The moment I saw you, I knew that you were the messiah sent by the Church of Latter Day Saints to save our country from the fires of hell and liberalism… or whatever the Mormon equivalent is. Your words have rung true with this staunch liberal and shown me the path toward enlightenment.

The solution to all of our problems, bestowed from a higher power is… Privatization!

And now a word from our very generous sponsor, the super PAC Restore Our Future… “Go Romney!”

As I was saying, privatization will right all of the wrongs in this world. Is the fire department not responding fast enough? – Privatize it. Just pay a $2,700 deductible and they will be at your house, hoses ready, within 20 minutes. Do you want them even faster? Another $900 will get you the speedy delivery package. What a deal! After a few minutes of haggling over the price, you would just need to sign a few contracts and make a phone call to the bank. Once your check clears, the fire department will get to work.

The fire department is just one small area that we can improve upon with privatization, but imagine where we could go! Police, hospitals, prisons, pensions, social security… but why stop there? There is still money to be made in the one thing that everyone takes for granted: Oxygen! Just imagine the killing that your lucky friends who invest in oxygen technology could make. After all, we sell bottled water now don’t we?

Coupled with tax cuts and spending decreases, privatization is a surefire success. There are so many better things that we could spend money on, like building colonies on the moon or installing a giant laser beam in space to shoot down nuclear missiles. Why waste money helping the poor?

And why do we need to invest in education? China and India are better than America at math and science already, so why don’t we let them do what they are good at and exploit our own comparative advantages? They can have all of our engineering, tech, science, and medical jobs while we focus on mastering the art of waiting tables at Starbucks. It is a win-win situation and perfectly follows free market ideals. There are plenty of Starbucks and McDonalds in China, and pretty soon they will start outsourcing labor to America!

I look forward to the day when I can wait tables in a fine Chinese establishment… It will be a great use of my $200,000 college education. I hear that KFC is becoming popular too!

However, the more important reason why America needs to cut money from education is because college professors are a part of the “indoctrination mills” that corrupt our young and fragile minds. Forget the sex, drugs, and alcohol; college professors are the real threat on any college campus. They swoop in, earn our trust, brainwash us, and return us to our parents and society as zombies of their own super liberal agenda. They are all elitists with a secret plan to make us love gay marriage and get as many abortions as possible.

Oh the horror!

Finally, a student that isn’t owned by a bank after 4 years is a threat to the traditional ways of American life. It is therefore of the utmost importance to make sure that all students going to college acquire massive amounts of debt so that they are easily controlled. This is very possible to achieve and Republicans are almost there! Keep cutting money to public education and you will achieve this goal in no time.

A warning though, you must be very careful so as not to incite a rebellion. As with other schemes, you will need a scapegoat to sacrifice for the greater cause. Make it look like universities are the “bad guys” in the situation by cutting their funding and forcing them to increase tuition. Students will get mad at the schools and blame them, leaving you and your fellow cronies free to enjoy caviar on your yachts in the Mediterranean.

From: Your most recent convert

(Note: This is meant to be absurd, or is it?)

India was once a shining example of an emerging market and an enthusiastic investor’s dream. Recently, Fitch and S&P, 2 global rating agencies, lowered India’s credit rating as the rupee continues to decline into an abyss. Investors, entrepreneurs, and citizens ask themselves what happened in such a short time to transform a rapidly growing country full of potential into an economic and political train wreck. The main issue at hand is a stagnating ‘democracy’ controlled by a small group of people with a lot of power. The Congress party, currently in power in India, has cleverly positioned allies throughout the entire system. Anti-corruption factions gaining popularity in India often question Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s motives. However, even if Mr. Singh wanted to enact meaningful reform, the all-powerful Congress party would challenge him at every corner. The coalition politics currently reigning in the Indian government are far too complex for even simple reform to be enacted anytime soon. Unless radical political change occurs in a short period of time, India is doomed to its current state.

