This year, 2012, should be a historic year because of the elections on November 6, 2012.

My latest book, LANDSLIDE, about the elections and the economy has a planned release in early 2012.  As you can probably guess, I’m forecasting an electoral landslide.  I’m also predicting where the economy will be headed in 2013 and beyond.  If you have an interest, you can check out the webpage on the new book at http://LandslideTheBook.com .

2011 was a very busy year for me and I decided to stop blogging for most of the year.  With today’s blog post, I hope to return to blogging in 2012.  My target is to blog at least once a week on Monday evenings.

Happy New Year!

Choosing the Good Life Blog – by Gerard Francis Lameiro, Ph.D.

Please feel free to look around the website and read some of my thoughts by clicking on the “Thoughts” tab or some of my quotes by clicking on the “Quotes” tab.  If you’re interested in reading either of my two recent books: America’s Economic War and Choosing the Good Life, you can find links to buy these books on the sidebar or on the individual pages describing each book.

Hope you have great Spring!

Choosing the Good Life Blog by Gerard Francis Lameiro, Ph.D.

IMPORTANT – I also understand that subscribers to the current blog feed will need to RE-SUBSCRIBE to the blog feed once the website comes up again, assuming they wish to continue to receive the blog feed.  I plan to do a blog post after the website GerardLameiro.com comes up again, indicating that the changes have been made.  After that announcement, you can re-subscribe to the blog feed.

While I have not blogged in February and March, I hope to return to blogging again in the near future.

Choosing the Good Life Blog by Gerard Francis Lameiro, Ph.D.

IMPORTANT – I also understand that subscribers to the current blog feed will need to RE-SUBSCRIBE to the blog feed once the website comes up again.  I plan to send out a blog posting after the website GerardLameiro.com comes up again with its new IP address.  After that announcement, you can re-subscribe to the blog feed.

While I have not blogged in February and March, I hope to return to blogging again in the near future.

Choosing the Good Life Blog by Gerard Francis Lameiro, Ph.D.

IMPORTANT – I also understand that subscribers to the current blog feed will need to RE-SUBSCRIBE to the blog feed once the website comes up again.  I plan to send out a blog posting after the website GerardLameiro.com comes up again with its new IP address.  After that announcement, you can re-subscribe to the blog feed.

While I have not blogged in February and March, I hope to return to blogging again in the near future.

Choosing the Good Life Blog by Gerard Francis Lameiro, Ph.D.

First, let’s tackle the question of what has happened to America.  Why are we experiencing food and energy inflation, a very anemic housing market, and very high unemployment that doesn’t seem to go away?  The answer is very simple.  Over a number of years, America has decided to go down the “social road” to welfare state socialism – the nanny state – progressive socialism – whatever name you prefer to use.  The “seduction of socialism” is pervasive and subtle.  It’s affected (and infected) our culture, our politics, and our economy.  It has subverted our Constitution and the Rule of Law, all in the name of fairness and social justice.  It is now in the process of bankrupting America morally, culturally, politically, and economically.  Free enterprise is being stifled and our economy is slowly unraveling.  

By the way, for readers that want an in-depth look at the “seduction of socialism,” they can read my 2009 book America’s Economic War.

The proximate cause of our economic problems lie with the fiscal and monetary policies put in place by those in government who advocate progressive socialism or who inadvertantly support it.  For example, the Federal Reserve’s policy of QE2 (Qualitative Easing 2) means more money is being effectively placed in circulation, thereby making all dollars in circulation worth relatively less.  Another name for QE2 might be IC (for inflation creation).  By the way, QE1 was the policy followed in 2009.  That’s just one problem.

Fiscal policies including taxes on income and capital formation have a dramatically negative impact on new business creation, job creation, and economic growth.  They also tend to decrease revenues to the Federal government, as well as to State and local governments putting increasing pressures on their budgets as well.  High deficit spending also contributes to our economic problems, especially given that stimulus spending has such a low economic multiplier compared with private sector spending.

In a short blog post, there isn’t ample space to cover fiscal policies in detail.  For readers who want a better understanding, you can read my 2010 book Choosing the Good Life. 

