Homelessness charity begins and ends with government. OR ELSE.

If this isn't proof that liberals want the solution ONLY to come from government, I don't know what is.  A private citizen does something to help homelessness and the city of L.A. immediately crushes his results, proving that in the eyes of leftists, charity begins and ends with government.

The inconsistency in demands for socialism

This particular inconsistency must be constantly pointed out.  Socialists, communists, progressives and liberal Democrats consistently demonize big business while often pay lip service to the little business owner or in some cases free market capitalism. This all as they overtly or covertly work to dismantle the free market.  They rail against corporate welfare and insufficient taxation and they proclaim interminably that business cannot be trusted to do the right thing - particularly big business. Yet there is a fundamental inconsistency in their proclamations.

Sometimes it's true, big business, particularly progressive liberal businesses do not play fair;

In an explosive new allegation, a renowned architect has accused Google of racketeering, saying in a lawsuit the company has a pattern of stealing trade secrets from people it first invites to collaborate.

Architect Eli Attia spent 50 years developing what his lawsuit calls “game-changing new technology” for building construction. Google in 2010 struck a deal to work with him on commercializing it as software, and Attia moved with his family from New York to Palo Alto to focus on the initiative, code-named “Project Genie.”

The project was undertaken in Google’s secretive “Google X” unit for experimental “moonshots.”

But then Google and its co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin “plotted to squeeze Attia out of the project” and pretended to kill it but used Attia’s technology to “surreptitiously” spin off Project Genie into a new company, according to the lawsuit.

“The real adding-insult-to-injury was Google telling him the project had been canceled and they weren’t going forward with it when in fact they were going full blast on it,” Attia’s lawyer Eric Buether said in an interview Friday.

That seems quite predatory if it's proven to be true.   It's anti-free market because it's the type of behavior that discourages innovation because there's no benefit in innovation for the innovator.  Every financial benefit flows into the hands of a shrinking cabal of monopolies.

It's enough to make one thing that maybe socialism isn't such a bad idea.  Almost.  The problem, the inconsistency with that type of thinking is that the solution socialism or communism provides is to take that centralized power over the market from those monopolies and hand it over to the government, which is in itself a super-monopoly.  Think about it - if the government is in a business like health care, as is the case in Canada, they not only can dictate the terms of the marketplace as there are no competitors, they can actually write the rules to dictate the marketplace.  They can enforce the rules of the marketplace through the police and courts. 

The solution socialism suggest actually worsens the problem.  The real solution is actually the exact opposite of socialism - more competition, which provides more choice and therefore more opportunity for innovation.  Both of those things advance social welfare.  Government should only exist in that spectrum as an adjudicator between competing companies or between companies and consumers where products and services have caused issues for consumers.  Even then it should be an adjudicator of last resort, as the marketplace that recognizes poor performance for a business will resolve that by flowing business to competitors that provide better service, better quality and/or better prices.

That this inconsistency needs to be constantly reminded or shown to people is sad, nevertheless it's a job we should all share tirelessly and with enthusiasm and no expectation of personal reward (because that's the socialist thing to do).

Democrats + Big Business = Death to America

Of all the liberal canards about conservatism, the one that has become the most perplexing is the notion that Republicans favor the wealthy at the expense of the working class.  Every week we see more and more evidence of the ties between near-monopolistic big businesses and the Democratic party.  It's almost as if their desired structure for government is that of an oligopoly consisting of the federal government, Silicon Valley, establishment media and key, allied big businesses.

CNBC has reported that Apple owns more US Treasury securities than many nations on earth, in fact it ranks 24th among treasury holders, roughly half as many as Russia.  Meanwhile Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has hired a former Clinton pollster, perhaps for his own political ambitions or perhaps simply to try to help shape political opinion for his preferred candidate(s). From Solyndra, to GE, to Uranium One, the Democrats have been about graft and/or choosing winners that match their progressive agenda.  There are a myriad of other examples before you even get into the foreign donors issue. It's an unholy union that means death to America. 

The reason the unhealthy and likely frequently illegal relationships are so bad is because of the fallout.  For example, Big Business wants cheap, often illegal labor.  So the Democrats convince people that legal immigration and illegal immigration are the same thing and that not allowing everyone into the country is heartless. Meanwhile they convince voters that they are the party of compassion because they demand an untenable minimum wage.  It doesn't work, but it sure sounds compassionate.  The real fallout though is that by tilting the playing field in favor of mammoth companies by requiring things like Dodd-Frank compliance, or having employer requirements for Obamacare the smaller business struggle to comply.  Bigger business can absorb the burden in exchange for diminished or weakened competition from start-ups or smaller, more innovative companies.

