify in the House for generations once more in following the wave of anti-Bush sentiment and a promised to be transformative presidency of Barack Obama, who would shift the nation left in the same manner that Reagan shifted it to the right.

However, as we grow closer to the November elections polling data over the generic ballot indicates republican advantages for the first time in decades. What went wrong?

Legitimacy. For the United States Federal Government to remain legitimate, the people must feel that they have a say in the process of policy. Given the present crisis, people no longer feel that either party in Washington listens to them, with elitist arrogance on the left, and attitudes of cowing to that very elitists on the right.

With this lost of hope in the government's capacity to listen, fear for their personal liberty and those of their children appears to be a prime force of motivation for formally apolitical independents now as tea partiers. 2010 shall not be remembered as the normal election year of "who can bring home the bacon." Given the wake of the stimilus, healthcare, cap and trade and government takeovers, for most people its about saving the entire country as a whole

This year all are witnessing the power of the tea party movement as people grow motivated through frustration with tone deaf government. New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts appears to be only the beginning. The traditional GOP finds itself no exception to being shocked as well, as a list of Tea Party endorsed candidates continues to upset establishment candidates.

Rand Paul in Kentucky, winning his primary by 10 points. Tea Party endorsed.
Angle in Nevada, 5 points above Reed. Tea Party endorsed.

Then there is O'Donnell of Delaware. With but little funding and a Sarah Palin endorsement, she defeats the establishment GOP candidate Mike Castle, whose primary was well funded over a million. Castle had held his seat for 12 elections despite his RINO (republican in name only) tendencies, and had the full backing of the GOP as they took a haughty attitude to the Tea Party endorsed underdog. A RINO voting record such as Castle would not hold in this climate of anger however and responses such as the above on whether he'd repeal healthcare no doubt sealing his fate.

As O'Donnell won her primary on the 14th of September, we nonetheless saw an insightful response from the RNC. Before she could even accept her nomination formally, an alleged statement by republican aides to Fox News is made claiming that she would not receive party support. Meanwhile, top republican analysts such as Karl Rove would react with scathing pessimism on her electability, adding fuel to the fire of resentment for the republican establishment.

Naturally, the backlash against such attitudes causes the RNC to retract and deny such pessimism on O'Donnell as we move forward. It is nonetheless telling from this episode that "moderation" as usual will be unacceptable for the GOP. The hostile takeover of the republican party by people who read their constitutions appears to have begun.

~David Morris~

2010-09-03T08:10:00.000-07:00

Honor and values proved to be the main theme of Glenn Beck's speech on the Lincoln Memorial last saturday. This blogger happened to have the opportunity to attend and found the event and found the rhetoric to be quite refreshing from the usual firebranding of today's politics. Rather than be a political pep rally, Mr. Beck, along with such speakers as Aveda King (the niece of the late Dr. King Jr.) focused their subject on topics that stand the test of time in terms of relevance, rather than on short-term political campaigning.

The mall was jam packed with people from all across the nation. Black speakers and singers also were center stage of the event, along with other black conservatives on the steps of MLK. Regardless of how one may wish to look at the racial composition, the message was one that was distinctly American and evangelist in its theme. No mentioning of Democrats or Republicans was uttered, as American traditional values of were of top focus.

~David Morris~

BP Oil Explosion: The Sequel.

2010-09-02T09:55:00.000-07:00

Another BP Oil Rig Explosion. Owned by BP.

I wonder what makes BP so special? At least no one was hurt this time.

Again which begs the question, why aren't we drilling on land, here in the good 'ol western hemisphere.

~David Morris~

Tea Parties and the Mosque: Where is the Force?

2010-08-24T06:55:00.000-07:00

Concerning the mosque controversy, some liberals and libertarians out there wish to demonize and/or chastise anyone who protests the mosque on the grounds that they are bigoted against freedom of religion. The mosque doesn't affect them they say, and true freedom lovers would get up in arms supporting the building.

Personally, I don't care whether this mosque gets built. If they have the local property right on that lot with the proper legal zoning permits and funding, then they may construct what they wish there.

At the same time however, I personally don't care if a bunch of so-called "bigots" as defined by mosque supporters gets uppity about it and protests. They have a right to be offended and speak their mind about a mosque that doesn't directly affect them. There is only one litmus test I have for the mosque protesters: Is there any kind of force involved?

Its not coercion until force enters the equation, be it direct physical violence or the implied threat thereof via legal interference. If Tea Parties manage to shut the mosque down via bad publicity alone, so be it. If they fail, so be it. Until they get violent, I am in complete respect to their enumerated rights of assembly and speech.

~David Morris~

The Case for a Pentagon Watchdog

2010-08-19T08:55:00.000-07:00

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that is vulnerable to being labeled as "anti-military."

To clear the record, libertarians are very pro-defense in many the same ways as conservatives. They are not a strawman of weak-kneed commie pinko appeaser hippie pacifist types.

The thing with libertarianism is that its consistently anti-horsecrap when it comes to the government; even moreso than vanilla conservatism supposedly is. The military - God Bless the men and women in uniform - is still a part of the government. My father has retired career officers for friends, and they truthfully inform us that the higher in rank one goes, the more inefficient bureaucracy you will start to observe, particularly in the Pentagon.

Its not that libertarians are anti-military. Not at all. They are consistently anti-bureaucracy, and unlike straw conservatism, the Pentagon is not given a special pass. Here are some examples that make a case for why one should pay attention to big government. Even to one of the few arms conceded in having a justifiable existence.

---
Boeing YAL-1

Projected Research Cost: 60 Billion.
Real Research Cost: 9 years overdue and $4 billion over-budget.

Cost per Unit: $700 Million+

Operating Costs: 92,000 per hour.
----

A laser on a plane? With the sole purpose to shoot down missiles? At the cost of nearly 4 F-22s? Is there nothing better to do with that kind of money? More successful concepts of pilot training it can go towards?

Here are further samplings of how even the Pentagon proves to still be a Washington bureaucracy.

I have a sister in the Navy. I have a cousin in the Marine Corps. I'm proud of them. I do not have to be proud of their upper management accountants however.

~David Morris~

Job well done

2010-08-19T07:23:00.000-07:00

Good job to the men and women of the United States Military.

It is in their hands now. We can only pray that they do not reject the opportunity of liberty America has given the Iraqi people. It was a rather expensive (in more ways than one) act of humanitarian aid.

~David Morris~

2010-08-12T11:23:00.000-07:00

Awhile back, I asked if there was a single issue on which Obama stands with the vast majority of Americans.

Well, according to Gallup, it looks like I have have my answer for now.

At least he's good at racial relations. 52%. Touche and Bravo Mr. President.

~David Morris~

2010-08-11T11:34:00.000-07:00

Concerning the Proposition 8 annulment by Judge Walker, I must say that I have a fascinating amount of mixed feelings within me, considering that part of me is conservative, while part of me is libertarian.

I've always reconciled any differences by preferring that civil issues be principally settled by the 10 Amendment of the Constitution; that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I don't like the government slinking around in controversial moral gray areas such as abortion, religious practices, or gay marriage. Hence, my first reaction to the California decision knee-jerked towards the fear that my favorite amendment had been usurped in a classic case of liberal judicial activism. In gaining some context however, I learn that Judge Walker is in fact more of a libertarian persuasion (appointed by Ronald Reagen in fact). To my surprise, what I find instead of a argument rooted in pseudo-psychology notions of fairness, is indeed a logical, valid and truly compelling argument that grounded in the Constitution of the United States, namely, the equal protection of under the 14th.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

After some research however, I've come to learn of where this argument of equal protection comes from as I better understand that what the conservative in me has long pondered: why are civil unions considered unsatisfactory for homosexuals. As it turns out, a civil union is not treated by the Federal Government in the same manner that a full marriage license is.