The bottom line – America can choose the good life in 2011.  It can choose economic freedom, economic growth, and prosperity.  America needs to choose different fiscal and monetary policies, policies that are pro-growth and based in economic freedom.  If we do, the change will be positive and dramatic.  We can regain our prosperity.

Choosing the Good Life Blog by Gerard Francis Lameiro, Ph.D.

But first, let’s tackle a critical term in this debate.  What does “helping the planet” mean?  For that matter, what does the term “environmentalism” mean (at least in this debate between Singer and Lomborg)?  From the discussion, it appears that “helping the plant” means avoiding, limiting, or cutting back on the use of our natural resources – the earth’s tropical rainforests or the use of fossil fuels, for example.  But, this has a side effect, namely, the throttling back of economic growth because we need resources to fuel economic productivity and prosperity.

Singer, also the author of Animal Liberation, asks the question (in reference to the poor): “Is there any point in saving the lives of people who will continue to have more children than they can feed?  He seems to think more people will tend to hurt the environment by causing more economic development.  He goes on to lament the impact of so-called global warming on the water resources needed for the poor.  His recipe for dealing with the problems of so-called global warming and poverty is for people in  the industrialized nations, especially the west, to use more non-fossil fuels, cut back on heating and air-conditioning, fly and drive less, and cut back on eating meat.

Lomborg takes a different tack.  Lomborg believes environmental actions can often make the planet worse off .  For example, he cites how diverting food crops into fuels has caused food prices to soar causing more starvation around the world, wasted resources, and the cutting down of more forests.  Lomborg also indicates that following the Kyoto protocols at a cost of $180 Billion a year would save only about 1400 malaria deaths – illustrating how such drastic cuts in carbon emissions often pushed by environmentalists are extracting a high cost economically and yet, providing little help to the poor.  In contrast, he suggests as an example how just a $3 Billion expenditure in medicine and nets alone can save 850,000 malaria deaths a year - a better use of our scarce resources.

How do I view this debate?  First, I think there is widespread scientific evidence that global warming is not occurring and that variations in climate are long-range and cyclical in nature.  So, I don’t believe there needs to be a debate between “helping the planet” vs. “helping the poor.”  Second, from a moral perspective, I think we have the moral responsibility to do everything we can to alleviate the suffering and plight of the poor, even if it requires the use of some of our natural resources.  Those with Malthusian views that believe that the earth can not sustain a certain number of people at certain levels of resource usage are incorrect in my opinion.  As our knowledge, technology, and innovation continue to grow in a climate of freedom (religious, political, economic, and intellectual), productivity and prosperity go hand-in-hand.  Finally, I believe this is true only in nations that have freedom and free enterprise – not in nations that subscribe to socialism, welfare state socialism, or progressive socialism.  In my view, socialism always leads to less effective and less efficient utilization of economic resources and to increased poverty.

Choosing the Good Life Blog by Gerard Francis Lameiro, Ph.D.

While bailouts might seem to be the preferred option for some states in some special circumstances, bailouts can’t be justified on an on-going basis.  When state financial problems are structural (i.e., when they are built into the system and are long term), an emergency bailout is not a real solution – it’s just a temporary fix.

Fortunately, there is a process for developing a long term fix.  It’s called bankruptcy.  For people who find themselves in terrible financial straits, bankruptcy can be the means to be released from debt obligations that they simply do not seem to be able to meet with their current resources.  It can wipe the slate clean so-to-speak and give people a new start on life.

Some of our states seem to be struggling with incredible deficits and massive pension obligations today and do not appear to have the financial means to get caught up.  Bankruptcy might the best option for some states.  

Right now, cities are allowed by law to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Professor Skeel proposes that Congress enact a new law that adds a similar bankruptcy chapter for states.  If Professor Skeel’s proposal is enacted, how might that help?

