When I want to know what will
happen in the wake of a particular piece of legislation, I don’t listen to
those who proposed it or who voted for it.
That just tells me what they want me to think. I don’t let them tell me what to think. Neither should you.
When
I want to know what will happen with a particular piece of legislation, I don’t
bother with the stated intentions of those who proposed it or who voted for
it. Good legislative analysis is not
rooted in good intentions. I don’t care
a whit about their stated intentions; that’s just acting; that’s just a
pose. I care about results. I look at what actually has been done in the
past with legislation of this sort.
History, not histrionics, tells the tale.
When
I want to know what will happen with a particular piece of legislation, I don’t
even read it. The executive branch, the
legislative branch, and the judicial branch do not think themselves constrained
by mere words. They are not led around
by legislative language. They lead
legislative language around. (Hint: remember John Roberts. He is the Chief Justice. He can change laws by judicial fiat in order
to make them Constitutional in ways he sees fit. Remember Barack Obama. He thinks the three branches of government
are himself, his pen, and his phone.)
No, those folks aren’t constrained by language. They make language do whatever they wish, and
have done so for decades. You
remember: “It all depends on what the
meaning of “is” is." So, why should I
feel constrained by legislative words when no one else does? I don’t care what it says. I care what they’ve done with similar language
and legislation in the past. I read them, not the text. We do not live under the rule of law but of
law twisters.
This
is not cynicism; it’s realism. Actually,
it’s both. Cynicism is where realism
leads.
So
now, MyRA:
MyRA
is the worst political idea I've heard in many years. It's government applying the alleged pseudo-wisdom
behind Obamacare to your retirement:
"Like your IRA? You can keep it. Like your investment counselor, you can keep him. Period."
"Like your IRA? You can keep it. Like your investment counselor, you can keep him. Period."
Sounds
familiar, right? You already know the
words and intonations by heart. You can
play them over and over at will in your head.
You already know the rule of thumb -- the government makes promises and
does not keep them. It works like
this: When you lie to Congress, it’s a
crime. When Congress (and the president)
lies to you, it’s politics. Get it?
So,
how did they talk and what did they do the last time they tried to manage our
retirement, with Social Security? They
argued that everyone needed to be secure.
They would supply the security. They
said that folks couldn’t be trusted to save money for their own retirement. They said that individuals and their families
could not be trusted to make their own way through life. They said we all needed government to do it
for us. They’d take money out of our
paychecks and save it for us. They’d
keep it securely in a lockbox so that when we needed it, it would be there. And we were comforted.
Then
somebody picked the lock. Like crooks,
like thieves in the night, somebody snuck into your lockbox, took all your
money, and spent it on their favorite political items. Shockingly, the “somebody” who stole and spent
all your locked up retirement money turned out to be the same government folks
who said they’d lock your money away.
They did. They locked it away
from you. They spent it. But they left you a chit, an IOU. No, really, they did. There really are paper chits promising to pay. Really.
It’s guaranteed. How do I
know? The government said so. The crooks promised. They left a chit. You doubt a chit?
The
money they swiped went for all sorts of keen projects, like shovel ready jobs
that either didn’t exist or were not needed; shovel ready jobs for which there
were no shovels and no jobs. We can only
hope, even while we deeply doubt, that they got your money’s worth.
But
you’ve got a chit. Be happy.
Do
not ask yourself this troubling question:
If they are trying again to fix my retirement, then doesn’t it mean that
they failed to fix it last time?
Yes,
that’s exactly what it means.
And
don’t ask yourself this question: How
well did the government do wiping out poverty when it declared a war on
it? If you do ask that question, here’s your answer: They lost.
They’ll do as well wiping out your poverty in the future as they did
wiping out poverty in the past. Look at
Detroit and see your retirement’s urban metaphor.
Regarding
MyRA, I’m telling you this: Pay no
attention to what they say or write.