So the question remains: What must India do to extricate itself from its current situation? The answer lies in political unity. India’s current political system is disjointed, with many small parties taking all kinds of different positions on the political spectrum. But while India’s parties are multifarious, the citizens’ main goals should be in accord- to implement positive reform from the top down. Corruption manifests itself in this manner, plaguing the top members of the government and trickling down all the way to local officials and even law enforcement, an arm of the government rarely taken seriously in India. Although not many desirable candidates currently exist for the position of prime minister, power rests with the voters.

Once there is a fundamental overturn of the main players in India’s currently static government, dynamic reform can start to take place. One such pertinent reform is opening up sectors such as retail, education, and defense to foreign investment. Prime Minister Singh announced his plans earlier to open up retail to foreign investment. The opposition turned the story around, making it seem like the powerful global corporations would victimize Indian small business. Instead of fighting for the cause of progress, Prime Minister Singh backed down, discouraged by the criticism. What he and so many other politicians fail to realize is that India can still hold on to its culture, roots, and ways of business while adapting to the changing global economy. India has something different to contribute to the rest of the world, a well-educated workforce and an abundance of raw materials. Closing off foreign investment means that India isn’t even giving itself a fighting chance against its rising competitors.

Now more than ever, India needs foreign investors to invigorate its economy and give its currency a step up. Another area of importance is India’s balance of payments. Deficit is spiraling out of control and inflation remains high. While the Reserve Bank of India is attempting to intervene in the current situation, India’s problems cannot be solved with temporary ‘quick fixes’. Its problems are deeply structural.

With just two or three strategically placed reforms, the Indian government can get its country’s economy back on track. At some point, major alteration to the Indian system of government needs to occur in order to counter corruption, and such change is inevitable for the country. But until then, voters and politicians alike must act to quickly turn around its free falling economy by simply making some kind of united decision. The solution is much simpler than it appears.

Now, the Obama administration’s new deportation policy has returned the immigration issue to center stage. Certainly, the president’s decision not to enforce the rules agreed upon by Congress–his decision to, in effect, pass the DREAM Act by executive fiat–raises serious rule of law issues. President Obama’s blatant disregard of the people’s elected representatives and his constitutional responsibility to enforce the law is certainly a dereliction of duty, and may be an executive overreach rising beyond the level of simple prosecutorial discretion. Nevertheless, the president’s recent actions provide an excellent opportunity to discuss what a duly enacted immigration policy should look like. What kinds of laws should be on the books for the president to enforce?

Any discussion of immigration policy should start by addressing two issues: national security and economics.

The demands of national security are clear: only a secure border will suffice.

In terms of economics, the question is whether legal immigration policy should be welcoming or restrictive. Here’s economist Ben Powell on the economics of immigration, courtesy of the Foundation for Economic Education:

Vice Presidents don’t win elections. Dan Quayle is proof of this. Vice Presidents don’t lose elections, either. Dick Cheney and Joe Biden are proof enough (I’m hoping the latter will prove me wrong this fall). So why is there such intrigue over the Vice Presidential selection process? I don’t have the slightest clue. Perhaps after talking for more than a year about prospective Presidential nominees the public needs more individuals to scrutinize.
At the dawn of the Republic the Vice Presidency was nothing more than a consolation prize for the runner-up in the Presidential race. Thomas Jefferson served under his political rival, John Adams, from 1796-1800. The office has since evolved, making the Vice President the de-facto attack dog for the administration. Many have played this role very effectively while others have not.
One thing that is occasionally lost on people is that many Presidents have come by way of the Vice Presidency: a total of 14 did a stint as VP before becoming Commander-in-Chief. Contrary to popular belief, the office does serve a purpose, despite the general notion that its occupants are nothing more than yes-men (even though, except for maybe Dick Cheney, that’s what they are). Great Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman matriculated from Vice President to the Presidency. However, the country also got stuck with Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon BACK to BACK!
Now that Mitt Romney is assured the Republican presidential nomination, the prognosticators have already begun assessing potential VP candidates. Nowadays there’s a fairly low threshold when choosing a Vice Presidential nominee. The last VP to bring real political and electoral clout to a Presidential ticket was LBJ, who was only to be ostracized by the Kennedy inner-circle once in the White House. Today the criterion seems to be DON’T EMBARRASS ME AND STICK TO THE SCRIPT. This formula has been recycled through the years to great effect. Don’t believe me? See Walter Mondale.
Romney has many viable options when it comes to selecting his running mate. Each has his (or her) strengths and weaknesses, respectively. Consider the potential choices*:

- Marco Rubio – He has been mentioned as a potential Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee since the day he was sworn in as a US Senator. A darling of the Tea Party, the gentleman from Florida puts the state in play and has appeal to Latino voters, an important voting group that Republicans have had trouble courting as of late.

