‘Reduction’ and the fiscal cliff curtain: terms are defined for public understanding.

Dave Scotese — “Fiscal Cliff” is a term coined by “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke in a February, 2012 speech . It would be more appropriate to call it a “Fiscal curtain”, akin to the curtain behind which the kind old man operated the machinery in The Wizard of Oz; someone to whom we are not supposed to pay much attention, lest we lose confidence in our leaders. However, as Jean Claude Juncker, the PM of Luxembourg, pointed out recently, “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.” He is talking about government, of course.

This pretense of a cliff was created by a promise to the American public by politicians that they would get our fiscal house in order. The promise came in the form of forced cuts to government programs if laws weren't passed that changed certain things. I'm not sure what those laws are, but they definitely pertain more to people who are dependent on the government and who continue to pay taxes under the mistaken assumption that it is illegal and/or immoral to avoid them. For anyone interested in learning more about this mistaken assumption, please see Pete Hendrickson's website (http://losthorizons.com/).

The average citizen has been tricked into relying on the government, or, at least into believing that he relies on the government, and so the manufactured crisis held his attention while the ugly and disturbing details about Benghazi and Aurora and Sandy Hook were discussed in alternative media. Those details would only serve to accelerate the disillusionment among Americans as to the nature of government, and the lengths to which it will go to grow and maintain power. In the end, the fiscal curtain has little practical effect on the life of a private citizen.

One relevant question to the topic at hand is whether fiscal cliff is essentially an economic problem, or political, or both. It is essentially political theater. When the problems of a major counterfeiting operation (the Fed) and its primary beneficiaries (friends and family of those with political connections) are squeezed and manipulated so as to make it look like the crooks are trying to help their victims, there is a tiny bit of economics at play, but it's insignificant. If you like to see the “cliff” as a problem, I'd recommend labeling it as “political”.

The interesting thing about politics is that it represents one of two general approaches to problem-solving. The other method doesn't involve guns and prisons and bombs and raids and authorities in fine uniforms telling people what they must do and refrain from doing. The other method is non-violent, based on rational discussion. Politics is the means that employs violence. For example, Bernard von Nothaus had a fledgling solution to our government's propensity to overspend, overtax, and impoverish the people, and now faces up to 15 years in prison for this service. That's politics.

It is also interesting to look at the role of the two major political leagues – Democrats and Republicans – and ask whether they are involving the public or bothering to give due consideration to public good.
In straight and plain words, these leagues cannot and will not give due consideration to the public good. Nearly everything coming out of Washington for the last several decades has been intended to further protect the interests of those in charge. The “fiscal cliff” can be perceived as a carefully orchestrated ruse to distract citizens from the horrors of coercion. Of course the two parties are working together without involving the public.

Now what kind of change in government/state policies can we consider important to protect an average American from getting into financial woe? That will be Reduction. The most financially damaging aspect of government is new legislation. Every law shifts priorities and resources of everyone it touches, and these shifts represent friction in an otherwise smoothly flowing economy. Innovation is stifled by regulation; seedy companies with government contacts use new regulation to block competition, and government agencies (the IRS) work to deceive people into financially supporting all this damaging behavior. In short, the less government there is, the better.