Things could have gone very differently for Richard Nixon had only his name been Clinton.
Martha Stewart, General Petraeus, Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay ... simply the wrong brand.
Let's say a rich, Republican, cigar-smoking, married CEO with a philandering reputation has been accused of sexual harassment at work and is under investigation. What if during that investigation it is discovered that he is having an affair with an intern, half his age, working for him? What if then he lies about that relationship while under oath, thus committing the felony of perjury? And, to close things out, he pays the first accuser $800,000 to drop the sexual harassment suit?
The question: should that CEO lose his job?
Anyone, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, is going to say "Of course ... why are we even debating it?".
But what if the CEO is a Democrat named Clinton?
Talking to Democrats back in 1998: they'll tell you it's a Republican witch hunt and that he only lied about sex and what's the big deal and it doesn't affect his ability to do his job. Nothing to see here.
Fast forward to 2016.
What if anyone - literally anyone - bypassed their company's email system and set up their own private server in their bathroom and transmitted proprietary information?
That's really all you need to know. Of course this employee should be fired. Not promoted!
(Never mind that Clinton's motivation was to avoid the prying eyes of FOIA requests during her presidential campaign, which should by itself be disqualifying.)
What allows such invulnerability? What happens when supporters become so invested that they ignore what would normally be considered crimes and misdemeanors? Are we witnessing a cult phenomenon?
I'm pretty sure we are on the Republican side. Let's call both of these candidacies what they are.
Of course, cult candidacies are unhealthy for a nation. But what causes them? Answer: emotion.
The emotion that comes from an over-reaching government. One that mismanages the Iraq war and loses popular support. One that uses a moment of one-party control to take over health care. One that encourages illegal immigration while GDP stagnates.
In other words, people get pissed and don't think straight. They just want their team to win so they can shove it in the face of their opponents.
Hate. Hillary hate. Donald hate.
It's the only explanation for supporting either of these terrible candidates.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Friday, May 6, 2016
No, Your Other Left
It's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys these days. Well, in fairness, that's because they're all bad.
The byline today is that we're about to witness the worst case of suicide in the history of political parties. Drive down Republican Boulevard. Turn right. Now take your next right. Drive several hours on the right side of the road. Turn right again and Donald will be on your right.
Of course, Bernie is just as far to the left. Socialism is no longer a dirty word. Hell, it's even the draw. We want to be like Norway! Or Germany. Or whatever place that gives everyone free medical care and still has bread on the store shelves. Not many of those around, but stay with me.
So one would think that Bernie and Donald couldn't be more different. As much common ground as a catfish and a mountain goat.
Well, one would be wrong. They're from different parties and far from the center of each, but these gentlemen are not defined by well thought out philosophical ideals. They're defined by one simple thing: populism.
- Both claim that immigration is costing American jobs and depressing wages.
- Both are against foreign military endeavors that spill both American blood and treasure.
- Both are against free trade agreements that move manufacturing jobs overseas.
- Both draw huge crowds of angry white voters who long for the days of yesteryear.
- Both are new to the parties to which they currently belong.
Both would be horrible presidents.
Anger should not elect a leader of the free world, or any other position for that matter. It's a scary thought that it just might happen.
But the anger is real and it has 2 primary causes in my view:
1) Technology and globalization have eliminated the traditional factory jobs that so many communities were built upon. Combine that with the go-to remedy by the left, institutionalized assistance which leads to demotivation and dependency, and you get a lot of hot-under-the-blue-collar voters.
2) Barack Obama is a terrible leader. He's a smart guy with good intentions, but he lacks the intangible qualities of a great president and he generally does not respect the principles that made this country so great. Many people who aren't emotionally invested in the man see this clearly.
So people look around and see decay. They look up and see a professor going on and on about climate change. Then they hear an outsider candidate screaming and promising to turn back the clock and that message resonates. A lot of emotion that those rallies and it feels like there's a way out.
The only consolation is that Bernie and Donald seem to be splitting the angry vote and neither seem likely to be the next Hugo Chavez.
So that's the bad news. But wait, there's worse news? Unfortunately.
The only remaining candidate is a horribly corrupt, paranoid, opportunistic, power hungry, bitter has-been who has accomplished absolutely nothing in her political life that hasn't resulted in blood on her hands and who would step over her own husband (he's often on the floor, for various reasons) to get to the White House.
In other words, your next president.
The byline today is that we're about to witness the worst case of suicide in the history of political parties. Drive down Republican Boulevard. Turn right. Now take your next right. Drive several hours on the right side of the road. Turn right again and Donald will be on your right.
Of course, Bernie is just as far to the left. Socialism is no longer a dirty word. Hell, it's even the draw. We want to be like Norway! Or Germany. Or whatever place that gives everyone free medical care and still has bread on the store shelves. Not many of those around, but stay with me.
So one would think that Bernie and Donald couldn't be more different. As much common ground as a catfish and a mountain goat.
Well, one would be wrong. They're from different parties and far from the center of each, but these gentlemen are not defined by well thought out philosophical ideals. They're defined by one simple thing: populism.
- Both claim that immigration is costing American jobs and depressing wages.
- Both are against foreign military endeavors that spill both American blood and treasure.
- Both are against free trade agreements that move manufacturing jobs overseas.
- Both draw huge crowds of angry white voters who long for the days of yesteryear.
- Both are new to the parties to which they currently belong.
Both would be horrible presidents.
Anger should not elect a leader of the free world, or any other position for that matter. It's a scary thought that it just might happen.
But the anger is real and it has 2 primary causes in my view:
1) Technology and globalization have eliminated the traditional factory jobs that so many communities were built upon. Combine that with the go-to remedy by the left, institutionalized assistance which leads to demotivation and dependency, and you get a lot of hot-under-the-blue-collar voters.
2) Barack Obama is a terrible leader. He's a smart guy with good intentions, but he lacks the intangible qualities of a great president and he generally does not respect the principles that made this country so great. Many people who aren't emotionally invested in the man see this clearly.
So people look around and see decay. They look up and see a professor going on and on about climate change. Then they hear an outsider candidate screaming and promising to turn back the clock and that message resonates. A lot of emotion that those rallies and it feels like there's a way out.
The only consolation is that Bernie and Donald seem to be splitting the angry vote and neither seem likely to be the next Hugo Chavez.
So that's the bad news. But wait, there's worse news? Unfortunately.
The only remaining candidate is a horribly corrupt, paranoid, opportunistic, power hungry, bitter has-been who has accomplished absolutely nothing in her political life that hasn't resulted in blood on her hands and who would step over her own husband (he's often on the floor, for various reasons) to get to the White House.
In other words, your next president.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Results
Results. They're all that matter. Hurting someone with good intentions is still hurting someone. Their suffering is not lessened because you didn't mean it.
It is also important to look at not only the intended recipient of your good will, but to make sure there is no collateral damage as well. Not only are results all that matter, all results matter.
Today, we have collateral damage galore.
Let's imagine a community where a small number of people are poor, probably lacking the basic skills needed to get their lives together. They live in obvious discomfort and perhaps can't even imagine a better life. And sadly, their children, through no fault of their own, are growing up in this environment.
But for the most part the community, while not wealthy, is healthy and productive and on a decent path. The very poor represent only a tiny minority.
Now, let's throw in a liberal from a faraway place, one running for public office. This liberal politician and all of the earnest, enthusiastic liberal voters learn of these poor people and decide that since they are so well off, perhaps even wealthy, they should do something to help. And, of course, instead of setting up some sort of private voluntary charity to help, they opt for the more expedient federally funded program, forcing not only the well-intentioned liberals to contribute but also the horrible conservatives who think this whole thing is generally a bad idea.
So politicians are elected, laws are passed, funds allocated, offices established, bureaucrats hired and forms printed. Next thing we know the handful of very poor people in our village are receiving a check (or food stamps or health insurance or housing subsidies or child care credits etc.) every month. They can now put food on the table, get medicines they need. Maybe start putting resources into building a better life.
Some poor people have been helped, some liberals feel good and no one pays much attention to this little town for a while ...
But while the liberals were patting themselves on the back, perhaps with a glass of organic chardonnay in the other hand, some disturbing things started to happen in our little town. One could say a corruption of sorts started to take root ...
The first warning sign was that the number of applicants for the federal program began to grow beyond initial expectations. Not a staggering number at the beginning, but over time a steady increase. Instead of 3% of the community receiving aid, it grew to 4% then 5% then 8% then 11%. Then 20%. Additional funds had to be allocated. The local federal office was to be expanded.
What was happening? Ask the liberals and they'll tell you that life is getting harder, there's less opportunity, we haven't invested enough in education and health care ... so of course the numbers of dependents are growing. This is what happens when we elect conservatives into office.
But this is just too simple and self-serving of an explanation. What is really happening? Are we helping those less fortunate? Or are we manufacturing them?
Charity is a dangerous thing. It brings enormous temptation to those just barely not eligible. Seeing your neighbor receiving unearned benefits makes you think. Makes you ask questions. Makes you fill out forms ... maybe even with a couple white lies sprinkled in.
What happens when this plays out over time? Even over generations? What happens when a critical mass of a community receives more government benefits than they earn at a job? Do people start to change their attitudes toward self-reliance and hard work? Does drug use spread like a cancer? Do families no longer need to stay together to make it in this hard world? Actually, is it even more lucrative not to be married?
But actually, the more pertinent question to ask today: Where is the tripping point when the original culture of the community is irretrievably lost?
Take a look at a poor, inner city black neighborhood or a poor, rural Appalachian white town and try to explain what has happened there in any other terms. Over the years, these have been the two primary targets of liberal "help". Go back 50 years and these places were poor, but their culture was intact. Families were together. The impact of drugs was minimal. There was hope. Today, it's hard to find reason for any.
Conservatives are not motivated to keep our big pile of money away from the undeserving. We're not motivated by our enjoyment of people suffering. We're not greedy. We're not heartless. But we're also not brainless. The war on poverty started in the 1960s. How's it looking?
It's time to abandon the argument that people need help and something needs to be done, therefore anything we do is good. And anyone who opposes anything is a bad person.
Yes, something needs to be done. But first, we need to stop doing such catastrophic harm.
It is also important to look at not only the intended recipient of your good will, but to make sure there is no collateral damage as well. Not only are results all that matter, all results matter.
Today, we have collateral damage galore.
Let's imagine a community where a small number of people are poor, probably lacking the basic skills needed to get their lives together. They live in obvious discomfort and perhaps can't even imagine a better life. And sadly, their children, through no fault of their own, are growing up in this environment.
But for the most part the community, while not wealthy, is healthy and productive and on a decent path. The very poor represent only a tiny minority.
Now, let's throw in a liberal from a faraway place, one running for public office. This liberal politician and all of the earnest, enthusiastic liberal voters learn of these poor people and decide that since they are so well off, perhaps even wealthy, they should do something to help. And, of course, instead of setting up some sort of private voluntary charity to help, they opt for the more expedient federally funded program, forcing not only the well-intentioned liberals to contribute but also the horrible conservatives who think this whole thing is generally a bad idea.