-Rob Portman – Seems to become more popular as a VP choice as time goes on. A former congressman, trade representative, Director of the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), and current US Senator, Portman boasts an impressive resume. He gives the ticket a shot at Ohio, but his close ties to the Bush administration may give some pause.

-Paul Ryan – Like Portman, he has seen his name increasingly linked to the VP slot as the primary season winds down. Only 42, Ryan would bring real conservative and economic credentials to the campaign. While he is extremely knowledgeable and polished on policy issues, his latest budget is highly polarizing and could potentially overshadow Romney’s candidacy.

-Chris Christie – Once thought to be the best Presidential candidate Republicans could offer against Obama, Christie forewent a presidential run, endorsed Romney early, and has since become one of his most effective surrogates. He has only been governor for two years and lacks foreign policy credentials. If Romney loses, Christie and Rubio will battle it out for the 2016 nomination.

- Bob McDonnell- Part of the Republican comeback that began with his and Christie’s elections in November of 2009. Appeals to evangelical conservatives with his positions on social issues and to independents with his jobs message. Before 2008, the last time Virginia went blue in a presidential election was 1964. Republicans need to win it back if they are to have any shot at winning back the White House.

-Susana Martinez – One of the more popular names to be considered because of her dual appeal to women and Hispanic voters. She was a prosecutor before assuming the New Mexico governorship and is currently attempting to reform the mess that Bill Richardson bequeathed her. Might be too soon to put her on the national stage.

-John Thune – Straight out of central casting. Now in his second term as a US Senator, Thune has climbed the Senate ranks and is now the Republican Conference Chair. Like many on this list, he decided against a run at the Oval Office and endorsed Romney early. He is much in the mold of previous VP nominees, thus making him perhaps too safe of a choice.

-Mitch Daniels – The Conservative establishment practically got on its knees to get the former governor of Indiana to run. Like all the other “dream” candidates, he declined. His tenure as governor was marked by tax cuts, school vouchers, and sticking it to Organized Labor by making Indiana a right to work state. Formerly a protégé of Senate titan Richard Lugar, Daniels previously served as George W. Bush’s OMB director.

-Sarah Palin- Just kidding!

It was John McCain who perhaps gave us the best examples of what NOT (to do when considering whom to choose for VP: Don’t consider a former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee (Joe Liebermann). Don’t consider a pro-choice governor (Tom Ridge). And don’t, whatever you do,) go to Alaska to find yourself a potential VP. While Romney’s choices in themselves avoid many of the problems that plagued McCain in 2008, the presumptive nominee can’t take the task of choosing a Vice President lightly, either.

*Apologies to anyone who I have offended by leaving off their favorite congressman, governor, senator, city-councilperson, alderman, dog walker, etc. from the VEEP list

Although President Bush attempted reform through the No Child Left Behind Act, which measured basic skills usually through state assessments, the legislation has backfired across the nation and America’s students have suffered. In order for public schools to receive federal funding, students must meet standards set by the Department of Education. This has led to schools, especially in poorer areas of the country, basing their curriculums around “teaching the test,” so to speak. Furthermore, there have been widespread cases across the country of teachers changing student’s answers. In Atlanta, Georgia alone, there were more than 150 teachers across 44 school districts changing answers to boost test scores[2].  The children of our nation are not receiving the education they deserve, and this poses a threat to national security.

