A minimalist approach to essential, transparent, accountable, flat, adaptable, responsive, solution-based government, rooted in virtuous individual autonomy, traditional values and free markets, with a bias towards reduction of government functionality, cost and scope
Quote of the Day You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing that we call 'failure' is not the falling down, but the staying down. Mary Pickford
The Syria Intervention Goes to Congress
I will say that Obama swerved me by suddenly announcing he would first seek Congressional approval. Why did he do so, after fighting going to Congress on Libya, drones, etc., and, until now, Syria? If Obama was still senator, he would be leading the charge to impeach President Obama over foreign policy. So was it a change of heart? Most of us libertarians won't look a gift horse in the mouth; for whatever reason he came to seek authority from Congress, we are happy that the one-time lecturer in Constitutional law is finally acknowledging the separation of powers. The retweeted image below was circulated before today's development.
I can only speculate on Obama's motives. I think it was forced by British PM Cameron's decision to put it before Parliament, losing (once again, Obama leads from behind.) It could be that Congressional leaders have privately reassured him that he has the votes; I don't think that's likely. Every poll I've seen shows Syrian intervention deeply unpopular, and that's before our principal ally Britain bowed out. Some 190 members of the House wrote to Obama demanding Congressional approval, a lot of them Dems. He may still win a number of these acting on mostly Constitutional grounds; you can expect a lot of 'win one for the Gipper' arm-twisting, noting a rejection would deeply embarrass Obama and set a bad tone for his remaining time in office. It's possible with neo-con support in both chambers that Obama could pull it out. Obama can probably get Senate approval; the real test is the House. Obama will lose most of the most "progressive" Dems; the Tea Party GOP will vote against. The rest of the GOP contingent has little to gain by approval, but the Tea Party contingent has lost votes on the Patriot Act and NSA. Still, they would share blame if things go wrong, and a vote for could be an issue in next year's primaries or mid-terms.
Personally, I think Obama may be looking for face-saving way out of the corner he's painted himself into. This way he can blame Congress for "losing Syria" while maintaining the moral upper ground against chemical weapons used against civilians.
I do want to draw attention to one pathetic argument he raised yesterday--effectively, Syria's use of chemical weapons is a slippery scope impacting our national security. No, other countries are accountable for their own actions, we are not the world's policeman, and in fact, we were aware of Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians during their more recent war without our intervention.
Here We Go Again: What Rule of Law? AG Holder Picks and Chooses...
Once again, Obama doesn't want to spend political capital to enact victimless crime reform on the federal level (e.g., drug prohibition), but Holder has decided not to challenge two states (Colorado and Washington) which recently legalized certain marijuana use. The problem, of course, is this is intrinsically unconstitutional--in the sense the Feds will prosecute similar violations in other states, a clear violation of equal protection. (Again, a disclaimer: I have never taken and do not intend to ever take recreational drugs, and I think people whom do so are abusing their freedom. I just think the costs of running an ineffective war on drugs are prohibitive and it's very bad public policy.) Cooke has written a good NRO piece reflecting a similar perspective.
You Know Walmart's Price-Slashing Dot? Wait Until You See the Crony Capitalist Government Price-Fixing Mascot....
Political Cartoon
Just in the event a reader doesn't understand the context, Destiny Hope 'Miley' Cyrus, daughter of country singer/actor Billy Ray Cyrus (remember 'Achy, Breaky Heart'?) and one-time Disney television star, recently engaged in a sexually provocative performance at a recent awards show.
Quote of the Day It is easier to exclude harmful passions than to rule them, and to deny them admittance than to control them after they have been admitted. Seneca
Sowell on Obamanomics
A little outdated piece apparently before the tragedy of ObamaCare passage, one point I wanted to underscore is an exchange whether Obama is a socialist (I don't think Sowell is addressing the government, at least at the time, owning chunks of the auto industry, AIG, and the GSE's). Sowell correctly references the distinction of economic fascism. Familiar readers know one of my favorite essays on the subject is from DiLorenzo on the Lew Rockwell website; statists don't need to necessarily own or manage a company if they effectively control it through policy or directives.
Don't Open Pandora's Box, Obama! 'No' to Attack on Syria
Obama infamously painted himself into a corner with a line over any alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. The same Nobel Peace Prize-winning leader once claimed vs. his competitors for the Dem Presidential nomination that he had the defining distinction of speaking out against an ill-conceived Iraq intervention. Now that even Britain has abandoned him, Obama is starting to look like go-it-alone cowboy Bush on a determined quixotic mission. But when you read this typically squishy Obama quote, it's very clear he's decided to take action, but arguing it's not like Iraq, already trying out his new rationalized excuses:
In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign, but we are looking at the possibility of a limited narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria but others around the world understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm.
In the meanwhile, I've read a number of stories of our so-called allies. In one story from a few weeks back, there was a Syria rebel whom cut out a dead Syrian soldier's heart and started eating it. There's another story I saw on the Libertarian Republic blog about Syrian Muslim extremists beheading a Christian bishop. Finally, war makes for strange bedfellows. If Al Qaeda affiliates were in almost any other countries, Obama would be drone-bombing them; I even saw one source claim that the USAF is "Al Qaeda's air force".
On the Baggage That Came Along With the MLK Speech
Catholic libertarians, like Tom Woods and myself, often have to deal with delusional "progressive" Catholics whom conflate a failed economic perspective with Catholic dogma. Christ was not a political activist or socialist; He did not belong to a carpenter union. I don't think Woods made this point in the video below but there's the famous contention between science and dogma; if and when dogma makes a claim that reflects a scientific hypothesis (say, astronomy or the physical age of the earth), those hypotheses must be put to the test with empirical evidence. The wise prelate knows to stick with his distinctive competencies of faith and morals and not make naive claims in science or economics that may reflect on his credibility in those original competencies. Surely, for instance, raising wages without corresponding increases in productivity will result in fewer jobs. A fewer number of jobs resulting from higher minimum wages can mean unemployed people will be unable to find work or that first job experience. Also, I would argue that a free market works to supply us with a wide variety and large amounts of goods and services, and labor and other regulations or taxes can actually impede economic development.
Unfortunately, MLK's profound insights on the inconsistent application of liberty in public policy did not extend to failed left-wing economic policies with unintended consequences. Jonah Goldberg, in another brilliant post, does a good job emphasizing and summarizing concepts I've discussed in prior posts:
In the American context, these are universal appeals. King pleaded for the fulfillment of America’s classically liberal revolution. At the core of that revolution was the concept of negative liberty — being free from government-imposed oppression. That is why the Bill of Rights is framed in the negative or designed to restrict the power of government. “The Congress shall make no law” that abridges freedom of speech, assembly, etc.
This arrangement has never fully satisfied the Left. The founding philosopher of American progressivism, John Dewey, argued for positive rights: We have the right to material things — homes, jobs, education, health care, etc. Herbert Croly, the author of the progressive bible The Promise of American Life, argued that the Founding was unfinished and that only by turning America into a European-style cradle-to-grave social democracy could our “promise” be fulfilled. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to in effect replace the Bill of Rights with a new “economic bill of rights” along these lines. That was the intellectual tradition of Randolph and, to a significant degree, Barack Obama.
