Sunday, February 20, 2011
New Site
In an effort to segregate my hobbies so as to not bore libertarians with comic books or bore comic book fans with libertarian philosophy, I have created a separate facebook page and a new website to relaunch my blog. This website will not be updated any more. The new website has a re-post of my from "libertarian to Libertarian" post and I am currently working on the design of the site. Hopefully a new post will be ready on a freshly redesigned website two weeks from now.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Libertarians And Comic Books?
As some people might already know I have successfully auditioned for a job as a cohost of the Captain Blue Hen Comics podcast, From the Booth. I will be talking comics every week (new podcasts released every Wednesday) with Randal and SuperDan. Not to say that every libertarian is into comics (although Reason.com routinely reviews them) but if anyone who reads this is interested, here is the link to the archive. Definitely recommend everyone subscribes via iTunes through the link of the page.
In the past few weeks, I've been trying to trim my responsibilities down due to their increasing number and my decreasing time. I'm going to try to keep Conservative Ken updated albeit probably not as often as I have been. The current updates have been biweekly and while I'm loathe to make them tri-weekly, that may be in the cards for a while. I'll still weigh in on big stories and post humorous or informative videos. There may be more video posts in between updates because they are easy to do.
Hope everyone continues to enjoy the site and those interested enjoy the podcast.
Regards,
Conservative Ken
In the past few weeks, I've been trying to trim my responsibilities down due to their increasing number and my decreasing time. I'm going to try to keep Conservative Ken updated albeit probably not as often as I have been. The current updates have been biweekly and while I'm loathe to make them tri-weekly, that may be in the cards for a while. I'll still weigh in on big stories and post humorous or informative videos. There may be more video posts in between updates because they are easy to do.
Hope everyone continues to enjoy the site and those interested enjoy the podcast.
Regards,
Conservative Ken
Friday, February 11, 2011
What's The Matter With Egypt?
If you've walked past a TV even for a single second in the last week, you probably know that there is rioting in Egypt. Mubarak, a dictator and a general who runs the country through use of a police state, is in power now but will soon allow elections in which he will not participate. This has happened because of largely peaceful (on the protesters side, at least) shows of civil disobedience that has undermined his regime.
Is this not a great thing for the United States? After all we are fighting two wars to bring democracy to two other Arab countries, all the better if a third one changes without a shot fired. Doesn't this even redeem Bush who believed that planting a democracy in the middle of the region would create a "domino effect"? Well, not really and that's where things get confusing.
Mubarak is a US ally and tempers his people's more Islamic leanings. The Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist group associated with both Hamas and Hezbollah, is the largest opposition party in the country. A democratic movement that installs a theocracy that is hostile to the West could well cause even more problems for the US. Although Bush would have us believe otherwise, just because a country is democratic does not mean they will be aligned to the interests of the US. We have often made common cause with dictators and autocrats against democracies: Louis XVI against Parliamentary Britain during the revolution, Napoleon against Duke Wellington in 1812, Tsar Alexander against the Brits in the Civil War, Russia was with us in WW2 while democratic Europeans such as Switzerland sat it out.
But is this not at least a win for the people of Egypt since they will depose of a dictator and at least have a theocracy that they have democratically decided upon? Governments only exist for one legitimate reason and that is to ensure the natural rights of their people. Natural rights spring from our humanity, not from government but government is one of the best ways to ensure that these rights are not infringed upon. However, if a poplar theocracy does spring up it will likely trample the rights of females, religious minorities and homosexuals in that country. A government cannot rule by pure majoritarianism, because the majority will sometimes seek to oppress minorities and that is the fear in Egypt.
Unfortunately, inculcating the idea of natural rights into a region is even more difficult than installing a democracy. Forcing a country to accept the precepts of Western-style natural rights best exemplified in the Constitution is a contradiction of terms at best and a recipe for disaster at worst. Much of the third world rejects these rights without understanding that that is the reason that they remain part of the third world.
UPDATE: As this column "goes to press", it is being announced that Mubarak is being removed prior to the scheduled election in which he vowed not to participate. What will replace him is unknown at this time other than the military are taking charge. With neither the people nor the military having a record of respecting the natural rights of the people, it is hard to determine which is the better option. Although the liberals will be quick to claim cultural imperialism if we attempted to spread the idea of natural rights as codified in the Constitution, they will wring their hands when the oppression begins.
Although America continues to struggle with its commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can all take heart in that we are able to have that discussion. Although it is cliche, everyone born in this country and throughout most of the West essentially won the lottery by being born into a country where natural rights are a cornerstone of jurisprudence.
Is this not a great thing for the United States? After all we are fighting two wars to bring democracy to two other Arab countries, all the better if a third one changes without a shot fired. Doesn't this even redeem Bush who believed that planting a democracy in the middle of the region would create a "domino effect"? Well, not really and that's where things get confusing.
Mubarak is a US ally and tempers his people's more Islamic leanings. The Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist group associated with both Hamas and Hezbollah, is the largest opposition party in the country. A democratic movement that installs a theocracy that is hostile to the West could well cause even more problems for the US. Although Bush would have us believe otherwise, just because a country is democratic does not mean they will be aligned to the interests of the US. We have often made common cause with dictators and autocrats against democracies: Louis XVI against Parliamentary Britain during the revolution, Napoleon against Duke Wellington in 1812, Tsar Alexander against the Brits in the Civil War, Russia was with us in WW2 while democratic Europeans such as Switzerland sat it out.
But is this not at least a win for the people of Egypt since they will depose of a dictator and at least have a theocracy that they have democratically decided upon? Governments only exist for one legitimate reason and that is to ensure the natural rights of their people. Natural rights spring from our humanity, not from government but government is one of the best ways to ensure that these rights are not infringed upon. However, if a poplar theocracy does spring up it will likely trample the rights of females, religious minorities and homosexuals in that country. A government cannot rule by pure majoritarianism, because the majority will sometimes seek to oppress minorities and that is the fear in Egypt.
Unfortunately, inculcating the idea of natural rights into a region is even more difficult than installing a democracy. Forcing a country to accept the precepts of Western-style natural rights best exemplified in the Constitution is a contradiction of terms at best and a recipe for disaster at worst. Much of the third world rejects these rights without understanding that that is the reason that they remain part of the third world.
UPDATE: As this column "goes to press", it is being announced that Mubarak is being removed prior to the scheduled election in which he vowed not to participate. What will replace him is unknown at this time other than the military are taking charge. With neither the people nor the military having a record of respecting the natural rights of the people, it is hard to determine which is the better option. Although the liberals will be quick to claim cultural imperialism if we attempted to spread the idea of natural rights as codified in the Constitution, they will wring their hands when the oppression begins.
Although America continues to struggle with its commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can all take heart in that we are able to have that discussion. Although it is cliche, everyone born in this country and throughout most of the West essentially won the lottery by being born into a country where natural rights are a cornerstone of jurisprudence.
Monday, January 24, 2011
By The Bureaucrats For The Bureaucrats
With a Republican House emboldened by their greatest electoral success in 50 years, it seemed like Obama's agenda had been dealt a major blow. Any further intrusions into the health care sector would be blocked with the support of the American people. Cap and trade legislation instituting a carbon tax would be looked upon as raising taxes in the midst of an already anemic recovery. Card check, designed to increase the unionization of the workplace, seemed DOA. Net neutrality, a government intrusion into Internet pricing, seemed doomed to wander in the wilderness as yet another government solution in desperate search of a problem.
Quietly, however, all these agenda items have been unilaterally imposed on the American people through the HHS, EPA, NLRB, and the FCC. What could not be passed in the Congress has been mandated as law by the bureaucracy. Many of these new rules will be challenged in court and, as Reason reports, the HHS has already backed down from funding end-of-life counseling, a measure that was removed from the original Obamacare bill. The EPA's new carbon tax has already survived at least one judicial challenge. Verizon is filing suit against the FCC. South Carolina is moving to block card check.
