Barack Obama — VOICES for REASON

Yesterday I discussed how Obama and others view individual freedom as the fundamental cause of our problems, and themselves (employing government coercion) as the solution.

But in fact, our current problems come from this attitude – from the fact that intellectuals and politicians regard the results of free association and voluntary exchange among individuals as “problems” to be solved. For example, the government deemed free-market mortgage rates and lending practices (which for decades led to down payments over 20% and responsible lending and borrowing) to provide insufficiently “affordable housing” for bad credit risks. So government intervened. (See “The Government Did It.”) The carnage speaks for itself.

Freedom is not a problem, Mr. President. Coercive interference in a free society is the problem: it negates individuals’ judgment, punishes the productive, and rewards irrational behavior. Removing that interference as quickly as possible is the real problem that needs to be solved today. That’s the problem about which you should be saying “give it to me.”

In a recent speech criticizing his economic critics, President Barack Obama made a revealing statement about himself. From the New York Times:

“I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, ‘Well, this is Obama’s economy,’ ” the president said before an overwhelmingly supportive outdoor crowd at Macomb Community College. “That’s fine — give it to me. My job is to solve problems, not stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe.” (Emphasis mine.)

While this statement is designed to invoke the sort of take-charge attitude we admire in, say, a great quarterback or an excellent CEO, it in fact exhibits the utterly dictatorial economic role Obama plays in the economy.

Read the rest of this entry »

As the protests in Iran begin to dwindle, and the usual accusations of “American interference” are launched by Tehran, I can’t help but wonder what today’s news would have been had America responded differently to the situation. I can’t help but wonder what a different message from President Obama would have led to.

The following is a fictitious speech. It is the speech that only a President acting on a foreign policy that properly defends the rights of its own citizens – a foreign policy of self-interest – could make.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I am here to address events of great significance to the American people. Over the past few days, we have borne witness to the murdering, beating, silencing and intimidation of the Iranian people by a theocratic regime clenching its iron fist to retain power. I strongly condemn these unjust actions of the Iranian regime. Read the rest of this entry »

One way in which the central planners of the Obama administration easily acquire and exercise the power to dictate how a 300-million-person economy should run is by portraying entire industries as stupid, short-sighted, and in need of “adult supervision.”

Recall how the administration overrode bankruptcy law to hose Chrysler creditors, denying them their rightful say in the company’s fate — and instead handed the company, and billions in government money, not just to the UAW but to Italian company Fiat for a price of zero dollars. They portrayed Chrysler and other automakers as having stupidly neglected small, fuel-efficient cars in favor of larger ones (in fact, government-mandated small cars had killed the profits of UAW-hamstrung automakers, while larger, consumer-friendly cars were genuinely profitable). By contrast, it was treated as self-evident that if they would only be acquired by a sensible, small-car dynamo like Fiat, they could become the car company of the future.

This narrative should have raised the question: If Fiat is such an amazing car company, and a slam-dunk merger prospect for US struggling automakers, why didn’t these automakers pursue such a profitable opportunity?

Read the rest of this entry »

How about this as a step toward dealing with the threat from Iran? Invite the ambassadors of Iran to feast on hotdogs and join in the festivities at July 4th receptions held in U.S. embassies around the world (America and Iran currently have no formal diplomatic ties).

If this were the opening skit on Saturday Night Live, it might be funny as an absurdist satire. But this is something that Obama’s State Department has come up with, and it is meant in earnest. This fits perfectly with the rest of Obama’s policy of appeasing Iran (a policy the Bush administration began).

That policy has prompted some to wonder whether Israel – knowing that U.S. appeasement will only increase the threat of a nuclear Iran – might use military force to eliminate that threat. The possibility is suggested by the 1981 Israeli bombing raid on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear facility, which effectively put an end to that threat. And there’s reason to believe Israel recently flattened a nascent nuclear plant in Syria. So if push came to shove, might Israel do the same to Iran?

Read the rest of this entry »

This week, on June 4th, Barack Obama will give a highly anticipated speech in Cairo. The intended audience is the Islamic world. It’s bizarre that he feels compelled to do so, and unseemly that he chose Egypt (a quasi-friendly dictatorship) as the venue. Presumably this high-profile speech is meant to underline that Obama is serious about his policy of outreach to the Muslim world. And by that I mean the repeated pledges of goodwill and the administration’s commitment to diplomatic engagement. Remember his offer of an outstretched arm to Iran, if it agrees to “unclench” its fist? Remember the trial balloon re negotiating with “moderate” elements of the Taliban?

But does anybody buy this stuff? Well, sad to say, many in the United States feel this is the only way forward. And of course this policy is a godsend to Iran and the Islamist movement generally; they stand to gain from Washington’s appeasement. Yet it is interesting to me that there have been some pointed demurrals — from commentators writing for Arabic publications.

Read the rest of this entry »

Barack Obama makes a powerful case against those who complain that media consolidation threatens to limit the range of opinions and ideas available to consumers and to dumb down public discourse.

And whether as a person drawn to public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before. You’ll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you’ll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they’re talking about. Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they’re talking about–by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts.

He should tell that to Barack Obama.

Yesterday, I discussed how Chrysler’s attempt to avoid bankruptcy was not a just, free-market process, but a giveaway to the administration’s beloved UAW. The UAW, of course, loudly sheds tears over “concessions” of its own.

But let’s take a look at the UAW’s “concessions” in Chrysler’s final, pre-bankruptcy restructuring-proposal/bailout-plea. From the Wall Street Journal: Read the rest of this entry »

My colleague Tom Bowden just wrote a very helpful blog explaining the details and injustices of Chrysler’s phony bankruptcy. I want to look at Chrysler from a slightly different aspect: How should the Chrysler case have been handled by the government since last December — when the Bush administration propped it up with billions in bailout money? Answering this can help us advocate for the right policies today and understand just how wrong the government’s actions are.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last Friday Yaron Brook was interviewed on Pajamas Television’s Sharia and Jihad Review and Economy and Financial Review. Both of the interviews run about twenty-minutes, allowing Dr. Brook time to cover a fair amount of ground in responding to the questions.

On Sharia and Jihad Review, Dr. Brook assesses the war on “terror,” discussing how and why current efforts to ensure America’s security are failing and what we should be doing to quell the threat emanating from the Middle East (hint: it’s not engaging Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in some friendly conversation). The same day, Dr. Brook appeared on PJTV’s Economy and Financial Review to discuss President Obama’s first one hundred days in office.

In addition to Dr. Brook, Voices for Reason writers have begun making appearances on PJTV. Elan Journo appeared on Sharia and Jihad Review yesterday to discuss the rise of the Taliban in Pakistan, and Alex Epstein will be interviewed on PJTV later this week. Future interviews have also been scheduled.