This disincentive for smaller companies, ensures monopolistic or near-monopolistic environments in many industries and that in turn reduces innovation and international competitiveness.  Combined with the offshoring of jobs, America becomes less competitive, less innovative and therefore less influential globally.  At the same time as jobs erode, so does the standard of living for Americans.

But Democrats don't care because they get their slice of the pie in return.  Republicans don't get off the hook so easily either; many of them support the same status quo of decline.  The differences is that the Republicans at least have some diversity of opinion within the party.  The repeal Obamacare vote failed because of that diversity.  There are those within the Republican party who want more competitive diversity because they understand it will drive the economy, it will spur innovation and that will improve the lives of all Americans.  In that at least, there is hope for a different future than the decay and rot that the Democrats ultimately offer America.

Hey left, this is what big government means

This is what you are fighting to accomplish - your own subjugation via "environmental specialists" and similar bureaucrats.

Monopolies are bad. So what about government?

I've been carping about monopolies and oligopolies off and on for years.  They harm the economy in so many ways; reducing competition and innovation, encourage crony capitalism, ferment inefficiency, kill jobs, cause price increases and become expansive to the point of being able to squash new competition before it has a chance to grow and offer alternatives to consumers.

Yesterday Bloomberg had a story lamenting the same problem, and it's worth a read.  Not surprisingly the article points out that government has a role to play in resisting concentration in the hands of a few power players.  While the article hurriedly dismisses it in the following paragraph, there's still real truth in this part;

Regulation can increase monopoly power by raising barriers to entry. If a new startup has to wade through oceans of red tape, pay millions of dollars in compliance costs and develop a whole regulatory compliance infrastructure just to start to be able to compete in a market, it gives the big established players a huge and enduring advantage. Big companies are able to bear the cost of regulation much better than small ones. If it turns out that regulation is a central reason behind increased market concentration, I’ll have to become much more libertarian.

Truthfully there are a lot of reasons for monopolies developing. Government regulation and inaction are only part of the problem, but they are part of the problem. When a government can fine a Financial Institution billions of dollars for ethical mistakes or misdeeds, there's an incentive for government to allow those entities to continue to exist as cash cows for government coffers. Fining hundreds of smaller banks for the same issue is less technically feasible and obviously less lucrative for government.

Progressive liberals throw around words like corporate welfare haphazardly because they view big business as antithetical to a better life for the little guy. The problem with monopolies does indeed cause problems for regular people, as I've mentioned above. It's easy for a monopoly to offshore jobs and still sell in America and the government has done little to stop it because the sales are still there and therefore the tax revenue.

But if that's the case, if monopolistic or oligopolistic power, as it centralizes and hardens is problematic for big business, why do those progressives not see the same issue with big government, which has pretty much unfetter monopolistic power? Not only can it dictate in markets that it is involved in (see Obamacare) it can rewrite the rules at will. It's not just a player, it's the referee. That's doubly dangerous and as Ronald Reagan said government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem.  As government continues to erode freedoms many people continue to invest their belief in it as the solution to their problems.  

Unlike the private sector in government the solution is simple - smaller government, leaner with less authority and more power in the hands of the states offers more choice for people on how to be governed.  Don't like your state government and think they're doing a bad job?  Move to another state that's doing a good job.  There are 49 alternatives and if a state's doing a bad job they still have to compete with others for populace.  So it's in their best interest to get it right.  Despite the weeping from Trump's win, you don't see celebrities fleeing to Canada and Norway and New Zealand. It's easier to move to Arizona or Texas or California where their governance might better suit your personal style.  The federal government if it isn't pared back, will implode in time under it's own weight.  Enough voters saw that and it's a big part of why president Trump won the election.

Take a look in the mirror if you're anti-big business and anti-capitalism.  You're complaining about big business power but ignoring much bigger government power in a misguided faith that it will act differently than big business. Everything is driven by self interest; government is no different. You are on a path to cede all of your power to a central state that dictates everything, including how, when and if you vote.  That's not freedom that's a recipe for servitude.  

Well, at least they know

Two thirds of Americans, according to a new Gallup poll, think that the United States government is too big and powerful.