So politicians are elected, laws are passed, funds allocated, offices established, bureaucrats hired and forms printed. Next thing we know the handful of very poor people in our village are receiving a check (or food stamps or health insurance or housing subsidies or child care credits etc.) every month. They can now put food on the table, get medicines they need. Maybe start putting resources into building a better life.
Some poor people have been helped, some liberals feel good and no one pays much attention to this little town for a while ...
But while the liberals were patting themselves on the back, perhaps with a glass of organic chardonnay in the other hand, some disturbing things started to happen in our little town. One could say a corruption of sorts started to take root ...
The first warning sign was that the number of applicants for the federal program began to grow beyond initial expectations. Not a staggering number at the beginning, but over time a steady increase. Instead of 3% of the community receiving aid, it grew to 4% then 5% then 8% then 11%. Then 20%. Additional funds had to be allocated. The local federal office was to be expanded.
What was happening? Ask the liberals and they'll tell you that life is getting harder, there's less opportunity, we haven't invested enough in education and health care ... so of course the numbers of dependents are growing. This is what happens when we elect conservatives into office.
But this is just too simple and self-serving of an explanation. What is really happening? Are we helping those less fortunate? Or are we manufacturing them?
Charity is a dangerous thing. It brings enormous temptation to those just barely not eligible. Seeing your neighbor receiving unearned benefits makes you think. Makes you ask questions. Makes you fill out forms ... maybe even with a couple white lies sprinkled in.
What happens when this plays out over time? Even over generations? What happens when a critical mass of a community receives more government benefits than they earn at a job? Do people start to change their attitudes toward self-reliance and hard work? Does drug use spread like a cancer? Do families no longer need to stay together to make it in this hard world? Actually, is it even more lucrative not to be married?
But actually, the more pertinent question to ask today: Where is the tripping point when the original culture of the community is irretrievably lost?
Take a look at a poor, inner city black neighborhood or a poor, rural Appalachian white town and try to explain what has happened there in any other terms. Over the years, these have been the two primary targets of liberal "help". Go back 50 years and these places were poor, but their culture was intact. Families were together. The impact of drugs was minimal. There was hope. Today, it's hard to find reason for any.
Conservatives are not motivated to keep our big pile of money away from the undeserving. We're not motivated by our enjoyment of people suffering. We're not greedy. We're not heartless. But we're also not brainless. The war on poverty started in the 1960s. How's it looking?
It's time to abandon the argument that people need help and something needs to be done, therefore anything we do is good. And anyone who opposes anything is a bad person.
Yes, something needs to be done. But first, we need to stop doing such catastrophic harm.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
If I were racist ...
The libertarian movement is often accused of racism. Sure, there are very few African Americans at the Tea Party rallies and there is the rare but highly visible anti-Obama racist in the crowd. And although the left has been accused of planting the occasional redneck with a fake KKK tattoo for the benefit of MSNBC's cameras, I have no doubt that at least a few of these idiots are sincere.
But what if I were really a racist? What if I wanted to hurt black people as much as possible? I'm not talking short term or minor stuff ... how can I maximize the damage generation after generation? What if my goal was to keep them out of my nice, upscale neighborhood and off my country club golf course? Keep them out of my kids' schools and out of my workplace? Not just to make sure I don't bump into them as I go about my day, but to make sure no decent white people ever bump into them.
Sounds horrible, right? It is horrible. I doubt there are many people around today who think like this, thank God.
But what if I did think like this? What if I were in a position of power? What would I do? What policies would I put in place to satisfy my twisted attitudes?
First, I would promote the idea that it's not their fault that they are suffering. I would stand up in community centers and churches and blame slavery and white people for their misfortunes. I would do my best to convince them that the cards are stacked against them and even if they do study and work hard, the white man will never give them a fair chance. I would give this narrative sympathetic airplay on cable news talk shows and in movies and TV shows.
I would put in place affirmative action and quotas, embedding in people's minds that there are a limited number of places in the mainstream world for blacks. This would fly in the face of traditional American meritocracy and give blacks the stigma of not having earned their success.
I would implement a minimum wage, reducing the number of open jobs in the world. It would also eliminate apprenticeship programs that have traditionally helped people get themselves out of poverty.
I would promote diversity and sensitivity policies that reduce workplaces to sterile, politically correct vacuums where diversity is not celebrated, but ignored for the fear of saying the wrong thing. This would have the effect of exclusion, not inclusion.
I would institutionalize welfare and medicaid to ensure that an entitlement mentality permeates every corner of poor, black culture. It would turn otherwise productive people into a dependent class as well as ensure that every new generation grows up knowing no other way of life.
I would build public housing to segregate blacks from mainstream society. This would have the added benefit of ensure the entitlement mentality touches every resident.
I would give out free stuff galore (Obamaphones!), all the while promising to give even more in the future ... just in case someone was thinking about studying or working harder.
In other words, if I were truly a racist and I wanted to appear to be helping but actually be hurting, I would adopt the policies of the left. Because what really matters is not intentions nor policies nor narratives nor what feels good ... what really matters are results.
The left has created an environment of low expectations for African Americans. This has destroyed black culture, including the family and a sense of self-reliance.
The libertarians have the same expectations of every man, regardless of color. No special treatment because none is needed. We want every child to see their parents take pride in their achievements and to strive to achieve even more.
What cannot be disputed is the current state of black quality of life. The numbers are staggering, any way you slice it, whether it be unemployment, incarceration, drug use, single parents or no parents. Yes, progress has been made in some areas, for a few. But overall, things could not be much worse.
I've often said that liberals are not evil and I do not believe they are racist. They are good intentioned and intelligent. However, they lack the wisdom to see the result of their policies. But after so many decades and so much damage, I would think they would catch on by now.
Slavery did not destroy black family and culture. Racism did not do it. This was the doing of the left, trying to help.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Story lines
There seem to be 2 main story lines in this progressive vs conservative discussion. Which one of the following fits your world view?
Holders of the above point of view tend to vote Democratic, watch MSNBC or CNN, read the New York Times, drive a hybrid and feel a little guilty when they fly on an airplane.
Or...
Holders of this point of view tend to vote Republican, watch FoxNews, read the Wall Street Journal, own a gun and feel a little guilty when they take something from the government that they have not earned.
One easy, but lazy, conclusion to draw is that both story lines are true...that the two extremes create a happy middle. Sure, very few would disagree that much progress could have been made without both a strong central government as well as motivated wealth creators in the private sector. But stopping the analysis there simplifies political philosophy to not much more than a volume knob, increasing or decreasing the amount of government. It's a good first order model, but far from complete.
Important questions should be answered, such as defining the proper role of government in society and its limitations. Before we discuss the degree to which government should be involved in something, we should decide whether it should be involved at all. And once we decide such things, we should stick with that decision no matter how tempting it might be to apply a quick fix. Government has an exclusive monopoly on the initiation of the use of force (the military and police). It's wise to create firewalls between the private sector and the public domain to defend against any future misuse of power. If history has taught us anything, it's that bad people are attracted to the job of running countries.
Of course, such analysis is a little too "black and white" for some people who will argue that a little government involvement helps everything and without which there would be chaos. The idea that government can keep the peace and defend individuals against force and fraud without "regulating" is unthinkable. Liberals sleep better knowing government is involved. This keeps conservatives awake.
There is also a vague sense that democracy itself is the defense against tyranny. If government goes "too far", we'll just vote the bad guys out of office and put in a better crop of leaders. But in practice, that only works for major transgressions. Politicians that do dozens of little things to line their own pockets, along with their cronies, tend to get reelected time after time. And how diligent are we really, as citizens, watching over our elected officials? We simply don't have the time. It would be much better to know that they don't have the authority or power to cause too much trouble in the first place.
Power must and will reside somewhere. Consolidated and centralized in a government that also has the military and police? Or widely distributed among free people making decisions every day according to their best interests, with government defending them against force and fraud? As a people, we decide by which story line we follow.
People have lived in misery for most of human history, oppressed by ruthless tyrants, without basic rights or freedoms. Only recently have the concepts of liberty and equality been applied by enlightened leaders, opening an era of art, science and relative peace. Today, certain people want to turn back the clock by consolidating power in the elite few who control the major corporations and financial institutions. Without government to restrain the barons of unchecked capitalism, humanity's forward progress will grind to a halt and the tyrants will again rule the day.
Holders of the above point of view tend to vote Democratic, watch MSNBC or CNN, read the New York Times, drive a hybrid and feel a little guilty when they fly on an airplane.
Or...
People have lived in misery for most of human history, oppressed by
ruthless tyrants, without basic rights or freedoms. Only recently have
the concepts of liberty and equal rights been applied by enlightened leaders, opening an era of art, science and relative peace. Today, certain people want to turn back the clock by consolidating power in an elite few who control government institutions. Without economic and personal liberty guaranteed for every individual, humanity's forward progress will grind to a halt and the tyrants will once again rule the day.
Holders of this point of view tend to vote Republican, watch FoxNews, read the Wall Street Journal, own a gun and feel a little guilty when they take something from the government that they have not earned.
One easy, but lazy, conclusion to draw is that both story lines are true...that the two extremes create a happy middle. Sure, very few would disagree that much progress could have been made without both a strong central government as well as motivated wealth creators in the private sector. But stopping the analysis there simplifies political philosophy to not much more than a volume knob, increasing or decreasing the amount of government. It's a good first order model, but far from complete.
Important questions should be answered, such as defining the proper role of government in society and its limitations. Before we discuss the degree to which government should be involved in something, we should decide whether it should be involved at all. And once we decide such things, we should stick with that decision no matter how tempting it might be to apply a quick fix. Government has an exclusive monopoly on the initiation of the use of force (the military and police). It's wise to create firewalls between the private sector and the public domain to defend against any future misuse of power. If history has taught us anything, it's that bad people are attracted to the job of running countries.
Of course, such analysis is a little too "black and white" for some people who will argue that a little government involvement helps everything and without which there would be chaos. The idea that government can keep the peace and defend individuals against force and fraud without "regulating" is unthinkable. Liberals sleep better knowing government is involved. This keeps conservatives awake.
There is also a vague sense that democracy itself is the defense against tyranny. If government goes "too far", we'll just vote the bad guys out of office and put in a better crop of leaders. But in practice, that only works for major transgressions. Politicians that do dozens of little things to line their own pockets, along with their cronies, tend to get reelected time after time. And how diligent are we really, as citizens, watching over our elected officials? We simply don't have the time. It would be much better to know that they don't have the authority or power to cause too much trouble in the first place.
Power must and will reside somewhere. Consolidated and centralized in a government that also has the military and police? Or widely distributed among free people making decisions every day according to their best interests, with government defending them against force and fraud? As a people, we decide by which story line we follow.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Square Peg
Mitt Romney is boring, nerdy and down to earth ... in other words, a square. He doesn't talk about halting the rise of the oceans or healing the great cultural divides. He doesn't stand in front of classical Greek columns waxing poetic while the enraptured swoon to the ground. There is no Romney Girl.
And this is exactly what we need. A calm, mature sense of humility in the face of both history and the future.
The last 2 presidencies have been anything but humble. George Bush (actually, mostly Chaney and Rumsfeld) believed that toppling Hussein would be the hard part and running Iraq afterwards would be easy. They had very little respect for their own limitations, dismantling the Iraqi political infrastructure and leaving a power vacuum in its place. The cost of this mistake was enormous, in lives, capital and opportunity. I believe to this day that Bush thought God was on his side and it would all work out if he just had faith.
Citing examples of Barack Obama's inflated sense of potency could be a full time job ... the only place he has shown restraint is foreign policy, where he has simply continued (to the letter and despite his harsh campaign rhetoric) the institutions and plans of his predecessor. But domestically there is nothing that cannot be improved by the addition of a little Obama magic. Health care, energy policy, financial regulations, the reach of the EPA, education mandates, federal investment in new technologies ... the list is endless.
India, previously, had the unfortunate distinction of being governed by the smartest, most educated leaders (many from Oxford and Harvard) while remaining among the poorest countries in the world. For decades these bright young scholars regulated everything they could touch. They micro-managed imports, exports, lending, land ownership, capital, labor ... everything. It was only starting in 1990 that India woke up to the idea that intelligence and wisdom are two very different things, embraced capitalism, repealed volumes of economic laws and started an economic boom that continues today.
It's probably too much to hope that Obama's ardent followers are embarrassed by their election night euphoria ... the dancing and tears of joy for the savior who finally arrived. It's very likely that they believe these grand plans of reshaping our country are starting to work, that we need four more years to see it through. They would all probably agree that understanding the complexities of the federal government and its effects on a $15 trillion economy is way beyond their own capacity, but our dear leader has it all figured out.
People want to hear big plans, that our leaders will solve our big problems.We don't rally around someone who tells us to be self-reliant, that there things that government should not and cannot do. No one faints when a man admits he has limitations, that he's a mere mortal.
Yep, I'm ready for a square peg. But is the presidency a round hole?
And this is exactly what we need. A calm, mature sense of humility in the face of both history and the future.
The last 2 presidencies have been anything but humble. George Bush (actually, mostly Chaney and Rumsfeld) believed that toppling Hussein would be the hard part and running Iraq afterwards would be easy. They had very little respect for their own limitations, dismantling the Iraqi political infrastructure and leaving a power vacuum in its place. The cost of this mistake was enormous, in lives, capital and opportunity. I believe to this day that Bush thought God was on his side and it would all work out if he just had faith.
Citing examples of Barack Obama's inflated sense of potency could be a full time job ... the only place he has shown restraint is foreign policy, where he has simply continued (to the letter and despite his harsh campaign rhetoric) the institutions and plans of his predecessor. But domestically there is nothing that cannot be improved by the addition of a little Obama magic. Health care, energy policy, financial regulations, the reach of the EPA, education mandates, federal investment in new technologies ... the list is endless.
India, previously, had the unfortunate distinction of being governed by the smartest, most educated leaders (many from Oxford and Harvard) while remaining among the poorest countries in the world. For decades these bright young scholars regulated everything they could touch. They micro-managed imports, exports, lending, land ownership, capital, labor ... everything. It was only starting in 1990 that India woke up to the idea that intelligence and wisdom are two very different things, embraced capitalism, repealed volumes of economic laws and started an economic boom that continues today.
It's probably too much to hope that Obama's ardent followers are embarrassed by their election night euphoria ... the dancing and tears of joy for the savior who finally arrived. It's very likely that they believe these grand plans of reshaping our country are starting to work, that we need four more years to see it through. They would all probably agree that understanding the complexities of the federal government and its effects on a $15 trillion economy is way beyond their own capacity, but our dear leader has it all figured out.
People want to hear big plans, that our leaders will solve our big problems.We don't rally around someone who tells us to be self-reliant, that there things that government should not and cannot do. No one faints when a man admits he has limitations, that he's a mere mortal.
Yep, I'm ready for a square peg. But is the presidency a round hole?
Monday, November 7, 2011
The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled ...
... was to convince the world he didn't exist. This is one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies, The Usual Suspects. We see devils everywhere trying to pull this off, but none more successfully than the left who have somehow managed to convince much of the world that capitalism is to blame when government is the true culprit.
For example, health care. The more government gets involved with medicine, the higher the prices go. It's one of the least free markets that I can think of and there are many aspects of health care that desperately need the help of capitalism (see my blog on the subject), yet somehow all we hear is the opposite. It's as if the devils of government control, cronyism and politics were blameless.
Another great example is the 2008 collapse of the real estate market and the subsequent credit crisis, immediately followed by TARP and other government interventions. Headline after headline assured us that the blame for your underwater mortgage should be placed on Wall Street greed ... predatory lending and the repackaging and leveraging of these loans to "make a quick buck at the expense of the little guy." Sure, the government gave incentives to lenders to relax their standards so that everyone could enjoy the benefits of home ownership. And sure, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent dozens of billions of dollars buying up these loans, thus reducing the perceived risk of trading in them. But government's artificial manipulation of the real estate market had no measurable effect and the real evil-doer was capitalism, right?
How about black poverty? Freedom is to blame there, too ... namely the freedom to be racist. So, government needs to rise again to stamp out discrimination anywhere and everywhere. We need affirmative action, minimum wage, public housing, food stamps, welfare, social services and preferences for minority-owned businesses. Of course, we are not supposed to notice that no group has been the "beneficiary" of more government "help" than poor blacks and simultaneously no group is in worse shape. Generation after generation of blacks have now been raised believing that sustenance comes in the form of a government check instead of your own hard work. Ethnic group after ethnic group, with every skin color, have been able to find their place in the American fabric, yet capitalism and freedom are to blame for the hardships of only one of them.
(As an aside, the normal counter-argument here is that slavery was an extraordinarily deep hole for blacks to overcome, but I don't buy that argument. I used to, but not any more. Blacks were on the rise and were doing a great job of climbing the American socioeconomic ladder during the time of the civil rights movement when the left implemented all the above "help". An emergence was interrupted, in my opinion.)
And finally, the government has beautifully avoided blame for out-sourcing and offshore manufacturing. It's all the greedy companies that have shipped jobs overseas and abandoned the American worker. The ridiculously high cost of union labor (yes, our govt caused this), enormously expensive workplace regulations, health care costs (again!), corporate taxes and the threat of litigation for you name it ... none of these play a role in a company's decision to open a factory in Mexico? Believe it or not, a company would much prefer to keep their manufacturing local to their headquarters ... managing an offshore plant is a major headache and quality is likely to suffer. But when the cost difference is 5X, there's no comparison. Policy after policy has pushed production away from the US.
This list could go on and on ... farm subsidies, the high cost of college tuition, the lack of innovation in our schools, rationing of permits and business licenses, high gas prices ... it's endless. And so many people continue to buy the anti-capitalism cheer. It would be entertaining watching the clownish Occupy Wall Street crowds rage against capitalism if they weren't so typical of the left, helping the devil do his work.
But when we read the papers or watch the evening news ... poof ... he's gone.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Thinking Class
One interesting piece of the "right vs left" story is that right-leaning media outlets tend to do better than equivalent left-leaning ones. Now, with the political parties roughly the same size and the balance of power always tipping back and forth, why is the market for conservative ideas bigger?
For example, Fox News viewership is 4x-5x that of MSNBC. Rush Limbaugh couldn't even see Air America from his lofty ratings perch. Political non-fiction by conservatives (Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin) outsell their liberal counterparts by a significant margin.
Look at Al Gore's Current TV ... Keith Olbermann's show recently reported a whopping 46,000 viewers. More than that attended a recent Paul McCartney concert in Cincinnati and Olbermann is getting paid $10M per year to host a nationally televised show.
Why is this? Why do liberals not turn out in force to hear the ideals and philosophy of the left? But when it's time to donate or vote, they run neck and neck with conservatives?
Perhaps we can investigate this by breaking down the demographics of the Democratic Party. Let's consider the profiles of groups that vote largely Democratic:
Looking at groups voting largely Republican:
If we assume these groups are predominately single issue voters, then we can see that Democrats have an edge on "guaranteed" votes on election day. These people are not going to be swayed by ideas or debate. History shows that approximately 70% of these groups will vote for the party that gives them what they want.
It's also interesting that about 20% of the US population describe themselves as liberal while about twice that associate with a conservative ideology. These are philosophical points of view, cutting across many issues and not likely to be a single issue voter.
My conclusion is this: there are a lot more people interested in conservative ideas than are interested in liberal ideas and the data support this. The fact that the Democrats successfully compete with Republicans on election day is attributable to their alignment with certain single issue voters who want more government, more power to organized labor and more government handouts.
These people don't care about ideas. They don't care if what is happening is morally right or if such policies overall do damage to the country. They just want their check every month.
Why buy a book?
For example, Fox News viewership is 4x-5x that of MSNBC. Rush Limbaugh couldn't even see Air America from his lofty ratings perch. Political non-fiction by conservatives (Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin) outsell their liberal counterparts by a significant margin.
Look at Al Gore's Current TV ... Keith Olbermann's show recently reported a whopping 46,000 viewers. More than that attended a recent Paul McCartney concert in Cincinnati and Olbermann is getting paid $10M per year to host a nationally televised show.
Why is this? Why do liberals not turn out in force to hear the ideals and philosophy of the left? But when it's time to donate or vote, they run neck and neck with conservatives?
Perhaps we can investigate this by breaking down the demographics of the Democratic Party. Let's consider the profiles of groups that vote largely Democratic:
- Government workers: 23 million
- Labor/Union: 14 million
- People receiving govt assistance in some form: approx 60 million (there are 40 million receiving food stamps)
Looking at groups voting largely Republican:
- Evangelical Christians (anti-abortion): 40 million
- Military: 3 million
If we assume these groups are predominately single issue voters, then we can see that Democrats have an edge on "guaranteed" votes on election day. These people are not going to be swayed by ideas or debate. History shows that approximately 70% of these groups will vote for the party that gives them what they want.
It's also interesting that about 20% of the US population describe themselves as liberal while about twice that associate with a conservative ideology. These are philosophical points of view, cutting across many issues and not likely to be a single issue voter.
My conclusion is this: there are a lot more people interested in conservative ideas than are interested in liberal ideas and the data support this. The fact that the Democrats successfully compete with Republicans on election day is attributable to their alignment with certain single issue voters who want more government, more power to organized labor and more government handouts.
These people don't care about ideas. They don't care if what is happening is morally right or if such policies overall do damage to the country. They just want their check every month.