It’s all part of the ploy. “We’re
the government. We’re here to help
you. We’ll take your money and we’ll
manage it for you, or else we’ll pick someone to do it for us. We’ll make sure that we reduce the risk of
loss for you. Trust us; don’t trust
market volatility. We’ll guarantee
results. We’re the government.”
So,
what sorts of companies does the government invest in? To date, they’ve invested in at least 34
green energy companies, 17 of which have already gone bankrupt, despite the enormous
influx of government, i.e. taxpayer, money: Evergreen Solar (25 million dollar loss),
Solyndra (535 million, or a million dollar loss for every Senator and
Representative in Congress), Sun Power (1.2 billion), Fisker (529 million), and
A123 Systems (279 million), just to name a few.
With genius investments of that sort, you can forget about Charles
Schwab or Edward Jones. You don’t need
them. You’ve got an ideologically
deranged community organizer making your investment decisions. You’ve got the government, and you’ve got those
companies they will pick to handle investments.
Who will they pick? Probably
those companies like AIG, into which Washington already has its hands deeply
plunged, companies so bad at investment and foresight that they had to be
bailed out, and who owe their life to government. They will play along. I haven't seen hands that deeply involved since I witnessed a heat transplant. The government's hand-picked lackeys will direct your money wherever the
politicos desire. Don’t worry.
Even
though government bureaucrats are human beings, and even though human beings
are creatures of incentive, don’t bother yourself to think about the incentives
this program entails. Ignore this: With private
investment companies, the incentive is for you to stay alive and stay
invested. They get their money when you stay
invested year after year. When you die
and your money is withdrawn, their profit dies.
With government-run programs, however, their incentive is for you to die
sooner so they can keep your money. They
can’t give it back to you because it’s already spent. If they give you money at all, it’ll come
from one of two sources, both bad: (1)
higher taxes, which means you pay you
to replace the money government confiscated and spent, or (2) inflated money,
the value of which has been drained by fiat dollars, which they are printing
24/7. Inflated money is also a tax. It’s the unspoken tax that shrinks every one
of your dollars every moment of every day.
And if the money itself doesn’t materialize, they will give you a chit. But if they don’t really want to give you
either money or a chit because you are a Tea Party constitutionalist, they
won’t pay. Either they’ll sick the IRS
on you and make you pay, or (because
they control health care) they have the means to their desired end, which is
not paying you by removing you from the scene, once you get old and more
expensive. Even when you die, your
beneficiaries will not get all your money, much of which will be eaten up in
various taxes and fees. Remember,
there’s even a death tax. Dying isn’t
free. Dying won’t free you from Uncle
Sam’s long arms.
Even after you die, they’ll have lots
of pet projects to fund and an unsustainable debt to pay off or to service with
your cash. Even dead, you will do the
paying and the servicing. OK, forget
about paying off the debt. They don’t
really intend to pay it off. All they intend
is for you to cash in your chips. And if
you think government doesn’t kill its own citizens by the hundreds of millions,
you’ve got a reading assignment: R. J. Rummel’s
Death by Government.
Government will sell this bill of goods
to you by convincing you that the market is too volatile to be trusted. But if your investments are doing really well
without the government, they know you won’t believe them and won’t want to give
them your money, which, to them, is a problem.
In a prosperous market place, what’s an Alinskyite like Obama and his
ilk to do?
Create a crisis, that’s what, a really
big one, which they determine will not go to waste. If you think government doesn’t create financial
crises and make them worse, you have another reading assignment: John Taylor’s Getting off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused,
Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis. In the wake of the government’s manufactured
crisis, they’ll promise to protect you against losses, against the evil wiles
of the greedy fat cats on Wall Street, the notorious 1%, whom they will blame
for what went wrong. Once enough folks
are sufficiently scared that they agree to participate in the government
program, government will move forward. “Forward”
means that what was sold as voluntary will be managed as required. You will participate because you must. You will give your money over, one way or
another.
They’ll guarantee good results, even if
they can’t guarantee to put up a working website. They’ll protect you. They’ll make so it’s always a bull
market. And if they fail, they’ll give
you a chit. Bull chit.
No comments:
Post a Comment