So I can somewhat see where the judge is coming from. Nonetheless, the lingering sense of distrust over a court taking sides in the debate still permeates, as I am sure it does for many constitutional conservatives in the nation.

~David Morris~

Another Tone Deaf Vacation

2010-08-10T10:55:00.000-07:00

No surprise. After all, they do conduct themselves as though they were our rulers. Here is yet the latest example of the Obama's rendering themselves as unrelatable to the rest of the nation.

Seriously though, how many vacations do these people need? There was the Chicago vacation incident. The Air Force One over the Stature of Liberty incident. All the golf that was played while the gulf was spilling oil. It appears that these decisions to go play while the nation is in pain is made without any consideration for political capital.

~David Morris~

An EXCELLENT resource for Comparitive Obama Progress.

2010-08-04T08:05:00.000-07:00

Discovered this wonderfully convenient flash by the good people at Gallup that enables you to compare each president's historical data in job approval, on a day by day basis. Very useful in allowing you to compare Obama to other presidents. Or any president to any other president, all the way back to Truman.

~David Morris~

Just how more corrupt can this congress get?

2010-08-02T10:53:00.001-07:00

So, not only is Rangel on the ropes for his tax evasion, Maxine Waters also finds her feet to the fire on charges of swindling bailout funds in a manner that was biased towards assisting her husband.

Is it only just these two that are in trouble however? I would like to get further into the potential ethics problems of the democrats right now, if not short for time. Needless to say, I cannot imagine a more corrupt time for congress.

~David Morris~

Unpresidential President Indeed

2010-07-30T13:55:00.000-07:00

The view huh? Mr. Obama, you're going on the View as president of the United States to discuss what exactly?

...

I fear that "..." is sadly all that was truly discussed. There was nothing of substance. Why this medium, no one can answer.

It is very belittling of himself. That's all anyone seems to know.

~David Morris~

Great Myths of the Great Depression

2010-07-28T07:22:00.000-07:00

Great Myths on the Great Depression.

Sigh. 90% taxes. Just to name a few as a preview.

~David Morris~

GOP Youth Convention - A personal case study for proper framing.

2010-07-27T10:28:00.000-07:00

Along with some of my other libertarian co-workers, I attended a GOP Youth Convention. The mission was to design an official party agenda on a variety of issues from the perspective of young people. The process involved splitting us into subcommittees (such as economics, foreign policy, etc) where we'd draft an proposed stance on a specific topic. We would then vote on the wordings of our drafts before making such stances official. Participates could make calls to reword the stance if found disagreeable, and we would hence vote on the alternative proposal.

While much of the economic and health care issues were agreeable, nominally, libertarians and conservatives are capable of disagreement when it comes to immigration, defense spending, and certain other social issues. With three libertarians in the crowd (including one who was particularly eager), most of the deadlock took place here.

Specifically, on immigration and gay marriage. It appeared that one of my co-workers was unintentionally stirring a hornet nest in the manner she made her proposals on such issues, leading her be be labeled as a "democrat spy" by certain individuals who found her disagreeable.

I recall the deadlock on the definition of marriage in particular. Singularly it appeared, my co-worker was advocating against the original proposal of the societal subcommittee of simply pre-defining marriage as between a man and a woman. However, her framing had more of an appeal tailored to civil liberals and proved agitating to many. As temperaments flared, I quietly thought of means to reword the manner in a way that everyone could be satisfied with.

It is here that I was thankful for heeding some of the lessons learned at Cato in regards to relating to one's audience. I've always believed libertarians can create more common ground with conservatives than not, if they are mindful of proper framing. Recalling the Ransberger Pivot, I employed it in a manner that was able to end the deadlock by making an appeal to the constitution, a document that everyone in the room could appreciate. In the end, rather than stand for federal involvement on marriage, I subtly took things in a direction of allowing the 10th Amendment to settle the issue.

It was nice to play peacemaker.

~David Morris~

Mosque across Ground Zero. Oh well. Can I have a cross then?

2010-07-23T06:51:00.001-07:00

Response to this article at Washington Examiner.

I'm a Christian libertarian with traditional values. Sure, I can claim mixed feelings on the controversy of a mega-mosque on Ground Zero.

However, unless there's some hidden form of legal foul play, I can't really care enough to be up in arms about it. I understand after all, that Islam is composed of different denominations just as Christianity is. Its not as if al Qaeda is funding this. Again, I don't necessarily endorse the mosque. I would still appreciate it were they not to build the mosque.

I would also appreciate it if someone gave me a quarter right about now. Oh well, its no big deal if I don't get what I want on this one. This is a red herring to more important things.

Besides, I perceive no true threat to my religious freedom on account of this Islamic building anyway. Nay, that remains the purview of ignorantly intolerant anti-Christian activists, who oft speak of "separation of church and state" as though the term "state" was synonymous with "public display."

So how about the following compromise?

Muslims get their mosque across the street of ground zero, and Christians get to put a cross or religious plaque somewhere ON ground zero. That is, whenever they decide to put something there.

Nah, that's probably attract the ACLU.

~David Morris~

Debt Metaphors To the Moon.

2010-07-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

I decided to go hunting for some debt metaphors today. Imagine the engineering achievements would could obtain!
---

Big numbers: As a point of reference, if 11.4 trillion $1 bills were stacked on top of each other, they would stretch all the way to the moon. And back. And over halfway to the moon again. Put another way, if you brought $1-trillion in crisp one-dollar bills to the bank and you handed the teller a dollar every second, it would take 32,000 years to completely transfer the money. [source]

---

23.5 Trillion Dollars Is 23.5 Football Fields Stacked 2 Stories Deep With Packed $100 Bills: That’s the Size of USA Federal Debt. [source]

---

If you had a nice neat stack of $100 bills 40 inches high, you would have a million dollars.

A billion dollars is a thousand million. If you could keep it from falling over, a billion dollars in $100 bills all in one stack or on one helluva spindle would be more than 300 stories high. More than three Sears Towers stacked one on top of the other. It would be 3,333 feet high, a hazard to air traffic requiring beacons flashing day and night.

The amount that the Bush administration borrowed from investors last month, October 2002, was ironically 33.3 times as much as the above and if stacked all together in $100 bills would reach 21 miles into space. That's not feet or inches, but 21 statute miles of 5,280 feet to the mile.

And that's not all. The Bush administration ran up the entitlement side of the national debt another $20.9 billion which means that the total national debt went up $54.3 billion last month, October 2002. Now, our monthly stack of $100 bills would reach 34.2 miles into space. And that's only what your government added to the tab in one month.

If you took the entire national debt and it was possible to stack it neatly in $100 bills, that stack would extend 3,966 miles into space. "One of these days Alice, to the moon."

If our hypothetical spindle was based in New York City and it fell to the east, we could have a narrow bridge across the Atlantic to Berlin. If it fell to the west, the top would land more than 900 miles offshore from San Francisco in the Pacific.

From another direction.

If you set aside $7 million a day from the birth of Christ, from the beginning of the Gregorian calendar 2,002 years ago, you would be able to pay off the national debt by November of the year 2458. That's only 456 years from now. Of course, right now the national debt would have to stop going up.

There are nitwits who tell us that the United States can easily afford a debt of this size because our Gross Domestic Product is more than $10 trillion a year. At $6.3 trillion, the national debt is only about 60 percent of the GDP.

The implication here is that all we have to do is stop spending money for six or seven months of the year, send everything we make to the government, and everything will be hunky dory. It really means we would all be dead in a matter of weeks.

Don't buy medicine. Don't buy gasoline or groceries. Don't go to Starbucks or McDonald's. Of course, there wouldn't be anybody there anyway because they would all be doing the same thing. How long do you think you could last that way, even if we didn't start killing each other over what's left on the shelves?

We all know what the sensible solution is. Set up a payment plan within our means.

Unfortunately, the most we've ever paid against the national debt was $230 billion in fiscal 2000 and that wasn't enough to keep the debt from going up another $18 billion that year due to interest and the theft of entitlement surpluses.

If you go to any mortgage lender or any of the plug-in mortgage models on the Internet, you will find that paying off the national debt in anything less than 50 years requires annual payments of at least $350 billion a year. And that's with interest as low as 5 percent.

However.

There is one thing we could do that would be of benefit to all of us. We could get rid of the bogus bonds that our crooked government has awarded us while they played a con game called "borrowing" entitlement money—actually stealing our surplus Social Security, Medicare, gas taxes, and other excessive overpayments.

We don't need these phony securities. The entire "Intragovernmental Holdings" side of the national debt, currently standing at $2.7 trillion, is fraudulent. Worse than anything Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossings, Arthur Andersen, or any of the corporations under investigation by the Justice Department and SEC have done.

Wipe that fraudulent $2.7 trillion from the crooked books and we've only got $3.6 trillion in honest debt to investors to pay off.

We would all be better off if the crooks had the integrity to simply take the money and run in the first place instead of tricking us with their double taxation scam.
[source]

---

~David Morris~

Conservatives vs Libertarians. Solution? The Limbaugh Libertarian Virus.

2010-07-20T11:10:00.001-07:00

Original respons to this article over whether conservatism is to be considered a "dirty word."

---

I think this sounds like an interesting strategy for converting liberals.

Do not break away from conservatives when it comes to dealing with conservatives. The neoconservative brand of Bush is dead most certainly. Its just as dead as Nixon. But the Reagan conservative brand is still very much alive. It is not to be forsaken on the grounds of a single heretic.

So I suppose when dealing with liberals, start the process on social issues and teach them about economics. Bam, a new libertarian. If dealing with conservatives, teach them about the 9th and 10th amendment. Bam, new libertarian.

It all really depends on your audience.

As a movement though, like it or not, the first pure-strain libertarian president will be a republican. I hear you out until you get to a point of speaking of third parties. I don't know of Palin's model. I don't trust Hannity's blueprint. However, I am continually fascinated by Limbaugh as I screen him for anti-liberty gaffes. For when you listen, it is soon apparent that he's a "conservative" with a libertarian infection.

Could his libertarian substitute hosts have a hand in this? We need to repeat what I shall henceforth deem the "Limbaugh libertarian virus" for all the other conservatives and hijack their party.

Ah yes. Another caveat we must be aware of is that not everything associated with "liberal" is necessarily socially tolerant.

Fairness Doctrine, affirmative action, jealously guarded ban on alternatives to evolution, infringement on the *private* right to associate and disassociate, hostility to public displays (not state displays, but public displays by private citizens) specifically of Christianity, etc. One should take care in broadly painting contemporary liberalism as socially untainted.

Certainly, libertarians call for a secular government. Many "liberals" however are known for going further in calling for a forcefully secular culture. Just a word of warning.

The 9th and 10th Amendment is the key. Be we educating liberals or conservatives, our message must provide that people have the right to associate with those who hold their beliefs. Federalism.

~David Morris~

On the Ground View of Afganistan.

2010-07-20T08:27:00.000-07:00

---
From a Recon Marine in Afghanistan

From the Sand Pit it's freezing here. I'm sitting on hard, cold dirt between rocks and shrubs at the base of the Hindu Kush Mountains , along the Dar 'yoi Pomir River , watching a hole that leads to a tunnel that leads to a cave. Stake out, my friend, and no pizza delivery for thousands of miles.
I also glance at the area around my buns every ten to fifteen seconds to avoid another scorpion sting. I've actually given up battling the chiggers and sand fleas, but the scorpions give a jolt like a cattle prod. Hurts like a bastard. The antidote tastes like transmission fluid, but God bless the Marine Corps for the five vials of it in my pack.
The one truth the Taliban cannot escape is that, believe it or not, they are human beings, which means they have to eat food and drink water. That requires couriers and that's where an old bounty hunter like me comes in handy. I track the couriers, locate the tunnel entrances and storage facilities, type the info into the handheld, shoot the coordinates up to the satellite link that tells the air commanders where to drop the hardware. We bash some heads for a while, then I track and record the new movement.
It's all about intelligence. We haven't even brought in the snipers yet. These scurrying rats have no idea what they're in for. We are but days away from cutting off supply lines and allowing the eradication to begin.
I dream of bin Laden waking up to find me standing over him with my boot on his throat as I spit into his face and plunge my nickel-plated Bowie knife through his frontal lobe. But you know me, I'm a romantic. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Afghanistan blows, man. It's not even a country. There are no roads, there's no infrastructure, there's no government. This is an inhospitable, rock pit ruled by eleventh century warring tribes. There are no jobs here like we know jobs.

Afghanistan offers two ways for a man to support his family: join the opium trade or join the army. That's it. Those are your options. Oh, I forgot, you can also live in a refugee camp and eat plum-sweetened, crushed beetle paste and squirt mud like a goose with stomach flu, if that's your idea of a party. But the smell alone of those 'tent cities of the walking dead' is enough to hurl you into the poppy fields to cheerfully scrape bulbs for eighteen hours a day.

I've been living with these Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Turkmen and even a couple of Pushtuns, for over a month-and-a-half now, and this much I can say for sure: These guys, all of 'em, are Huns... actual, living Huns. They LIVE to fight. It's what they do. It's ALL they do. They have no respect for anything, not for their families, nor for each other, nor for themselves. They claw at one another as a way of life. They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into human cockfights to defend the family honor. Huns, roaming packs of savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other's barbarism. Cavemen with AK-47's. Then again, maybe I'm just cranky.

I'm freezing my buns off on this stupid hill because my lap warmer is running out of juice, and I can't recharge it until the sun comes up in a few hours. Oh yeah! You like to write letters, right? Do me a favor, Bizarre. Write a letter to CNN and tell Wolf and Anderson and that awful, sneering, pompous Aaron Brown to stop calling the Taliban 'smart.' They are not smart. I suggest CNN invest in a dictionary because the word they are looking for is 'cunning.' The Taliban are cunning, like jackals and hyenas and wolverines. They are sneaky and ruthless, and when confronted, cowardly. They are hateful, malevolent parasites who create nothing and destroy everything else. Smart. Pfft. Yeah, they're real smart.

They've spent their entire lives reading only one book (and not a very good one, as books go) and consider hygiene and indoor plumbing to be products of the devil. They're still figuring out how to work a Bic lighter. Talking to a Taliban warrior about improving his quality of life is like trying to teach an ape how to hold a pen; eventually he just gets frustrated and sticks you in the eye with it.

OK, enough. Snuffle will be up soon, so I have to get back to my hole. Covering my tracks in the snow takes a lot of practice, but I'm good at it.
Please, I tell you and my fellow Americans to turn off the TV sets and move on with your lives. The story line you are getting from CNN and other news agencies is utter bull, and designed not to deliver truth but rather to keep you glued to the screen through the commercials. We've got this one under control The worst thing you guys can do right now is sit around analyzing what we're doing over here, because you have no idea what we're doing, and really, you don't want to know. We are your military, and we are doing what you sent us here to do.

Saucy Jack
Recon Marine in Afghanistan
Semper Fi
"Freedom is not free...but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share".

Send this to ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS so that people here will really know what is going on over there.-

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.' That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.'

