Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Two People's views that I always read.

Thomas Sowell and John Stossel always give me something to think about. They both make me expand my views of a subject. Here are a couple of their articles for your enjoyment.

GOOD THINGS by, Thomas Sowell

Life has many good things. The problem is that most of these good things can be gotten only by sacrificing other good things. We all recognize this in our daily lives. It is only in politics that this simple, common sense fact is routinely ignored.
In politics, there are not simply good things but some special Good Things -- with a capital G and capital T -- which are considered always better to have more of.
Many of the things advocated by environmental extremists, for example, are things that most of us might think of as good things. But, in politics, they become Good Things whose repercussions and costs are brushed aside as unworthy considerations.

Nobody wants to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water. But, if either becomes 98 percent pure, 99 percent pure or 99.9 percent pure, there is some point beyond which the costs skyrocket and the benefits become meager or non-existent.

If the slightest trace of any impurity were fatal, the human race would have become extinct thousands of years ago.

Not only does the body have defenses to neutralize small amounts of some impurities, some things that are dangerous, or even fatal, in substantial amounts can become harmless or even beneficial in extremely minute amounts, arsenic being one example. As an old adage put it: "It is the dose that makes the poison."

In other words, removing arsenic from our drinking water should obviously be a very high priority -- but not after we have gotten it down to some extremely minute trace. There is never going to be 100 percent clean water or air and, the closer we get to that, the more costly it is to remove extremely minute traces of anything. But none of this matters to those who see ever higher standards of "clean water" or "clean air" as a Good Thing.

One of the things that have ruined our economy is the notion that both Democrats and Republicans in Washington pushed for years, that a higher rate of home ownership is a Good Thing.

There is no question that there are benefits to home ownership. And there should be no question that there are costs as well. But costs get lost in the shuffle.

Among the things that Washington politicians of both parties did for years was come up with more and more laws, rules and pressures on private lenders to lower the qualifications standards required for people to get a mortgage to buy a home.

It was a full-court press from Congressional legislation to regulations and policies created by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Reserve, not to mention the buying of the resulting risky mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the original lenders -- and even threats of prosecution by the Department of Justice if the racial mixture of people who were approved for mortgages didn't match their expectations.

The media chimed in with expressions of outrage when data showed that black applicants for mortgage loans were turned down more often than white applicants. Seldom was it even mentioned that white applicants were turned down more often than Asian American applicants.

Nor was it mentioned that white applicants averaged higher credit ratings than black applicants, and Asian American applicants averaged higher credit ratings than white applicants -- or that black applicants were turned down at least as often by black-owned banks as by white-owned banks.

Such distracting details would have spoiled the story that racial discrimination was the reason why some people did not get the Good Thing of home ownership as often as others.

Even after the risky mortgages that were made under government pressure led to huge bankruptcies and bailouts, as well as disasters for home owners in general and black home owners in particular, home ownership remains a Good Thing. The Justice Department is again threatening lenders who don't lower their standards to let more minority applicants get mortgage loans.

Higher miles per gallon for cars is a Good Thing in politics, even if it leads to cars too lightly built to protect occupants when there is a crash. More students going to college is another Good Thing, even if lowering standards to get them admitted results in lower educational quality for others.

A Businessman for President? by John Stossel

Herman Cain has an impressive record in the business world. He was a successful vice president at Pillsbury and Burger King, then he turned around the failing Godfather's Pizza.

Is that the kind of person the country needs as president? Cain thinks so.

I spoke with Cain last week.

As a businessman, Cain saw firsthand the harm that government interventions like the minimum-wage inflict. People lose their jobs without even realizing why.

"If the government were to mandate an increase in minimum wage today ... it would simply drive the unemployment rate even higher."

How would he deal with the debt problem?

"We will not default ... . (P)ay the military people and their military families, make sure we pay the interest on debt, pay Medicare bills, and then make sure we pay the Medicaid bills. (E)verything else should be on the table."

Cain says government is not only too big -- it's too complex. To change that, he said congressional bills should be no more than three pages. He's taken a ribbing on that from Jon Stewart."

(T)hree pages was a number to exaggerate a point. Make sure bills are short enough and understandable enough for the American people to understand."

On other matters, Cain can be ambiguous -- special tax treatment for corn-based ethanol, for example.

"(M)ake sure the farmers who are dependent upon ethanol subsidies have the proper alternative distribution for the product."

How can a defender of free markets say that?

"Once you help the farmers get their products to market all over the world, they won't need those subsidies and the free market principles will perform much better because then we should allow ethanol, methanol and all sources to compete in the marketplace."

He also supported TARP bank bailout.

"I looked at the financial meltdown. That was one of the worst situations that I have ever seen, and we need(ed) to do something drastic. But when the administration started to pick winners and losers, I did not agree with the implementation."

He opposed the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors.

While Cain says he wants less government, he also supports bans on abortion and gay marriage, and the war on drugs. The failure of the war on drugs is obvious to me. I wondered why he didn't see it.

"First, get serious about restricting the amount of illegal drugs coming into this country. ... I refuse to accept defeat by simply legalizing it."

To me, that wouldn't be accepting defeat. That would be proclaiming individual liberty.

On war and peace, Cain has sounded evasive. When asked about Afghanistan during the first presidential debate, he said: "The experts and their advice and their input would be the basis for me making that decision. I am not privy to a lot of confidential information." On my show, he said, "(S)ince that debate, I have begun to develop some perspective on those issues."

So should we get out or stay?

"(T)he surge was working, but this president decided to start drawing troops home. ... (T)he two worst things that we can do is leave too soon if we can win, if we define winning."

Can we define winning?

"That is why I have to talk to the experts because the United States interest is not clear. ... (U)ntil I have a clear definition of what winning means for the United States of America, I will not shoot from the lip."

The political class mocks Cain for seeking the presidency -- despite never having held public office. I say: What's so great about political experience? All that means is that you are skilled at sucking up to people, ((just like politicians and you do to when discussing things with O'Rielly)) smiling when you don't mean it and promising everything to everyone.

I would rather have a businessman as president than a career politician, although government must never be compared to a business, because unlike a company, government gets its revenue by force. Let's also remember the real problem is that government intrudes in matters outside its proper sphere. Not even a great businessman could make that work.

Both of these articles can be found at:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/07/19/good_things
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2011/07/20/a_businessman_for_president/page/full/

No comments:

Post a Comment