Quote of the Day We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them. Abigail Adams
Liberty Thought of the Day
More Unconstitutional Insanity From the People's Republic of California
What Fifth Amendment? This is the "progressive"equivalent of a bank heist.
Obama, Read My Lips: Back Off Intervention in Syria Undeclared War is an Impeachable Offense US Military Personnel: Obeying an Unlawful Order Can Be Prosecuted
The last thing I wrote no doubt would be attacked: how dare I question the orders of the Commander-in-Chief; failure to comply with the orders of the President can subject one to court martial. The latter is usually, but not always true:
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
In other words, Adams did not have authority to stop ships leaving from a port. Declaration of war is a Congressional responsibility, and certainly a premeditated strike against Syria, which is not a threat to the US, cannot be defended as a defensive tactic. However well-intended Obama is on dubious evidence of the source of any purported use of chemical weapons, there is no Constitutional loophole for a Nobel Peace Prize President to unilaterally initiate hostilities on "humanitarian" grounds. Great Britain, Obama's partner in the mission, opted out tonight after losing a relevant vote in Parliament. The American people do not support it; less than 10% favor it. Congress has no intent of approving such an unpopular intervention.
Another Time Piece Annoys Me
I've spent so much time praising George Mason University economists, I found myself shaking my head at colleague President historian Richard Norton Smith's essay in Time's recent "I Have a Dream" golden anniversary issue. I looked up his Wikipedia biography and Smith is not an obvious left-wing nutjob; he was a speechwriter for two GOP politicians and has been involved with multiple GOP Presidential libraries. But a few excerpts jumped out at me:
These days the loyal opposition [is] too busy jamming the operations of government itself. Meanwhile Obama,our putative instructor-in-chief, is ensnared in a political culture that defines success not as forging consensus but in preventing it... How does a President persuade congregation members who have tuned him out, disputing his legitimacy and reserving their attention for rivals who reinforce their existing beliefs and prejudices? That is precisely what makes the President's remarks following the Trayvon Martin verdict so compelling...Obama's parking-lot epiphany is as chillingly authentic as it is impossible to dismiss.
Do you know how many times I've done something others deemed impossible? (It is something I relish doing; familiar readers know that I started out my IT career as an APL programmer/analyst. I taught myself the concise, cryptic language in almost no time, enough to attract a job offer a year later to the leading APL timesharing branch in Houston. One day a colleague asked for a little utility, which I created off the top of my head in less than 5 minutes. Co-workers looked over my shoulder and claimed that it would never work--and I hit my return key and proved them wrong. People conflate their limitations with mine all the time. On a side note, my utility costed out at about 80 cents; my branch manager tried all day to design a cheaper solution and never got closer than $1.20. Sad...)
Yes, I dismiss Obama's ill-focused discussion of racial paranoia, which was better suited for Oprah Winfrey's couch than in front of news journalists. Everything he said is something I've heard hundreds of times before. He's written books and given speeches about his black experience. This was not a case where Trayvon Martin was a defendant in a trial, and we had a President speaking, on multiple occasions, on a state, not federal trial, which put at risk the defendant's constitutional rights. Maybe Mr. Smith is still working off his white guilt. If a female neighbor locks her door behind her as I pass in the hall, I don't take it personally. If a woman edges away from me in an elevator, I might change my deodorant spray the next time I shower. We all experience life's little problems and indignities. I always thought people whom went around thinking their share is more are rather presumptuous. How does that saying go? "You don't know me." Is this supposed to explain why Martin responded as he did in being followed by Zimmerman? But Martin wasn't being prosecuted; Zimmerman was. Smith seems to see Obama as some self-appointed Moral Conscience of the nation! What nonsense! This is the same guy whom stonewalled a mandate to give a baby born alive in an abortion procedure medical assistance and a Nobel Peace Prize winner whom has bombed other countries with which we are not at war--he has no standing to lecture other people about their behavior.
I think Smith has a vested interest in Obama because he predicted Obama's Presidency after his keynote address at the 2004 National Convention. Who could have predicted that, given Clinton's national introduction at the 1988 Convention as a speaker and the fact most Democrat politicians are about as charismatic as day-old wheat toast? But Smith's parroting partisan talking points?
I thoroughly reject the idea that Republicans are principled obstructionist; it ignores the fact that the GOP has principled objections to an activist "progressive" agenda, and Obama during the 111st Congress played hardball politics, refusing to compromise because he had enough votes to push partisan bills through Congress. When you marginalize and routinely scapegoat the opposition, you are setting the tone, and you have to acknowledge your own share of blame.
But with a nation already nearly $17T in debt, larger than the nation's economy, and maybe another $80T in unfunded liabilities, we are basically stealing from future generations. Obama's agenda is counterproductive from a standpoint of competent governance and a robust economy. The opposition only controls one chamber of Congress; conflict is inevitable. We have a President whom refuses to compromise or to enforce laws that he doesn't agree with and whom works around the Congress with executive orders. Obama even refused to back the findings of his own bipartisan deficit reduction commission, including the support of every GOP senator on the commission.
"I Saved the Auto Unions" Obama may not think that he's corrupt, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, ... A picture of the Legal-Plunderer-in-Chief with the Legally-Protected-Plunderer-in-Chief....
But how well spent was all the union "investment" in The One meant in his home state? This is from Paul Kersey of the Illinois Policy Institute:
Over the last year, 760 workers represented by the United Auto Workers were laid off at one Caterpillar Inc. facility in Peoria. Hostess Inc., the iconic snack maker, was forced to shut its bakeries, including one in Schiller Park that employed 1,400 Illinoisans represented by several unions, among them the Bakers, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers union, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. (That plant was reopened when new owners took over Hostess, but most of the workforce was replaced — those jobs are now non-union.) And when Chicago Public Schools started the new school year, they did so with about 3,000 fewer Chicago Teachers Union members.
While rank-and-file workers are facing pink slips, union bosses are raking in big salaries.
Quote of the Day I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. Albert Einstein
Liberty Thought of the Day
Nanny of the Month: Aug. 2013 Baby, You Can Drive Your Car--Just Don't Sleep in It....
Reflections on MLK's Speech
One indisputable fact is that King was a spectacular orator. I think that I myself have considerable skills, although I have not done much public speaking. I am very articulate and can be passionate about what I'm talking about. In contrast with the animated inflections of many Protestant preachers, most Catholic priests I've encountered delivered sermons as dry as whole wheat toast with no spread; they just as well might have read my dissertation out loud. Now, granted as an IT professor, it was tough to present a subject like programming language syntax with emotion, but I usually tried to work some humor into the discussion. A classic example is the old dictum 'It's not a bug; it's a feature.' There's an anecdote I know about that that will make a nerd shoot milk out his nose. But I know how to vary my tone and cadence, use a pregnant pause--I've been in business meetings where I've been in the zone and knew that I had everyone's attention in the room--that everybody was waiting to hear what I said next. It's not hubris; you simply become aware of it. Not that I'm comparing myself to MLK; he was far more experienced no doubt having delivered hundreds of sermons and public speeches at rallies. But I have to marvel at the sheer artistry of his delivery--and to think in the process that he departed from prepared remarks at points: that takes confidence. Whereas Obama has decent speaking skills, he's simply not on the same level.