FUBAR Afganistan? Redefine the Mission.

2010-07-20T07:52:00.000-07:00

As I read the editorial from Gene Healy on Obama's war, I can't help but recall a certain letter from a recon marine floating around, in which he described the populace as essentially "cavemen with AK-47s" for whom improving the quality of life is a hopeless concept.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Which begs the question, what exactly is our mission over in Afghanistan again?

Supposedly, a painful and expensive “long war” of nation-building may yet be touted as ultimately successful a generation from now in Iraq. Afghanistan it seems, will require far more than a single generation. Given the crippling levels of underdevelopment and fractured tribal cultures hostile to civility, perhaps we need to reevaluate our terms of "victory" in Afghanistan.

EDIT: Though it wasn't published on paper, it seems my point makes an honorable mention on the Washington Examiner.

~David Morris~

Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Bible

2010-07-16T11:07:00.000-07:00

Rant as a following reaction to the reason debate of where conservatives belong.

I see liberalism as fundamentally statist by comparison to conservatives and libertarians, as it appears to be more emotive and reactionary. Not about freedom, its about equal outcomes for all under welfare. I just don’t agree with it. The hope is for libertarians and tolerant conservatism. Unlike some libertarians, I do not hold all conservatives as fundamentally statist either however. Libertarians who do some tend to be alienating to me, considering that I live as a conservative on the personal level. I do not endorse extramarital affairs. I don’t endorse homosexuality. I do not endorse dangerous substances. I do not endorse abortion. I do endorse Christianity. My children shall be subject to these values.

But I also endorse the 9th and 10th amendment, which encapsulates an adult’s decision to choose his own path. Knowledge of them is what refines conservative values on the realm of public arena, by reminding us that we are not He. After all, am I not to have faith that God is on top of things? Be ye are a murderer, adulterer, homosexual or yes, even a politician, am I not to have faith that Jesus already provides for redemption? Give unto God what belongs to God. My neighbors are his children after all, not mine. He loves them all. He has offered them a choice. That is enough.

Am I not to be called to? As His intent, Adults are best left free do make their own decisions, and by extension, communities are best left to develop their own cultures. The Lord will oversee consequences. It is immoral to extort. Nay, the Holy Spirit calls for kindness over coercion. It is truth, it is eternal. It requires not the force of flawed human law. Live, let live, and educate.

Many mainstream brands of modern Christianity understands this fundamentally. Some perhaps, do not. Therein lies the difference between the “pure strain” conservatives, and the conservative libertarian. My teaching of Christianity never calls for coercive activism. Apparently, some churches do. Therein lies the difference between the church goer unaware of his libertarianism, as I was, and the pure strain “social conservative” who, misguided in his understanding of God’s law, attempts to create human laws to emulate them.

Such is the conceit. For God designed his Laws simply to demonstrate them as useless. Faith is all that matters. It must be made as a personal decision.

Jesus is a libertarian.

~David Morris~

Question for Supply Siders - Bush Tax Cuts

2010-07-15T11:21:00.000-07:00

This following comment was made in response to someone's inquiry on economicsinfo.com. I thought it'd be a quick piece, but I suppose it inadvertently warped into something blog worthy:

----
Question for Supply Siders- Why didn’t Bush’s tax cuts bring in more revenue? We’ve heard this would be the case (Laffer Curve) but it appears to have failed in practice. Any thoughts?

First of all, keep in mind that the Bush Tax Cuts were of the *income* type. It did increase revenues (as brought in by the income tax). Over the long run that is.

Over the short term up until around 2003, TOTAL tax revenue appeared to be dropping. It may be argued however that this is more attributable to the short recession due from the internet bubble bursting and 9/11. That's were the confusion comes from. Total government revenue (when you consider every type of government revenue source) dropped, but the income tax was bringing in more money than it was before.

The laffer effect is not always immediately apparent or applicable. Increased revenue from a tax cut can sometimes take awhile, if not at all. Around minute four of this video helps make such a point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw7LtVwDCbs&feature=channel).

So be sensitive to how the data is presented. One could say that Reagan's tax cuts dropped revenue as well, if you make a graph that covers only the first year after his opening cuts in '82 This ignores that his cuts were slowly implemented, and that recovery was still occuring, but a a graph "proving" that they failed could be made if you look at his policy in the short term. This video illustrates for me however the empirical case that there was still positive feedback from when considering all entire eight years of his presidency. Other cases of the effect, as well as caveats are also explored (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08&NR=1).

Speaking of caveats allow me to reiterate: Not every tax cut "pays for itself." Again, what type of tax we're discussing is very important. Sometimes the cut will simply boost private sector growth without boosting state coffers (and sometimes that boost may be relatively small anyway). Reducing taxes, yet boosting spending on the excuse that the government will automatically be seeing more money from that private sector growth this ill advised.

Nonetheless as a broad-brushed concept, its generally agreed that a "low" tax rate will work better than a "high" tax rate. No one be they left or right, argues that government coffers would be better off were rates returned to upwards of 70% (a la pre-Reagan years). The gray area of what defines a "low" tax rate and whether it affects people's behavior is where the partisanship still lies.

Hence, why everything would far less confusing if we'd only simplify to something like a flat/fair tax. Effects would then be far more transparent.

~David Morris~

Well, that's certainly interesting.

2010-07-15T11:16:00.000-07:00

My sister brought this comment from some random Washington Examiner reader on NASA.

Huh.

Welp, can't say that I argue with the guy.

David Morris
Leesburg

A paraphrasal explanation of Iraq.

2010-07-14T08:28:00.001-07:00

While I'm on the subject of Bush, I may as well also talk about my own understanding of how we got into Iraq specifically. This was written a long time ago in response to a silly what-if forum war, but the writing conviently allows me to edit and post it here.

----
Go back to before we had the hindsight of today. Recall that there was substantial fear following 9/11 that our neglect of middle east foreign policy may have meant our gravest threat. In 2002, there was stacks of evidence from unaccounted for weapons that gave the entire global community the impression that Iraq was a rogue state with the will to potentially proliferate their weapons.

As it turned out, Saddam Hussein only thought he had WMDs, hence why he was acting like he had something to hide during the UN Inspections. He was attempting to pay his own internal scientists off so that they'd secure him WMDs, but unbenowst to him (and everyone else), internal corruption within Saddam's own bureaucracy was scamming Hussein out of his money.

Like any do-nothing special interest group, Saddam's own lackey's were giving him false reports of "progress" to the tone of how "we will certainly have toys like nukes and dirty bombs within 5 years Mr. Hussein, provided your continued patronage." These reports would ultimately end up in the world's intelligence community from the CIA to the KGB and, not realizing they were faked by sycophants, ended up putting such intelligence on Bush's desk.

When UN Inspectors arrived, Saddam's lackey's were forced to put on the show of acting like they had research to hide in order to continue Saddam's personal delusion of holding a stockpile of deterrents, fearing his wrath were he to discover that his bureaucracy was essentially doing nothing for the past 13 years. Hence Saddam's arrogant attitude, of speeches pertaining to how he was going to bath Baghdad with American blood by the thousands when they'd attack (using the non-existent WMDs that Saddam thinks he's purchased).

Since every American was pissed off, paranoid, and the thought of kicking some other state's behind was an overwhelming popular sentiment in 2002, I don't blame any president for making that decision. It was not a war over oil (there's plenty of oil on this side of the planet we could tap into if we wanted, its not like all oil in the world exists in the middle east), it was a paranoid war over alleged WMD's that Saddam and the entire Intelligence community thought he had.

~David Morris~

President Bush probably disappointed Candidate Bush more than any other.

2010-07-14T07:38:00.000-07:00

In response to this commentary of the hubris of President Bush, I could not help but to deeply reflect on my own thoughts concerning the man.