Over fifty years ago, we had some of the brightest university students working for the federal government to create a nuclear deterrent in the Cold War. Now, according to a report from the “not-for-profit” testing service ACT, only 22 percent of U.S high school students meet college ready standards1. This, compared with the 157,000 Chinese students, 107,000 Indian students, and 72,000 South Korean students coming to American universities[3]. It should come as no surprise then that these nations have some of the fastest growing economies in the world, and that Chinese experts hack American institution’s networks for valuable intelligence with ease. China stands to change the dynamics of geo-politics and is a direct threat to US global hegemony. There used to be a time when experts like Albert Einstein and Vernon von Braun gave the U.S technological and academic superiority over the rest of the world. Now, our national security is threatened by expanding economies and militaries of East Asia.

Our global competitors come to the United States of America to take advantage of some of the greatest universities in the world. Upon graduation, they take their skilled human capital back to their countries. The leaders in Washington need to stop throwing away money at programs like unemployment insurance for those who are too lazy to work, and reinvest in America’s future. If we don’t, who knows, in twenty years we could become a second rate power. As the great T.I.P. says “Get your $*** Together.”

The fiscal debate in the United States was a given a jolt last week when Paul Ryan released his budget entitled “Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal.” Those who believed that this debate had been settled after last summer’s anti-climatic debt ceiling fiasco have been given a stern reminder that there is plenty that still separates the President and the Republicans. Mr. Ryan, the wonkish House Budget Chair, has made no secret of his desire to radically revamp the role of the federal government as it pertains to public expenditure and government programs like Medicare.

Some would have you believe that Mr. Ryan’s plan is an early election year gift to the re-election of Barack Obama and Democrats alike. I’m not convinced; there is only slight validity to his plan having political ramifications. In a special election last year, Democrats were able to pick off a solidly Republican congressional district after linking the Republican candidate with Mr. Ryan’s controversial new Medicare proposal. Ryan, however, doesn’t seem fazed by the onslaught he has faced and will continue to face from Democrats. He seems to relish it, in fact. Ryan might be the best weapon Republicans have in an election year. He is one of the best thinkers, communicators, and debaters in all of politics, let alone the Republican Party.

In his newest plan, Paul Ryan slashes public expenditures by 5 trillion dollars over a ten-year period. This, compared to the 1.2 trillion in cuts offered in President Obama’s budget. Moreover, his plan goes beyond spending cuts. He has boldly sought to remake Medicare and has found an unlikely ally in his cause. Senator Ron Wyden, a progressive Democrat from Oregon, along with Ryan, has spearheaded a proposal that attempts to preserve the program, albeit it with major changes, such as giving individuals the option to opt in and out of the program and vouchers to buy private insurance. This must have made the unholy trinity that is Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and Dick Durbin wonder how they let one of their own cross over to the dark side.

There is now a battle to be had between Republicans and Democrats that has the potential to be one of substance rather than exaggerated falsities. The Democrats under the President’s budget and Republicans behind Mr. Ryan’s have presented two separate visions for the fiscal and economic path of the country. (Note: I say Mr. Ryan’s plan because no Republican presidential candidate has a plan as comprehensive as Mr. Ryan’s, and the front-runner, Mitt Romney, has endorsed the Congressman’s plan). While neither of these budgets will move in terms of legislation this year, there is an irony that the presentation of the two plans to the electorate might be the best chance of ending the current political gridlock.

Whether he likes it or not, Paul Ryan has emerged as the chief spokesman for the Republican Party on fiscal issues. He may not have wanted to run for President, but Ryan has now taken center stage without ever having entered the race. It’s too soon to see whether the Ryan budget has a definitive impact on the Presidential race, but he and his budget have now become an inescapable part of the political landscape, for better or for worse.

The question now becomes: Will the pubic get on board?

The answer: Unknown.

After getting hammered for his budget last year, Ryan seems to be a little more cautious in his presentation the second time around. According to a recent Politico article the Republican Leadership took no chances in the roll out for this budget and prepared by polling 50 Medicare battleground districts, consulting rank n’ file house members on how to expand support, and briefing Republican presidential candidates.