Why buy a book?
Monday, November 15, 2010
The Sky is Falling, Again
In 1957, the Soviet Union proved the superiority of communism over capitalism with the successful launch of Sputnik, the first man-made object to orbit the earth. To many in this country, the USA was falling behind in science and math and drastic government action was needed. To some extent they were right: the field of battle was moving into space and if we were to defend liberty, we must go there also. Soon, DARPA and NASA were formed.
Around this time, Castro and Guevara overthrew the government of Cuba and we were told that their investments in social services, particularly medicine, would put the US to shame. Drastic and immediate government action was needed to shore up capitalism's weaknesses.
In the late 1980s, the fear spread that the Japanese (and to a lesser extent, Germany) would soon take over the world, thanks to a complete retooling of their manufacturing infrastructure after WWII. There were calls for the nationalization of several industries in order to perform the capital investments necessary to compete.
In the 1990s, it was the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to Mexico and elsewhere that would create a "giant sucking sound", leaving the US with nothing but minimum wage jobs. NAFTA was to be killed and trade barriers erected to prevent massive unemployment.
Today it's China. Now the left is telling me that the Chinese are smarter and more nimble because they are planned and controlled centrally. They apparently benefit from having only one political party, avoiding partisan bickering and gridlock. When something needs to be done, they do it. Snazzy airports, high speed trains, focused high-tech training programs, government subsidies of strategic businesses ... you name it, the Chinese do it better.
The US is a fading nation and large government action is needed to save us.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Liberals, who seem never to tire of being wrong, panic easily and don't hesitate to recommend a deal with the devil when it looks like a storm may be coming. They spout on about how we should emulate China, but seem oblivious to what might go wrong if we give government the right to control all aspects of our lives just so we can skip the tedious process of convincing people to do things voluntarily.
In the 15 years or so since China started waking up to the idea of using their vast (mostly human) resources to create wealth, they have gone from a 3rd world country to the 2nd biggest economy. That's pretty good. They've done it without a lot of violence. Also good. But, the human rights violations are uncountable and there is significant danger of a bloody attempt at revolution, one that could either liberate a billion people or see the communists tighten their grip. China is on the rise. Let's talk in 100 years to determine whether they succeeded.
And if China does succeed, it won't come at the expense of the US. Such a rising tide will raise all ships.
I'll take a free nation where capitalism and individual liberty prevail. The US has remained a great nation, truly exceptional, for generations. This could change, but only if we put aside our values.
Around this time, Castro and Guevara overthrew the government of Cuba and we were told that their investments in social services, particularly medicine, would put the US to shame. Drastic and immediate government action was needed to shore up capitalism's weaknesses.
In the late 1980s, the fear spread that the Japanese (and to a lesser extent, Germany) would soon take over the world, thanks to a complete retooling of their manufacturing infrastructure after WWII. There were calls for the nationalization of several industries in order to perform the capital investments necessary to compete.
In the 1990s, it was the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to Mexico and elsewhere that would create a "giant sucking sound", leaving the US with nothing but minimum wage jobs. NAFTA was to be killed and trade barriers erected to prevent massive unemployment.
Today it's China. Now the left is telling me that the Chinese are smarter and more nimble because they are planned and controlled centrally. They apparently benefit from having only one political party, avoiding partisan bickering and gridlock. When something needs to be done, they do it. Snazzy airports, high speed trains, focused high-tech training programs, government subsidies of strategic businesses ... you name it, the Chinese do it better.
The US is a fading nation and large government action is needed to save us.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Liberals, who seem never to tire of being wrong, panic easily and don't hesitate to recommend a deal with the devil when it looks like a storm may be coming. They spout on about how we should emulate China, but seem oblivious to what might go wrong if we give government the right to control all aspects of our lives just so we can skip the tedious process of convincing people to do things voluntarily.
In the 15 years or so since China started waking up to the idea of using their vast (mostly human) resources to create wealth, they have gone from a 3rd world country to the 2nd biggest economy. That's pretty good. They've done it without a lot of violence. Also good. But, the human rights violations are uncountable and there is significant danger of a bloody attempt at revolution, one that could either liberate a billion people or see the communists tighten their grip. China is on the rise. Let's talk in 100 years to determine whether they succeeded.
And if China does succeed, it won't come at the expense of the US. Such a rising tide will raise all ships.
I'll take a free nation where capitalism and individual liberty prevail. The US has remained a great nation, truly exceptional, for generations. This could change, but only if we put aside our values.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
What does Tuesday mean? Maybe a little.
With the 2010 mid-term election about a week away, the rhetoric is running at a fever pitch. Every election is important and this one is no exception. But this election is but a tree in a big forest.
I have seen it written many times that the US is 20% liberal, 40% conservative and 30% somewhere in the middle. I assume 10% are kids or surfer dudes.
The 2008 election was clearly as much or more a reaction (away from Bush) as it was an action (toward Obama). This year's result may be equal, but opposite. If 40% of the voters are truly conservative, they are unavoidably seething over what has happened in Washington the last 2 years and wield considerable power when provoked.
Liberals seem to be disappointed also, but that's only because there are still some components of our lives that remain private and untouched by government.
1994 made Bill Clinton a moderate. Against the will of his own party, he signed Welfare Reform, he sent troops in the former Yugoslavia to defend the Muslim population and, if his presidency was to have any lasting effect, he was forced to work with a Republican Congress. Nothing can make Barack Obama a moderate, but perhaps he will have no choice but to behave like one after next Tuesday.
Regarding the rhetoric on the campaign trail, the other day VP Biden said the following words in a speech:
I suppose I could spend the next few paragraphs citing examples and offering a philosophical foundation for not only why this isn't true, but also why it simply cannot be true. However, there are some things that one really should not have to argue.
The fact that Biden was not laughed off stage, the fact that people remained in the audience, the fact that this statement could actually be uttered on a national stage does not speak well of our mindset in 2010. Sure there will be a minor course correction on Tuesday, but it won't cure the disease.
It's clear that liberals have institutionalized certain segments of our population and made them less dynamic as a result. Urban poor (mostly black), labor unions, government workers and many universities can't imagine life without government sponsorship. In the case of urban poor, a generation or two of kids have grown up with enough empirical data to confirm that one's place in life is fixed and that sustenance arrives in the form of a government check every week, independent of your actions at school or in society.
But Biden's statement starts to leak into the productive, commercial segment of the citizenry. Innovation? It's a government thing. Investment in the future? Not without Uncle Sam. Placement of available capital? We'll take care of that. Central planning of the economy has been tried uncounted times throughout history and has failed reliably. Are we really taking seriously a man who promotes the idea here in the USA?
Why do political leaders espouse such things? Because it expands their power. But why do their followers lap it up?
That is a complete and total mystery to me.
I have seen it written many times that the US is 20% liberal, 40% conservative and 30% somewhere in the middle. I assume 10% are kids or surfer dudes.
The 2008 election was clearly as much or more a reaction (away from Bush) as it was an action (toward Obama). This year's result may be equal, but opposite. If 40% of the voters are truly conservative, they are unavoidably seething over what has happened in Washington the last 2 years and wield considerable power when provoked.
Liberals seem to be disappointed also, but that's only because there are still some components of our lives that remain private and untouched by government.
1994 made Bill Clinton a moderate. Against the will of his own party, he signed Welfare Reform, he sent troops in the former Yugoslavia to defend the Muslim population and, if his presidency was to have any lasting effect, he was forced to work with a Republican Congress. Nothing can make Barack Obama a moderate, but perhaps he will have no choice but to behave like one after next Tuesday.
Regarding the rhetoric on the campaign trail, the other day VP Biden said the following words in a speech:
“Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive."Now I understand that Joe Biden is crazy, but I don't think this was off the cuff. This was actually written down, approved by staff and read off a teleprompter. They mean it. Or, more precisely, they want us to believe it so they pretend that they mean it.
I suppose I could spend the next few paragraphs citing examples and offering a philosophical foundation for not only why this isn't true, but also why it simply cannot be true. However, there are some things that one really should not have to argue.
The fact that Biden was not laughed off stage, the fact that people remained in the audience, the fact that this statement could actually be uttered on a national stage does not speak well of our mindset in 2010. Sure there will be a minor course correction on Tuesday, but it won't cure the disease.
It's clear that liberals have institutionalized certain segments of our population and made them less dynamic as a result. Urban poor (mostly black), labor unions, government workers and many universities can't imagine life without government sponsorship. In the case of urban poor, a generation or two of kids have grown up with enough empirical data to confirm that one's place in life is fixed and that sustenance arrives in the form of a government check every week, independent of your actions at school or in society.
But Biden's statement starts to leak into the productive, commercial segment of the citizenry. Innovation? It's a government thing. Investment in the future? Not without Uncle Sam. Placement of available capital? We'll take care of that. Central planning of the economy has been tried uncounted times throughout history and has failed reliably. Are we really taking seriously a man who promotes the idea here in the USA?
Why do political leaders espouse such things? Because it expands their power. But why do their followers lap it up?
That is a complete and total mystery to me.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Doing What They Said
It should come as a surprise to no one that today's government is anti-business. They made that clear before the election of 2008. They were going to "clamp down" on wall street, regulate the banks, spread the wealth and not allow the "greed" that caused the crisis do any more harm.
Problem is, in the middle of a downturn, enough voters were seeing nothing but doom and gloom and actually bought into this message ... Howard Dean proclaimed that "capitalism has failed" (despite 200 years of evidence the contrary). The liberals won bigger than ever before. Now, what are the consequences of that election?
I just read an interesting interview with the CEO of Intel, Paul Otellini. Intel is the world's largest semiconductor company and remains a testament to the power of innovation combined with business savvy. Without Intel and the myriad of businesses that were either spun off, inspired, funded or made more efficient by it, the US and world economies would be much different. Dear reader, your standard of living is in no small measure higher thanks to Intel.
One year ago Intel had $11B cash in the bank. Today they have $18B. Why? Why is the ratio of cash to revenue the highest in history for the S&P 500? Because today's administration has said and done enough that is anti-business that fear of future taxes and regulations has paralyzed American businesses. They are not investing, expanding or hiring. They are sitting on their cash because they have reason to believe that the liberals will stick it to them again and again. The small companies that I help manage are doing the same thing.
Getting inside the head of liberals who think they can run the economy better than the business people is a theme of this blog. Runaway capitalism, monopolies, unfair business practices, inhumane working conditions and overpaid executives are just some of the reasons liberals use to explain their policies. We must regulate tightly and keep a close watch on business or they will start doing more harm than good.
Read the article with the new health care law in mind. With the new Dodd-Frank financial reform law in mind. With the fact that almost none of President Obama's staff has ever worked in the private sector in mind. It starts to become clear why we have 10% unemployment and some economists are saying "Get used to it".
Is it possible that liberals actually want to handicap companies so that growth slows? This would reduce suburban sprawl, pollution, consumption of resources and globalization. Is this the hidden agenda? Turn the clock back to pre-industrial, agrarian times with a smaller world population?
