Letters To The Editor Continued: Hoover Tried Same Tactics Obama Uses
Hoover Tried Same Tactics Obama Uses
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Why is it that (presumed) intelligent people cannot read history and recognize the lessons it offers? It is said that small business is the engine that drives job creation -- so why would any small business want to expand when facing unquantified costs as is now the case?
The actions taken by this administration closely parallel those taken by President Herbert Hoover in 1930, and to a lesser extent by FDR when he was elected. That is: increased spending and raised taxes. It didn't work then and it sure doesn't seem to be working now with unemployment pushing 10 percent.
The main difference between 2009 and 1930 is that Hoover did not balloon the national debt to staggering levels. Some say that Hoover's actions prolonged the Depression by perhaps two years. Pray this does not occur now.
Bryan Clatterbuck.
Waynesboro.
Medical Device Laws May Be Reformed, Too
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Within the health care reform discussion, there's a separate law being considered by Congress that has the potential to impact the medical therapies Virginians and patients across the country receive.
The Medical Device Safety Act was introduced under the guise of protecting patients from defective medical devices. Rather than making patients safer, the legislation would have the opposite effect -- forcing companies to comply with varying and in some cases contradictory laws (as well as jury verdicts) from all 50 states. When state laws and court decisions conflict or contradict one another, there can be disastrous consequences for the consumer.
Rather than providing a safety benefit, the Medical Device Safety Act would encourage litigation and threaten the current process which makes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority on safety and effectiveness standards applicable to medical devices. The FDA has provided a uniform set of standards for decades. This legislation would have an especially negative impact on small medical device companies -- the very companies that bring most of the innovation to the marketplace.
Under the current process, medical innovation has thrived -- allowing patients to receive cutting-edge medical technologies. At a time when we are talking about decreasing health care costs and increasing patient access to care and treatment, this bill will increase the cost of medical technology to consumers, stifle innovation, and prevent new lifesaving technologies from coming to market. As we talk to our lawmakers about health care reform and the need to protect consumers, we should also remind them of the value of innovation. The Medical Device Safety Act is a separate issue in the health care reform debate and Virginia's representatives in Congress should oppose it.
Spencer Williamson.
Richmond.
Marketplace Isn't Forgiving of Bad Moves
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Chelsea Harnish writes in her letter, "Waxman-Markey Bill Will Make U.S. Stronger," a glowing account of the wonders of clean energy jobs. She seems to have overlooked the available record of Europe and forgotten the laws of both economics and physics.
Economics 101 tells us that money is a limited resource and thus it is prudent to get the most bang for the buck. We do not have to look any further than our own economic activity to find E.101 in practice. Having the government force spending is contrary to the most efficient use of our economic resources and is wasteful and harmful to our well-being. A dollar wasted today is lost forever.
Europe's record has shown that forcing the economy to absorb green jobs actually costs jobs. One of the worst examples is Spain, where studies have shown that for every green job created, Spain lost more than two other jobs. That has contributed to an unemployment rate of around 18 percent.
The marketplace is unforgiving. It does not, if left unencumbered, tolerate economic folly. Consequently, if someone feels that windmills and solar power are worthwhile, let them enter the marketplace of ideas without demanding that their efforts be subsidized by the hard work of others. Let them go before the investment community and collateralize such efforts with their good name, put their own assets at risk, and let the marketplace decide the viability of their effort.
The $150 billion that Harnish said "would flow to the states" must come from somewhere. It is money that would have been spent or invested more efficiently elsewhere had it not been diverted to wasteful endeavors at the political whim of people like Al Gore.
L. Spencer Ryan.
Midlothian.
What Will U.S. Do? Nothing but Talk
Editor, Times-Dispatch In response to Frank Solari's letter, "Things Aren't Looking Good for Iran or Israel," I would like to add one more thought. His observations are exactly accurate as he concludes, "guess what Israel will do in the near future." There should be one more question added to the end of that paragraph: And guess what we will do?
The answer is as obvious as the answer to the first question: nothing. Our rhetoric will be strong and we might even hold a meeting or two, but in the end our longtime friend and ally will be left holding the bag -- or should I say, bomb.
Lewis Brandt.
Dillwyn.
Reader Reactions
Cherry picking. See http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/04/jonathan-chait-herbert-hoover-still-not-a-liberal.html. Perhaps you have read the Shales revisionism. What is your point, to paint Hoover as a liberal? Bush was not a liberal either.