While the stage is set, one must wonder if there will ever be a fight. If unemployment continues to drop and gas prices decline, the President may well be looking at a 5 to 8 point victory in November. What’s compelling about Paul Ryan’s plan is that he is attempting to address long-term problems now rather than going for the quick fix that characterized the 11th hour deal negotiated last August. Whether it’s conservatives saying the plan doesn’t balance the budget soon enough or leftists saying he’s dismantling the federal government, Paul Ryan can’t seem to win. Nobody seems to lately.

Since the beginning of his term in 2008, President Obama has begun to show signs of this shift in doctrine. A recent example of this shift has been the reconstruction of the 1970s amphibious assault ship USS Ponce; which will serve as a mobile base of US special operators according to a Washington Post report[1].

However, chief among this shift is the four-fold increase in drone strikes around the world; most notably in Pakistan, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa. First appearing on the scene in 1998, the Clinton administration saw this as an innovative approach to targeting Osama bin Laden[2]. In the 14 years since then, they have become the hallmark of counter-terror operations around the world. In Pakistan alone, President Obama has authorized 252 strikes compared to 95 authorized during Bush’s second term[3]. Although there has been some blowback from civilian casualties, especially in Pakistan, this tactic has proved detrimental for al-Qaeda. Their terror network is on its heel to say the least, and now have diminutive operation capabilities under the watchful eyes in the sky.

Faced with looming cuts to defense expenditures, military brass and intelligence officials have also focused their resources towards JSOCOM: United States Joint Special Operations Command. With potential draw downs of soldiers, sailors, and marines, the Obama’s National Security team has utilized these small, agile special operators to conduct counter-terror missions around the world: from Afghanistan, to Somalia, to the Philippines. Since the beginning of his Presidency, Mr. Obama has increased his use of special operations raids from 675 in 2009 to 1,879 through August 2011[4]. In a new age where U.S presence on the ground is looked down upon, these covert raids, largely conducted at night, provide the U.S and its allies with an efficient mode of operation without the negative public attention.

Politicians, be it Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan or even the president of Columbia Juan Santos, want their countries to be rid of terror cells and drug cartels, yet they don’t want the public blowback that’s associated with foreign occupiers. These efficient operational capabilities are the answer to those problems. This new doctrine has already begun to redefine the mission of US defense and intelligence assets around the world.

It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Limbaugh and others chose to personally attack Ms. Fluke rather than debate the substance of the issue. I commend Ms. Fluke for her insistence in a recent CNN.com op-ed that she will not be silenced by these attacks.

My sympathy for Ms. Fluke does not, however, extend to the substance of her position.

Let me put it plainly: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Unfortunately, in the op-ed referenced earlier Ms. Fluke does seem to suggest there is such a thing as free contraception. Arguing contraception is a “basic health care service”, she applauds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) for mandating that “preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance companies without co-pays or deductibles”. Ms. Fluke also insists taxpayers will not be on the hook for the cost of contraception, but that “it is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities”.

On this last question, Sandra Fluke is right, and that’s exactly the point. What’s covered by a private insurance policy should be determined by a private contract. The government should have no say in the matter.

As for the idea that contraception can be provided free-of-charge without anyone footing the bill, let’s get real. Someone’s going to get stuck with paying for Ms. Fluke’s healthcare, and she knows it. In all likelihood, it will be her fellow policy-holders, who will have to pay increased premiums. But even if things work perfectly and the insurance company has to pay for the contraception out of its own pockets, is that really a good thing?

Ms. Fluke says she won’t be silenced by slurs. I know there will be hell to pay for saying what I’m about to, but l’m going to take a cue from Ms. Fluke and press on despite the accusations of selfishness and heartlessness that will likely follow.

If you use it, you should pay for it.

As a rule, it seems fair enough, but it almost feels taboo to put it into words. Don’t get me wrong, I want women to have access to contraception. But you can’t convince me I should pay for it in higher premiums, and you can’t convince me an insurance company’s shareholders should pay for it in lost profits. Why? Because my money is mine, and shareholders’ money is theirs. And we should no longer be afraid to say it.