The fact that all of these measures can be imposed by the executive branch and only checked by the judicial branch is a massive failure of government and an indictment of Congress's desire to delegate its own constitutionally mandated powers to other bodies. Congress has repeatedly ducked responsibility from everything from instituting unpopular policies to declarations of war. The Constitution states that only Congress can declare war but it has not used its power since World War II. Resolutions on the authorization of force have been used in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq. When there is no possibility that Congress can be held responsible for their actions, the nation too often entangles itself in foreign wars.
Although all spending bills must originate in the House, bureaucracies always seem to have the funds that they need to enforce whatever regulations they decide is best for the American people. This not democracy, this is tyranny. Congress needs to immediately reassert its constitutional mandate and reign in the power of the entrenched bureaucracies whose mission can vastly change from administration to administration. Congress is the check that keeps the President from having the power of king. The deliberative process of the legislative branch is the bulwark that protects us from passing bad laws. When that process can be skipped because it is inconvenient for the party that controls the White House, we become less free.
Unfortunately, dismantling the bureaucracy seems an impossible task. Although Reagan ran on eliminating the Board of Education and the Department of Energy (a new bureaucracy created by his predecessor, Carter) he never even came close. As these bureaucracies persist, the ability to get rid of them diminishes. A good first step would be to legislate against the latest overreaches of these entities and eventually craft legislation to limit their power going forward. Unfortunately, Congress seems more than content to leave the heavy lifting, and our liberty, to unelected bureaucrats.
Quietly, however, all these agenda items have been unilaterally imposed on the American people through the HHS, EPA, NLRB, and the FCC. What could not be passed in the Congress has been mandated as law by the bureaucracy. Many of these new rules will be challenged in court and, as Reason reports, the HHS has already backed down from funding end-of-life counseling, a measure that was removed from the original Obamacare bill. The EPA's new carbon tax has already survived at least one judicial challenge. Verizon is filing suit against the FCC. South Carolina is moving to block card check.
The fact that all of these measures can be imposed by the executive branch and only checked by the judicial branch is a massive failure of government and an indictment of Congress's desire to delegate its own constitutionally mandated powers to other bodies. Congress has repeatedly ducked responsibility from everything from instituting unpopular policies to declarations of war. The Constitution states that only Congress can declare war but it has not used its power since World War II. Resolutions on the authorization of force have been used in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq. When there is no possibility that Congress can be held responsible for their actions, the nation too often entangles itself in foreign wars.
Although all spending bills must originate in the House, bureaucracies always seem to have the funds that they need to enforce whatever regulations they decide is best for the American people. This not democracy, this is tyranny. Congress needs to immediately reassert its constitutional mandate and reign in the power of the entrenched bureaucracies whose mission can vastly change from administration to administration. Congress is the check that keeps the President from having the power of king. The deliberative process of the legislative branch is the bulwark that protects us from passing bad laws. When that process can be skipped because it is inconvenient for the party that controls the White House, we become less free.
Unfortunately, dismantling the bureaucracy seems an impossible task. Although Reagan ran on eliminating the Board of Education and the Department of Energy (a new bureaucracy created by his predecessor, Carter) he never even came close. As these bureaucracies persist, the ability to get rid of them diminishes. A good first step would be to legislate against the latest overreaches of these entities and eventually craft legislation to limit their power going forward. Unfortunately, Congress seems more than content to leave the heavy lifting, and our liberty, to unelected bureaucrats.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
What Drives Mass Murderers?
Over the weekend, a Democratic Congresswoman was shot in Tucson by a 22 year old male obsessed with anti-government rhetoric. Already you can hear about how he was spurned on by the vitriol of our political debate and possibly by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and the Republican party. The opposite was said about James Lee, the hostage taker at the Discovery Channel, who was obsessed with Malthusian philosophy, the environment, and Gaia theory. It was said he was spurned on by Al Gore and the Democratic Party. In reality, extremists are rarely the products of the left or the right. Usually their views defy classification and often logic.
Take for example Joe Stack who flew a plane into the IRS office last February. His manifesto included references to "Big Brother Tax Man," the plight of immigrants, the "presidential puppet" Bush, obtuse attacks on the FAA, distrust of big business, hatred for the Catholic Church, attacks on capitalism and overthrow of the US government. Although painted as a right wing extremist for his anti-government views, he could also have been characterized as a left wing extremist for his anti-capitalist attitudes.
A month after Stack's suicide mission, a former mental patient named John Bedell opened fire outside the Pentagon. Although painted as a right ringer inflamed by conspiracy theories, his personal history leans to the left in that he was a registered Democrat, he hated George Bush, he had an affinity for 9/11 Truth theories.
While the Unabomber has been classified as a left wing extremist due to his anti-technology, anti-progress pro-environment manifestos (there is a silly test here that offers you statements from both Gore and the Unabomber and asks you to guess which one said which) not even this is accurate. In his manifesto, the Unabomber says, ""Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality." Well I guess even the Unabomber isn't wrong all the time.
The shooter in Tucson is another amalgamation of liberal and conservative beliefs with some irrational and unclassifiable ones thrown in for good measure. He attempted to join the military (leans right) but was rejected due to drug use (leans left). The shooter laughed publicly about killing babies in school when talking about abortion (leans left) but rejected the school's constitutional authority when they tried to discipline him (leans right). His Youtube profile reveals his favorite books were the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf (both lean left, remember Nazis are national socialists) but also had familiarity with firearms (leans right).
He was also obsessed with mind control, felt grammar was one form of government mind control, and denies the right of the federal government to print currency. It is notable that his personal history and political beliefs that we read so much into have less in common with other mass shooters than his wacky unclassifiable ones. The interest in mind control puts him in the company of other famous assassins such as Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley, Sirhan Sirhan, as well as Columbine killers Harris & Klebold.
Despite the witch's brew of political beliefs that modern assassins and mass shooters claim to kill for, it seems that the only thing they really have in common is paranoia bordering on psychosis. It is worth remembering that Camden, NJ spawned the first American mass murder in Howard Unruh back in 1949. When his spree had ended and he was asked why he had killed so many people, he hung his head and was rumored to have said "I was sick of people calling me 'Howie'"
Take for example Joe Stack who flew a plane into the IRS office last February. His manifesto included references to "Big Brother Tax Man," the plight of immigrants, the "presidential puppet" Bush, obtuse attacks on the FAA, distrust of big business, hatred for the Catholic Church, attacks on capitalism and overthrow of the US government. Although painted as a right wing extremist for his anti-government views, he could also have been characterized as a left wing extremist for his anti-capitalist attitudes.
A month after Stack's suicide mission, a former mental patient named John Bedell opened fire outside the Pentagon. Although painted as a right ringer inflamed by conspiracy theories, his personal history leans to the left in that he was a registered Democrat, he hated George Bush, he had an affinity for 9/11 Truth theories.
While the Unabomber has been classified as a left wing extremist due to his anti-technology, anti-progress pro-environment manifestos (there is a silly test here that offers you statements from both Gore and the Unabomber and asks you to guess which one said which) not even this is accurate. In his manifesto, the Unabomber says, ""Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality." Well I guess even the Unabomber isn't wrong all the time.
The shooter in Tucson is another amalgamation of liberal and conservative beliefs with some irrational and unclassifiable ones thrown in for good measure. He attempted to join the military (leans right) but was rejected due to drug use (leans left). The shooter laughed publicly about killing babies in school when talking about abortion (leans left) but rejected the school's constitutional authority when they tried to discipline him (leans right). His Youtube profile reveals his favorite books were the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf (both lean left, remember Nazis are national socialists) but also had familiarity with firearms (leans right).
He was also obsessed with mind control, felt grammar was one form of government mind control, and denies the right of the federal government to print currency. It is notable that his personal history and political beliefs that we read so much into have less in common with other mass shooters than his wacky unclassifiable ones. The interest in mind control puts him in the company of other famous assassins such as Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley, Sirhan Sirhan, as well as Columbine killers Harris & Klebold.