When I think of President Bush in retrospect to my current understanding, my puzzled emotional response is not of scorn or ridicule. No. When I think of Bush, I think ultimately of a sad man who once wished to do right by his country, yet caved to the forces of political pressure.

As I became politically awake following 9/11, President Bush -or namely, the baneful, spiteful press that he would always receive- would prove to be the principle reason why I could never develop into a liberal democrat. I couldn't analyze with clarity yet, but I knew that in there was an intelligent mind that understood basic economics, regardless of his bashers. I'm sure that in his honest heart is one that genuinely wishes nothing more than for the prosperity of his fellow man.

His pursuit of ANWR, his tax policy, his once anti-war rhetoric, his references towards reforming freddie mac and fannie mae, his list of vetos, and his call to address (at least marginally) social security reform before it was too late are all the reasoning behind why I speculate this. Additionally, his justice appointees Alito and Roberts, his lifting of the presidential ban on off shore oil drilling on July 14th 2008, and his later commitment to the principle of national security gives me confidence that within the man (and not the politician) himself, beats the heart of a true American who should have known better -or at least be retrospective- of such mistakes such as NCLB, the patriot act and the house of cards structure of the Department of Homeland Security.

The pity stems that despite it all, he would ultimately surrender his principles in a manner that resulted in the overall expansion of government. Deficits on account of his war spending is naturally among the first outcrys against him. Still I keep in mind that the man did not ask to become a wartime president. Candidate Bush did not run on the concept of nation building. Personally I hold our wars to be attributed to two other reasons. The emotional, nationalistic demand for someone's head following 9/11, and Saddam's own foolishness in painting himself the perfect scapegoat to vent our frustration upon.

Despite the warnings, the decision to go into Iraq was overwhelmingly popular. We the American people would have been in demand for demonstrating our superpower status regardless of who was president, regardless of which infamous nation was to be our victim. Al Gore could have targeted North Korea given 9/11 and the support would've been there. The fear of what a terrorist could do with a bomb was overwhelming, and perhaps only a full scale war would've satisfied our desire to go back to sleep at night. One can at least argue that despite America's present war fatigue, Al Queada has been dealt with crippling blows. To be fair, none can also deny Bush's attempt to get Saddam to comply and alleviate our paranoia of WMDs, prior towards going in; paranoia that the Baath party could have curtailed given better transparency on their part. I do not believe Bush gave the order to strike out of hawkish bloodlust, but of tempered, dutiful concern that we'd be struck again. In personally interacting with those who have lost loved ones, it is difficult to doubt that Bush carries his war decisions as a lifetime personal weight.

Weight. Remorse. Again I hold a level of pity for Bush, as I cannot help but ponder how things may have been different if not for 9/11. Given his statements during his farewell address, if there was anyone that President Bush least popular with, it was probably with a man known simply as Mr. Bush. With overwhelmingly negative press and the pressure of neoconservative policy pushers advocating against wise policy, I see a man who would finally crack in attempting to satisfy all. Did he honestly agree to prescription drug entitlements as he allowed it to pass? Did he personally agree to bailouts as the subprime crisis occurred (a crisis he brought attention to on deaf ears)? I speculate that he did not. But this was no longer the same man. By the point in his second term, all I saw in President Bush was just another victim.

A victim of the transforming power Washington can have on a man's spirit. Does this give him a pass on his mistakes? No. This American however can at least give him a break.

He was not malicious. Merely misguided. A house of compassionate conservatism torn apart by the winds of politics, for lack of a strong enough foundation in liberty.

The Obama administration on the other hand...

~David Morris~

Biblical Relevance

2010-07-13T08:21:00.000-07:00

Just a little reminder of God's attitude towards big government that I cannot help but to find relevant when it comes to crying out for human messiahs.

I may as well use this opportunity to sneak in a very ironically worded bible verse as well.

~David Morris~

NASA - "National Allah Science Appreciation" Department

2010-07-09T07:11:00.001-07:00

Regarding this “new mission,” I merely found myself shaking my head at the latest line in this administration’s flops. Once again I find myself asking the same question: Is this guy even interested in a second term? With a political ammo cache like this, even Bush could theoretically beat him in a landslide come 2012, let alone any other hypothetical candidate.

Just when you thought he couldn’t dig himself a deeper political hole. After all, was there anything we could cite as being redeeming in the eyes of the American people? Corporate welfare? No. “Stimulus?” No. National Security? No. Justices? No. Oil spill? No. Immigration? No. Health Care? Triple No.

Now this. Somehow, he now manages to find a way to mess up NASA? Unprecedented. Truly, he is proving himself to be a president who will go down in history like no other, just as promised. And to think, we still have a minimum two years more with the guy.

~David Morris~

That's good satire.

2010-07-08T14:20:00.000-07:00

This was shared with me at work today. Its an relatively old video by this point, but its humor I found worth archiving.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888086

~David Morris~

2010-07-02T08:04:00.000-07:00

Following up on how I was an example of government waste...I regret to say that...I've suffered my first termination in my life.

I received the letter yesterday. The United States Census Bureau has terminated me from my position as a 2010 Enumerator. What have I ever done to deserve this? Woe is me. :(

Included in the census letter ironically, were instructions on how to obtain unemployment benefits. -_-

~David Morris~

Palidrome of True Hope

2010-06-23T09:21:00.000-07:00

When comparing myself to my elders, I realize that its always unfair due to age gap advantage. Hence, I routinely have a dream of the man I hope to be in 2036 (the year I turn 50 years old myself; a year in which my generation is firmly in charge of the world). In this vision includes a loving family, children whom I am most proud of, and a world in which the promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continues to be delivered even more ideally than what the current middle-agers felt with Reagan.

By almighty God, I pray that I will make an impact on preserving the American Dream. I haven't met my kids yet (not even interested in looking for their mom as of right now), but I already know that I love them very much, and I already resent that which would threaten them. Especially as I now get to witness fascism with my own eyes.

So is the vision I have for my generation. That we reject the notion that we will be content with inferior living standards than the generation before us, and we will leave a superior legacy for the next.

~David Morris~

Obama and the Oil Spill

2010-06-16T08:06:00.000-07:00

We need to give Obama a chance with the oil spill. He's doing the best he can they say.

Really? You mean to tell me that this wouldn't be a past issue already, if anyone other than Obama was in the office? That Obama is pursuing the spill with all the tenacity that he gave to his pet project of healthcare reform?

As though Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been done with this after 58 days already?

Heck, take either of the Bush presidents or even Clinton. Any president that's demonstrated a modicum of competency would have long rallied a response that included declaring a state of emergency, the dispersion of troops, and the granting of federal permits to those states in the way of being most affected, into establishing sea bars. The damage wouldn't be over, but Americans would surely have confidence that the situation is contained. The only president I can think of who'd have been this incompetent would've been Carter. We're talking Carter levels incompetency here.

So why the slow deal? My theory on this is simple. Obama, reeling from the political fallout of a health care debate that he didn't "win" so much as "cheat the scorecard," rolled a political gamble and loss. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste afterall. In the same vein that FDR permitted Pearl Harbor to be unnecessarily tragic in order to morally justify a call to war, by permitting this catastrophe to happen as badly as its happened, Americans would rally behind a new environmentalist wave to cap and slash oil drilling.

Hence the calm, cold demeanor towards the crisis. Ever the demagogue, he expected us to look at the damage "evil enterprise" has done, and upon a knee-jerk emotional driven response, jump on a bandwagon of "never forget, never again" for domestic oil drilling, resulting in a new era of windmills! His miscalculation comes from two things:

1. The damage from the oil well was not immediate, leaving plenty of time to take preventive measures to minimize the damage. Preventative measures that local officials such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was denied of.