Whereas I'm sure that King spoke from first-hand experience of blacks in the Old South with unjust public policy that arbitrarily excluded blacks from state and local institutions, it was clear that King had to deliver a message that went beyond the 13% of the population which is black. He had to connect with a universal message--parents all around the globe relate to the hope of a better world and a better future for their children. He was not going to win friends and influence people with finger-pointing, intimidation, and divisive and judgmental rhetoric; instead, he was calling us to be consistent in and faithful to the truths and principles upon which this republic was founded.
Obama today spoke of unfinished business in King's dream. I have an alternative perspective. I think part of the problem was an unconstitutional restriction on individual rights: government was part of the problem, not the solution. But "inclusive" political participation, access to state/local institutions and resources is only part of the solution; I have gone to school and worked with people of color (even reported to one on a government contract); there are prominent people of color in both political parties and at the highest level of government. But I argue what King referred to was individual rights, not collective or class-based ones. I think that treating of blacks as victims is itself unconscionably elitist and condescending, that fostering a dependency on government largess is morally corrupting. Government programs undermine the integrity of the family, increase a sense of entitlement and undermine self-reliance and other virtues. We see failed public policy and schools. I would argue it's not enough to have a vote when elected politicians impair the economy with misguided domestic policies. I think King would have found problems with government barriers to entry like occupational licensing. Excessive government regulation does not win hearts and minds or compel virtue; it exacerbates class conflict. So I see the key message is King's ending reflection on liberty--and one has to ask--what has happened to liberty (across all races) under decades of failed "progressive" policies. I would like to think King would see the need to liberate the individual from government intervention.
Dr. Ben Carson Reflects On Some Shortfalls Towards the Dream
The epidemic of black-on-black violent crime indicates that there has been a significant deterioration of values in the black community. Not only are the lives of their fellow blacks and others being devalued by street thugs, but the lives of unborn babies are being destroyed in disproportionate numbers in the black community. Another area of great concern would be the fact that 73 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock. King was a huge advocate of education and would be horrified by the high dropout rates in many inner-city high schools. If he were alive today, he would have to witness people turning their backs on those open doors and choosing to pursue lives of crime or dependency. Perhaps the biggest disappointment for King would be the wholesale adoption of a victim mentality that makes people feel that they are entitled to being cared for by others rather than working tirelessly to create wealth and opportunities for their progeny.
Next JOTY Nominee: Marty O'Malley
It's like they're coming out of the woodwork; I can barely keep up. The term-limited Legal-Plunderer-in-Chief of Maryland and potential 2016 candidate engaged in contemptible race-baiting, speaking in front of an underwhelming crowd commemorating the golden anniversary of the March on Washington: "O'Malley said there is 'too much apathy' in America 'when the lives of people of color are too often valued less than the lives of white people.'"
On the Pension Front
A couple of interesting stories, including a follow-up on the San Bernardino bankruptcy filing:
Calpers argues that it should not be treated like other creditors and must be paid in full because California state law says the fund must always be fully paid, even in a bankruptcy. Bondholders argue that federal bankruptcy law trumps state statutes and say Calpers should be forced to fight with other creditors over how much they are paid under an exit plan.
I think there's no question that the bondholders are correct, that there has to be cost-sharing of austerity on equal protection principles. In other words, it is inevitable Calpers will see a haircut; the only question is how much. It's clear why Calpers is in a state of denial; taxpayers will ultimately have to make any shortfall in pension payouts. California and NY enacted similar "reforms" which don't touch Baby Boomer/older distributions which are causing near-term, not longer-term issues with younger, new state/municipality employees in lower-cost pension plans. All they are doing is deferring the day of reckoning: it's just a matter of time before more municipalities are forced to file; taxpayers will balk at the corrupt bargain between government and crony unionists, by their feet if nothing else which will increase the burden of those left behind.
New York Comptroller CUTS Public Employer Pension Contributions. This was welcomed by government entities and certain businesses, worried about additions to already sky-high property taxes to finance pension costs, clearly unsustainable in the long run:
In 2011, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the Legislature created a new, less expensive tier of pensions for new hires to reduce the future cost to governments and schools. The state constitution prohibits lowering the pension benefits of workers and retirees already in the $158 billion pension system.... Those pension costs, along with dwindling populations and tax revenues, are driving some local governments toward insolvency, although none has declared bankruptcy as have some municipalities in other states.
Whereas I empathize with Unshackle Upstate's concerns with anti-economic growth effect of tax increases, the real enemy is unsustainable pension obligations with a shrinking tax base. All Cuomo and his partisan cohorts did is kick the can down the road; the time to fortify pension finances is when we are not (yet) in recession. I feel it's just a matter of time before you see New York municipalities follow San Bernardino and Detroit... Sooner or later the unions will have to make necessary concessions, or even more Draconian ones will be forced on them.
Political Humor
The state attorney general of New York is suing Donald Trump for $40 million, claiming that Donald Trump University is not a real university. The state claims it's not a real college because students get very little education and were unable to find jobs after they graduated. Sounds like a real college to me. - Jay Leno
[Students complained that they didn't know if their graduation certificate was authentic.]
The treasury secretary has now asked Congress to raise the debt limit for borrowing more money as soon as possible. The secretary of the treasury said if Congress doesn't act soon, the government will have to work with only the money it has now. You know, like the rest of us do. - Jay Leno
[Assuming China, Japan and other investors approve raising our credit limit, knowing we'll never pay them back and what we do pay back is in debased dollars.]
This is Like Me Calling on One of My Former Students
Students in a rural Kentucky county — and their parents — are the latest to join a growing national chorus of scorn for the healthy school lunches touted by first lady Michelle Obama. “They say it tastes like vomit,” said Harlan County Public Schools board member Myra Mosley at a contentious board meeting last week, reports The Harlan Daily Enterprise.
More than 50 large U.S. cities have adopted “anti-camping” or “anti-food sharing” laws in recent years, and in many of these cities the police are strictly enforcing these laws. Sometimes the goal appears to be to get the homeless people to go away. Apparently the heartless politicians that are passing these laws believe that if the homeless can’t get any more free food and if they keep getting thrown into prison for “illegal camping” they will eventually decide to go somewhere else where they won’t be hassled so much.
The statists are trying to regulate even who gets to eat your own food, an act of charity? But somehow it's okay if they tax/steal your second sandwich and distribute it themselves so the politicians get credit.
“What do you think he’d say about Obamacare?” asked Joyner, when discussing King’s legacy.
“Oh he’d like that,” Obama asserted. “Well, because he understood that health care, health security is not a privilege, it’s something in a county as wealthy as ours, everybody should have access to.”
"We were just talking with some folks earlier about the fact that, for a lot of people, it will be cheaper than your cell phone bill," Obama explained.
If you are spending $10K a year on your cellphone, you need to change cellphone carriers. NOTE: you don't have to shop a rigged government exchange to find a cheaper plan...
Somehow I don't think Obama implying that MLK was an economic illiterate is a compliment. I'm sure that Obama would not have told MLK that before the reform, a hospital already could not refuse emergency care based on an ability to pay, that increasing numbers of physicians refuse to accept new government healthcare patients (Medicare and Medicaid) because of the red tape and/or the providers lose money on them, and that the result of ObamaCare has been to dampen employment (jobs and hours) and significantly higher premiums because of gold-plated benefits and mandates; I'm sure that MLK would also not be impressed by how black employment and household net worth have worsened over Obama's tenure...
Guest Blog Excerpt of the Day
Obama knows how to bluff people whom are not very intelligent; he will speak intellectual gibberish with authority, and the MSNBC anchors will swoon with approval. But really smart people realize that he's a phony. Here is a classic example from one of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell. To provide context, you have to realize, as I have written several times (a signature blog quote), "If there's one thing Obama knows, it's symbolism." There is an ongoing dispute between Argentina and Great Britain over a group of offshore islands. Obama is attempting to signal an Argentinian tilt on the dispute by using (he thinks) the Argentinian name for the disputed islands. Now let's pick it up from Sowell:
One presidential gaffe in particular gives the flavor, and suggests the reason, for many others. It involved the Falkland Islands.With Argentina today beset by domestic problems, demanding the return of the Falklands is once again a way for Argentina's government to distract the Argentine public's attention from the country's economic and other woes. Because the Argentines call these islands "the Malvinas," rather than "the Falklands," Barack Obama decided to use the Argentine term. But he referred to them as "the Maldives." It so happens that the Maldives are thousands of miles away from the Malvinas. The former are in the Indian Ocean, while the latter are in the South Atlantic.
Back during Barack Obama's first year in office, he kept repeating, with great apparent earnestness, that there were "shovel-ready" projects that would quickly provide many much-needed jobs, if only his spending plans were approved by Congress. He seemed very convincing — if you didn't know how long it can take for any construction project to get started, after going through a bureaucratic maze of environmental impact studies, zoning commission rulings and other procedures that can delay even the smallest and simplest project for years.
Just consider the red tape of the Keystone Pipeline approval.(cf. below): "For more than 1,800 days, the Obama administration has been analyzing whether the Keystone pipeline is in the national interest." So much for Obama's priority for those 42,000 "shovel-ready" jobs...
Liberty Thought of the Day
The Keystone Pipeline: Obama "Dithering As Usual"
Keep in mind that oil pipelines crisscross the US, and pipeline technology improves over time. The issue at hand is the anti-fossil-fuel EPA which does the bidding of anti-economic growth radical environmentalists fighting the already thoroughly vetted State Department approval. (The environmentalists would rather see us continue imports from volatile regions or anti-American regimes: war, vs. free trade, is a worse threat to the environment.) Among other things, environmentalists fail to adequately account for environmental impacts or feasibility of alternative transports of oil, including truck, rail or oil tankards. Obama is as usual leading from behind vs. refereeing this bureaucratic turf battle like a real executive.
I Am So Done With Pakistan: Cut Off Aid Now
I think I've finally heard of an anti-Christian law which is like the Old South's morally unconscionable Jim Crow laws on steroids, an incontrovertible violation of human rights. From the NY Post:
But though I’m kept in a tiny, windowless cell, I want my voice and my anger to be heard. I want the whole world to know that I’m going to be hanged for helping my neighbor. I’m guilty of having shown someone sympathy. What did I do wrong? I drank water from a well belonging to Muslim women, using “their” cup, in the burning heat of the midday sun.
I, Asia Bibi, have been sentenced to death because I was thirsty. I’m a prisoner because I used the same cup as those Muslim women, because water served by a Christian woman was regarded as unclean by my stupid fellow fruit-pickers.
4Now [Jesus] had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon. 7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 9The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans. Or do not use dishes Samaritans have used )
See here for a relevant historical context of the Jew-Samaritan separatism. That any government would criminalize an act of kindness is unconscionable. Muslims make up about 97% of Pakistan; there is no excuse for such a grotesque violation of individual rights; water is a basic necessity of life.
Whistle-blower Protections - Yes Bulk Privileged Document Downloads and Distribution - No I do think there is a strategic need for a certain degree of government secrecy: you will not win a card game where everyone can read your hand but you can't read theirs. We cannot rely on PR releases from self-serving competitive powers; we could not want weapon designs, audits of infrastructure vulnerabilities or revelations of defense strategies or military plans or intelligence agent aliases to be made available; if we cannot maintain discretion, it will have a chilling, counterproductive effect on intelligence gathering and negotiations.
We would have to unacceptably depend on the professional ethics of potentially corrupt, unaccountable, unauthorized third-party recipients to sift through documents; think, for instance, of a rogue third-party recipient whom could use sensitive information to blackmail a high-level government official, an undercover agent or a foreign intelligence source.
It would be one thing if I was a diplomat whom knew that, say, President Obama was lying or misleading the American people about the rationale for military intervention in the Middle East or a national intelligence director misleading the country of the nature or extent of unauthorized domestic spying; in the cases of Manning and Snowden, it comes across more like cherry-picking some after-the-fact egregious discovery to rationalize their crimes, an unethical breach of professional ethics, violating their employment contract, putting lipstick on a pig.
Nevertheless, Greg Mitchell has listed a number of politically inconvenient truths, basically hidden from policymakers and American voters among Manning's stolen documents (HT Reason), including corrupt foreign government leaders taking a cut of American aid, foreign leaders turned a blind eye to US violations (e.g., bringing certain banned weapons or bombs), missed diplomatic opportunities (e.g., Hussein's invasion of Kuwait may have been motivated in part by soft oil prices in the aftermath of the Iran War), etc. To give a current contrast, the Obama Administration has made much of Assad's alleged use of chemical agents (as if murder by one means is more equal than murder by more politically acceptable means), but for example, the US had previously supported Saddam Hussein despite knowledge of his use of poison gas.
The only way to minimize the risk of these ethically dubious incidents is a less intervenionist foreign policy.
Yes, My Views on Some Things Have Changed Part III (Part II)
I have previously discussed the evolution of my position on national defense; I am not anti-military: I was born a military brat, and my Dad retired from the military while I was in college. In fact, I served in the Navy as a math instructor at a training center. The overwhelming majority of people in the military are not jingoistic warmongers; they are disciplined professionals whom serve their country faithfully. They don't romanticize war; my first dorm RA had lost one of his legs in Vietnam, and I've known people whom have lost a loved one.
In my case, I originally entered college with the idea of pursuing the priesthood, probably in the context of a teaching order like the Jesuits or Oblates. I was skeptical of the worthiness of two conflicts my Dad had served in (Korea and Vietnam). But I was also a realist: I had seen in high school history documentary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps; I was shocked such evil existed in the world. I was not unmoved by enormous violations of human rights under the USSR (particularly under Stalin) and Red China, the killing fields of Cambodia, the atrocities in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, etc. But I also realized that it was infeasible for the US to play Whack-a-Mole with rogue nations or leaders.
To a large part, I trusted political leadership to realize the bounded nature of our feasible commitments. I think, like many Americans, I was shocked by the events of 9/11, the mass murder of thousands of innocent civilians. I did expect Bush to go after UBL, and when the Taliban regime protected UBL and his cohorts, I expected a response; what I did not expect was a man whom had run against Clinton's nation building would have fallen in the same trap of the Soviets, etc. I also had concerns about Saddam Hussein, whom certainly had a motive to strike against America and controlled more resources to make it happen. I also thought he well understood the sectarian issues that led his father not to pursue regime change at the close of the first Gulf War. Once Bush intervened, I thought we had a moral obligation to leave a functioning local government, not open a Pandora's Box of regional war, say, a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. But I did not envision indefinite commitments, one which continues to this day.
So I think my preference for a less activist foreign policy has always really been there. As to when I finally divorced from neo-con policy, it probably was due to two things: (1) the end of my patience was reached with the US backing the corrupt Karzai regime; (2) Obama's totally incompetent, political bungling of the Afghanistan surge decision. You don't split the difference of highest-risk, low-manpower options, and you don't announce a withdrawal before you've achieved military objectives. It's like boxing with one arm tied behind your back. You get what you pay for; either fight or cut your losses and move on. Unfortunately, Obama had boxed himself in with the absurd partisan rhetoric that the "real" war was in Afghanistan.
I've found the American exceptionalism discussion, explored in a relevant Cato Institute Event, to be interesting. I .do think our nation being one of immigrants, a revolution based on a more comprehensive application of liberty principles and equal standing under the law, and a reasonable stable democratic republic is unique; but I don't think we have a mission to propagate our application of liberty principles as a matter of force. I think we promote peace by liberty-based trade policies and spread the worthiness of our principles by exemplifying their consistent application domestically and prudently in international matters.
Stevie Wonder, "Fingertips". A Glen Campbell channel on Facebook recently featured the second clip with Stevie doing a soulful duet on the classic Bob Dylan tune.
Quote of the Day Success seems to be largely a matter of hanging on after others have let go. William Feather
Liberty Thought of the Day
TSA: Not Just in Airports Anymore...
TSA's Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams, or VIPR squads, were introduced in 2005:
What VIPR squads do are patrol public areas at major commuter or patron areas such as train stations, concert venues, etc. Essentially, VIPR teams often stop and search passengers or patrons for "counter-terrorism" purposes. Many passengers find this to be intrusive and detrimental to traveling, even though it is supposed to make traveling safer.
The budget for VIPR squads has rapidly escalated to $100M with a near-quadrupling of teams. This is a typical pushing-on-a-string bureaucratic empire-building, with a lack of transparency, accountability, distinctive competencies, and standards. Keep in mind wherever VIPR squads work, relevant localized or entity (e.g., Amtrak) security already exists. Now imagine unconstitutional NY arbitrary "stop-and-frisk" procedures federalized....
New JOTY Nominee: Thomas Perez, Labor Secretary
Perez, a newly installed union minion, is unconstitutionally abusing his authority by responding to union complaints about Jerry Brown's lame pension reforms (which avoid dealing with the brunt of Baby Boomer pensions, eliminate some end-of-career pension-spiking game-playing, and sets up a new, less costly pension vehicle for newer state employees) by threatening to cut off up to billions in transit subsidies:
The contentious issue involves changes to the pensions of 20,000 transit workers approved in a law designed to ensure the retirement funds for all state workers remain solvent. The pension reform does not affect existing workers. New workers will receive lower retirement benefits, while existing workers will see no reduction. The state expects to save about $240 billion over 30 years.
First, should the People's Republic of California be surprised that the feds will pull strings attached to money? Second, I have a nuanced stance: I wouldn't mind much if the highway trust fund is shored up by denied transit subsidies; I don't think taxpayers should subsidize user fees. But what Perez is doing is unconstitutional on several levels. The 1964 law he is citing isn't really relevant, and Perez is targeting a state law which applies to all state/local employees, not just transit. (Even if you rolled back reforms for one special interest group, you're one equal protection lawsuit away from a uniform rollback--which is Perez' real goal.) But this is also a clear violation of the tenth amendment and analogous to Chief Roberts' "gun to the head" opinion, casting aside the Dems' extortion for the states to increase their Medicaid eligibility, with their split cost share of relevant funding or face a total cutoff of the federal match
Am I surprised? No. This blog opposed Thomas Perez' nomination, although I may not have written up my objections; see Judicial Watch for a relevant critique.
I may add this to my blogroll. Here's a good relevant excerpt on the California state pension system:
Back in 2005, some 1,841 retirees pulled down more than $100,000 a year in pension checks from the California Public Employees Retirement System.And by the end of 2012, membership [had increased] to 14,763, according to data from CalPERS. That's up 700 percent in less than a decade. The rate of inflation over the same period was 38 percent .
Consider: In 1999 – the year before more generous retirement formulas started snowballing statewide – there were 16,071 retirements, and the average benefit was $20,532 per year. In 2012, there were nearly twice as many retirements – 33,330 – and the average annual benefit had almost doubled, to $36,468.
The latest data shows that the top dog remained Bruce Malkenhorst – a Huntington Beach resident who was once the city of Vernon's city manager, finance director, redevelopment director, city clerk, city treasurer and head of the municipal light and power operation, pretty much at the same time – with an annual benefit of $540,882. CalPERS launched a review and slashed it down to $115,000 last year, but Malkenhorst dubbed that "elder abuse" and is fighting the reduction in court. He'll keep getting the full amount until all appeals are settled.
There is a treasure trove of stories, particularly on public pension shenanigans, e.g.:
California state retirees don't like public disclosure of their identification in funding transparency law;
San Bernandino should hear on the disposition of their bankruptcy status this week; Calpers is opposing the filing (San Bernandino halted its payments for a year after filing although it has recently resumed). Just as in the case of Detroit, we may see some precedents as to whether pension/funds may be forced to share the pain of austerity budgeting.
Yes, My Views on Some Things Have Changed Part II (Part I)
The reason I started this thread was a reflection I had while listening through a backlog of Cato Institute Event podcasts. There was a reflection about medical malpractice reform and its discussion by the GOP in national politics; I immediately knew where the speaker was going on this; in fact, I've found myself cringing as yet another GOP lawmaker reiterates the soundbite "repeal and replace" ObamaCare for related reasons (it's not the 'repeal' part that makes me wince). One of the persistent criticisms of the GOP by libertarians is that it's merely a lighter version of "Progressive" Big Government.
In a certain sense, if and when the GOP (unnecessarily) concedes to "replace", it surrenders the concept of limited government; it seems to buy into the myth that government is the solution, than a main problem in an inflation-bound health sector. To a certain extent, I have found myself wincing a bit at the states' being discussed as a crucible of democracy; maybe it's the way I've been hearing it since my views have become more libertarian, but it now comes across as if the states are the minor leagues and the Feds are the majors, that a successful policy reform can get called up to the Feds which make a congruent national standard and propagate it across the states by fiat. To me, this not only violates the principles of federalism, but violates the distinctive competencies of the states and the federal government. These distinctions were at the back of my mind in the discussion of whether RomneyCare was the precursor to ObamaCare. Romney was caught in a box here--I think his implementation started with a lower-than-average uninsured percentage. If you apply the same proposals, say in Texas, the price tag is much higher in nature and extent. It is true more recently Romney specifically conceded that his reforms may not be applicable to other states.
I think as a matter of tactics, the GOP will try to provide a less centralized, more feasible, market-friendly alternative version of domestic policies. One of the related issues in healthcare was malpractice insurance. Trial lawyers are a natural Dem special-interest constituency and fight malpractice reform (which, among other things, wants to cap damages--and relevant offset legal fees). So yes, I see defensive medicine (to cover the physician's butt) as a key cost driver, with adverse effects on the supply of doctors. Given the fact that the government, and in particularly the Feds, is funding a lot of health care, I see malpractice reform as a tactic for trying to moderate relevant federal costs.
But, of course, when I hear a Cato Institute analyst argue that this is more a state issue, I have to agree; physicians are licensed to practice at the state level. I do see what Texas did in reforming malpractice insurance--in the process attracting an influx of physicians--as a true example of a state as a democratic crucible. It was up to other states to meet or beat Texas' reforms.
Quote of the Day When you get into a tight place and everything goes against you, till it seems as though you could not hang on a minute longer, never give up then, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn. Harriet Beecher Stowe
Liberty Thought of the Day
The MLK "I Have a Dream" Speech: Golden Anniversary Wednesday
Is there any person who is not aware of the historic anniversary? It's all over the news, and Time has a commemorative issue out, with observers sharing their memories (do we really need to know who served entertainer Sammy Davis, Jr. a Coca-Cola at the event?) I will have a brief commentary Wednesday.
But one of the problems you face in researching the historically significant speech online is, other than brief "fair use" excerpts, it's hard to find the speech online. (As of the date of this post, ABC has the full written speech text available here.) Why? Copyrights. I can understand why MLK himself was concerned about others profiting from his speech (he sued an unauthorized distributor within months following the speech); he pledged a large percentage of royalties to support non-profit civil rights organizations. His heirs have pledged to do the same (an authorized DVD is available for $20) until the copyright protection expires in 2038, on the anniversary of his assassination).
I myself consider public speeches to be in the public domain and should be freely available for non-commercial (e.g., scholarship) purposes. Let's face it: this is different than if he had taken the same speech and instead had published in a book of sermons or essays; it would have had a much more limited audience, however stirring his words. He was given a unique platform; the march was more than a one-man show, and hundreds of thousands heard the speech free of charge in person, millions of others on television: why would we want subsequent generations to have to pay to hear the same historical speech later? Note that we also have libraries which do not pay royalties on how often a book is checked out. When I wrote my academic and professional articles, I referenced literally thousands of books and articles, only a fraction of which I owned my own licensed copy.
(How do I feel about my own commentaries/blog posts? Obviously I would be concerned about others reproducing, selling or plagiarizing my work without my knowledge, consent and/or even attribution. My content is already available free of charge via Google, which owns this platform. I have considered repackaging some of the content in book form, but I would still maintain my online content. I see my posts as a way of building my audience and influence; perhaps if people like (or at least respect) what they read online, they'll be interested in buying or reading my other content. For example, Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek often posts his signature letters to the editor (or some other party). Last year he repackaged a "best of" compilation of letters, which I plugged in my blog. No, neither he nor the publisher sent me a complimentary copy.)
To be honest, I think MLK's heirs have blown it full-time; in their place, I would welcome every opportunity to reassert King's relevance decades later, maybe use the opportunity to market official commemorative editions, special compilations of his work, etc.:
“I think Martin Luther King must be spinning in his grave,” Bill Rutherford, who was executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference when King was murdered, told 60 Minutes. “He gave his life for his ideas of justice, peace and love. He attempted his entire life to communicate ideas for free. To communicate, not to sell,” he says.
Familiar readers know that I only occasionally reference WSJ content (most of their content, including op-eds, is behind a paywall, and I will not pay for the privilege of promoting their content). I have sent unacknowledged emails to Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek and Mark Perry of Carpe Diem for linking to paywall content, which I find paradoxical for a libertarian. I will say one of these authors subsequently included an alternative "free content" link the next time he referenced a WSJ piece. Did my protest touch a nerve? Others could also have raised the same point.
King might have noted, as an excellent On the Media report does, that his speech was not just divinely inspired, but a tribute to the communication of ideas – a kind of mash-up of rhetorical phrasings of other preachers and leaders of the time, along with an abundance of references to the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, and Shakespeare (“this sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn…” is a reference to Richard III). Even half of the “Dream” snippet in the Alcatel ad is mostly borrowed: We hold these truths to be self evident… “belongs” to Thomas Jefferson.
Ashton Kutcher Gives the Best Award Acceptance Speech
I love the fact he pushed the virtues of hard work (no job being beneath one), making one's opportunities (not a "you didn't build that" moment), and being well-informed or smart as an attractive quality.
Yes, My Views on Some Things Have Changed
As I write this segment, my favorite Walt Whitman quote comes to mind:
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.
I've been writing this blog for 5 years; some of my views have changed. I haven't reread all my old posts; I think if I had to go through the economic tsunami again, I would have been much more critical of TARP and the actions of the Fed and Treasury. I think at the time I was looking at the events through the prism of a Presidential campaign and there was a great deal of fear-mongering; today I am just as skeptical of fear-mongering in fiscal/monetary policy as I now am in foreign policy.
I would not have supported the nomination of John McCain. I knew that Hillary Clinton or Barry Obama would be a disaster in the White House. The Dems had the momentum stemming from the mid-terms where they had captured unexpectedly the Senate as well as the House. Bush became a recluse in the White House, his approval rating seemingly dropping almost daily. Bush had stupidly waited until after the election to announce a change in DoD and Iraq strategy; the delay probably cost him the Senate and gave him a weaker hand to play against the Dems. I thought McCain was a good choice from a tactical point of view: his bitter 2000 battle with Bush for the GOP nod, his votes against the Bush tax cuts, his criticism of Bush's post-invasion Iraq policy, his populist streak, his reputation for being bipartisan (co-sponsored legislation, the Gang of 14) and being a maverick made it more difficult to paint him as Bush's "third term". I wasn't as focused on ideology or lack of administrative experience: McCain was "conservative enough" with a lifetime ACU ratings in the 80's, and the Dems were mostly Senate colleagues.
But as events unfolded, it was clear that McCain was the wrong candidate for the time. He was promoting himself as being experienced, but he selected Sarah Palin as VP. I do think Obama's quixotic selection of Biden over the Dem runner up Hillary Clinton as a running mate provided McCain with a historical tactical opportunity, but I thought he would choose someone like former senior Texas Senator Hutchison; I had briefly considered Palin, but picking a second-year governor with no federal experience, never mind being investigated in Troopergate (where Palin was accused of abusing her gubernatorial authority to go after a former brother-in-law state trooper's job), where a key finding would be released in the middle of the general campaign, seemed to pose unacceptable risks. Because McCain was a senior citizen, it was only natural his VP choice would be held up to higher scrutiny. Initially I admitted that McCain had swerved everybody, and the Democrats overreacted with Obama in particular actually comparing "running" a national campaign was better experience than running a state. Sarah Palin delivered two brilliant introductory speeches and was unusually charismatic, but it was clear as soon as her first national interview that she had not been adequately vetted by the campaign; moreover, she didn't help McCain with undecided voters. In hindsight, it would have been better to balance McCain with someone stronger on domestic policy (say, Romney), "America's Mayor" Giuliani or Gov. Pataki, or maybe his cherished unity ticket with Joe Lieberman.