Despite the witch's brew of political beliefs that modern assassins and mass shooters claim to kill for, it seems that the only thing they really have in common is paranoia bordering on psychosis. It is worth remembering that Camden, NJ spawned the first American mass murder in Howard Unruh back in 1949. When his spree had ended and he was asked why he had killed so many people, he hung his head and was rumored to have said "I was sick of people calling me 'Howie'"
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
A New Year But Two Old Parties
The two party system is set up so that third parties are mostly shut out of the discussion. Occasionally a third party will bring up a valid position on an issue but once it is adopted by either major party, the third party originator of the idea slumps back into obscurity.
But what if it didn't have to be this way? What if magically we could have a new start to go along with this New Year? What would a libertarian country look like?
Libertarians have one answer for most economic questions: the free market. Austrian economists (notable among them, F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman) teach us that prices are transmitters of information and that anything that distorts prices (usually government intrusion) adds static to that information. For example, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac distorted the mortgage market by allowing un-creditworthy people to buy homes, prices rose. These prices were lies that the government was telling its people.
Free markets could do everything from prevent the next real estate bubble to providing kidneys to people on transplant lists. Markets are examples of spontaneous order. If people have a want, need, or desire, someone else will fill it for economic gain. When people move into an area in large numbers invariably churches, supermarkets and retail stores follow. If the desire for pizza in an area increases, it is only a matter of time before another pizzeria opens.
All without one central planner, markets provide efficient solutions to problems that don't even need to be vocalized. Government does a bad job of planning even for vocalized problems with resources that vastly outnumber private sector giants like Wal-mart.
On social issues, a policy of noninterference is what most libertarians would like. People regulate themselves remarkably well and as long as they are not hurting anyone else, it is no one else's business anyway.
Unfortunately government is the biggest intruder into the "culture war" issues taking sides on issues like gays in the military, gay marriage, the amount of salt allowed in restaurant food, banning happy meals, redistricting fast food chains out of urban areas, banning alcoholic beverages that contain caffeine, banning smoking in public places, banning lingerie football, banning trans fats, even banning singing and dancing.
Private proprietors are free to do most of these things (excluding, at least, the first two) and I would even prefer a restaurant that bans smoking entirely but when government makes these decisions for people, it treats them as children. Top-down solutions always have unintended consequences such as when smoking bans hurt bar revenues especially in areas that border states that don't have that law. If half the bars voluntarily banned smoking and the other half let it stay, maybe a happy medium could be reached through spontaneous order and everyone could be made happy.
Although conservatives would applaud libertarians' economic policies and liberals would applaud at least some of the social ones (on the other hand, many bans were initiated by do-gooder progressives, one good reason libertarians tend to side more with conservatives than liberals), there are some issues which put libertarians on the fringe of both the right and left.
Libertarians advocate an end to prohibition, not just of marijuana laws but virtually all drug laws and all laws banning prostitution. Do libertarians really desire to put heroin in their arm and then have sex with a prostitute? Well, not really. Prohibition is the opposite of a market. Prohibition raises prices due to the danger involved with the business, then it attracts the criminal element to run it. Even worse, when a dispute occurs, there is no legal way to settle it so the most violent criminal tends to prevail.
By enriching the pushers while stuffing our jails full of johns and users, we create a worse situation than would exist with total legalization. At an average price of $30,000 a year to incarcerate someone, we need to focus on those who are breaking laws that impinge on other people's rights, not merely our social norms. As I said before in Just Say Now, we lose 14,000 people a year to drunk driving and still never talk about alcohol prohibition. We realize the current system of creating a legal market is the best of the realistic outcomes.
Of course there is no such thing as magic and libertarianism will likely remain in the shadows. However, with growing disenchantment with liberal fiscal policy, a mounting debt that will come due in the next few decades and younger people continuing to drift leftwards on social issues, libertarianism looks like it could be the philosophy of the coming generation even though the mainstream might never adopt the fringe issues and likely won't fully embrace free markets.
Norman Thomas, an American socialist once said that, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." I believe that in time America might simply become an economically conservative and socially moderate-to-left country and one day we will all wake up in a libertarian country.
But what if it didn't have to be this way? What if magically we could have a new start to go along with this New Year? What would a libertarian country look like?
Libertarians have one answer for most economic questions: the free market. Austrian economists (notable among them, F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman) teach us that prices are transmitters of information and that anything that distorts prices (usually government intrusion) adds static to that information. For example, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac distorted the mortgage market by allowing un-creditworthy people to buy homes, prices rose. These prices were lies that the government was telling its people.
Free markets could do everything from prevent the next real estate bubble to providing kidneys to people on transplant lists. Markets are examples of spontaneous order. If people have a want, need, or desire, someone else will fill it for economic gain. When people move into an area in large numbers invariably churches, supermarkets and retail stores follow. If the desire for pizza in an area increases, it is only a matter of time before another pizzeria opens.
All without one central planner, markets provide efficient solutions to problems that don't even need to be vocalized. Government does a bad job of planning even for vocalized problems with resources that vastly outnumber private sector giants like Wal-mart.
On social issues, a policy of noninterference is what most libertarians would like. People regulate themselves remarkably well and as long as they are not hurting anyone else, it is no one else's business anyway.
Unfortunately government is the biggest intruder into the "culture war" issues taking sides on issues like gays in the military, gay marriage, the amount of salt allowed in restaurant food, banning happy meals, redistricting fast food chains out of urban areas, banning alcoholic beverages that contain caffeine, banning smoking in public places, banning lingerie football, banning trans fats, even banning singing and dancing.
Private proprietors are free to do most of these things (excluding, at least, the first two) and I would even prefer a restaurant that bans smoking entirely but when government makes these decisions for people, it treats them as children. Top-down solutions always have unintended consequences such as when smoking bans hurt bar revenues especially in areas that border states that don't have that law. If half the bars voluntarily banned smoking and the other half let it stay, maybe a happy medium could be reached through spontaneous order and everyone could be made happy.
Although conservatives would applaud libertarians' economic policies and liberals would applaud at least some of the social ones (on the other hand, many bans were initiated by do-gooder progressives, one good reason libertarians tend to side more with conservatives than liberals), there are some issues which put libertarians on the fringe of both the right and left.
Libertarians advocate an end to prohibition, not just of marijuana laws but virtually all drug laws and all laws banning prostitution. Do libertarians really desire to put heroin in their arm and then have sex with a prostitute? Well, not really. Prohibition is the opposite of a market. Prohibition raises prices due to the danger involved with the business, then it attracts the criminal element to run it. Even worse, when a dispute occurs, there is no legal way to settle it so the most violent criminal tends to prevail.
By enriching the pushers while stuffing our jails full of johns and users, we create a worse situation than would exist with total legalization. At an average price of $30,000 a year to incarcerate someone, we need to focus on those who are breaking laws that impinge on other people's rights, not merely our social norms. As I said before in Just Say Now, we lose 14,000 people a year to drunk driving and still never talk about alcohol prohibition. We realize the current system of creating a legal market is the best of the realistic outcomes.
Of course there is no such thing as magic and libertarianism will likely remain in the shadows. However, with growing disenchantment with liberal fiscal policy, a mounting debt that will come due in the next few decades and younger people continuing to drift leftwards on social issues, libertarianism looks like it could be the philosophy of the coming generation even though the mainstream might never adopt the fringe issues and likely won't fully embrace free markets.
Norman Thomas, an American socialist once said that, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." I believe that in time America might simply become an economically conservative and socially moderate-to-left country and one day we will all wake up in a libertarian country.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Musings On The Past Two Weeks
I had intended that I would post a short video as per my usual holiday tradition. Alas, the government has recently been up to so much I feel the need to comment on the happenings during the past couple weeks. My own schedule has prevented me from from my usual research so this is largely an opinion piece.
