Does Rand Paul have a clue what MSNBC and Rachel Maddow are? Hint, Rand: Rachel Maddow doesn't like the Tea Party, which strongly supported your primary victory Tuesday. She and other progressives frequently use the demeaning referential term "tea bagger", which refers to a gay activity involving the oral reception of a partner's testicular sac. Rachel Maddow is predictable: I mean, how could Rand Paul not expect that the famous libertarian vote of Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional not to resurface? It didn't matter to blacks that Goldwater himself had desegregated his own family's department stores, the Arizona National Guard, and Arizona schools and restaurants. Never mind the obvious similar predictable questions regarding the crown jewel entitlement programs (i.e., social security and Medicare). Rachel would love nothing better than to paint the GOP as a group of quixotic ideologues mired in the 1960's, tilting at windmills, refighting lost wars. The progressives engage in a politics of fear based at getting out the traditional Democratic coalition--minorities worried about civil rights, senior citizens after paying payroll taxes for decades being told their benefits are in danger, etc. Never mind the dangerous gotcha game of playing hypotheticals... Elena Kagan will knowingly refuse to discuss hypothetical cases during her June confirmation hearings, but Rand Paul will walk right into the trap. I realize that he's an inexperienced politician, but COME ON.
I am not a politician, but I'll discuss my approach to the issue, which involves to what extent should government get involved in the internal affairs of business--their customers, suppliers, employees, etc. First, we need to understand the limits of government in terms of ensuring some independent criterion of fairness. For example, I create a business and from day one I hire a manager. Three decades later, I name my first-born son to run the business, not my faithful partner from day one. From the standpoint of fairness, one could argue my decision to name my son successor is unfair to the supervisor. So the question is to what extent are some criteria more equal than others? Second, I always think I don't want to give a business money if they aren't going to treat me fairly as a person.
Generally speaking, I see basic civil rights as a prerequisite to economic liberty, and I do not believe arbitrary restraints in trade or discriminatory collusion among suppliers of goods and services is morally or legally defensible. However, I am skeptical of the marginal benefit of government involvement beyond the guarantee of fair access to the market.
Senate Passes Financial "Reform" 59-39
Of course, a Senate that passes a 2000-plus page health care reform bill would pass a 15000-plus financial reform bill. The bill must now be reconciled against the House version. A few points here: two of the biggest bailout recipients, the GSE's, are totally unacknowledged; it doesn't eliminate bailouts but in fact codifies "too-big-to-fail"; it doesn't fix known issues, e.g., conflict of interest between credit raters and investment bank products; structural changes make our global financial vendors less competitive, changes to the derivatives will likely lower liquidity.
Political Cartoon
Gary Varvel is making reference to the video of a subsequently terminated Houston teacher unconscionably beating a young male student. Adding to business operating costs in tough times simply beats back a fragile economic recovery.
Quote of the Day
There are two ways to get enough; one is to continue to accumulate more and more. The other is to desire less.
G.K. Chesterton
Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)
#17. "I Could Have Danced All Night"
#18. "Cabaret"
#19. "Someday My Prince Will Come"
#20. "Somewhere"