2. This is not the 1930s, and we certainly are not all socialist now. Part of FDR's success was in his monopolistic control of the media. With an populous that is better educated in general thanks to having far more media outlets, Americans today are significantly less sheep-like than their 1930s counterparts. Translating to less patience with demagoguery. This is one of his central miscalculations in attempting to emulate FDR: That his audience is too ignorant to see through his attempts at camouflaging his ulterior motives.

The American Spirit is still center right (as has been ever since Carter/Nixon/Johnson created the backlash for big government that people like RR and Gingrich was able to climb upon). With the toxic mood generated by the accumulation of a "spendulus" bill, multiple near-miss terrorist attacks, apologetic foreign policy, delays and compromise over Afghanistan, no jobs, mounting debt, and generally no light at the end of the tunnel for a suffering economy, the ideology of the nation is only being pushed further to the right.

In an environment whereas such an ideology is given prominence, allowing an oil spill to happen will not spark a socialist rally for more private sector punishment as he had hoped. Obama was likely hoping that that this would be his "Jungle*" rather than his Katrina. The big government catalyst effect of a propaganda victory this is not.

Cap this off with a health care bill that passes by a mere 7 votes out of a total of 431 representatives, whereas the only bi-partisanship is in opposition to the bill, and you do not have a formula for people viewing you as the hero squaring off against the demon of "private enterprise." President Clinton to his credit, would've known that this is a situation where you show some competency to reassert yourself as capable of the "3 am" call, any scorn generated by other issues be darned. Rather than take the street cred now, Obama gambled on having a wave of public outrage to ride on later. Problem is, he never expected it directed at him.

~David Morris~

*The 1906 propaganda novel by Upton Sinclair which "aimed for the heart and hit in the stomach," nonetheless paving the way for big government expansion over food and drug processing.

A Personal Epiphany: The Waste. Its Real.

2010-04-01T14:12:00.000-07:00

As of yesterday, I've been shocked by a mighty epiphany.

As I await my summer internship with the Cato Institute, I've been maintaining expenses with two different types of work:

One is at a Macy Retail Store.

The other is as an enumerator for the United States Census Bureau.

---

At Macy's, I must be on time. I start to get paid from the moment I punch into a computer, which records my time on the company clock down to the very second when I punch out, and I get paid me accordingly to their wage rate with precision.

At Macy's I must spend 8 hours a day on my feet, continuously moving, continuously provided exceptional service to consumers whose patronage is purely voluntary.

At Macy's, there is oversight. More than merely relying on my work ethic, pressure not to shirk is present in the form of various management staff to increase the probability that during the whole of 8-hour period, I am actually being productive.

I go home on sore feet on these nights, and for all this I get paid...$8.75 per hour.

Then there is the Census Bureau...

---

At the Census Bureau, they want me to estimate for myself when I began on the clock, starting from the moment I get in my vehicle, and ending on the very moment I am back home. They are assuming that my estimate is going to be perfectly honest, though they naturally do not expect it to be precise.

Most of my "work" has been training. At the training, the first two hours is spent merely waiting for our crew leader to do the paperwork of our timesheets. Rather than moving about, we sit on our rears as he goes through the necessary protocol of reading the training manual to us. We also spend time getting our fingerprints done. This goes on for three days for 8 hours. On the day we finished early, we are encouraged to log in the missing time anyway.

Two days are actually spent "working", after the obligatory time waste waiting for timesheets to be processed, we drive to an area to look for homeless people without actually stepping out of our vehicles. Since this enumeration happens at night, we get paid extra apparently.

I go home with nothing sore other than my rear end. For this I get paid....$18 per hour. Plus 50 cents for each mile I drive.

...

Where I produce, I get $8.75.

Where I produce nothing, I get $18.

...

I am an example of government waste.

~David Morris~

The Massachuets Election - Voter Scorn Strikes Obama

2010-01-26T14:39:00.000-08:00

63 Years. 63 years.

Incredible.

63 years, the voters of Massachuets were content to elect the democrat party to be their represenatives. Yet after 1 year of the Obama administration, the backlash against his approach to governance has resulted in the famously liberal state to vote republican.

Clearly, Barack Obama underestimated the full effect pushing unpopular policy at the cost of instigating voter scorn, so much so that his decisions are bringing ruin to his own party.

It is here that I hold pity for the democrats, as I ponder how things may have been were the Clintons once again in control. For all their arguable faults, the Clinton's did have a redeemable value in that they knew of and greatly respected the potential of public opinion. Their presidency was successful in part of the fact that they, like many politicians, were incensed by their own probabilities of re-election, and formed policy likely to take themselves (and their party) in such a direction. Overall, this resulted in mostly non-intrusive government during the Clinton years, as the former president was willing to do what it took to maintain consistent pole ratings above 60%. From stepping back and leaving "Wall Street" to the competent hands of Greenspan, to the elimination of trade barriers via the NAFTA agreement (as well as avoiding new barriers via the Kyoto Protocol), from learning to compromise with Newt Gringrich for truly bipartisan policy.

Clinton, whatever his personal ideology may had been, would not be blinded it. Though he may be remembered by many as flawed on a individual level, credit must be given due to his sensitivity in doing that with which a maximum amount of constituents (be they democrat, republican, or independent) would be satisfied with, leaving it no wonder why he would leave office with some of the highest job approval ratings in several decades.

The would-be return of Team Clinton, this time with Hilary at the helm, would have likely been a repeat of the same policies that defined the first Clinton administration, in which public opinion held a strong influence in their decisions. A concept that the Democrats appeared to have lost under Obama's leadership. Barrack Obama it would seem, appears to be a visionary who is too focused on his personal dream of "remaking America" than to react to the will of the people, as we now see what many were concerned with when they accused Mr. Obama of "inexperience." With only a prior two-year term in the senate, the current president appears to have yet learned the number one lesson of public policy - that one will not run policy that is overwhelmingly against the will of the public.

Where the concept of rational ignorance does not exist, it is unwise to pursue any form of policy that is counter to the constituency, and perhaps the upsetting new election will sound a wake up call for Mr. Obama. The future has yet to fully unfold, and the possiblity for learning from one's mistakes is always present. Nevertheless, the Clinton's would have already been familiar with this concept had they stepped into office in '08, and I for one would be regretting the decision to have made him the presidential canidate were I currently Martha Coakley.

Whatever happens, the debate on health-care will truly be remembered as a classic case study on distrusted government reform in a political environment of wide-spread voter scorn. How the recent Supreme Court decision to lift spending caps from corporate entities will surely serve to further the intriguing quality behind the matter matter.

~David Morris~

The Rustici Prediction

2009-10-13T11:50:00.001-07:00

People have spoken. Over 60% of the American people oppose the purely democrat owned health care proposition. Still they attempt to ram it through via nuclear option. Should it pass, opponents of the package have until 2013 to stop it once and for all before its, and what amounts to arguably one of the worse nationalized medicine schema ever devised will suppress American prosperity for generations to come, as this new form of mandatory spending burdens the future.

Having recently spoken to Professor Thomas C. Rustici of George Mason University about the present political situation, an intriguing prediction was made under assumption that Democrats successfully push the thing through (of which he predicts that they will). As well as his own political strategy of how to roll it back.

In short, if this bill passes via nuclear option, then starting 2010 under the new congress led by perhaps Micheal Steele, republicans are going to have to nuclear option Obama right back.