The Obama tax compromise was a true compromise in that there are parts that each side finds deplorable and other parts that each side are happy with. I'm disappointed that the Republicans didn't hold out until the "Zombie Congress" (a term I much prefer over "Lame Duck Congress") left Washington and an invigorated Republican House took office but it does make sense to extend the cuts for all tax brackets. By extending them for two years, this ensures taxes will be the main issue in the presidential election. I predict this will help the Republicans because tax cuts are more palatable than social issues to the electorate.
The defeat of the omnibus bill was a victory for America. Normally, appropriation bills fund the government but the previous Congress has pass continuing resolutions, basically running government without a budget. This, in and of itself, is shameful. The omnibus bill would have funded government but also included over 6,000 earmarks. Everything from studies of bugs, bridges to nowhere (sooner or later we're going to run out of nowheres to build bridges to), light rail, and other sweeteners for various congressmen trying to get a few million to take back to their district in time for Christmas. The Republicans deserve credit for killing the bill and leaving the Democrats hoping that Santa will give them their Christmas wish list rather than the American taxpayers.
The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a good thing. America is one of the few countries which does not allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Although there will be some effect on unit cohesion, anyone who tells you otherwise is naive, any soldier who acts out regardless of sexual orientation will be reprimanded. When such reprimands occur, we need to remember that soldiers are held to a higher standard because their job is truly a matter of life and death.
The defeat of the DREAM act, a bill which would give illegal aliens tax subsidized in-state tuition to colleges in whichever state they claimed residence in (who could check?), was also heartening. The supporters of this bill tearfully claim its defeat means that college is out of reach for millions of children who had little choice in choosing to cross the border. When one looks at the plethora of free services from social to governmental to medical that illegal aliens get for free while contributing nothing in taxes, the question is not what more can we do for these people but how can an American renounce his citizenship to cash in on all these benefits!
And since I already had a couple videos picked out for today it seemed a shame to waste them. Does Joe Biden hate Christmas? This edited video says yes:
Most people don't think of Santa Claus as a business owner but this video reveals his struggle to make toys for kids all over the world while still not knowing what the tax rates will be long term:
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all my readers,
Conservative Ken
The Obama tax compromise was a true compromise in that there are parts that each side finds deplorable and other parts that each side are happy with. I'm disappointed that the Republicans didn't hold out until the "Zombie Congress" (a term I much prefer over "Lame Duck Congress") left Washington and an invigorated Republican House took office but it does make sense to extend the cuts for all tax brackets. By extending them for two years, this ensures taxes will be the main issue in the presidential election. I predict this will help the Republicans because tax cuts are more palatable than social issues to the electorate.
The defeat of the omnibus bill was a victory for America. Normally, appropriation bills fund the government but the previous Congress has pass continuing resolutions, basically running government without a budget. This, in and of itself, is shameful. The omnibus bill would have funded government but also included over 6,000 earmarks. Everything from studies of bugs, bridges to nowhere (sooner or later we're going to run out of nowheres to build bridges to), light rail, and other sweeteners for various congressmen trying to get a few million to take back to their district in time for Christmas. The Republicans deserve credit for killing the bill and leaving the Democrats hoping that Santa will give them their Christmas wish list rather than the American taxpayers.
The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a good thing. America is one of the few countries which does not allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Although there will be some effect on unit cohesion, anyone who tells you otherwise is naive, any soldier who acts out regardless of sexual orientation will be reprimanded. When such reprimands occur, we need to remember that soldiers are held to a higher standard because their job is truly a matter of life and death.
The defeat of the DREAM act, a bill which would give illegal aliens tax subsidized in-state tuition to colleges in whichever state they claimed residence in (who could check?), was also heartening. The supporters of this bill tearfully claim its defeat means that college is out of reach for millions of children who had little choice in choosing to cross the border. When one looks at the plethora of free services from social to governmental to medical that illegal aliens get for free while contributing nothing in taxes, the question is not what more can we do for these people but how can an American renounce his citizenship to cash in on all these benefits!
And since I already had a couple videos picked out for today it seemed a shame to waste them. Does Joe Biden hate Christmas? This edited video says yes:
Most people don't think of Santa Claus as a business owner but this video reveals his struggle to make toys for kids all over the world while still not knowing what the tax rates will be long term:
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all my readers,
Conservative Ken
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Julian Assange Is Not A Freedom Fighter
I believe there are very few secrets that a government should keep from its people. That being said, Julian Assange crossed a line when he released a quarter of a million diplomatic cables passed onto him from Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.
Some of the cables have identifying information about elders in Afghanistan that are actively helping the United States. Even with the names redacted, enough information remains to endanger those that we will need to rely on when we leave the country so that it is even marginally better than before we invaded it. Assange is a third party on these cables, not knowing the full extent of what should be redacted to protect the identities of those who may be put at risk. In the cited article, the Taliban actually thanks Assange for letting them know who to target.
When the judiciary rules on free speech, they often strike down laws that do not restrict speech but could be said to have a "chilling effect" on speech due to onerous requirements. Assange's release of diplomatic cables could very well have a "chilling effect" on other countries which may want to share information off the record. With two hot wars winding down, Iran pursuing a bomb, and North Korea launching offensives on South Korea, we need as much diplomatic leverage as possible.
Although Assange maintains no damage is done by his leaks, he maintains that he has stores of unredacted and damaging documents that he will release if he is imprisoned or in any other way held responsible for what he has done.
Currently Assange is in jail for unrelated sexual assault charges stemming from, supposedly, his refusal to wear a condom despite two girl's wishes. Others say the condom was not part of the charge while Michael Moynihan of Reason.com, who lived in Sweden for many years, says that overly radical rape laws in Sweden can charge me for merely rejecting a woman's wish to wear a condom even if consensual sex follows.
Some of the people defending Assange include MSNBC's Keith Olberman who believe the women are US operatives that lured Assange into a "honey trap." Olbermann's source for this information was an article on the far-left website Counterpunch by the writers Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Shamir is a fringe writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed criminality of “Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Note: For those who don't know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was published by the Russian Empire in 1903 supposedly revealing a Jewish plot for world domination. The text was conclusively determined to be fraudulent anti-semitic propaganda in 1921.
Olbermann later tweeted that he regretted citing the article and repudiated the author.
It seems very likely that Assange could be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and some lawmakers of both parties have endorsed the idea. Assange seems to get a pass from the same people who decried the Climategate E-mail dump and the outing of non-covert operative Valerie Plame. He is even an early favorite for Time's Man-of-the-Year. Just because Assange used the Internet to disseminate his intercepted cables does not make him any more noble than anyone else who has ever revealed state secrets. Assange is not a freedom fighter, he may well have put America and her allies in danger and he belongs in a jail cell.
Some of the cables have identifying information about elders in Afghanistan that are actively helping the United States. Even with the names redacted, enough information remains to endanger those that we will need to rely on when we leave the country so that it is even marginally better than before we invaded it. Assange is a third party on these cables, not knowing the full extent of what should be redacted to protect the identities of those who may be put at risk. In the cited article, the Taliban actually thanks Assange for letting them know who to target.
When the judiciary rules on free speech, they often strike down laws that do not restrict speech but could be said to have a "chilling effect" on speech due to onerous requirements. Assange's release of diplomatic cables could very well have a "chilling effect" on other countries which may want to share information off the record. With two hot wars winding down, Iran pursuing a bomb, and North Korea launching offensives on South Korea, we need as much diplomatic leverage as possible.
Although Assange maintains no damage is done by his leaks, he maintains that he has stores of unredacted and damaging documents that he will release if he is imprisoned or in any other way held responsible for what he has done.
Currently Assange is in jail for unrelated sexual assault charges stemming from, supposedly, his refusal to wear a condom despite two girl's wishes. Others say the condom was not part of the charge while Michael Moynihan of Reason.com, who lived in Sweden for many years, says that overly radical rape laws in Sweden can charge me for merely rejecting a woman's wish to wear a condom even if consensual sex follows.