BillMelton: Perhaps you might to need to check your ‘facts’. Hoover was very much a man of his times advocating statist principles and practices. He was a technocrat. Compared to Roosevelt I guess one could say he was less of one, but he was nevertheless in agreement. Check out his work during World War I and afterwards under Wilson. If the RFC wasn’t a stimulus/bailout program, then what is? He was the George Bush of his day - ‘statism lite’. Finally, having Beck write a history book wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. I teach out of the ones put out by the ‘experts’ and they are full of inaccuracies and outright lies.
Hoover increased spending and raised taxes? Who wrote your history books—Glenn Beck?
Hoover was a solid business-biased conservative who fought govt intervention until almost the end, then allowed a tiny bit.
Doesn’t anyone fact-check these letters BEFORE they are printed?
PS.
Windmills have been around alot longer then coal burning electricity plants.
They are just now getting more efficient and cost effective because we are realizing the costs associated with the burning of coal.
Every yard, roof should have a nice little wind powered generator. It’s so .....against the wind…it’s fashionable.
sorry about the double posting…I was trying to correct my spelling…and well ...
Economics 101 also says that government should not subisdize Oil companies. Oil markets are NOT free markets they NEVER have been. There was too much chaos caused by freewheeling Oil drillers. Too much drilling in one Oil field causes the pressure to dwindle until no one can get Oil out of the ground. That is where Rockefeller stepped in and created a stabilized market by controlling everything. Breaking up Standard Oil didn’t change this. Read about the Texas Oil Commission. Internationally there have been many “agreements” as to who competes in what markets. Every war it seems has brought some kind of relaxation of anti-competive rules.
US Government sanctioned “cartels” have been allowed to occur in the US on many occassions. Oil is drilled on Federal lands and a fee or percentage is paid for this right, but many times the fee seems to not get collected?
Oil drillers complain that if they don’t get subsidies they won’t be able to pursue higher cost wells, and the price will go up. Well , I say let it go up…that’s the free market for you.
If the Oil market can be stabalized by government and big business “Agreements” what is left to compete with this all powerful international profit center? Especially when much of the Oil markets are found in other countries and those countries own their Oil companies.
Economics 101 also says that government should not subsidize Oil companies. Oil markets are NOT free markets they NEVER have been. There was too much chaos caused by freewheeling Oil drillers. Too much drilling in one Oil field causes the pressure to dwindle until no one can get Oil out of the ground. That is where Rockefeller stepped in and created a stabilized market by controlling everything. Breaking up Standard Oil didn’t change this. Read about the Texas Railroad Commission. Internationally there have been many “agreements” as to who competes in what markets. Every war it seems has brought some kind of relaxation of anti-comptitive rules.
US Government sanctioned “cartels” have been allowed to occur in the US on many occasions. Oil is drilled on Federal lands and a fee or percentage is paid for this right, but many times the fee seems to not get collected?
Oil drillers complain that if they don’t get subsidies they won’t be able to pursue higher cost wells, and the price will go up. Well , I say let it go up…that’s the free market for you.
If the Oil market can be stabilized by government and big business “Agreements” what is left to compete with this all powerful international profit center? Especially when much of the Oil markets and supplies are found in other countries and those countries own their Oil companies.
The sooner we can break free, or at least minimize the use of Oil the better. I think the first step is to get on board with Natural Gas. I want a natural gas vehicle that is safe, and can be refueled at home. It’s coming sooner or later. I hope it is sooner. And yes if I refuel at home that means many gas stations will go out of business. Free market again in action. So I guess according to that, yes, jobs would be lost because of “green” energy. I call it competition.
Although it’s still not a clean fuel, Natural Gas it is cleaner, and it will break the powerful grip that Oil has on our economy. Hopefully that will also allow other forms of energy to start competing also. Let’s really have a free competitive marketplace, instead of this crazy arrangement that is killing our economy by sending billions of dollars overseas. Let’s allow Natural gas to compete will big Oil. Are you with me and Boone Pickens? Let’s start an energy revolution. There is nothing in the Declaration of Independance that says we have to run cars on Oil. We have 25 kinds of Peanut butter on the grocery store shelves, 30 different ways to buy milk, many different ways to send packages,letters who sends those anymore? several different ways to get internet and cable and phone, lots of stores selling CD’s, and you really don’t even need a CD now…cassettes, LP’s ..come on ancient history…but for over 150 years….only one way to fuel your car. You’d think this was the stone age.
Mr. Clatterbuck. The issue is not ‘fixing’ anything. The issue is power and control. If government fixes a problem, then they can’t use it to increase their authority. They aren’t stupid or shortsighted. They know what they are doing doesn’t work - and they don’t care as long as they can tell others what to do.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement