Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat.
Harry Emerson Fosdick
Tweet of the Day
@realDonaldTrump's maniacal, mean-spirited anti-immigrant policy is GOP 2016 death wish.Real solution: guest workers. http://t.co/7fJgzIcojd
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) September 3, 2015
Chart of the Day: SSDI Close To Bankrupt |
| via Mercatus Center |
Image of the Day
 |
| I personally have never touched the stuff and encourage others not to, but let's stop ruining lives over this via LFC |
 |
| via LFC |
 |
| via Independent Institute |
Guest Post Comment: Whoa! The absolute best compliment of Donald Trump evah'! And it comes from a previous skeptic on Fox News
Boy, the editor is putting lipstick on a pig. No, the clip doesn't prove that Trump has converted Hume. Hume is simply saying that Trump is an entertainer; well, among other things, he had a highly-rated television show and has been marketing his image (usually unsuccessfully) for years--remember Trump Ice and Trump vodka? Just because American rubbernecking drivers are fascinated bypassing car wrecks doesn't mean they want to be in one. The odd thing, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the unauthorized worker problem stems from JFK/LBJ's decision, under union pressure, to end the highly successful bracero (guest worker) program in 1964. How many political whores have made resumption of a temporary worker permit program a priority? How many of you Trump cultists point out that Trump, after the 2012 election, pinned the blame on Romney's "maniacal, mean-spirited" immigration policy of self-deportation (by cracking down on employers hiring unauthorized aliens)--but he is willing to spend up to $600B in taxpayer money to deport many from the only homes they've only known.
The GOP, arguing otherwise limited government, is willing to throw whatever money it takes in the War on Immigrants; as any legitimate libertarian knows, when you unduly restrict or prohibit a market, people will work around the system. The statistics show that up to 40% or more of Mexican migrants had no intent of staying permanently. But when you make it all but impossible for workers to return to their home without losing the right to return and the means to support their families, they stay put and send for their families.
The party of Lincoln, who found the nativist Know Nothings as morally repugnant as slaveowners, has degenerated to a sad state which may collapse the party; I don't see a way Trump or any GOP candidate wins next year--even Biden and Sanders kick Trump's ass in head to head contests. The undercard may also get wiped out, and we'll likely see a Democratic sweep. I don't know if it's possible for the GOP to save the election even if the right-fascist demagogue withdrew tomorrow. Be really careful what you wish for!
A Paradigm Shift in Voting
Basic Income Guarantee?
Whereas I agree that if you have a welfare state, it is more efficient to process an all-inclusive payment than a hundred-odd distribution programs and it's less paternalistic for the claimant to make his own mind about how to allocate such income. But guarantees typically are morally hazardous, the economy suffers for the loss of that worker instead taking a government check, there are disincentives for workers near the cutoff point, and there's the moral issue of the government stealing assets of the productive to redistribute to nonproductive others. For a more detailed critique, see, for example, here.
Political Potpourri: Rand Paul on Kentucky Clerk, Donald Trump, etc.
As a FB user points out below, Rand Paul dances around the issue of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis (a Democrat, I believe) refusing to process "gay marriage" paperwork. The short answer is no, Davis does not have the authority to nullify a law she doesn't believe in; her job is to fulfill the law. Rand Paul is really saying is that marriage, from a government perspective, is little more than a contract, and that gays have always had the right to enter a contract without imposing their agenda on local communities. This issue is not unlike the case the case of Christian bakers, photographers, etc., who do not want to provide "gay marriage" services; activist gays are on mission to destroy vendors who do not capitulate to their agenda. In this case, there were workarounds (e.g., filing in a different county).
Facebook Corner
(Rand Paul). This morning, I joined CBS to discuss a number of issues that are facing our country. Watch the video now and comment with your thoughts!
Goodbye Rand. You have lost my support. I thought you were better than this....but sadly you are no different then Cruz, Christie, or the rest of them. Although i agree mariage should not be a federal issue, this woman is simply disobeying the law. Your support shows me that you disregard the law as well. I am sure Rand will never see this or care that he has lost a small supporter, but he has. Funny, after 50 years you were the first candidate that I sent funds to for your campaign... now I just consider myself an idiot for thinking that you were different.
No, Rand Paul did NOT endorse lawbreaking, and Kim Davis is lawbreaking. He said that it's absurd to jail Davis--whose offense is non-violent--which is a perfectly consistent libertarian position. He wanted to make a larger point of federalism--of the federal intervention intruding on traditional state responsibilities. Let's point out that it wasn't just Davis' personal moral stance; I think the task could have been delegated to any of 5 deputy clerks, and Davis opposed that--she was clearly trying to block fulfillment of the law. I agree Paul should have been more direct, but I think that he didn't want to be limited to a yes/no response.