Some of the people defending Assange include MSNBC's Keith Olberman who believe the women are US operatives that lured Assange into a "honey trap." Olbermann's source for this information was an article on the far-left website Counterpunch by the writers Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Shamir is a fringe writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed criminality of “Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Note: For those who don't know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was published by the Russian Empire in 1903 supposedly revealing a Jewish plot for world domination. The text was conclusively determined to be fraudulent anti-semitic propaganda in 1921.
Olbermann later tweeted that he regretted citing the article and repudiated the author.
It seems very likely that Assange could be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and some lawmakers of both parties have endorsed the idea. Assange seems to get a pass from the same people who decried the Climategate E-mail dump and the outing of non-covert operative Valerie Plame. He is even an early favorite for Time's Man-of-the-Year. Just because Assange used the Internet to disseminate his intercepted cables does not make him any more noble than anyone else who has ever revealed state secrets. Assange is not a freedom fighter, he may well have put America and her allies in danger and he belongs in a jail cell.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
T (S) and A!
Anyone planning on flying this holiday season is in for an awkward choice. Due to the latest security measures put in place by the TSA you can either walk through a full body scanner which takes pictures of you without that pesky clothing that you put on that morning in the way or you can opt for the enhanced pat-down complete with groin check. If it sounds ridiculous and Orwellian, that's because it is.
Although they've only been in place for a short time, The U.S. Marshals Service recently admitted saving some 35,000 images from a full body scanner at a federal courthouse in Florida. Understandably many people do not want to have their picture taken without their clothing on (I mean, that's why we wear it, right?) with the possibility that their image could be saved for posterity so there is an alternative. The alternative is getting an enhanced pat-down including a groin check to move through security. John Tyner found this out the hard way when he shot this youtube video after opting for the pat-down. After the pat-down was explained to him he now famously stated, "Don't touch my junk" and had a conversation with the TSA supervisor before leaving the airport and deciding not to fly. He was later told he had to pay an $11,000 fine (referenced in the video) but that has since been rescinded.
Of course everyone wants to be safe while flying but the politically correct route of looking for bombs and not bombers is causing nuns and 3 year olds to be subjected to groin checks. I guess we should be lucky they drew the line at our crotch, the DHS reports a terrorist tried to hide a bomb in his anal cavity last year.
So what is the alternative in a time where a terrorist could very well have a bomb sewn into his underpants? The Israelis have been the target of terrorism since long before 9/11 and they don't pat down every person who gets on a plane. They have a few minutes of conversation with each passenger to determine who needs extra scrutiny and who does not. Critics of this policy believe that the screeners would target Muslim men at a higher rate than other races but as Mona Charen points out, some terrorists have been blond-haired, blue-eyed females so anyone who raises flags on the initial check should be pulled aside regardless of race.
We can make airline travel much less intrusive without trampling on the civil rights of any one group (or all groups, as it stands now) but the White House seems reluctant to even try the Israeli style security for fear of discrimination. In fact Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, says the scanners could be expanded for use on trains, boats and the subway system. All this makes me pine for the days when the closest the government came to impinging on my civil rights was tapping overseas phone calls. I guess the Left forgot their "passion" for civil rights the day they got elected.
An example of an actual body scan picture
Of course everyone wants to be safe while flying but the politically correct route of looking for bombs and not bombers is causing nuns and 3 year olds to be subjected to groin checks. I guess we should be lucky they drew the line at our crotch, the DHS reports a terrorist tried to hide a bomb in his anal cavity last year.
So what is the alternative in a time where a terrorist could very well have a bomb sewn into his underpants? The Israelis have been the target of terrorism since long before 9/11 and they don't pat down every person who gets on a plane. They have a few minutes of conversation with each passenger to determine who needs extra scrutiny and who does not. Critics of this policy believe that the screeners would target Muslim men at a higher rate than other races but as Mona Charen points out, some terrorists have been blond-haired, blue-eyed females so anyone who raises flags on the initial check should be pulled aside regardless of race.
We can make airline travel much less intrusive without trampling on the civil rights of any one group (or all groups, as it stands now) but the White House seems reluctant to even try the Israeli style security for fear of discrimination. In fact Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, says the scanners could be expanded for use on trains, boats and the subway system. All this makes me pine for the days when the closest the government came to impinging on my civil rights was tapping overseas phone calls. I guess the Left forgot their "passion" for civil rights the day they got elected.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Less We Can!
Meteoric, historic, a tidal wave, all of these terms have been used to describe the recent midterm elections. Most surprising of all, these words are actually pretty good descriptors of the events of November second. Pundits opined that the midterm could be a repeat of the '94 elections when Republicans gained 52 House seats and control of that chamber. Some conservative pundits shushed other conservative pundits, worried that such rosy optimism would suppress turnout and cause the Republicans to lose seats they would have gained otherwise. As of the current count right now Republicans have won 60 seats in the House, their largest sweep not since 1994 but since 1938. State legislatures broke big for Republicans as well, not only was the sweep a large one but now the total percentage of Republican state legislators is the largest it has been since 1956. With all these Republicans now in power, does that mean that we are headed towards fiscal sanity? Well, probably not.
Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have introduced legislation to end earmarks, the pet projects that Senators and Congressmen attach to bills with little to no oversight. Last year earmarks cost taxpayers $17 billion. Although that sounds like alot of money, that's less than one-half of one percent of the annual budget.
Republicans are also touting that they will cut government waste, fraud and abuse from the budget but if economics teaches us anything it is that government is inherently inefficient and rife with waste, fraud and abuse because government is a non-profit driven monopoly. With no incentive from either competition or profit, there is no incentive to be efficient. Although some Republicans have talked about privatizing various functions of the government, no broad based support exists to do this.
What about the deficit commission that recently released its report advising some tax raising measures like doing away with home mortgage interest deductions and some cost cutting measures such as reforming entitlement programs? Doing away with the home mortgage interest deduction might very well tank the real estate markets (again) and would effectively raise taxes on the middle class in the midst of a recession. Reforming entitlements is a great idea and the only one likely to put a dent in the budget. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the debt add up to more than 80% of the annual budget. Any serious talk of cutting spending must include these sacred cows. Of course, how serious could the commission be on reforming entitlements when they made no suggestion of repealing the latest one, Obamacare? Also, Americans have no appetite for cutting entitlements. Among the signs at Tea Party rallies about cutting spending are also signs that say "Get The Government Out Of My Medicare!" When asked generally, Americans want the government to cut spending but when asked on specifics still consider 80% of the budget untouchable.
Entitlement reform is not coming anytime soon and it would be a miracle to even preemptively reform Obamacare, forget repeal. Republicans may slam the brake on this administration's big spending ways by virtue of gridlock but there's no sign that they want to turn the car around. Worse yet, there's no sign that Americans want them to. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "In a democracy, we get the government we deserve."
Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have introduced legislation to end earmarks, the pet projects that Senators and Congressmen attach to bills with little to no oversight. Last year earmarks cost taxpayers $17 billion. Although that sounds like alot of money, that's less than one-half of one percent of the annual budget.
Republicans are also touting that they will cut government waste, fraud and abuse from the budget but if economics teaches us anything it is that government is inherently inefficient and rife with waste, fraud and abuse because government is a non-profit driven monopoly. With no incentive from either competition or profit, there is no incentive to be efficient. Although some Republicans have talked about privatizing various functions of the government, no broad based support exists to do this.
What about the deficit commission that recently released its report advising some tax raising measures like doing away with home mortgage interest deductions and some cost cutting measures such as reforming entitlement programs? Doing away with the home mortgage interest deduction might very well tank the real estate markets (again) and would effectively raise taxes on the middle class in the midst of a recession. Reforming entitlements is a great idea and the only one likely to put a dent in the budget. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the debt add up to more than 80% of the annual budget. Any serious talk of cutting spending must include these sacred cows. Of course, how serious could the commission be on reforming entitlements when they made no suggestion of repealing the latest one, Obamacare? Also, Americans have no appetite for cutting entitlements. Among the signs at Tea Party rallies about cutting spending are also signs that say "Get The Government Out Of My Medicare!" When asked generally, Americans want the government to cut spending but when asked on specifics still consider 80% of the budget untouchable.