Or do they just simply not appreciate the power and value of capitalism? Have they not witnessed the last 200 years of American exceptionalism? Have they not seen the data tightly correlating the level of economic freedom in a given country to its quality of life? Do they still think that Karl Marx was right?
I don't know. But I do know that they're very clear about their intentions and they continue to deliver on what they promise.
Problem is, in the middle of a downturn, enough voters were seeing nothing but doom and gloom and actually bought into this message ... Howard Dean proclaimed that "capitalism has failed" (despite 200 years of evidence the contrary). The liberals won bigger than ever before. Now, what are the consequences of that election?
I just read an interesting interview with the CEO of Intel, Paul Otellini. Intel is the world's largest semiconductor company and remains a testament to the power of innovation combined with business savvy. Without Intel and the myriad of businesses that were either spun off, inspired, funded or made more efficient by it, the US and world economies would be much different. Dear reader, your standard of living is in no small measure higher thanks to Intel.
One year ago Intel had $11B cash in the bank. Today they have $18B. Why? Why is the ratio of cash to revenue the highest in history for the S&P 500? Because today's administration has said and done enough that is anti-business that fear of future taxes and regulations has paralyzed American businesses. They are not investing, expanding or hiring. They are sitting on their cash because they have reason to believe that the liberals will stick it to them again and again. The small companies that I help manage are doing the same thing.
Getting inside the head of liberals who think they can run the economy better than the business people is a theme of this blog. Runaway capitalism, monopolies, unfair business practices, inhumane working conditions and overpaid executives are just some of the reasons liberals use to explain their policies. We must regulate tightly and keep a close watch on business or they will start doing more harm than good.
Read the article with the new health care law in mind. With the new Dodd-Frank financial reform law in mind. With the fact that almost none of President Obama's staff has ever worked in the private sector in mind. It starts to become clear why we have 10% unemployment and some economists are saying "Get used to it".
Is it possible that liberals actually want to handicap companies so that growth slows? This would reduce suburban sprawl, pollution, consumption of resources and globalization. Is this the hidden agenda? Turn the clock back to pre-industrial, agrarian times with a smaller world population?
Or do they just simply not appreciate the power and value of capitalism? Have they not witnessed the last 200 years of American exceptionalism? Have they not seen the data tightly correlating the level of economic freedom in a given country to its quality of life? Do they still think that Karl Marx was right?
I don't know. But I do know that they're very clear about their intentions and they continue to deliver on what they promise.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Obama v. Roberts
It is often overlooked that we have 3 branches of government. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces the laws and the Judicial branch interprets the laws. These days, the Supreme Court seems to live in another place, rarely viewed as an equal player in the game.
However, there have been many historical examples of the Supreme Court striking down laws as unconstitutional, nullifying the work of the other two branches. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison gave us the first case of the Court overturning an act of Congress. Over the couple of centuries since, there has been an ebb and flow to the prominence of the court in the lives of the citizens, but there has always been a sense that these 9 jurors are the final arbiters in great matters.
The genius of the Founders can be found sprinkled everywhere in the Constitution, but no more so than in Article 3: The Judiciary. If the Founders believed in Democracy and the power of the people to determine their fates, why allow a group of nine unelected, permanent justices to strike down the work of Congress? A law that was signed by the President? Did they create a king by committee?
They created a defense mechanism. The Founders believed that individuals possess certain inalienable rights and these were not open for modification based on a brief period of popular sentiment. If, for some reason, the people elected a Congress and a President that brought about a violation of basic human rights, the Supreme Court is there to restore liberty. The fact that they are not electable or directly influenced by the people gives them an opportunity for more reflection and a view of the longer term.
It is the job of the Judiciary to rule, without emotion, whether a law is in accordance with or contrary to the Constitution. Their job is not to rule on whether or not they like a law or think it would be nice to have. As Justice Scalia once said, "I have a pretty simple job and I have nothing to negotiate." He simply weighs an issue based on the Constitution and court precedent and makes a ruling. No constituents, no lobbyists, no special interests.
The Founders also gave us a mechanism for over-ruling the Supreme Court: we can amend the Constitution, as has been done 27 times. This rationally requires an enormous amount of effort and popular support, not done on a whim based on an election cycle or two.
Which brings us to today's topic: Obama v. Roberts. The recently passed health care law is rightly being challenged in lower courts based on its constitutionality. The argument goes like this:
The Constitution gave the federal government specific, enumerated powers. In that list of powers, the only one that could possibly permit this health care law is the Commerce Clause, which establishes that the federal government has a right to regulate commerce among the states. Now, a law requiring someone (who is presumably doing nothing and is therefore not engaging in commerce across state lines) to purchase health insurance is at a minimum stretching the Constitution and at most clearly in defiance. What exactly is the federal government regulating?
On that topic, I really don't understand how anyone can, in good faith, conclude that the health care law is constitutional. If the federal government can compel someone to stop doing nothing and to purchase health insurance, then the federal government can do anything and our traditional system of government is null and void. You may love the new health care law and you may really want it to be implemented, but you have to at least acknowledge that it flies in the face of our Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
Also on that note, President Obama is probably the most intelligent person to occupy the White House in decades. He was a professor of Constitutional Law. He knows very well the points I've made and, for some reason, he doesn't care. He knows that the right way to implement his vision of health care is through a Constitutional amendment and not in a rash moment of voter frustration with the previous administration. He, however, knows that the pubic greatly disapproves of universal health care and probably concludes that the ends justify the means. This is among the reasons that I am disgusted with our current President.
So sometime soon, in some fashion, the new law will make its way in front of Chief Justice John Roberts' court and will need to stand up to 221 years of Constitutional Law. This will be the biggest decision by the Court in memory. It will either fundamentally change the nature of our Republic or it will confirm the wisdom of the Founders.
I, for one, will be paying close attention.
However, there have been many historical examples of the Supreme Court striking down laws as unconstitutional, nullifying the work of the other two branches. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison gave us the first case of the Court overturning an act of Congress. Over the couple of centuries since, there has been an ebb and flow to the prominence of the court in the lives of the citizens, but there has always been a sense that these 9 jurors are the final arbiters in great matters.
The genius of the Founders can be found sprinkled everywhere in the Constitution, but no more so than in Article 3: The Judiciary. If the Founders believed in Democracy and the power of the people to determine their fates, why allow a group of nine unelected, permanent justices to strike down the work of Congress? A law that was signed by the President? Did they create a king by committee?
They created a defense mechanism. The Founders believed that individuals possess certain inalienable rights and these were not open for modification based on a brief period of popular sentiment. If, for some reason, the people elected a Congress and a President that brought about a violation of basic human rights, the Supreme Court is there to restore liberty. The fact that they are not electable or directly influenced by the people gives them an opportunity for more reflection and a view of the longer term.
It is the job of the Judiciary to rule, without emotion, whether a law is in accordance with or contrary to the Constitution. Their job is not to rule on whether or not they like a law or think it would be nice to have. As Justice Scalia once said, "I have a pretty simple job and I have nothing to negotiate." He simply weighs an issue based on the Constitution and court precedent and makes a ruling. No constituents, no lobbyists, no special interests.
The Founders also gave us a mechanism for over-ruling the Supreme Court: we can amend the Constitution, as has been done 27 times. This rationally requires an enormous amount of effort and popular support, not done on a whim based on an election cycle or two.
Which brings us to today's topic: Obama v. Roberts. The recently passed health care law is rightly being challenged in lower courts based on its constitutionality. The argument goes like this:
The Constitution gave the federal government specific, enumerated powers. In that list of powers, the only one that could possibly permit this health care law is the Commerce Clause, which establishes that the federal government has a right to regulate commerce among the states. Now, a law requiring someone (who is presumably doing nothing and is therefore not engaging in commerce across state lines) to purchase health insurance is at a minimum stretching the Constitution and at most clearly in defiance. What exactly is the federal government regulating?
On that topic, I really don't understand how anyone can, in good faith, conclude that the health care law is constitutional. If the federal government can compel someone to stop doing nothing and to purchase health insurance, then the federal government can do anything and our traditional system of government is null and void. You may love the new health care law and you may really want it to be implemented, but you have to at least acknowledge that it flies in the face of our Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
Also on that note, President Obama is probably the most intelligent person to occupy the White House in decades. He was a professor of Constitutional Law. He knows very well the points I've made and, for some reason, he doesn't care. He knows that the right way to implement his vision of health care is through a Constitutional amendment and not in a rash moment of voter frustration with the previous administration. He, however, knows that the pubic greatly disapproves of universal health care and probably concludes that the ends justify the means. This is among the reasons that I am disgusted with our current President.
So sometime soon, in some fashion, the new law will make its way in front of Chief Justice John Roberts' court and will need to stand up to 221 years of Constitutional Law. This will be the biggest decision by the Court in memory. It will either fundamentally change the nature of our Republic or it will confirm the wisdom of the Founders.
I, for one, will be paying close attention.
Friday, July 2, 2010
What's Right is Right
Recently Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chair, said that the war in Afghanistan was of "Obama's choosing" and "probably a lost cause". He derided the President for not studying history, because if he had, he would know that you don't engage in a land war in Afghanistan ... everyone who has tried has lost.
If Michael Steele does not resign, he should be fired. And if the Republicans let this stand, then they no longer occupy the high ground on principled foreign policy. This is outrageous.
After spending 8 years (rightly) denouncing Democrats for speaking this way about Iraq and Afghanistan, they cannot tolerate such behavior from their own party. Move swiftly and make an example out of Michael Steele.
Republicans should be rallying behind President Obama and the mission in Afghanistan. He is managing the war as he sees fit ... in other words, doing his job. Make suggestions on strategy or tactics. Recommend fewer or additional or different troops. Offer ideas on how we might do better. At least publicly, show a unified front.
But the last thing a government or party leader should do is call the war lost or say that we should not be fighting it. This is what Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Frank, Murtha and Dean did endlessly and to the detriment of the war efforts (many after voting for the wars in the first place). The result was an encouraged enemy, lower morale among the troops and allies who saw America wobbling. In other words, the Democrats knowingly did harm in exchange for remaining popular among their ever shifting base.
If a government or party leader wants to condemn a war effort and try to end it, do so privately behind the scenes or resign your position ... then live on a cable news network.
Republicans claim that they're more principled than Democrats on foreign policy, that they are true patriots.
Prove it.
Quickly.
If Michael Steele does not resign, he should be fired. And if the Republicans let this stand, then they no longer occupy the high ground on principled foreign policy. This is outrageous.
After spending 8 years (rightly) denouncing Democrats for speaking this way about Iraq and Afghanistan, they cannot tolerate such behavior from their own party. Move swiftly and make an example out of Michael Steele.