In Gallup's own words:

One reason Americans are dissatisfied with how the government system is working is that they believe it is too big and powerful. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) are unhappy with the size and power of the federal government. These views potentially hamper President Barack Obama's ability to propose large-scale government solutions in his State of the Union speech next week. However, this problem is not a new one for the president. Roughly two-thirds of Americans have expressed this view consistently since at least 2011, after the measure jumped a full 10 points between 2008 and 2011.

That fails to explain how Democrats continue to hold a disproportionate (i.e. more than 1/3 of the seats in Congress and the Senate).  Yes, some of it is timing, after all, elections aren't daily so there is a temporal effect to dampen the swings. 

But the real problem is that many of the people who view government as too big still vote for Democrats, who clearly want to expand the size and scope of government.  Take a look at 2012 - 69% of those surveyed said government was too big and powerful.  But president Obama won almost 51% of the popular vote.  That likely means many conservative and independent voters stayed home.  But it also means Democrats got votes from those who think government is too big.  Clearly many voters do not understand the link between liberal Democrats' views on government and the size of government created by those same liberal Democrats.  Well at least they recognize that government is too big. That's a start...barely, but a start.

Sunday reading links

Here are a few good links for your Sunday reading pleasure.

King Shamus tells you where the buck stops.

Big Government tells you to follow Canada's example.

Race for Justice invokes Bill Whittle's common sense explanation.

It Don't Make Sense points out more stupid.

Proof Positive links the replacement NFL referees with the Romney Obama debate.

Diogenes' Middle Finger gets aimed at CNN..

A Conservative Teacher analyzes Obama's education policies.

VandenBrink points out the fix.

Teresamerica supports Tom Smith for Senate.

A Cop's Watch has a story about ... smuggled cheese???

Worried about the recent polls? Fredd says Relax.

Just a Conservative Girl discusses reverse racism and Jay Z.

The War Planner discusses the Obamaphone.

TSA searching wheelchair bound children now

Government gone too far: This is beyond unnecessary, it is stupid.  The TSA should be ashamed.  Can't TSA agents use some common sense or have they lost it entirely in their rush towards job security and big government job welfare?

Chemtrails: There's a sucker born every minute.

In fact, it has to be at least twenty suckers per minute based on how many people fall for stupid stuff.  In the past these people were sold snake oil, nowadays, it's things like global warming and government conspiracies that they're being sold.  The latest one I've just become aware exists is the chemtrails conspiracy.  Forget the reasons for the different snake oils we receive on a constant basis - it's either for money or for misdirection - the real fight is to get people educated to the point where they are questioned what they are told. 

Incumbency sir, is a crime (Part 2)

(continued from Part 1)

Rand Paul defeated the establishment Republican in Kentucky in what is largely seen as a victory for the Tea Party movement.  This could be spun as anti-incumbency but it isn't.  It's anti-Big Government.  The Tea Party is many things but the one common theme is trying to re-capture some fiscal sanity.  So the win by Rand Paul is a victory for that idea.  Democrats currently personify the antithesis of that idea.  Ironically, the spin continues.

Republican Governance Mistakes

Back in 1994 the GOP came to power with a lot of enthusiasm, hope and a will to create change after decades of Democrat rule in the legislative branch of government.

With that Democrat hegemony of power, that at times extended to the executive branch as well, a number of traits were sure to develop regardless of the level of sincerity of Democrats to serve the nation. After decades a sense of entitlement develops. There becomes a sense that the government really is a single party government and the opposition is mere window dressing or a prop or a place to wrangle some votes during internal party legislative power struggles.

Too Big Too Fail or Just Too Big?

With the government going after first Toyota, and now Goldman Sachs, I'm surprised more people haven't started to see the theme. The government is displaying predatory behavior towards what can only be concluded that it sees as rivals to it's own power. The Democrats are forwarding the idea that nobody should be too big to fail. That's hard to argue against, although the hypocrisy of doing it one year after the biggest bailout in the history of the world is legitimate grounds for questioning their sincerity.

Here's a happy paranoid thought

As if you need something else to worry about as far as an ever more intrusive big government goes, I've got one for you. I'm not a paranoid alarmist conspiracy theorist, I'm simply pointing out that the possibility exists and we are now one step closer to that possibility than we were less than one year ago.

It's more complicated than in Reagan's day

And it will be more complicated 5 years from now. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" doesn't fully capture today's problems with big government. What conservatives need is a simple talking point that explains how big government has become.  Perhaps some sort of historic comparative would be helpful. Perhaps some sort of metaphor about a monstrous beast.