Entitlement reform is not coming anytime soon and it would be a miracle to even preemptively reform Obamacare, forget repeal. Republicans may slam the brake on this administration's big spending ways by virtue of gridlock but there's no sign that they want to turn the car around. Worse yet, there's no sign that Americans want them to. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "In a democracy, we get the government we deserve."
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Funny Birthday Card
I've been celebrating my birthday over the weekend with my family and fell behind on my post schedule. This week's column will be up no later than Wednesday with next week's column going up no later than Sunday. In the meanwhile, I figured I would share a humorous birthday card I received from my parents.
Front of Card
Inside of Card
Friday, November 5, 2010
F.A Hayek and John Maynard Keynes Rap Battle For America's Future
Since Republicans have taken the House and are already talking about combating Obama's Keynesian economic model with their own (somewhat more) Hayekian one, I figured it might be time to dust off this gem. This video of two economists dressing up as Hayek and Keynes and rap-battling is too bizarre not to pass on:
For those who don't know, John Maynard Keynes was FDR's main economic advisor during the Great Depression and advocated big government solutions like the stimulus we are using today. F.A. Hayek was an Austrian economist who advocated free markets and laissez faire government.
The video is a bit buggy as an embedded object so you can also find the source video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
For those who don't know, John Maynard Keynes was FDR's main economic advisor during the Great Depression and advocated big government solutions like the stimulus we are using today. F.A. Hayek was an Austrian economist who advocated free markets and laissez faire government.
The video is a bit buggy as an embedded object so you can also find the source video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Pre-Election Post-Mortem
With only 2 days remaining until the election, it is hard to watch TV, listen to the radio, talk to coworkers or even drive down a stretch of road without being reminded of how deeply divided an election this promises to be. It is the job of politicians and pundits to convince voters every two years that this election is the most important election in your lifetime. Even knowing the game, I'm convinced that this upcoming election is the most important of my lifetime and that the following will be even more significant.
This election will be conservatives' last chance to defund Obamacare. RCP shows Republicans with at least a 7 seat lead in the House even if the Democrats win every single toss-up race, and Republicans will likely take most of those, increasing their lead considerably. RCP also shows the Senate being competitive but likely staying in Democratic hands. The Senate not reverting control is more a of function of our electoral system than Democrat's popularity, only a third of the Senate is up for election.
Although much maligned, the Tea Party is worthy of some credit for this wave that threatens to end Obama's agenda. While we have them to thank for Christine O' Donnell (who believes mice are being cross-bred with humans in secret American laboratories and that they are creating rodents with "fully-functional human brains."), Sharron Angle is in a toss-up race against Reid in Nevada and Rand Paul has a comfortable lead against Conway in Kentucky. The Tea Party could also be an effective force in gubernatorial and more local races in ways that could be monumental. Just by installing some leaders to help Paul Ryan turn the party around, the Tea Party's wins could more than make up more their losses.
The 2012 election, of course, would be to remove Obama from the White House. Most Presidents in modern times have been granted two terms, even those who performed poorly in their first term (ie. Clinton, Eisenhower, and Truman). The counterexamples, Carter and Bush (41), tend to be disregarded even by members of their own party. In the bellweather state of Ohio, 50-42 would prefer to have Bush back in the White House rather than Obama. Of course these polls are done just to make a stark comparison, Bush can't run but who would have predicted polling like that in 2008?
Note to my readers: On Sept 19, I endorsed Christine O' Donnell for Senator in my Are You A Good Witch Or A Bad Witch? post. The torrent of background information released on her since then has convinced me that she is truly unfit for the Senate although still not as bad as Joe Biden, who previously held the seat. I have endorsed a total of two candidates since beginning this blog, both of which either have lost or will lose. In keeping with that tradition I renounce (or is that "refudiate"?) my endorsement of O' Donnell and endorse Jim Rash (L) for US. Senator from Delaware.
This election will be conservatives' last chance to defund Obamacare. RCP shows Republicans with at least a 7 seat lead in the House even if the Democrats win every single toss-up race, and Republicans will likely take most of those, increasing their lead considerably. RCP also shows the Senate being competitive but likely staying in Democratic hands. The Senate not reverting control is more a of function of our electoral system than Democrat's popularity, only a third of the Senate is up for election.
Although much maligned, the Tea Party is worthy of some credit for this wave that threatens to end Obama's agenda. While we have them to thank for Christine O' Donnell (who believes mice are being cross-bred with humans in secret American laboratories and that they are creating rodents with "fully-functional human brains."), Sharron Angle is in a toss-up race against Reid in Nevada and Rand Paul has a comfortable lead against Conway in Kentucky. The Tea Party could also be an effective force in gubernatorial and more local races in ways that could be monumental. Just by installing some leaders to help Paul Ryan turn the party around, the Tea Party's wins could more than make up more their losses.
The 2012 election, of course, would be to remove Obama from the White House. Most Presidents in modern times have been granted two terms, even those who performed poorly in their first term (ie. Clinton, Eisenhower, and Truman). The counterexamples, Carter and Bush (41), tend to be disregarded even by members of their own party. In the bellweather state of Ohio, 50-42 would prefer to have Bush back in the White House rather than Obama. Of course these polls are done just to make a stark comparison, Bush can't run but who would have predicted polling like that in 2008?
Note to my readers: On Sept 19, I endorsed Christine O' Donnell for Senator in my Are You A Good Witch Or A Bad Witch? post. The torrent of background information released on her since then has convinced me that she is truly unfit for the Senate although still not as bad as Joe Biden, who previously held the seat. I have endorsed a total of two candidates since beginning this blog, both of which either have lost or will lose. In keeping with that tradition I renounce (or is that "refudiate"?) my endorsement of O' Donnell and endorse Jim Rash (L) for US. Senator from Delaware.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Regurgitating The Apple
I am in State College, PA this weekend as a groomsman in my friend's wedding. So this week I'm phoning it in.
Evan Sayet was a liberal Manhattan Jew who became a conservative shortly after 9/11. The following video is a speech of this comedian giving a mostly serious speech at the Heritage Foundation. His speech, Regurgitating The Apple, has been called the unified field theory of liberal thought. It explains liberal's power bias/victim mentality and how it is based on the idea that to discern between good and evil or even the behaviors that lead to success vs. the behaviors that lead to failure is not discernment but discrimination and must be avoided at all costs.
His speech is loosely based on the book, The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. Its a great read if anyone is interested.
Congratulations Joe and Kristen, I have never met two people who were made for each other more than you two are. I am honored to know you both, to call Joe my brother, and to be a groomsman in your wedding. I wish you all the happiness that life surely has in store for you.
Evan Sayet was a liberal Manhattan Jew who became a conservative shortly after 9/11. The following video is a speech of this comedian giving a mostly serious speech at the Heritage Foundation. His speech, Regurgitating The Apple, has been called the unified field theory of liberal thought. It explains liberal's power bias/victim mentality and how it is based on the idea that to discern between good and evil or even the behaviors that lead to success vs. the behaviors that lead to failure is not discernment but discrimination and must be avoided at all costs.
His speech is loosely based on the book, The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. Its a great read if anyone is interested.
Congratulations Joe and Kristen, I have never met two people who were made for each other more than you two are. I am honored to know you both, to call Joe my brother, and to be a groomsman in your wedding. I wish you all the happiness that life surely has in store for you.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Obamanomics
Although no one would accuse President Obama of intentionally sabotaging the U.S. economy, it is hard to imagine a more counter-productive path than the one that the President and his fellow Democrats have laid out for us.
By extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, Obama has expanded the safety net into a hammock. Extensions to unemployment are always popular when they pass because Americans rightfully feel sorry for those who are out of work. While a case can be made for some minimal support, the massive extension of benefits changes the market incentives. As John Stossel reports, when Denmark extended their unemployment benefits to 4 years, the average length of unemployment was 4 years. When extended to 5 years, many people found employment only after 5 years.
Speaker Pelosi defends the unemployment benefits by saying they are one of the biggest job creating initiatives and that they are the most useful of all stimulus spending.
Of course, every spending bill is defended by the administration as stimulus but no economist (with the unfortunate exception of Paul Krugman) would argue that unemployment creates jobs. The data clearly shows the complete opposite.
On the other side of unemployment are the businesses who do not hire. Obama recently called out businesses for sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars that they could be using for hiring new employees. But Congress has done little to spur private sector growth by leaving lingering uncertainty about tax rates. Congress adjourned without voting on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts, leaving small businesses and S-class corporations especially vulnerable. Reason reports that according to the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest small business association in the country, two-thirds of small businesses report their business income through the personal income tax system. Business owners who claim over $250,000 on their tax return but use most of that money to pay employees or fixed costs will find themselves hit with the millionaire's tax (leave it to government to start the "millionaire's tax" at a quarter of a million dollars). If you owned a small business and knew this possibility was looming, would you hire new employees?
To spur private employment and increase total revenue to the government, we already have a great example of what should be done. Tax rates should be cut, incentives should be aligned toward employment and government should get out of the way. Reagan taught us this. Unfortunately I don't have much faith that this administration will ever get the message because of something else Reagan taught us, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
By extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, Obama has expanded the safety net into a hammock. Extensions to unemployment are always popular when they pass because Americans rightfully feel sorry for those who are out of work. While a case can be made for some minimal support, the massive extension of benefits changes the market incentives. As John Stossel reports, when Denmark extended their unemployment benefits to 4 years, the average length of unemployment was 4 years. When extended to 5 years, many people found employment only after 5 years.
Speaker Pelosi defends the unemployment benefits by saying they are one of the biggest job creating initiatives and that they are the most useful of all stimulus spending.
Of course, every spending bill is defended by the administration as stimulus but no economist (with the unfortunate exception of Paul Krugman) would argue that unemployment creates jobs. The data clearly shows the complete opposite.
On the other side of unemployment are the businesses who do not hire. Obama recently called out businesses for sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars that they could be using for hiring new employees. But Congress has done little to spur private sector growth by leaving lingering uncertainty about tax rates. Congress adjourned without voting on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts, leaving small businesses and S-class corporations especially vulnerable. Reason reports that according to the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest small business association in the country, two-thirds of small businesses report their business income through the personal income tax system. Business owners who claim over $250,000 on their tax return but use most of that money to pay employees or fixed costs will find themselves hit with the millionaire's tax (leave it to government to start the "millionaire's tax" at a quarter of a million dollars). If you owned a small business and knew this possibility was looming, would you hire new employees?
To spur private employment and increase total revenue to the government, we already have a great example of what should be done. Tax rates should be cut, incentives should be aligned toward employment and government should get out of the way. Reagan taught us this. Unfortunately I don't have much faith that this administration will ever get the message because of something else Reagan taught us, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Just Say Now
In November, Californians will vote on Proposition 19 which would decriminalize possession and growing of marijuana. What makes this measure different from all the other measures that have been put on the ballot in California and other states before is that Prop 19 is actually polling positively at nearly fifty percent and could possibly pass.
Why is this important to most Americans who neither smoke pot nor have any intention to if it passes? Because we all pay the price for the misguided prohibition policies in the guise of the War on Drugs. Prohibition is the wrong way way to approach drugs for at least three reasons.
The first reason is prohibition impinges upon each person's right to be sovereign over their own body. As long as you are not hurting someone else, you should not be restricted in any way by the government. Protecting people from themselves is a futile effort and often leads to prohibition on things like trans fats, salt and other "lesser evils".
The second reason is prohibition does not work. We tried banning alcohol and it was a miserable failure. By allowing a significant market to become a black market, we empowered and enriched criminals. This isn't to say that alcohol legalization does not have negative side effects. In 2008, 13,846 people were killed in drunk driving accidents. That's 37 percent of all traffic accidents. In 1982, 26,173 people died in drunk driving accidents. That's 60 percent of all traffic accidents. Even with these gruesome statistics, we know better than to try to ban booze. Alcohol prohibition did little to decrease use while causing other more serious unintended consequences.
Black markets work the same way other markets do. A shortage causes prices to spike which causes more product to be pushed to market. Each big drug bust is a notice to suppliers to send more product to take advantage of artificially inflated prices. Each big arrest creates a power vacuum for a person to satisfy the constant demand that has existed since the beginning of time and will exist until the end of time. Disagreements between competitors often favor the party willing to be more violent, leading to a natural selection for more and more violent criminals.
The third reason is we all pay the financial cost of the Drug War. The direct cost of the Drug War is somewhere around $40 billion dollars a year. However, when you factor in the cost to incarcerate nonviolent offenders, subsidies to foreign countries like Mexico to fight their regional drug wars, prosecution costs, police overtime costs, etc. the cost edges up to nearly $50 billion a year. By comparison, taxing and regulating marijuana would bring a billion dollars annually in California alone. If replicated throughout the US, several billion could be brought in annually. Between not funding the War on Drugs and collection of tax revenue, the total swing could approach $60 billion a year in the taxpayers' favor.
We are already living with the negative side effects of marijuana but why should we have to live with the unintended consequences of prohibition? We don't fear cigarette manufacturers or French wine cartels even if we do live with the realization of lung cancer and drunk driving. With or without legalization, people will get stoned. The Sisyphean Drug War only ensures that we have to deal with the worst possible consequences of that fact.
Why is this important to most Americans who neither smoke pot nor have any intention to if it passes? Because we all pay the price for the misguided prohibition policies in the guise of the War on Drugs. Prohibition is the wrong way way to approach drugs for at least three reasons.
The first reason is prohibition impinges upon each person's right to be sovereign over their own body. As long as you are not hurting someone else, you should not be restricted in any way by the government. Protecting people from themselves is a futile effort and often leads to prohibition on things like trans fats, salt and other "lesser evils".
The second reason is prohibition does not work. We tried banning alcohol and it was a miserable failure. By allowing a significant market to become a black market, we empowered and enriched criminals. This isn't to say that alcohol legalization does not have negative side effects. In 2008, 13,846 people were killed in drunk driving accidents. That's 37 percent of all traffic accidents. In 1982, 26,173 people died in drunk driving accidents. That's 60 percent of all traffic accidents. Even with these gruesome statistics, we know better than to try to ban booze. Alcohol prohibition did little to decrease use while causing other more serious unintended consequences.
Black markets work the same way other markets do. A shortage causes prices to spike which causes more product to be pushed to market. Each big drug bust is a notice to suppliers to send more product to take advantage of artificially inflated prices. Each big arrest creates a power vacuum for a person to satisfy the constant demand that has existed since the beginning of time and will exist until the end of time. Disagreements between competitors often favor the party willing to be more violent, leading to a natural selection for more and more violent criminals.
The third reason is we all pay the financial cost of the Drug War. The direct cost of the Drug War is somewhere around $40 billion dollars a year. However, when you factor in the cost to incarcerate nonviolent offenders, subsidies to foreign countries like Mexico to fight their regional drug wars, prosecution costs, police overtime costs, etc. the cost edges up to nearly $50 billion a year. By comparison, taxing and regulating marijuana would bring a billion dollars annually in California alone. If replicated throughout the US, several billion could be brought in annually. Between not funding the War on Drugs and collection of tax revenue, the total swing could approach $60 billion a year in the taxpayers' favor.