Republicans should be rallying behind President Obama and the mission in Afghanistan. He is managing the war as he sees fit ... in other words, doing his job. Make suggestions on strategy or tactics. Recommend fewer or additional or different troops. Offer ideas on how we might do better. At least publicly, show a unified front.
But the last thing a government or party leader should do is call the war lost or say that we should not be fighting it. This is what Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Frank, Murtha and Dean did endlessly and to the detriment of the war efforts (many after voting for the wars in the first place). The result was an encouraged enemy, lower morale among the troops and allies who saw America wobbling. In other words, the Democrats knowingly did harm in exchange for remaining popular among their ever shifting base.
If a government or party leader wants to condemn a war effort and try to end it, do so privately behind the scenes or resign your position ... then live on a cable news network.
Republicans claim that they're more principled than Democrats on foreign policy, that they are true patriots.
Prove it.
Quickly.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Nice Work, If You Can Get It
Barney Frank is the hero and, along with Chris Dodd, has his name on the title of the recent Financial Reform bill making its way through Congress. He has been getting high praise from liberals for his victory over greed and wall street interests.
That's like rebuilding the World Trade Center and calling it the Mohammad Atta Towers.
He took big money in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the summer of 2008 he said the following:
OK, maybe Barney's not a bad guy (he is) and maybe he didn't have a conflict of interests (he did) and maybe he was unaware that Fannie and Freddie were artificially inflating the housing market (he wasn't). Maybe he just made a few mistakes.
OK - we all make mistakes. But where I come from, you get fired for this sort of thing and your reputation tends to suffer. You're not lauded with praise for closing the barn door after the cash cow is gone.
Obviously I don't come from Washington DC.
Or Boston.
That's like rebuilding the World Trade Center and calling it the Mohammad Atta Towers.
He took big money in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the summer of 2008 he said the following:
I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.Since 2003 he has been the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee and became its chair in 2008. In response to the Bush Administration's concern that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble, he said:
"These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."And roundly blocked any attempt by the Bush administration to reduce Fannie and Freddie's contributions to the housing bubble (Bush wanted what the executive branch normally has, oversight and enforcement of the law, instead of Congress both establishing and overseeing these entities).
OK, maybe Barney's not a bad guy (he is) and maybe he didn't have a conflict of interests (he did) and maybe he was unaware that Fannie and Freddie were artificially inflating the housing market (he wasn't). Maybe he just made a few mistakes.
OK - we all make mistakes. But where I come from, you get fired for this sort of thing and your reputation tends to suffer. You're not lauded with praise for closing the barn door after the cash cow is gone.
Obviously I don't come from Washington DC.
Or Boston.
Friday, April 30, 2010
The Golden Goose
Most everyone owns a cell phone, but few people know what happens inside ... that there are millions of transistors working hard to handle your phone calls, web browsing, text messages, pictures, songs and every other app. People take it for granted that it "just works" and they really have no reason to peek behind the curtain. This is as it should be.
There is a part of our economy that most people don't understand: venture capital. We see companies like Google, Intel, Ebay, Apple, Amazon, Dell, Amgen and Cisco (just to name a very few) and generally have no idea what made them possible. The mechanisms for bringing together ideas, people and capital into the right situation are a complete mystery to all but very few.
But Venture Capitalists might be the most important players in our lives, enabling (or having enabled) almost all the recent technological advancement we see around us. And, up until recently, the US had a near monopoly on VCs and their investment vehicles. Nonetheless, we still are the epicenter, with approximately 75% of worldwide venture based capital existing in the US. But, that number is shrinking.
VC backed firms accounted for almost 90% of US job growth in 2008. That year, these firms contributed $2.9 trillion dollars to our economy*. And these are not generally low paying jobs.
Unfortunately, unlike the cell phone, people's ignorance of this critical process can be dangerous, especially when politicians are unfamiliar with the golden goose of VC investing.
George W. Bush was the first MBA president, but I saw little evidence of it. He held back quality immigrants that are the lifeblood of young tech firms. He allowed Sarbanes-Oxley to greatly reduce the likelihood of a start-up going public (exit strategies are key to attracting capital). He allowed tariffs, entitlements and a rising debt to reduce the amount of capital available to entrepreneurs.
Sadly, Barack Obama is arguably worse. I think Bush at least understood the basics of wealth creation, but Obama has never even participated in the private sector. Never had to make a payroll. Never had to raise capital. Never had to focus on a market. Never had to navigate the enormous red tape and government bureaucracy and go to the expense of hiring lawyers and CPAs to help. It's safe to say that in any room of business people, Obama is the least qualified.
And it shows. Noticeably absent from the stimulus package was any significant private sector infusion. Actually, the private sector would have preferred not to have a stimulus package and to simply either reduce taxes or just keep the enormous debt from getting any larger. I've already outlined in an earlier blog how I feel the Health Care legislation is unfriendly to small and growing businesses. And the rhetoric coming from the White House is hardly friendly to any capitalist, let alone the venture variety.
I'm certain that many liberals have good intentions, but they have no idea how their tinkering threatens the engine of growth that gives them the resources with which to do their tinkering. I know very few liberals who have actually seen the birth of wealth first hand, which is probably why they see it as a zero sum game, with benevolence derived from redistributing it.
Watching liberals try to manage the economy is like watching a surgeon open up a cell phone to improve reception. The physician is smart, educated, well intentioned and dedicated, but the most likely outcome is a broken phone. Don't mess with the Goose.
* Source: National Venture Capital Association
There is a part of our economy that most people don't understand: venture capital. We see companies like Google, Intel, Ebay, Apple, Amazon, Dell, Amgen and Cisco (just to name a very few) and generally have no idea what made them possible. The mechanisms for bringing together ideas, people and capital into the right situation are a complete mystery to all but very few.
But Venture Capitalists might be the most important players in our lives, enabling (or having enabled) almost all the recent technological advancement we see around us. And, up until recently, the US had a near monopoly on VCs and their investment vehicles. Nonetheless, we still are the epicenter, with approximately 75% of worldwide venture based capital existing in the US. But, that number is shrinking.
VC backed firms accounted for almost 90% of US job growth in 2008. That year, these firms contributed $2.9 trillion dollars to our economy*. And these are not generally low paying jobs.
Unfortunately, unlike the cell phone, people's ignorance of this critical process can be dangerous, especially when politicians are unfamiliar with the golden goose of VC investing.
George W. Bush was the first MBA president, but I saw little evidence of it. He held back quality immigrants that are the lifeblood of young tech firms. He allowed Sarbanes-Oxley to greatly reduce the likelihood of a start-up going public (exit strategies are key to attracting capital). He allowed tariffs, entitlements and a rising debt to reduce the amount of capital available to entrepreneurs.
Sadly, Barack Obama is arguably worse. I think Bush at least understood the basics of wealth creation, but Obama has never even participated in the private sector. Never had to make a payroll. Never had to raise capital. Never had to focus on a market. Never had to navigate the enormous red tape and government bureaucracy and go to the expense of hiring lawyers and CPAs to help. It's safe to say that in any room of business people, Obama is the least qualified.
And it shows. Noticeably absent from the stimulus package was any significant private sector infusion. Actually, the private sector would have preferred not to have a stimulus package and to simply either reduce taxes or just keep the enormous debt from getting any larger. I've already outlined in an earlier blog how I feel the Health Care legislation is unfriendly to small and growing businesses. And the rhetoric coming from the White House is hardly friendly to any capitalist, let alone the venture variety.
I'm certain that many liberals have good intentions, but they have no idea how their tinkering threatens the engine of growth that gives them the resources with which to do their tinkering. I know very few liberals who have actually seen the birth of wealth first hand, which is probably why they see it as a zero sum game, with benevolence derived from redistributing it.
Watching liberals try to manage the economy is like watching a surgeon open up a cell phone to improve reception. The physician is smart, educated, well intentioned and dedicated, but the most likely outcome is a broken phone. Don't mess with the Goose.
* Source: National Venture Capital Association
Monday, April 19, 2010
That Credibility Thing
Iran is a threat to the middle east, Israel, the world economy and to its own (mostly) innocent people. The Iran government has been rushing to build a nuclear weapon for the last few years and is finally within sight of their prize. In response, the Obama administration is "getting tough". On the list of possibilities are more sanctions and, as a last resort, military engagement.
If your reaction to this is "yea, right", then this article will make sense to you.
As was discussed in an earlier blog, the left gave away any chance to be taken seriously on this topic during the Iraq war. They gave up and headed for the safe ground of opposing anything Bush did or said. The Iraq war was costlier (in terms of lives, money and good will) than anyone predicted, so the left could look smart in opposition (and their constituents did them the favor of not noticing that most of them had voted for the war in the first place). And oppose, they did. At every turn and opportunity, without hesitation.
(As an aside, isn't it nice not to have Iraq to worry about? If things continue on this trajectory, within a generation Iraq could be a shining example of peace and prosperity in a troubled region. It could take the path of Japan after WWII and again contribute to the greater good.)
But the true cost of the left's immature and short sighted behavior is just becoming evident. When an opponent negotiator does not believe you will use your last resort, they will not believe or accept any of the ultimatums that come before it. Sure, Obama can probably get some tougher sanctions through the UN, but what do Iran's leaders care? They run a totalitarian regime with very little threat of a revolution. Under sanctions, the people will suffer, but not the leaders.
Also, remember that we have no "smoking gun" or hard evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon; it's all speculation. Would the Democrats ever allow CIA intelligence and bluster from the enemy to be a sufficient cause for a preemptive strike? No chance, not after the words that came out of their mouth after Iraq became difficult. Wouldn't they look foolish(er)?
Ideally, the left would have remained committed to winning the Iraq war and the west could have then turned its gaze to Iran - with the desired effect. Now, Obama lacks the fear factor and, whether he would actually use the military preemptively or not, the Iranian leadership believes their path to nuclear statehood is unobstructed.
I have heard a couple of commentators question the west's right to deny Iran a nuclear weapon: "Who are we to decide who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't?" This statement boggles the mind. Iran's leadership supports terrorism in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza. They deny basic human rights to their people. It's like saying convicted criminals deserve weapons just as much as the police.
A free, democratic Iran with a track record of being a good citizen of the world? Sure, they can have a nuclear arsenal without me writing a blog article about them. Today's Iran? Are you kidding?
Obama and the left have painted themselves into a corner. The irony is that their lack of credibility makes military conflict much more likely. If the threats don't work, it's all that's left.
If your reaction to this is "yea, right", then this article will make sense to you.
As was discussed in an earlier blog, the left gave away any chance to be taken seriously on this topic during the Iraq war. They gave up and headed for the safe ground of opposing anything Bush did or said. The Iraq war was costlier (in terms of lives, money and good will) than anyone predicted, so the left could look smart in opposition (and their constituents did them the favor of not noticing that most of them had voted for the war in the first place). And oppose, they did. At every turn and opportunity, without hesitation.