But it goes beyond that:
McCain's decision to suspend the campaign over TARP. First, what did McCain put first, being a Senator or running for President? Second, he and Obama were both supporting TARP (instead of following his populist instinct to run against Big Bank bailouts); McCain missed an opportunity to provide a distinguishing difference to undecided voters. Harry Reid was in a box for a policy response, and McCain signaled support in advance. After getting what he wanted/needed, Reid then repaid McCain by undermining McCain's bipartisan credentials by publicly saying McCain's presence in Washington was unnecessary. I think that there was some hubris in terms of what McCain could have done as a single senator, and the Dems weren't about to give him another bipartisan win at Obama's expense. The net effect was McCain's decision making was widely viewed as impulsive and reckless, contradicting his experience argument and even giving Obama a gift opportunity to taunt him over allegedly ducking their first debate given McCain's forte of military and foreign policy.
McCain's blurred distinctions with Obama on domestic policy. At one point, for instance, (I believe it was McCain's post-tsunami mortgage plan), the Obama campaign initially complained the McCain policy was lifted from their own policy. If you are a Republican arguing your government intervention plan is more equal than the "progressives"', you are done
I have written prior critiques on the campaign, although given Obama's superior campaign funding and organization, Bush's unprecedented unpopularity, and economic security concerns in the aftermath of the economic tsunami, I think even the best GOP candidate may have lost, so it's hard to simply blame McCain's incompetence. I do think the GOP would have done better by throwing Bush under the bus, running a more positive, less predictable campaign, and positioning/contrasting themselves better from "progressive" Democrats.
If I had a chance to go back in time, I would choose Ron Paul, or maybe Gary Johnson if he was running.
Another contrast was immigration. I have always supported liberalized immigration and knew that the 2007 reform would have failed because Democrats, under pressure from unions, never were interested in liberalizing legal entry for low-skill immigrants or temporary workers, were more interested in politically exploiting future votes of unauthorized Latino aliens; they were conflating symptoms with disease.
I never liked or respected the loud, strident xenophobic so-called "conservatives". Of course, the Obama Administration made it easy by politicizing enforcement and abusing prosecutorial discretion, violating the rule of law and equal protection. I understood Arizona's frustration with the federal government's failure to control the border, with the state facing a disproportionate burden of related collateral damage (e.g., trespassing, violence, etc.) But I always thought Arizona's better option was to sue the federal government than to shadow immigration enforcement and subsidize redundant operations. But to be honest, I never liked threats to businesses for participating in voluntary work contracts versus being accountable to a federal or state labor bureaucracy. I also can't understand why other state GOP organizations want to emulate the California GOP's suicidal immigration agenda in the 1990's.
Even though my overall position has been fairly consistent (I've more recently also emphasized the importance of lower-skill immigrants and expanding the pipelines), my commentaries have often focused on the basic talking points vs. the big picture.
There are other issues where my perspective has evolved, and there will be one or more follow-up posts.
Quote of the Day There are two possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery. Enrico Fermi
There can be little doubt that a poison gas attack by the Syrian government against civilians would be a crime against humanity, and there are some troubling reports from local hospitals. I've seen reports on Drudge and elsewhere hinting on possible US/British cruise missile deployment. I would remind Obama that we are not the world's policeman, Syria has not attacked the US, and only Congress has the power to declare war.
Casey's Cookies
Everybody knows about Wendy Thomas, Dave Thomas' red-haired daughter after which he named the namesake hamburger chain. Casey Torman, a young woman with Goldenhar Syndrome, is the inspiration behind a cookie business built around developmentally disabled adults. If you are interested in ordering Casey's Cookies, click here; those blueberry and white chocolate cookies sound amazing (damn my diet!).
Elton John Still Has It: His New Song "Home Again"
Secession Fever Hits Colorado
There has been momentum for state secession or splitting since the tragedy of Obama'a reelection, based on frustration with irresponsible leftist redistribution, morally hazardous policies, and other economic-illiterate interventionist policies. A few weeks back, I featured a clip from Texas secessionists and there is also discussion of Texas' option on admission to the Union to split itself into up to 5 states. I discussed the unhappiness of west Maryland counties earlier this week, and there has also been talk in Louisiana and South Carolina, among other places. But rural Colorado counties are particularly upset over state "progressives" imposing a minimum alternative energy mandate for rural utilities, which is effectively a mandated price increase on rural citizens. This may be the most serious attempt with relevant ballot question and sympathetic county leadership, perhaps the most serious effort since West Virginia split from Virginia during the Civil War.
Familiar readers should know the basic story here: in 1984 Congress"reformed" (i.e., liberalized) disability to include more subjective categories, and since then claims have boomed, far beyond allocated reserves. Of the 12.4% social security portion of shared (employer/employee) payroll taxes (the remainder goes to Medicare), 1.8% goes to disability. Abuse is rampant; it has become a way for many older unemployed workers to bridge the gap to regular pension eligibility. In the cited DeHaven piece, he talks about one such "disabled"man at his fitness center whom also parked in a handicapped spot, but engages in robust workouts with no hint of disability. Granted, it is hard to judge based on anecdotal evidence, but it seems like every time I turn on cable TV, there are ubiquitous legal firms promising to deal with SSA "so you don't have to". [Expletive deleted.] Clearly, qualifying criteria need to be tightened and fraud detection expanded (hint: consider privatization), but I don't suffer fools gladly. (One fix would be to slightly increase payroll taxes, but how much do you want to bet they'll make up the difference from pension reserves?)
One of the Democratic call-ins to the below interview starts spouting the "Obama math" (you know, 57 states) nonsense that social security is well-funded; Democrats have listened to this swill so many times they actually believe it; there are still some people whom believe that ObamaCare will "cut" the deficit, just like people believed in Medicare cost projections... (It is amazing how many people believe that Obama is "intelligent" when he says stuff like wanting to deepen Gulf ports of Charleston, Jacksonville and Savannah" (none located on the Gulf).)
Okay, let's review this one more time. The federal government repackages the payroll taxes to current beneficiaries, not like how you contribute real 401K or IRA money. If it has money left over, it issues an IOU and uses the money to pay for Congressional overspending. It's not "real" money. Note that since 2010 we have been running deficits in social security--so the government has to tap into interest payments or principal of the social security reserve. If and when a reserve note is redeemed, the Congress has to come up with the money to pay for it. In effect, Congress simply gets the money not from general revenue but through public debt. Now it is true in the case of disability, it will continue to collect that 1.8% on current workers, which may fund up to 80% of current checks assuming no disability funding fix as described above by 2016. But two things: (1) not a dime is being saved for future payment to current workers, and (2) Congress has to make up the 20% shortfall. New taxes and new workers are unlikely to bridge that gap. My guess is that they will shift money from pension to disability allocation, which of course means the pension portion is even more underfunded.