The first point Professor Rustici raises, is that if this bill passes, then the Democrat party may as well be considered extinct considering the anger it will incite. Seniors are already aligned against him and what this bill will do to their medicare payments, the young who supported Obama grow ever more disillusioned as they struggle most of all to find work, and everyone else between will be insulted as their taxes are automatically raised (in a climate of heavy recession and inflation no less) courtesy of the soon-expired Bush cuts.

"Obama promised hope yet delivered fear..." cites the professor, especially with this health bill . And from the 60% disapproval of the democrat proposals, Rustici predicts a public outrage and disapproval rate for these so called "reforms" to peak upwards of 70%.

In other words, the Republicans will have overwhelming majority support to stop a successfully forced healthcare proposal before the cement drys. Over 100 seats between the House and Senate will be lost by the Dems in 2010, and Obama will be forced into a no-win situation as the final conspirator left unpunished in the eyes of the American people. Were he Micheal Steele says Prof. Rustici, he'd then use his position over the budget to completely shut down the federal government, until Barack Obama signed a bill annulling the launch of universal health care. Completely.

No federal funding for anything. At all. Not until Obama signs an annulment. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Nothing at all.

No federal funding for social security payments. No federal funding for student loans. No federal funding for further, "shovel-ready" porkulus projects. No federal grants. No federal subsidies. Not even the military, said Professor Rustici. Nothing budgeted to NORAD, FBI, CIA, the Army, etc.

Nothing. At all. Period. With it made very loud, and very, very clear, that the new Republicans will continue their nuclear winter of the federal government, until Obama is ready to sign the annulment of his nuclear rammed Health Care bill. After all, who'll care about a national defense when the greatest threat to liberty in the entirety of U.S. History has already been launched by the (and by this point, defunct) Democrat party? No terrorist attack, no external invasion is poised to ruin as many lives as this bill is set to do, should it be allowed to fully hatch in 2013.

Given the current public outrage and terror over the possibilties of a the rammed healthcare bill, it will be Obama left with the bag. According to Rustici, It will be Obama left with the blame, come what may from the republican controlled federal freeze. A line must be drawn says the Professor. An ultimatum must be set. The American people will be in overwhelming support of this courageous stand, and no amount of media spin will shake the polls in support of a conservative Congress's action. Micheal Steele must force an annulment out of Barrack Hussein Obama. Just as he would have originally forced his unpopular agenda against we, the American people.

~David Morris~

The Healthcare Debate - A New Case Study in Public Choice

2009-08-26T13:51:00.000-07:00

I am one who has always believed that governments should adhere to and follow the guidance of their constitutions. The question is then raised however in what is to actually enforce a constitution's rules upon said government. When raised with this question, I concluded that only a significant threat level of voter scorn can perform such a deed. That in a republic of theoretical constitutional bonds, rational ignorance is the primary threat to the continued liberty of the citizens. Where they are apathetic, leviathan will attempt to shake its binding off in that particular area. Where they are fervently aware, leviathan will stay put and obey.

For example, the constitution states restrictions on the government in respect to discrimination based on race, nationality, etc. At first, government ignored these precepts, however in the present day, such is the awareness of the voter in regards to issues of race, that blatantly racist laws could never pass through the congress, and leviathan now stays put in that area in fear of the punishment it would receive were it to pull anything like the Jim Crow laws ever again.

In regards to the current health care debate, the H.R. II proposal provides a number of questionable legitimacy issues concerning the Constitution, from the inherent takings of insurance companies as the public option begins to monopolize the health care sector, to the notion of fining those who would prefer not to be insured. Surely, thought the current political administration, under the guise of good intentions, the people would prove apathetic to this issue, and the bill could be passed without challenge.

Evidently, according to the fervor of town halls and the poll numbers that correlate to them, this is not to be the case. Congressmen are discovering rational ignorance to be surprisingly absent in regards to this issue, and a career-level make-or-break decision awaits many democrats who may be partisan to this issue. Surely, given the unpopularity of H.R. II and the falling approval of President Obama on this issue, any democrat who votes for this bill can expect this to be the final act of their political career come next election, especially those democrats from districts that voted for McCain as president. On the other hand, to resist the will of the White House could alienate them from their own party, and leave them without party support in vying for their reelection anyway.

Pass or fail, negative consequences or not, the choice these congresspeople face in the vote of H.R. II will undoubtedly be one for the text books in regards of issues concerning public choice.

~David Morris~

The Latest Market Rally - Signs of a turn around?

2009-03-18T13:29:00.000-07:00

Having been self-teaching myself investing lately, I have by extension grown to pay attention everyday to business news via CNBC. Last month of February, the Dow Jones bottomed out a 6876, a score it hadn't had since 1997. However for the month of march, it would appear to be slowly recovering, with the three day rally of last week (as of the time of this writing), restoring the Dow at a recent peak of 7571. What could attest to this market behavior? Could it be a sign of market recovery, or be merely a short run rally on account of some of the good news from the week of last?

Some of the attributes that may attest to the market's slow attitude shift would include the assurance by Bernanke (chairman of the Fed) that helped quell some of the pessimistic fear of the naturalization of banks. Talk of abolishing the Mark-to-Market rule that brought chaos to the books of many of these financial institutions, and the memo that was leaked from CitiGroup and Bank of America that they are still profitable has also aided in this. Bank of America for instance announced today (March 18th) that they in fact planned on being able to repay their TARP fund loan by the end of 2009 or early 2010, leading to a rally (which as an aside, led to this rookie investor making a profit in his practice portfolio, as I predicted that economic recovery would have to begin with real estate and financial sectors).

But is this really a long term recovery we are seeing? These market effects may be temporarily caused by the buy outs of Short Sellers in the market. Short sellers thrive on bearish markets, as they "borrow" a quantity of stock they speculate is going down, sell it, and then replace the borrowed quantity of stock after the stock price drops. If the price goes up against their bet, they are still contractually obligated to replace the stock they borrowed, whereby they would lose money.

Say for example you know that the price of your friend's used movie or videogame is $25, though in a week you understand that it will sell at only $15. You borrow the DVD from your friend, sell it for $25, and as the price becomes $15, you buy it back just as your friend is beginning to wonder what you've done with his disk. Your friend still has his DVD, but you just made $10. The risk you took was, had price of the movie actually gone up to $35 after you sold it at $25, you'd still need to replace the what you borrowed anyway, lest your friend discover what you were really doing with with his precious DVD and snap you in two as though you were a disk. You'd had lost $10.

Since the financial sector as experienced some unexpected good news as of late, this would account for a short term rally, as short sellers only profit on dying stocks, and must replace what they borrowed to protected their gains. However, President Obama still seeks his social programs and considers raising taxes on households above the $250k mark, and Nancy Polosi has begun speculative talks of starting a new stimulus package, which would no doubly lead to more pessimism of the future within wall street. Before this recession can truly, the sources of the Housing and Mortgage Crisis must be addressed. Mark-to-Market accounting must be forever done away with, and the policy mandate of Freddie and Fannie to promote indirect subprime Housing Welfare must cease.

Time will tell.

~David Morris~

Why Bailing Out the Auto Industry is a bad idea.

2009-01-24T14:50:00.000-08:00

In the midst of the current economic downturn, many businesses have called for bailouts from the government to save them from their dire circumstances. Admist the top of these to make the news as of late has been the auto industry. Their bailout proves tragic for not only will it fail to address the fundamental issues behind their poor performance, but also give congress leverage over on how to dictate the future activities of the industry.

The fundamental root problem behind the American big auto workers have been their cost structure, which is choked upon by obligations to unions. The high wages companies such as GM must pay for their workers, combined with the numbers of retirees who they are obligated to, has made such a company more of a retirement home first, and a auto producer second. Until these companies can be permitted to shake off such archaic union concessions in order to compete with the cost structures of their foreign competitors, no amount of taxpayer money can truly "resurrect" the industry.