(As an aside, isn't it nice not to have Iraq to worry about? If things continue on this trajectory, within a generation Iraq could be a shining example of peace and prosperity in a troubled region. It could take the path of Japan after WWII and again contribute to the greater good.)
But the true cost of the left's immature and short sighted behavior is just becoming evident. When an opponent negotiator does not believe you will use your last resort, they will not believe or accept any of the ultimatums that come before it. Sure, Obama can probably get some tougher sanctions through the UN, but what do Iran's leaders care? They run a totalitarian regime with very little threat of a revolution. Under sanctions, the people will suffer, but not the leaders.
Also, remember that we have no "smoking gun" or hard evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon; it's all speculation. Would the Democrats ever allow CIA intelligence and bluster from the enemy to be a sufficient cause for a preemptive strike? No chance, not after the words that came out of their mouth after Iraq became difficult. Wouldn't they look foolish(er)?
Ideally, the left would have remained committed to winning the Iraq war and the west could have then turned its gaze to Iran - with the desired effect. Now, Obama lacks the fear factor and, whether he would actually use the military preemptively or not, the Iranian leadership believes their path to nuclear statehood is unobstructed.
I have heard a couple of commentators question the west's right to deny Iran a nuclear weapon: "Who are we to decide who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't?" This statement boggles the mind. Iran's leadership supports terrorism in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza. They deny basic human rights to their people. It's like saying convicted criminals deserve weapons just as much as the police.
A free, democratic Iran with a track record of being a good citizen of the world? Sure, they can have a nuclear arsenal without me writing a blog article about them. Today's Iran? Are you kidding?
Obama and the left have painted themselves into a corner. The irony is that their lack of credibility makes military conflict much more likely. If the threats don't work, it's all that's left.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Cuba and the Left
Many is the liberal that I've heard talk in glowing terms about the health care system in Cuba. The fact that communist countries often force their citizens to sacrifice many things in order to optimize a few should be no surprise to anyone. The fact that we still debate the merits of this is bewildering.
The US has recently taken half a step toward communizing (socializing? nationalizing?) health care, largely based on the argument that our capitalist system has failed. While this is a lie (see previous article), enough people bought it. Some talked about how "health care is too important to leave to the free market". Really?
What about food?
Food is just as or more important than health care, right? Is food too important to leave to the free market? The good news is we have a largely free and capitalist system of food production, delivery and distribution. The government does a little to ensure safety, but by and large it is capitalism's invisible hand that puts dinner on our tables.
It would be ridiculous for someone to say we need to nationalize the food system. Think about it. 99% of the people of the US have access to way more food than they need and the bottom 1% are well handled by charities. Very, very few people in our country starve. Competition among food growers has created amazingly high yields. Customers like organic foods, so it has become a large market. Innovation at the grocery store has reduced costs and have given us a myriad of choices on every aisle. You can practically eat a meal with the free samples.
Imagine Howard Dean on CNN screaming "We can't count on the greedy supermarket chains to deliver quality products! Millions will go hungry! Yeeaeaaaaaa!"
I mean, I think people would consider that ridiculous. I admit the possibility exists that I'm wrong.
Let's compare this to Cuba, the left's shining example. Their farms are horribly inefficient and provide only about 20% of the country's food needs. Supermarkets go for weeks without basic supplies such as bread or milk. Raul Castro has "reformed" things a bit ... farmers are now allowed to buy their own shovels and boots without having to wait for them to be handed out. But, not their pesticides or fertilizers. Can't push this liberty thing too far lest the state lose control. Must of last year's tomato crop rotted because government trucks failed to collect them on time. Food rationing is part of Cuban life.*
Maybe it would be instructive for liberals to spend some time in Cuba. Many that I know enjoy going to trendy restaurants and traveling to exotic destinations (conveniently forgetting about global warming for a few days). Perhaps it would be enlightening to see a place where opening a restaurant is illegal and it is forbidden for most citizens to leave the country.
Sadly, our health care system was not capitalist enough to be sufficiently successful. So, liberals said that capitalism was to blame and made it less so.
Yes, we can probably give government-run health care to everyone and even make it decent quality (for a while). But at what price?
* much of this data came from The Economist, March 27 edition.
The US has recently taken half a step toward communizing (socializing? nationalizing?) health care, largely based on the argument that our capitalist system has failed. While this is a lie (see previous article), enough people bought it. Some talked about how "health care is too important to leave to the free market". Really?
What about food?
Food is just as or more important than health care, right? Is food too important to leave to the free market? The good news is we have a largely free and capitalist system of food production, delivery and distribution. The government does a little to ensure safety, but by and large it is capitalism's invisible hand that puts dinner on our tables.
It would be ridiculous for someone to say we need to nationalize the food system. Think about it. 99% of the people of the US have access to way more food than they need and the bottom 1% are well handled by charities. Very, very few people in our country starve. Competition among food growers has created amazingly high yields. Customers like organic foods, so it has become a large market. Innovation at the grocery store has reduced costs and have given us a myriad of choices on every aisle. You can practically eat a meal with the free samples.
Imagine Howard Dean on CNN screaming "We can't count on the greedy supermarket chains to deliver quality products! Millions will go hungry! Yeeaeaaaaaa!"
I mean, I think people would consider that ridiculous. I admit the possibility exists that I'm wrong.
Let's compare this to Cuba, the left's shining example. Their farms are horribly inefficient and provide only about 20% of the country's food needs. Supermarkets go for weeks without basic supplies such as bread or milk. Raul Castro has "reformed" things a bit ... farmers are now allowed to buy their own shovels and boots without having to wait for them to be handed out. But, not their pesticides or fertilizers. Can't push this liberty thing too far lest the state lose control. Must of last year's tomato crop rotted because government trucks failed to collect them on time. Food rationing is part of Cuban life.*
Maybe it would be instructive for liberals to spend some time in Cuba. Many that I know enjoy going to trendy restaurants and traveling to exotic destinations (conveniently forgetting about global warming for a few days). Perhaps it would be enlightening to see a place where opening a restaurant is illegal and it is forbidden for most citizens to leave the country.
Sadly, our health care system was not capitalist enough to be sufficiently successful. So, liberals said that capitalism was to blame and made it less so.
Yes, we can probably give government-run health care to everyone and even make it decent quality (for a while). But at what price?
* much of this data came from The Economist, March 27 edition.
Halfway Across the Bridge
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
I've not read the new health care law in its entirety. I don't know all the effects it will have on our country. But, I've read excerpts and I have some educated guesses:
- Because young people, who are generally healthy, will now be required to purchase health insurance*, their premiums will be unfairly high because the insurance companies will need to pay for their new customers with pre-existing conditions and the elderly. Young people will voice their unhappiness and government will subsidise, thus raising the cost to the taxpayer.
- Because companies will be required to provide health insurance if they grow bigger than 50 employees, they will actively try to remain at 49 for as long as possible. This could involve splitting into 2 companies and growing independently. Tension will arise as the government tries to punish these companies and costly legal proceedings will further reduce the efficiency of our economy while the growth of small businesses is slowed.
- Because large companies are now required to cover all employees, they will become less profitable and will either lay off employees to compensate or they will have less money to invest in growth. Either way, the US economy will take a hit.
- Because companies want to avoid adding costlier employees (or want to stay at 49 employees), temp agencies will see a rise in demand. This will create an unnaturally large population of people without job security, working day to day or project to project. This will further dampen economic growth as these people hesitate to make long term investments, like buying a house.
- The large number of citizens with newly minted insurance will overwhelm the health infrastructure. Previously, these people were given care after they became sick (in ERs or free clinics). Now, they will have access to preventative care, optional procedures and regular check-ups. This will both increase the cost of health care in the US as a percentage of GDP and will also bring about some form of rationing. Not death panels, but rationing.
- Once the new health care law has been in effect for some time (2-5 years), like any government intrusion into a market, people will become disgruntled with the service and costs will skyrocket. Health care will go from 15% of GDP to 20% to 25%.
Left leaning politicians will then play the next card ... nationalization of health care. They will proclaim that capitalism has again failed (!) and the country will dutifully cross the rest of the bridge.
Bottom line: this plan is unsustainable and I am convinced that is by design. The left knows that the demonization of capitalism is almost complete and that society has an inexplicable tendency to attenuate its own freedoms. They will need to break health care before they can, in their minds, fix it and realize their dream of a single payer, government run system.
Obamacare is not a tool, it's a weapon.
* Insurance is no longer the right word. Since the insurance companies are no longer permitted to evaluate risk and exclude people, we now have a shared health care pool.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Global swarming
Most of the educated liberals that I know are not very religious, but they seem to make an exception in the case of global warming.
Of all the topics that bubble up for this blog, this one is by far the most mind-boggling, to the point of amusement. People seem to have lost their mind. Case in point: here's an article that actually says some indigenous Peruvian mountain people are going to freeze because of global warming ... and it's the civilized world's fault. Honestly.
As near as I can tell, the following statements are true:
1) The earth may be warming, it's not clear
2) Humans may be causing the warming, it's not clear
3) Only at enormous cost could we substantially decrease the human contribution (greenhouse gases) to climate change, if it exists
4) Decreasing the human contribution may reverse global warming, if it exists
5) Global warming may be a bad thing, it may be a good thing ... either could be argued
And here is the non-sequitur conclusion I am being asked to accept:
Therefore, we should start shutting down all the factories and turn off all the cars and revert to a pre-industrial lifestyle. Now, before it's too late.
Does anyone realize that the average global temperature hasn't risen this century? During the entire Bush presidency he was berated for not doing something about something that didn't exist during his entire presidency. Actually, maybe he had a secret program to eliminate global warming and succeeded . . . maybe he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than Al Gore.
Since humans are not quite sensitive enough to temperature to notice a tiny fraction of a degree of warming over several decades, they must be very sensitive to something else in order whip themselves into such a frenzy. Could it be the scare tactics, propaganda and visions of the apocalypse? Or the political correctness of group-think that conveniently links environmentalism to anti-capitalism? Since we know that corporations are bad, anyone who opposes them must be good, right?
The science of global warming is shaky at best. The computer models are immature and are proven wrong with each passing day. I can write a computer model that predicts with 100% accuracy the past behavior of the stock market. I'll predict this week's performance next Saturday. You'll be very impressed.
My observation is that our planet is nicely self-regulating. The planet warms a bit thanks to extra CO2 in the atmosphere? No problem. That'll just lengthen the growing season and cause more CO2 to be absorbed by the planet's flora. Next thing you know, we're back to where we were. That assumes that CO2 is the culprit, not at all a certainty.
And what role do the solar cycles play? What if our computer models say that man is causing global warming but really it's an active period of the sun's brightness. What if we put dampers on our economy, reduced GDP and industrial output, only to learn that we're impotent after all? Wouldn't we look a little silly? Wouldn't a lot of people suffer for no good reason?