(National Review). Until the Constitution is amended...
She is not breaking the law she is exercising her right to religious liberty
No, Davis is engaging in dereliction of duty; she does not make or decide the law--her job is to fulfill the law. [I personally disagree with the "gay marriage" rulings and want to see marriage privatized.] I don't like tax policy or approve of government spending; but I have to comply with our tax laws. This is not simply a matter of conscience; she could step aside and let one of her willing 5 deputy clerks process the "gay marriage" paperwork; it's one thing for a pacifist to protest being drafted; it's a different issue to obstruct military recruitment. Now Davis has options; she can resign her posiiton in protest of the SCOTUS rulings; she could politically support marriage privatization like the state of Alabama; she could support an amendment to the US Constitution.
(The Hill). "I don't think you want a nominee that offends whole areas of the public, whole ethnic groups,” Rand Paul said. "If you paint with a broad brush and you want to say, ‘well, most Hispanics are drug dealers and they’re rapists and murderers,’ well, that’s crazy talk, and that offends a whole segment of our population. I think most people who immigrated to this country are assets to our community and came here seeking the American dream, the same way my ancestors did."
Another reason why Rand is weak and shouldn't be President: There is an interview on Facebook with Rand being asked if he supports the clerk who refused to issue marriage certificates to gay couples. He couldn't even give a simple yes or no. Just did the usual political word dance to avoid taking a stance on the issue. Ted Cruz has come out and said that he supports her and then defends the woman.
Even Judge Scalia won't back Davis' dereliction of duty. She has no right to make the rules. Rand Paul is the only legitimate GOP candidate. Cruz is, like Trump, a publicity-seeking whore.
(National Review). "If the 2016 presidential election ends up a contest between 1992’s surnames — Bush vs. Clinton — we will have failed in some way as a republic."
On my scorecard, Jeb Bush won the first debate. And whereas I usually like Williamson, his anti-immigrant spin is a betrayal of Lincoln's moral revulsion and rebuke of the Know-Nothings. Our traditional position, until WWI, was open immigration (with some nauseous discrimination against Asians). We need to distinguish between the symptoms of unauthorized aliens and the disease--which was the corrupt public policy of ending a guest worker program (the highly successful bracero program, which had lowered immigration arrests by about 95%) under union pressure. If you recall, the reason the 2007 immigration reform failed was not because of the anti-immigrants, but because Obama and other Dems, under union pressure, kicked out a temporary work program concession to the GOP.
The real problem I have with Williamson's analysis here is that he doesn't see the implicit contradiction between his pro-trade stance and his anti-immigration stance. Trade and immigration are both strongly related to economic growth, but let me point out that the managed trade policy Williamson agrees with is less than optimal. The economic literate policies are restoring our traditional open immigration heritage and declaring unilateral free trade; none of the candidates in either party supports these--perhaps Rand Paul comes closest, at least from a philosophic perspective.
Yes, I understand there is Bush-Clinton fatigue everywhere. But, among other things, Bush has struggled to deal with some very predictable questions, like George W.'s decision to invade Iraq. Remember that Bush 41 knew that deposing Hussein would open Pandora's box of sectarian issues. George W. had in the 2000 campaign rightly argued against Clinton's nation building. Haven't we been bitten enough times with our meddling in the north Africa/Middle East/Gulf region for at least some conservative to step forward and say, "We can't afford trillion-dollar wars and occupations; we need to choose our battles more wisely"? And yet days later Bush was trying to show that he had the stones for an aggressive neocon foreign policy.
Disclosure: I support Rand Paul, and Williamson notes (although dismisses his candidacy) that Paul has the freshest approach of all the candidates. I think Rubio is probably the most electable candidate of the others, but Rubio has some heresies that bother me, e.g., domestic sugar protectionism. Trump is fundamentally unacceptable, and he has basically handicapped the 2016 nominee with his anti-immigrant nonsense. Gov. Perry on paper is the best of the governor crop, but he can't seem to gain any traction, probably because of his infamous memory gaffe over not remembering his short list of Cabinet departments to be rid of.
(IPI). More than 15,000 taxpayers left Cook County on net in 2012, a 60% increase from the previous year. The #1 reason residents cited for wanting to move out of Illinois? To find a better work and business climate.
It looks like Chicago is getting caught in an unsustainable vicious tax hike circle. I don't see how Chicago avoids filing for bankruptcy. The unions need to negotiate serious givebacks, and I don't see that happening given city leadership and the Illinois courts.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Nate Beeler via Townhall |
Tina Turner, "Private Dancer"