Linda Ronstadt: Diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease
Our beloved late Pope John Paul II suffered from this terrible disease (as well as a prominent former heavyweight boxing champion and comedic actor). The disease has cruelly stripped the most popular female pop singer of the late 1970's of her ability to sing. There are many Ronstadt solo hits I'll cover in my musical interlude series, but my overall favorite is her second hit from the Bluth Fievel films:
Whoops! Our Collective Bad! City Demolishes Wrong House--Again....
There are Muslim Indians and Christian Indians, of course. I was once riding in my best Indian friend's car and asked about some artifacts on or around his dashboard. As I recall, he analogized them to the equivalent of a St. Christopher's medal for Catholics (for travel safety and against sudden death); my friend is very patient and would go into meticulous detail about Hindu gods. The author of "Don't Fly During Ramadan" (a well-known Muslim period of fasting during daylight) doesn't really rant about fellow American confusion between Hindus and Muslims, but I had to chuckle at one point during his TSA experience retelling, he writes of the authorities of bringing in a South Asian Muslim American DHS employee whom attempted to talk to him in Hindi (which the author doesn't speak). There is a certain understandable indignity about the confusion, such as cultural indignities when Americans don't recognize differences among Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans or Chinese, i.e. "Asians all look alike to me".
The author, an NYU venture capital contractor (?) who has been in the process of moving from temp housing to a New York apartment, writes of posting, as per custom, a Hindu saint poster on the wall of his new home. He was on the way to the West Coast to reunite with his parents for a several days tour of California Hindu temples when he found himself stopped for an extended security check. I'll leave it to the reader to read his detailed account; there are the usual agent thuggish threats to call airport security at the slightest hint of objection. At one point he is asked to explain a certain chemical trace, which he hypothesizes might be residue from bedbug treatment of his bed mattress.
To provide a context, he had originally opted not to go through the invasive scanner, as he had routinely done in past travel. At one point during the extended patdown procedure, he decided that he would rather just stop the madness and simply go through the machine but discovers that he has been trapped in the TSA vortex. Here are some choice soundbites, which do an excellent job exemplifying the pervasive bureaucratic arrogance and intimidation:
Noticing my hesitation, the agent offered to have his supervisor explain the procedure in more detail. He brought over his supervisor, a rather harried man who, instead of explaining the pat-down to me, rather rudely explained to me that I could either submit immediately to a pat-down behind closed-doors, or he could call the police....He glanced for a moment at my backpack, then snatched it out of the conveyor belt. “Okay,” he said. “You can leave, but I’m keeping your bag.”I was speechless. My bag had both my work computer and my personal computer in it. The only way for me to get it back from him would be to snatch it back, at which point he could simply claim that I had assaulted him. I was trapped.
The cops arrived a few minutes later, spoke with the TSA agents for a moment, and then came over and gave me one last chance to submit to the private examination. “Otherwise, we have to escort you out of the building.” I asked him if he could be present while the TSA agent was patting me down. "No," he explained, "because when we pat people down, it’s to lock them up."
"What’s happening?" I asked. "I’m running it through the x-ray again," he snapped. "Because I can. And I’m going to do it again, and again, until I decide I’m done"
"What have you touched that would cause you to test positive for certain explosives?"I can’t think of anything. What does it say is triggering the alarm?" I asked."I’m not going to tell you! It’s right here on my sheet, but I don’t have to tell you what it is!" he exclaimed, pointing at his clipboard.
At one point, when I went to the door and asked the officer when I could finally get something to drink, he told me, “Just a couple more minutes. You’ll be out of here soon.” "That’s what they said an hour ago," I complained. "You also said a lot of things, kid," he said with a wink. "Now sit back down".
To sum up, he eventually got past airport security, only to find himself now dealing with an airliner representative whom has a battery of questions of her own and apparently objects to his answers or attitude, saying the airline wouldn't let him board on that day's flights (he would later have to schedule another roundtrip on another airline costing hundreds of dollars more). He then finds himself being questioned by a clueless FBI agent whom doesn't know the differences in faith practices between Hindus and Muslims. At one point he is asked to describe the general layout of his new apartment, including nearby parking. He finally gets to Los Angeles several hours behind schedule.
But one post-trip odd note: when he returned to his apartment, he found the picture of the Hindu saint gone off his wall. He doesn't know for sure, but he remembered being asked about the location of his apartment...
The Man in Black Explains...
My favorite Johnny Cash hit is a cover of Kristofferson's "Sunday Morning Coming Down". His distinctive baritone also shines on "I Walk the Line", "Ring of Fire" and several other hits (including an understated anti-war "What is Truth", a personal favorite I once heard myself request on the air).
Rent control is one of the most corrupt and economically illiterate public policies ever invented, which essentially surrenders private property rights to vested special interests; when rents are artificially capped below the market price, owners have little incentive to invest in properties knowing they can't pass along costs; a limited supply of new housing drives up costs, leaving limited affordable housing for prospective lower/middle-class tenants. Airbnb is a service which allows apartment occupants to rent out, say, a spare cot or couch at a fraction of the cost of a costly hotel room in NYC. Of course, the Big City vortex wants a piece of the action (permits and/or hotel taxes) while imposing a formidable assortment of rules and regulations, which, as all "progressive" policies do, tend to suppress space availability. You might think that a city might welcome win-win opportunities, lowering the costs of visitors to frequent the area and spend tourist dollars and help lower-income tenants offset high rent costs, but Big Hotels don't like competition and really want to impose costs for which there are economies of scale.
On the Greatest President of the Twentieth Century
I think one of the great counterfactual questions is how Coolidge would have responded to the stock market crash and its aftermath. One thing is sure: not as Hoover and FDR. How do we know? Because Harding and Coolidge had inherited a bad hand in the aftermath of WWI. From The Economist review of Shlaes' book:
By the summer of that administration’s first year, though, the stockmarket had fallen by 47.8% from its peak in 1919, further than it would fall in 1929. The country was awash in debt left over from the first world war; unemployment was high. The new administration responded with austerity...Coolidge felt that his duty to the public did not include protecting Washington’s influence, and he set to shrinking it. Ms Shlaes uses Coolidge’s diaries to show how often the president met with his budget director, Herbert Mayhew Lord. They cut back on the use of pencils, changed the fabric of mailbags and lowered the tariff on paintbrush handles. Government departments that reduced expenditures were rewarded with special citations. Sensitive to the importance of personal example, he was equally tough on his own household, questioning even the amount of food on the White House table. “I am for economy. After that I am for more economy,” Coolidge said as he faced an onslaught of interests seeking cash, from the army to civil engineers to pensioners to governors..
It's the following passage which really gets my blood pumping:
Coolidge was, Ms Shlaes writes, “the great refrainer”. He wanted government to support innovation by using it—he made the first presidential radio broadcast—but not get involved otherwise. “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” he said. “Let administration catch up with legislation.” Coolidge opposed the dams and power projects beloved by his successors, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. He also objected to public ownership of the Post Office, tax exemptions for municipal debt and farm subsidies, all of which have produced costs that still hang heavily over America.