And (I can't resist adding this) I know no liberals who have reduced their intense vacation schedule via airplanes, luxury cruise ships and RVs in order to offer even a symbolic gesture to the cause. People, don't tell me we need cap-and-trade or rationing of fossil fuels and then jump on a plane to Vail ... you go from looking like a fool to looking like a clown.
The point is that we just don't know enough about the disease to prescribe radical remedies. It's like in the middle ages when a baby had a fever, we opened up the skull to reduce the pressure. In hindsight, those "doctors" were doing more harm than good.
Let's all pause, take a deep breath (didn't that fresh air feel good?) and cool down a little.
Of all the topics that bubble up for this blog, this one is by far the most mind-boggling, to the point of amusement. People seem to have lost their mind. Case in point: here's an article that actually says some indigenous Peruvian mountain people are going to freeze because of global warming ... and it's the civilized world's fault. Honestly.
As near as I can tell, the following statements are true:
1) The earth may be warming, it's not clear
2) Humans may be causing the warming, it's not clear
3) Only at enormous cost could we substantially decrease the human contribution (greenhouse gases) to climate change, if it exists
4) Decreasing the human contribution may reverse global warming, if it exists
5) Global warming may be a bad thing, it may be a good thing ... either could be argued
And here is the non-sequitur conclusion I am being asked to accept:
Therefore, we should start shutting down all the factories and turn off all the cars and revert to a pre-industrial lifestyle. Now, before it's too late.
Does anyone realize that the average global temperature hasn't risen this century? During the entire Bush presidency he was berated for not doing something about something that didn't exist during his entire presidency. Actually, maybe he had a secret program to eliminate global warming and succeeded . . . maybe he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than Al Gore.
Since humans are not quite sensitive enough to temperature to notice a tiny fraction of a degree of warming over several decades, they must be very sensitive to something else in order whip themselves into such a frenzy. Could it be the scare tactics, propaganda and visions of the apocalypse? Or the political correctness of group-think that conveniently links environmentalism to anti-capitalism? Since we know that corporations are bad, anyone who opposes them must be good, right?
The science of global warming is shaky at best. The computer models are immature and are proven wrong with each passing day. I can write a computer model that predicts with 100% accuracy the past behavior of the stock market. I'll predict this week's performance next Saturday. You'll be very impressed.
My observation is that our planet is nicely self-regulating. The planet warms a bit thanks to extra CO2 in the atmosphere? No problem. That'll just lengthen the growing season and cause more CO2 to be absorbed by the planet's flora. Next thing you know, we're back to where we were. That assumes that CO2 is the culprit, not at all a certainty.
And what role do the solar cycles play? What if our computer models say that man is causing global warming but really it's an active period of the sun's brightness. What if we put dampers on our economy, reduced GDP and industrial output, only to learn that we're impotent after all? Wouldn't we look a little silly? Wouldn't a lot of people suffer for no good reason?
And (I can't resist adding this) I know no liberals who have reduced their intense vacation schedule via airplanes, luxury cruise ships and RVs in order to offer even a symbolic gesture to the cause. People, don't tell me we need cap-and-trade or rationing of fossil fuels and then jump on a plane to Vail ... you go from looking like a fool to looking like a clown.
The point is that we just don't know enough about the disease to prescribe radical remedies. It's like in the middle ages when a baby had a fever, we opened up the skull to reduce the pressure. In hindsight, those "doctors" were doing more harm than good.
Let's all pause, take a deep breath (didn't that fresh air feel good?) and cool down a little.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Are These Reasons Unreasonable?
Looks like the Senate version of the Health Care bill is likely to become law in the near future. As far as I can tell, the main motivation is to provide health insurance for a group of people that don't currently have any (not that they don't have health care, they just don't have insurance). Ask your average liberal and, as a broad smile covers their face, they'll tell you how great it will be to extend medical coverage to so many people.
However, there are also motivations to refrain from passing this bill. Let me try to list some of them.
1) The new law will require citizens to buy health insurance as a condition of existence . This is a first for our nation: become part of the collective or go to jail. In my view, it flies in the face of our nation's true independent spirit and violates the fundamental human right to choose your path through life. I have yet to speak to a liberal who even thought about this before getting excited about the bill, let alone saw it as a cause for worry. One suggested to me, after a day of chewing on it, that it's no different from the draft, when young men were forced to serve in the military. Given that the draft was temporary, full of exceptions (religious or conscientious objectors) and used only in national emergency, I don't see the equivalence. Will I be allowed to excuse myself from the new insurance requirement based on my fundamental beliefs in liberty and self-determination?
This new health bill says without hesitation: as a condition of living in this "free" nation, you will "pitch in". A seal is being broken that cannot and will not be repaired. I offer this guarantee: it's the first of many such tragedies.
2) The CBO conclusion that this legislation is fiscally responsible is a lie. The analysis was done over 10 years, the first 4 of which provide no benefits. This means that there are 10 years of revenue collection with only 6 years of expenses. Of course the numbers look friendly. But what about the following 10 years? Even assuming that it's possible to predict the financial viability of a government program 20 years out, no one is stressing about it. My sense is that the liberals know it will be a financial failure, requiring even more government intervention eventually leading to a single (govt) payer system. This is the holy grail.
3) Poor people being given tax money that they can use to buy their health insurance is yet another case of perpetuating the entitlement mentality and trapping people in their status quo. There has been nothing more cruel done to poor people over the last 50 years than giving them resources without earning them and with no requirements. How many generations of kids have to grow up watching Mom (and maybe Dad) dependent on govt for food, money, housing and now health care? Hey liberals, how did the housing projects of the 1960s and 70s work out? Don't you yet feel guilty for throwing these people into your prison cell? Could your expectations of the poor get any lower?
4) The "Health Care is a Right" slogan badly distorts the concept of a right. The founders of our nation had it correct: a right is inalienable, bestowed upon humans by our creator. A right can be violated, but not taken away. And a right is also not something that exists in one century but not another (Did Martha Washington have a "right" to a mammogram?) . Actual rights include freedom of speech, assembly and religion. Notice that none of these require another human to supply anything. There is no such thing as an inherent right for one human to control another.
But that is what is meant by the right to health care. Since MRIs, pharmaceuticals, surgeries and the like do not exist in nature and they must be created by other humans, a right to health care means a right to the labor of another ... absolutely and completely counter to our nation's ideals. I know that liberals feel strongly enough that the discussion should never come to this, that people should happily help their neighbor ... so strongly that they don't even bat an eye when forcing one human to help another. But slavery is what's happening nonetheless. Civilized slavery, but slavery.
5) There are better ways to reform health care, mostly by placing more responsibility and a sense of the costs involved closer to the individual. People should know that health care is not free, that there is not an infinite supply and that they should be smarter about their choices. It's not an all-you-can-eat buffet. But, people don't want to deal with the economic side of health care and this legislation further insulates the average patient. Here's a great article on that subject.
6) The significant problems with this health care bill will lead to another one. Medicare is on the way to bankruptcy and will need to be fixed. Liberals like to brag that Medicare has such a low administrative costs (3% compared to 20% for most insurance companies), but that's not exactly a fair comparison: insurance companies have to stay in business. My company could have a low overhead too if we had no expectation of financial performance. This new law, like Medicare, will go bankrupt and will have to be fixed. We're not passing a law right now, we're advocating a long series of them.
Please, liberals, tell me why these reasons are unreasonable and why we should tumble down this path. I'm sure I'm missing something.
However, there are also motivations to refrain from passing this bill. Let me try to list some of them.
1) The new law will require citizens to buy health insurance as a condition of existence . This is a first for our nation: become part of the collective or go to jail. In my view, it flies in the face of our nation's true independent spirit and violates the fundamental human right to choose your path through life. I have yet to speak to a liberal who even thought about this before getting excited about the bill, let alone saw it as a cause for worry. One suggested to me, after a day of chewing on it, that it's no different from the draft, when young men were forced to serve in the military. Given that the draft was temporary, full of exceptions (religious or conscientious objectors) and used only in national emergency, I don't see the equivalence. Will I be allowed to excuse myself from the new insurance requirement based on my fundamental beliefs in liberty and self-determination?
This new health bill says without hesitation: as a condition of living in this "free" nation, you will "pitch in". A seal is being broken that cannot and will not be repaired. I offer this guarantee: it's the first of many such tragedies.
2) The CBO conclusion that this legislation is fiscally responsible is a lie. The analysis was done over 10 years, the first 4 of which provide no benefits. This means that there are 10 years of revenue collection with only 6 years of expenses. Of course the numbers look friendly. But what about the following 10 years? Even assuming that it's possible to predict the financial viability of a government program 20 years out, no one is stressing about it. My sense is that the liberals know it will be a financial failure, requiring even more government intervention eventually leading to a single (govt) payer system. This is the holy grail.
3) Poor people being given tax money that they can use to buy their health insurance is yet another case of perpetuating the entitlement mentality and trapping people in their status quo. There has been nothing more cruel done to poor people over the last 50 years than giving them resources without earning them and with no requirements. How many generations of kids have to grow up watching Mom (and maybe Dad) dependent on govt for food, money, housing and now health care? Hey liberals, how did the housing projects of the 1960s and 70s work out? Don't you yet feel guilty for throwing these people into your prison cell? Could your expectations of the poor get any lower?
4) The "Health Care is a Right" slogan badly distorts the concept of a right. The founders of our nation had it correct: a right is inalienable, bestowed upon humans by our creator. A right can be violated, but not taken away. And a right is also not something that exists in one century but not another (Did Martha Washington have a "right" to a mammogram?) . Actual rights include freedom of speech, assembly and religion. Notice that none of these require another human to supply anything. There is no such thing as an inherent right for one human to control another.
But that is what is meant by the right to health care. Since MRIs, pharmaceuticals, surgeries and the like do not exist in nature and they must be created by other humans, a right to health care means a right to the labor of another ... absolutely and completely counter to our nation's ideals. I know that liberals feel strongly enough that the discussion should never come to this, that people should happily help their neighbor ... so strongly that they don't even bat an eye when forcing one human to help another. But slavery is what's happening nonetheless. Civilized slavery, but slavery.
5) There are better ways to reform health care, mostly by placing more responsibility and a sense of the costs involved closer to the individual. People should know that health care is not free, that there is not an infinite supply and that they should be smarter about their choices. It's not an all-you-can-eat buffet. But, people don't want to deal with the economic side of health care and this legislation further insulates the average patient. Here's a great article on that subject.
6) The significant problems with this health care bill will lead to another one. Medicare is on the way to bankruptcy and will need to be fixed. Liberals like to brag that Medicare has such a low administrative costs (3% compared to 20% for most insurance companies), but that's not exactly a fair comparison: insurance companies have to stay in business. My company could have a low overhead too if we had no expectation of financial performance. This new law, like Medicare, will go bankrupt and will have to be fixed. We're not passing a law right now, we're advocating a long series of them.
Please, liberals, tell me why these reasons are unreasonable and why we should tumble down this path. I'm sure I'm missing something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)