It was doomed to die from the start.  Why?  The reason has nothing to do with the fact that it’s a spending package.  It all goes back to the heart of free-market economics and what Ludwig von Mises calls “Liberalism”.

But what is liberalism?  Liberalism is the foundation of limited government based on the common belief that individual liberty to prosper in an unequal system is best.  By unequal I mean a system where there is no balance of wealth: the rich can become more prosperous, the poor poorer, etc.

So how does liberalism play into the economic package passed last week?  It’s not just this one bill that’s doomed us to failure.  The United States began a downward trend the minute FDR initiated his “New Deal” package which did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy.  In fact in 1939 unemployment under the new deal was HIGHER than it had been previous to Roosevelt’s election in 1931.  Even Roosevelt’s secretary of the treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., admitted years after the New Deal had been put into place that it did nothing to solve unemployment and didn’t do anything to stimulate the economy.

Why?  Because when you spend money you have to get the money back from somewhere.  So where does it come from?  Taxes…  Money doesn’t come out of thin air, and for every dollar we spend it’s another dollar we have to tax… or more than a dollar once you look at the interest.  The entire basis for the spending packages now and in the past comes because the government 1) recognizes the difference in income/ benefits and 2) believes that reallocation of wealth is more beneficial than leaving it in the hands of the “wealthy.”

What that means is that every stimulus package comes amidst a philosophical mindset of government intervention that necessitates more intervention to provide for the adverse of effects of spending and taxing.  It’s a perpetually degenerating system that always requires more involvement to “solve” for the problems it creates.  By that token alone we only dig ourselves into a deeper hole every time the government ignores the freedom of the individual in a concerted effort to bring those who aren’t as well off back into the arms of prosperity.

This system has a name, and it’s called socialism.

All socialistic societies lead to more intervention and regulation and less innovation, because the government becomes the provider and the allocator of knowledge and resources.  The question then becomes not whether or not we spend money to try to save capitalism.  We’re too long-gone to try to salvage a capitalistic/free-market system.  The question we now must face is whether or not we let a system so bereft survive or raise it from the ground up.

The first big change was a notable one. Obama froze the pay of his staff. Making a cut for the economy and a brilliant gesture that helped get many in the nation on his side. Also putting some restraints of the lobbyists. Not only reducing their influence on politics, but also giving himself more power over congress and other agencies. But although both of these policies are of some repute I think that there might have been some additional changes that would have further bettered his approval rating and would have been good for the nation.

First, he could have cut his staff. He frankly doesn’t need a thousand plus staff. This is something that Bush should have done as well. Abraham Lincoln went through the civil war with a small staff of two. Even FDR had a staff of only a couple hundred during WW2. There is no need to have that many people in the executive branch. Although a wonderful gesture, freezing funds will do little to help the smothered economy. But cutting the bloated staff would have been a great way to streamline the Cabinet.

The second big change was not nearly so pleasant. Obama announced to the world and many pleasantly surprised terrorist groups, that he is closing Guantanimo Bay for “national security reasons”. What he forgot to mention is where we will put them. Coincidently, this story was highlighted by the fact that the last guy we released from the Detention center went and promptly blew 16 people sky high. Apparently not getting the message of the Saudi “Jihad rehabilitation center” that he attended.

So where do we send them? To another country? How about France? Imagine the headlines. “Mob attacks French prison. Terrorists mysteriously missing.” It would be Bastille all over again. Or maybe to the Saudi’s rehab for terrorists? Or to Yemen, where terrorists “inexplicably” disaster from prisons.

How about the US? Well, there are several reasons why bringing them here would be a national security disaster. First, if they break out, were in deep trouble. (To say the least)  Second they get the same rights as an American citizen. So if they get a good lawyer, a couple of them could go scott free. Even though they are unlawful combatants. And where would we let them go? Here? I would not sleep a wink for months. The last reason I don’t think sending them to your local county prison is that we don’t need to be setting up terrorist “cells” in the US. These prisoners could get the opportunity to converse with each other, or worse US prisoners who will do anything for money. We could inadvertently have people who we would never expect being converted to jihad and helping with terror activities

I would like a better explanation from Obama what his national security reasons are. If they have to come here though I think we should send them all to San Francisco and Manhattan. If they have to be in the US, let the Obama lovers have them.