Ms. Fluke and others may of course object that many women can’t pay for their own contraception.

The fact is there are a lot of things in life we can’t pay for, and not one of those things is a right. Why? Because someone has to make it or provide it. Take it without compensating the supplier and you’ve turned that person into a slave, take someone else’s money to pay for it and you’ve stolen.

If you need something and can’t afford it, the only moral course of action is to throw yourself on the generosity of others, not to pretend you’re entitled to what they own, and certainly not to use the government to do your stealing for you.

On the other side of the coin, we should all be charitable when possible. We should all lend an assisting hand to the people around us who need it. But we should never lose sight of the fact that charity is a gift freely given–no one is entitled to another’s labor or its fruits.

TANSTAAFL, America. Nothing’s free, Ms. Fluke.

The real culprit is inflation. Over the past several years the Federal Reserve’s actions in buying up bad debt—both from private institutions and the government—and keeping interest rates low have introduced massive amounts of new money into the economy. Inflation, which is the increase in the quantity of money, inevitably leads to higher prices, as a simple matter of supply and demand.

But the Fed’s been engaging in money-creating shenanigans for years. So why the delay between the increase in the supply of money and the increase in commodity prices? Why does the price-increasing effect of inflation accelerate as time goes on?

There are two reasons.

First, depending on where the government directs newly printed money first, prices will rise in those sectors before they rise generally. The politically connected often benefit from this, reaping the rewards of their insider status by staying ahead of the curve of rising prices.

Secondly, it takes time for inflation to result in increased prices because, in the words of the legendary Henry Hazlitt, “the value of a unit of money is determined, like the value of a unit of a commodity, primarily by psychological factors”. As with any commodity, an increase in the quantity of money devalues the individual monetary unit, but the story doesn’t end there. People’s expectations regarding the future quantity and quality of money also affect its value, and at the beginning of an inflationary period they generally retain confidence in the purchasing power of the currency. As inflation continues—in other words, as money continues to be printed—this confidence erodes and “fears for the future are reflected in the present. There is a flight from money and a flight into goods”[1], Hazlitt explains. The flight from money into goods eventually causes prices to rise even faster than the quantity of money is increased.

We are watching just such a flight right now, and its effects are especially evident at gas stations all across America.

Now, the sixty-four thousand dollar question is why Lou Dobbs and other pundits who purport to be in favor of free markets naturally drift to blaming the bogeyman speculator for rising energy prices, when the real answer is staring them right in the face. Why accept any explanation for rising energy prices except inflation? These are the same people, incidentally, who rightfully lambast many of the flawed policies that led to stagflation some decades ago. Have they now arrived at the conclusion that inflation is no longer an issue, or that the energy market is somehow immune to it? Of course inflation is not the only reason for rising energy prices, but one cannot reasonably deny it is playing a major role.

So why join the left in making speculators the punching bags of choice, when speculators help find the real market worth of a commodity more quickly, and since their beneficial activities cannot be curtailed but by violating property rights? Why not blame inflation, inflation caused by a flawed monetary policy and the appetite for big government that necessitates it?  Doing so would certainly be more consistent for the aforementioned “free market” pundits, but more importantly, it would be accurate.

It seems too many fair-weather friends of economic freedom have little interest in being either.

I promise to keep this post short and sweet.

Kony is by all means guilty of human rights violations and must to be stopped. There is no denying this fact, but I am skeptical. Skeptical that Kony will turn into an “end all, be all” of human rights violators and that the movement will wither away once Kony is caught. We cannot lose sight of the fact that there are many more people in the world right now who are committing heinous crimes against innocent adults and children. Syria, China, and Yemen are some big players that instantly come to mind, but there are many more.

I fear that policy makers in the US will go after Kony in order to silence criticism that they are ignoring, even supporting, other blatant human rights violations. It has happened in the past (US support for Pinochet) and I would not be surprised if it happened again. While I support the movement against Kony and his crimes, we cannot think that going after just one criminal will bring order to the world. If you are truly a believer in Kony 2012, then you will raise awareness for human rights violations around the world and make all of their leaders famous.