According to The Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, there are three ways in which a state bankruptcy filing might help a state regain its financial footing.  First, it can allow states to cut out waste in some public employee union contracts.  A bankruptcy court can step in, if both unions and the state government can’t agree on contract terms.  Second, a state bankruptcy probably can also permit a state to restructure its bond debt.  While some might think this a bad idea, it’s still far better than a complete default by the state.  Markets would likely rebound.  Third, state employees’ Cadillac pension benefits could be renegotiated as well (something “vesting” often does not allow).

Given the incredible problems facing some states, bankruptcy seems like a reasonable alternative.  Certainly, structural solutions are needed by states that find themselves with structural problems.

How can America help financially troubled states?  One real option is to let them file for bankruptcy.

Choosing the Good Life Blog by Gerard Francis Lameiro, Ph.D.

What is the Index of Freedom?  How often does it come out?  It’s a yearly index that measures the commitment of a nation to economic freedom, free enterprise, and capitalism.  It does so by looking at metrics (measures) of ten different important components of economic freedom - Property Rights, Investment Freedom, Business Freedom, Labor Freedom, Financial Freedom, Trade Freedom, Fiscal Freedom, Monetary Freedom, Government Spending, and Freedom from Corruption.  The scores are ranked with #1 being the nation deemed to be most free, and #179 being the least free.  Incidentally, Hong Kong is ranked #1 and North Korea is ranked #179.

Looking at the data, there’s a major difference between nations that have high economic freedom and those countries that lack economic freedom.  For example, nations that have more economic freedom are recovering faster from the recent recession and financial crises.  Nations, too, that live on a reasonable budget had an average growth rate 4.5% higher than big governments that pursued policies of big spending.

Unfortunately, the United States fell to #9 on the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom.  We are currrently not listed as a “Free” nation on the Index, only as a “Mostly Free” nation.  That’s not good news for Americans or for our economic recovery.  In fact, it signals America’s move away from American Capitalism, economic freedom and prosperity, to Welfare State Socialism and an anemic economy.  Our persistently high unemployment numbers and the lack of recovery in the very important housing industry reinforce the results found in the Index.

Of course, this is all consistent with the message of my 2010 book, Choosing the Good Life.  America can choose the good life with the right fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies that focus on economic freedom as my new book discusses.

Is economic freedom necessary for prosperity?  It certainly is, as we can definitely see from this latest data.

Choosing the Good Life Blog by Gerard Francis Lameiro, Ph.D.

First, let’s talk about the Constitution.  While The Declaration of Independence created a moral vision for what was a good government, the Constitution provided a political vision for a limited government that protected individual freedoms.  Its focus was individual liberty.  The power of the Federal government was limited and enumerated, again to protect individual liberty.

With the advent of progressive socialist thinking and various Supreme Court decisions that weakened the Constitutional protections of private property, individual liberty, and limited government powers, Americans have relinquished considerable freedom.  Some of the latest assaults on our liberty include ObamaCare that will most likely result in medical decisions being made for Americans by big government bureaucrats instead of by patients and their doctors.  Another assault is the recent announcement by the EPA that it will start to regulate greenhouse gas standards, despite the fact Congress rejected cap-and-trade legislation.

But, another point is sometimes missed in this discussion.  Trampling the Constitution not only means that we lose many of our freedoms, but also that we lose our prosperity.  Pro-growth economic policies rely on economic freedom, free markets and the competition, lower prices, innovation, and new job creation that they spawn.  Yes, the Constitution, individual liberty, and prosperity are all related.  So, where does Congress fit into the equation?

In The Wall Street Journal article, Roger Pilon points to the plan in the new House to require all bills to specifically cite the authority that permits it to introduce a bill.  The first question Congress should always ask about a bill according to Pilon is: “Does the Constitution authorize us to pursue this end?”  If not, end of debate.  If yes, the next question Congress should ask deals with whether the means to the end are ”necessary and proper” from a Constitutional perspective.  Pilon also believes Congress needs to stop delgating its authority to executive agencies, either approve or rescind/defund executive branch regulations that are inapproriate, and create no new regulations unless authorized by the Constitution.

Of course, as we protect (and in some cases restore) economic freedom, we can expect our economy to improve.