The next thing was the economic stimulus. Here’s a Lesson in economics. You don’t go into more bad debt to boot up an economy. That is basically what this stimulus does. Also interesting is the pork that is in the bill. For instance the Billions in the original bill that went to contraceptive devices. How does that help the economy? It is really simple really. Just cut taxes. That is the best economic stimulus. Ultimately it is the government’s duty to serve the people, and to protect the people from itself. And they can’t do one without doing the other.

Finally the most disturbing change was on the life issue. In an effort to make the world a better place, Obama reinstituted the “Mexico city policy.”  The funds aid organizations that do abortions in other countries. In addition to being yet another abomination of human rights, it takes my money and uses it to allow human traffickers an easy way to hide their dirty work, and continue to oppress woman.

On the same topic he also cleared the way for the useless, wrong practice of stem cell research. Many scientists have already found that adult stem cells are effective when embryonic ones are not. It makes not sense to do the unnecessary when we are talking about creatures that are just like what we once were. Many who would have grown up to live healthy fruitful lives if they were allowed to live. Liberals hate doing testing on animals. So why people?

In conclusion, Obama has made some good choices, and some not so good ones. On one hand he is not ending the war on terror. But on the other he is making it harder. He is decreasing government corruption. However he ignores much good advice too. I will admit I am not one of the 68% that approve of Obama first week as our leader.

John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as Vice President has certainly caused a stir. After her speech at the Republican National Convention, she solidified the base of the Republican Party and came out swinging against Obama.

She gave a very direct and powerful speech outlining her characteristics:

Pork-barrel spending reform: This was a major point for her and McCain. They both are dedicated to fight corruption and reduce wasteful spending. Their record proved it. In her speech, she definitely pointed out that fact, when she said that she sold the governor’s plane on EBay. It highlighted her determination to end wasteful spending.

Special needs: This represents a powerful point for her. People see that she is determined to keep the issues of special needs children close to her heart. With her dedication to family, this rings true to the core of America: that all are created equal in God’s sight.

Women/Family: Issues such as this are a very big controversy. Palin is the second woman to be nominated for such a high executive office, and the first for the GOP. What the Democrats argue is that she should be at home taking care of kids, and lambast her daughter for having a child out of wedlock. However, these are the things they themselves promote! It is ludicrous to assume that liberals suddenly become this way. It is because they do not agree with Palin. However, in regards to her daughter, I have heard few who actually say that the father of the baby is actually marrying the daughter. That is unprecedented and unheard of. Yet, it is good for the baby and for the family in general.

Experience/Foreign Policy: Out of the 4 candidates for President/Vice-president, only Sarah Palin has some sort of executive experience. In comparison, neither John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden have that sort of experience. Also, it is interesting to note that none of the candidates have foreign policy experience. They may claim that, but they are observing foreign policy. Only a past Vice President or a Secretary of State has the experience of foreign policy. Others…they have only read and listened about it.

The choice of Sarah Palin is quite interesting, and her pick critical for the GOP base. Now that people know about her, she begins to undergo the scrutiny of a candidate. Yet, given these points, there is no doubt why John McCain chose her to be his running mate.

Josh’s Comments: As you can see, Sam and I tend to have quite different editorial philosophies -Sam focuses more on the individual details of Palin, while I took a more cynical view of her overall impact on the election. Sam also takes a more editorial position than I do -while I tend to have strong positions on issues, I prefer to maintain a semblance of neutrality. You’ll be seeing more differences in our styles as time goes on…

Sarah Palin may have support among conservatives. But what’s the real impact of the McCain pick?

There’s little question about the wisdom of Senator John McCain’s pick of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential candidate. For conservatives wary of McCain’s maverick image, the governor packs enough conservative credentials to excite the base of the Republican party. Problems with her daughter and her “lack of experience” notwithstanding, McCain’s pick was a strategic master stroke.

Unfortunately for the newly rallied conservatives, Palin is not in fact much more than a figurehead. As the first vice-president put it, “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and meet the common fate.”

While this “most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived” may indeed be well filled, there’s very little on the policy side to go along with the political brilliance. Conservatives should indeed be pleased with McCain’s pick, but those who expect more than a token to appeal to the party base may be disappointed.?

So, while Palin is indeed a symbol, her status prevents her from making an essential change in the political landscape.

Samuel’s comments: Josh here takes the position of the outside commentator, while I look more at from why McCain chose Palin as his running mate. Both views differ slightly from their perspective, but gives a good examination of the vice presidential candidate.