After more than a month, I'm back and doing another blog that very few will read.  Maybe nobody will read it.  At least this will get me back in writing shape to some degree.

 

I have been sick for most of February.  I would say that's the biggest reason for no blogging, especially when considering I'm not getting paid to blog, and I will not be fired.

 

Wow!  I don't know what to write about right now, this minute to make this short and sweet.  I'm not about to write some long gig about Obamacare or anything like that.  I just wanted to warn the very few who might read this.  I'm back!

Attention Town Hall bloggers!  I need help from economists or other financial wizards.

The evils of a federal budget deficit has, over the years, been a bit of a mystery to me.  It sound terrible enough, especially when compared to a family budget.  If an auto mechanic's family was in debt for say, $60,000, in 1960, that would seem overwhelming.  If this debt had grown to $150,000 by 1965, that would be a nightmare.  As the years and the decades went by, and that same family's budget ran a deficit to over a million bucks ... Whoa!  Wait!  That probably would not happen.  Who would extend credit to someone who just continues to run up more debt?

 

Unfortunately, it don't work that way with the federal government.  It has tax increases and a money printing press at its desposal.  Actually, it can still borrow money to the best of my knowledge, but how long will some entity loan money to it with deficits into the trillions of dollars?  Huh!  Now I am a far cry from an economist, but this federal budget deficit business sounds pretty terrible as well.

 

On the other had, the feds have been running deficits for the last 40 years.  There might have been a surplus once or twice, or so some politicians claimed.  Anyway, with deficits for so many years, why did nothing bad happen?  Sure, there have been economic slumps, but there certainly was no Great Depression II.  Why not?  Why do so very few worry about these deficits.  I suppose because it seems to be a way of federal budget life. 

 

Again, I am not an economist.  Therefore, I am calling on economists, accountants, financial managers, anybody who can answer my question:  What's so bad about a federal deficit?  And please folks, keep the explanation simple. 

 

Thank you.

There seems to be a lot of conservative optimism going around lately.  Obama's appoval rating is down, and Scott Brown won "Kenedy's seat" in the U.S. Senate.  I'm still a pessimist.  My perception is that far too many have been conned into thinking it is the government's responsibility to provide housing, food on the table, low-cost energy and a healthy economy, which certainly includes jobs.

 

Tell them that wealth has to be created before jobs can be created, and they have no idea what you're talking about.  And how about this Obama original:  He "saved" jobs.  How in the world does one measure a job that was saved; thanks to Obama.  Before Obama was elected, I had a job.  I now still have that same job.  Does that mean he saved it?  No way!

 

If the Republicans can do this year what they did in 1994, I will then become an optimist.

When I first heard on the radio last night that Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election, I cheered wildly.  I jumped for joy.  Someone from the Republican wing of the demopublican party was elected over a Democrat in one of the bluest of blue states.

 

The conservatives will show 'em in this year's election, right?  Don't bet the ranch on it.  Most, if any, Democrats are not going to just kick back and assume they'll win just because their districts have a liberal history.  And if the Republicans want to unseat the Democrats in the upcoming election, they best run some top notch candidates--like Brown--one whose victory was well worth celebrating.

"There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith in government spending.  Everywhere government spending is presented as a panacea for all our economic ills."

 

These are the words of Henry Hazlitt, an economist and journalist.  I agree with him 100 percent.  Don't you?  Think about it.  When the economy is in the toilet, unemployment is high and gas prices have gone through the roof, most--and I do mean most--believe that government can fix all that.  Thanks to the polititians who lie and say they will do it.

 

Government might have done the right thing once or twice in my lifetime, which began in the mid-twentieth century, but I can't think of anything right now, off the top of my head.  Still, people put so much faith and trust in our all powerful and ever living government, it's scary. 

 

Wake up people!

I was working out at the gym today, a common practice of mine.  I got bitten by the fitness bug about 15 years ago.  I 've been going ever since, with the exception of a year I was banned from weight lifting by my cardiologist.  I love working out.  I do not always love the pain involved in some difficult exercises or some of the long, boring routines, but it would be a sad day for me if ever I had to give this up permanently.  I think everyone who is healthy enough should exercise regularly.  That along with healthy eating is how we can stay healthy.

 

On the other hand, I do not believe anyone should be forced into physical exercise.  If anybody ever reads this blog, he or she may think I am some paranoid crackpot since no one is ever going to force us to exercise.

 

Don't kid yourself.  I remember sometime in the mid-1980's when one of our big city dailies, to its credit, gave someone from the tobacco lobby almost a half page to express his point of view.  This is from long-term memory; so I paraphrase here:

 

      The man insisted that we should be very careful before attempting to regulate people's behavior to improve our health.  And        

      once we start such a thing with smoking, why not go back to prohibition and outlaw alcohol.  Why even stop there?  Why

      not put everybody on a diet and exercise program.

 

Where are we now?  As mentioned in an earlier blog, the state in which I live (Colorado) has restricted smoking to the point where it seems legal only in our cars, in our homes or outdoors.  Another freedom that's being pulled from those in California is the consumption of trans fat.  The nanny state wants to "protect" us from bad diets.  Sometime in the future, our government nannies will ban all junk food.  Then there is government controlled health care managed by over a hundred government agencies and staffed by government buracrats who may force us to buy health insurance, may eventually dictate to us when to see a health care provider, and maybe--just maybe--force us to exercise regularly.  You think? 