What we have instead of a ressurection will in fact bear closer resemblance to necromancy; a zombie company that cannibalizes on taxpayer rather than healthingly sustaining its own self based on the merit of their products.

~David Morris~

An example of everyday government spending.

2009-01-24T10:03:00.001-08:00

The following is an a interesting anecdote taken from the back cover of a book called "Burning Money" by Joseph Peter Grace (ISBN 0025449303). Its a common example of bueracratic processes unfortunately.

---
"An actual case.
One day the U.S. Navy decided to buy a hammer, the kind you buy for $7 at the corner hardware store. To the $7 cost of the hammer, add:

$41 to order the hammer and figure out how to use it.
$93 to make sure the hammer worked.
$102 for "manufacturing overhead."
$37 to make sure there were spare parts for the hammer.
$3 for packing the hammer for shipment.
$90 for the contractor's "general administrative costs."
$56 for the finder's fee.
$7 for the "capital cost of money."

The U.S. Navy ended up buying a $7 hammer for $436, and who paid for it? You.
---

Makes one ponder why anyone would want to trust the government with other aspects of the economy, if they can't even handle a transaction as simple as this without spending wastefully on pork.

~David Morris~

Basics of Economics

2009-01-19T07:46:00.001-08:00

Thought I may as well share some basic economic principles shared throughout the science, straight out of my old notebook. For myself as much as for my readers.

Four Principles of Econmics

1) Scarcity - Without some kind of scarcity in everything, there are no reasons to make choices. The ultimate reality is, nature an ultimate schrooge, and the ultimate source of poverty, by virtue of the fact that if we want something, she doesn't just hand it to us magically from the sky. Without scarcity, there is no reason to for people prioritize their desires, and therefore, there would be no trade. Basically, the whole notion of scarcity determines supply and demand, which simply put, means that everything comes with a pricetag save the only two things that really are free (usually): Air and sunlight.

Please, never mix the basic concept of scarcity with the term "shortage." Shortage is a different term in regards to demand somehow exceeding supply beyond what natural market forces would decree. For a recent example, we recently had a shortage of oil brought upon the fact that China was basically hogging all of it for itself via government subsidized of gasoline. This is the sort of crowding out that would properly define a "shortage," not to be confused with the basic concept of "scarcity," by which everything has to come with a price.

2) Only Individuals Choose - There is no "hive mind" amongst human beings. Likewise, there are no choices to be had between individual brain cells. Therefore, all economics begin on the indivisual level; its hard to determine what a synapse has to do with monetary policy. Likewise, just because you join a group doesn't mean that you've suddenly joined a "group mind" as though everyone is psychically linked and thinking precisely on the same page with the precisely with the same values. Otherwise, why how would people ever leave a group?

This principle also makes another important, basic point: Economies are made purely out of people. There is no economy where there are no indivisuals. The moon has no economy. However, it can be said that there was one briefly, once you had astronauts being forced to make tradeoffs concerning their life support on the moon.

3) People choose rationally - There is purpose in what people do. A means to their ends. When we aim for a value, we do so deliberately.

4) Unlimited Wants and Desires - People are greedy. Greedy greedy GREEDY. We just are. Its in our DNA as a species. Why are we "greedy?" Because we have imagination. Achieving old goals begets new goals, new ambitions. Without greed, there would be no objectives in our lives. That's not to say all greed is monetary and material, but lets face it, there's always, always, something that you want, something you don't have yet, that you want to strive for. Your mind is always generating a new list of "things for you to achieve and/or obtain", and it won't ever stop until the day you die.

There is nothing intrinsically negative about the reality of unlimited wants, although most people are certainly aware of how it can be. It all depends on how one goes about their ambitions. Whether its done legitimately and voluntarily, or whether its achieved with force and fraud. As I always like to say: "Greed is good, because in order to feed your greed you have to serve others needs. Selfishness is bad, because its when you start to get selfish that then you start stealing."

~David Morris~

Economics with David Morris

2009-01-19T07:05:00.001-08:00

Greetings to any and all viewers of this blog. Having recently with a degree in Economics at George Mason University, this fresh young economist decided that it was never too soon to start giving commentary, observations, and predictions behind the economics of the world around us. Hopefully, anyone spotting this humble blog will leave educated, enlightened, or at least persuaded to think.

To give people a heads up, this economist is trained to take somewhat of a more libertarian perspective on public policy. Bear in mind that the author of this blog is in no form and advocate of anarchy, simply aware that things work best when the government is no enemy to the populace. Successful capitalism demands government carries out its critical duty of defining, arbitrating, and above all else, protecting private property rights. Its critical however that people understand that the true primary function of government is that of a legalized monopoly of force. When it forces the wrong types of policies, it certainly has the potential to be more of a problem for an economy than a solution. With the right (and very carefully implemented) policies, it has the potential to refine efficiency.

As an economist who sees his nation often forgetting the tenants and intentions of our US Constitution, hopefully this blog can assist in keeping certain records straight, given the sheer amount of myths, fallacies, and just plain misunderstanding about the subject I've been spending the last 4 years of my life studying.

Economies at the bottom line are made out of individual people, not simply states. And its how people respond to incentives that is the key to understanding the world around us.

~David Morris~

The Recessive Economy - It began with Housing, it'll end with Housing.

2009-01-19T06:10:00.001-08:00

Given today's current economic circumstance, people wonder when it will ever end. For now, many people are looking towards the promises of politicians, with their bailouts, stimuli packages, and promises of infrastructure spending hoping as though this will be the source of the solution to today's current financial crisis. Recovery from this recession will happen. This economist however, predicts that recovery will occur from another angle entirely.

The current financial crisis all started with a collapse in housing prices, and recovery for America will begin with a recovery in this sector.

The economic sense is simple. With housing finance issues that constrict the consumer, its only natural that consumer confidence will return once this is dealt with. As prices stabilizes, real stimulus will occur as people qualified for refinancing are saved money each month due to lowered and stabilized housing prices. Take for example, a household paying saved $300 per month every month through a simple mortgage refinance. $300 dollars may seem like a trivile amount, below the radar, but the road to recovery will be built as we take these savings per month and multiply it times thousands of refinances. Unlike the $600 government checks sent out last year (which rationally risk-averse people simply put away in the bank), these small drops in refinanced, stabilized mortgage rates, when multiplied by hundreds, will in due time result in people finally having discretionary spending once more.

This will lead not only in more capital accumulation, in which banks will finally be able to unfreeze their lending. With the mortgage pressure eased on the consumer I predict that they will finally be able to spend on raising the property values on their homes as Americans traditionally do. There will be increased demand in sectors relating to housing: furniture, landscaping, etc. People will want to spend money on their homes again, which means more money for retailers such as Home Depot, Lowes, and furniture stores in general, who will in turn be placing more factory orders for such products, and resulting in more expansion (and a demand for more hires in general).

As people reinvest in their homes, new hires will be inevitable. As America's Joe the Plumbers, Bob the Builders, Larry the Cable Guys, etc get new contracts to service the homes of these people who've gained more discretionary income from months of mortgage stability, its only natural that the volume of these new contracts will incentive small businesses to accumulate new servicemen abroad and the physical capital necessary for them to do their jobs. The economy will recover in this way, once real stimuli is created by dealing with the pressure people face holding on to their homes. It will not come from any democrat plan, though they will no doubt in inadvertently get credit for recovery. If Washington really wanted to have this problem solved sooner then later, then stacking the recovery work occurring in the mortgage sectors with a tax cut will get us there all the sooner. The key is not a one time stimulus; its to give people money they can count on in the long term.

Give America that, and America will put herself back on track.

~David Morris~