Well--The new year is upon us.  It's time for New Year's resolutions, right.  Of course it is--if you pay attention to the media.  The morning news shows, the evening news, both local and national, will run stories on the subject.  They will tell us to be realistic, seek support and all this other good stuff which is suppose to help us keep those all-important resolutions.

 

I am quite curious about the media's annual rituals and fascinations with all this.  After all, nobody else seems to care.  I mean I have had many jobs in all sorts of businesses, environments and situations.  I don't recall ever hearing a conversation at work about anybody's New Year's resolutions.  For that matter, I don't recall ever hearing any such talk on the street, in the supermarket, at the bank or anywhere else.

 

Sure, on rare occasions, I would see some young woman finish her cup of yogurt and say, "I want to eat right.  It's my New Year's resolution."  Still, I think very few get into this resolution game, but there certainly are some.  Anyone who has spent years working out in gyms will tell you that these places become zoos in January.  Gyms are overcrowded.  Their parking lots are full, and you have to patiently wait to use machines.

 

I've never made a New Year's resolution in my life, even though I have quit smoking, exercised regularly (and still do) and gone from a junk food diet to a healthy diet.  Whenever I get psyched up to drop a bad habit or pick up a good one, I don't wait for a date on the calender to get started. 

 

 

Well, 2009 was a very good year for me.  I still have my job, not only that, it's a job I like.  In November I went on the vacation of my life to Hawaii--not bad for a low-income wage earner, and I made back all the investment money I lost in 2008.  I actually hate to see the year end, but I'm not so selfish that I'd wish it to continue.

 

Listening to the broadcast media seems to indicate most people had a relatively bad year.  Many have lost their jobs.  Some have lost their homes by mortgage forclosure.  Some have lost just about everything.  What's worse, Obama has spent trillions of dollars, and he is still at the presidential helm ready to spend plenty more.

 

On the other hand, there are some glimmers of hope.  There is Fox News, a medium telling so much truth that the Obama administration once spoke of a "war on Fox."  From Fox we get Bill O'Reilly, John Stossel and Glenn Beck.  I would say an outragous man like Beck is more of an asset than a liability.  Fortunately, he is now enjoying quite a following.  Other personalities on our side include Ann Coulter, Michelle Maulken, Thomas Sowell.  Sowell is really a plus.  He is an economist, educator, writer, and a very intelligent man.  And how can I forget Sarah Palin?  It's been over a year since the tragic 2008 election, and Palin is still a national celebrity.

 

Let's not give up all hope.  I haven't.  And by the way, happy New Year, everybody!

Another reason for the unlikelyhood of my being a libertarian is, perhaps, my upbringing which carried well into early adulthood.  I was born and raised in Rhode Island, a very liberal state.  Democrats held the power there along with a few liberal Republicans.  I grew up in a very blue collar neighborhood with a lot of union shops and union mindsets.  Rarely did a white collar come out except for church on Sunday.

 

I started college in 1969 and didn't finish till well into the 1970's.  In those days my thinking was liberal beyond control.  I thought the government should have its fingers in everything.  I thought the minimum wage should skyrocket.  I thought the government should force auto makers to install cross-chested seat belts like racing drivers wear, and then pass laws requiring us to wear them on the highways.  (Remember; this was in the 70's--long before anyone had the audacity to suggest seat belt laws.)

 

After finishing college, I got a job doing front page news reporting for a small, weekly newspaper in rural Missouri where I drank my way into becoming a failed journalist.  After moving to Colorado, I didn't really do much but work for labor pools and get drunk in the scumbox apartment in which I lived.  Eventually, I came to know many good people who challenged me to explain why I resorted to such a low life, especially a recent journalism graduate who was still very young with so much potential.  I blamed the city in which I was living, the government, low wages, bad timing, the editor who fired me and "ruined my career."  For that matter, I blamed just about everybody but myself.  I was quickly told that it was my responsibility to make more money.  It was my responsibility to do something about my drinking, and it was my responsibility to pull myself out of the rut I was in.

 

Well--I did get responsible.  I landed a job selling tools wholesale.  I was able to get a nice apartment and buy a clunker.  At about the same time, a best seller was appearing in bookstores.  It was Restoring the American Dream by Robert J. Ringer.  Not only did the entire book make sense to me, but it also changed my thinking as few books have done.  I've been a libertarian ever since, and have rarely voted for someone in another party for any office. 

 

I use to think I had such concern for the poor, the homeless, the "lost."  But when I took an honest look at myself, I learned that my concerns seemed to happen whenever I was the poor one.  I would say that I now have even more concern for the forementioned people than ever before; so I now volunteer and give my own money to private charities instead of expecting government to spend everybody's money.  Perhaps even more importantly, after learning some basic economic principles, I am convinced that the poor and the needy will be best served by allowing  a free market operate and certainly not by a government controlled economy.

 

 

Hi folks!

 

This new blog is by just what the title indicates--an unlikely libertarian.  And why is it unlikely that I be a libertarian?  I would say first and foremost is my low income.  It is less than $30,000 per year.  Just about everyone I know whose income is in that general vicinity expect to be taken care of by the government, and we are talking about cradle to grave.  They are all too ready to go running to the government for housing if they get an eviction notice, energy if they get a shut off notice and road resurfacing if there are too many bumps and potholes on their street.  They expect government runned health care if they need bandages after carelessly cutting their fingers.  And if gas prices get way too high for them, they demand the government "do something!"

 

I want as little to do with government as possible. For decades I have used government as the last resort rather than the first resort and did just fine without it. 

 

Did I always believe as I do now? 

 

Read my next blog and find out.