We are already living with the negative side effects of marijuana but why should we have to live with the unintended consequences of prohibition? We don't fear cigarette manufacturers or French wine cartels even if we do live with the realization of lung cancer and drunk driving. With or without legalization, people will get stoned. The Sisyphean Drug War only ensures that we have to deal with the worst possible consequences of that fact.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Crouching Patriot, Hidden Bircher
Most people have heard about the book, The 5,000 Year Leap. It's billed as a book which explains about how representative democracy, which began in the US, propelled humanity forward the same distance in 200 years as it had taken 5,000 to previously transverse. In terms of freeing up markets and granting people civil rights, America became a place where it was better to have a great idea than to be born into an aristocratic family. This allowed America to progress at a greater rate than nations who still answered to a monarch or where social status was the sole determinant.
Principles 1-5 are directly related to God or morality, Principle 9 refers to divine law. The remaining principles are all derived from a narrow view of religion and seem to only have a thin veneer of political thought. As a religious book, it's passable if not quite inspiring. As a political book, it's garbage.
After suffering through fifty pages, I decided to look up the author. From the introduction, he described himself only as a constitutional historian but I guessed there was more to that story. The author, Cleon Skousen, turned out to be a Mormon evangelizer and an associate of the John Birch society. His other works covered topics such as New World Order conspiracies, end of the world prophecies, and parenting (I have not read the parenting books by him, but I can't quite recommend them either!).
After reading up on Skousen, I contacted Amazon and told them I had bought the book in error. It was removed from my Kindle and I was issued a full refund. I suppose many people would have let their experience with the book pass without comment or simply would have stopped reading the book without undertaking the level of research I did. My reason for needing to warn others about the author is as much motivated by personal reasons as political ones. Over the years I have read thousands of books. While other kids played, I read. In 26 years, I have only ever not finished three books after starting them. The first was an uninteresting and over-technical book by Piers Anthony in the Mode series which was a fantasy series based around the geometric pattern of the Mandelbrot set. The second was Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Zinn was at best a deluded moron or at worst a pathological liar, there is enough there to start another post so I'll simply direct anyone interested in Zinn to Reason.com's latest post on him. The third will be the 5,000 Year Leap.
Having only heard about the book in passing but agreeing with the thesis in general, I decided to purchase a copy for my new Kindle. The sample section talked about federalism, the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, Jamestown, socialism, and capitalism. After purchasing the book, however, I learned that the real message had to do with the supposed 28 principles for good government and that is when I started to notice a trend.
Principles 1-5 are directly related to God or morality, Principle 9 refers to divine law. The remaining principles are all derived from a narrow view of religion and seem to only have a thin veneer of political thought. As a religious book, it's passable if not quite inspiring. As a political book, it's garbage.
After suffering through fifty pages, I decided to look up the author. From the introduction, he described himself only as a constitutional historian but I guessed there was more to that story. The author, Cleon Skousen, turned out to be a Mormon evangelizer and an associate of the John Birch society. His other works covered topics such as New World Order conspiracies, end of the world prophecies, and parenting (I have not read the parenting books by him, but I can't quite recommend them either!).
For those not familiar with the John Birch Society, it takes what should be a good foundation of anti-communism and succeeds into making it a bizarre belief system. Birchers, as they are often called, believe President Eisenhower was a communist. They also believe that adding fluoride to the drinking water (which occurred way back in 1945) was a communist plot. As Ayn Rand said of them, "What is wrong with them is that they don't seem to have any specific, clearly defined political philosophy. I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism, but merely against communism. I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today's world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naive and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas. The Birchers seem to be either nonintellectual or anti-intellectual. They do not attach importance to ideas. They do not realize that the great battle in the world today is a philosophical, ideological conflict."
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Are You A Good Witch Or A Bad Witch?
Christine O'Donnell upset the GOP establishment candidate for the Delaware primary in the Senate race last week. The establishment candidate, Mike Castle, was a nine term member of the House who supported abortion, gun control, cap and trade, and did not support repealing Obamacare. A virtual unknown in the race several weeks ago, Sarah Palin's endorsement rocketed her past Mike Castle with six points to spare. Unfortunately, that's when the trouble started.
Mike Castle ran negative campaign ads against O'Donnell but it is when she won the primary that the national media starting repeating the same set of talking points. One Mike Castle ad that has found new life in syndication claims that O'Donnell "owes $11,744 in back taxes and penalties," and "was sued by Fairleigh Dickenson University for unpaid expenses." The ad goes on to say O'Donnell, "defaulted on her mortgage," "ran up huge campaign debt and left vendors and staff unpaid," and "used campaign donations to pay her rent."
Back in 1999 while on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect", O' Donnell said, "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven." She continued, "I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."
To overcome this perception, O' Donnell should be going on every interview she can while being prepped for the tough questions she will inevitably get. Unfortunately she seems to be passing up early chances to change the tone and her campaign is suffering.
Unlike Sharron Angle or Rand Paul, this "Tea Party" candidate looks almost completely unelectable. Whether religious people take offense to the witchcraft statement or the nonreligious just find her too kooky, she has an almost impossible uphill battle. Although many in Obama's cabinet also have large unpaid tax bills, it is a bigger deal for someone who is pushing fiscal restraint.
I disagree with her opponent, Coons, on more substantive issues and her win could be the 51st Senate seat so I must say that despite all this I will likely vote for her. If it was anything short of that level of importance, I would likely vote 3rd party.
Although the Tea Party can do great things, we must remember the rule given to us by the great William F. Buckley, "Support the most conservative candidate who is electable." The Tea Party must not assume its own enthusiasm is enough to elect candidates, especially in the Northeast.
Mike Castle ran negative campaign ads against O'Donnell but it is when she won the primary that the national media starting repeating the same set of talking points. One Mike Castle ad that has found new life in syndication claims that O'Donnell "owes $11,744 in back taxes and penalties," and "was sued by Fairleigh Dickenson University for unpaid expenses." The ad goes on to say O'Donnell, "defaulted on her mortgage," "ran up huge campaign debt and left vendors and staff unpaid," and "used campaign donations to pay her rent."
Back in 1999 while on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect", O' Donnell said, "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven." She continued, "I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."
To overcome this perception, O' Donnell should be going on every interview she can while being prepped for the tough questions she will inevitably get. Unfortunately she seems to be passing up early chances to change the tone and her campaign is suffering.
Unlike Sharron Angle or Rand Paul, this "Tea Party" candidate looks almost completely unelectable. Whether religious people take offense to the witchcraft statement or the nonreligious just find her too kooky, she has an almost impossible uphill battle. Although many in Obama's cabinet also have large unpaid tax bills, it is a bigger deal for someone who is pushing fiscal restraint.
I disagree with her opponent, Coons, on more substantive issues and her win could be the 51st Senate seat so I must say that despite all this I will likely vote for her. If it was anything short of that level of importance, I would likely vote 3rd party.
Although the Tea Party can do great things, we must remember the rule given to us by the great William F. Buckley, "Support the most conservative candidate who is electable." The Tea Party must not assume its own enthusiasm is enough to elect candidates, especially in the Northeast.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Don't Believe Obama's Deathbed Conversion On Tax Cuts
After borrowing money, printing money and raising taxes (or "fees" if you believe the text of the Obamacare legislation), Obama now says he wants to give Americans a tax cut. Some speculated that even Obama realizes his stimulus programs didn't work and is now pursuing solutions within the Austrian school of economics. This view was shattered when Obama took to the road touting the necessity of a second stimulus. Although he hypes the tax cut portion of it, there is also 50 billion dollars for infrastructure repair (didn't we already designate a 767 billion dollar stimulus for "mostly" infrastructure repair? Those roads must be in terrible shape!).
And even when it comes to tax cuts, Obama has decided to extend them only to the middle class regardless of the fact that filers in the top 3 percent are responsible for generating 50 percent of small business income. While this would still help the poor and middle class by reducing their tax bill, it would do nothing to improve the economy which would them exponentially more than a tax cut alone. In fact, since Obama's tax cut is really only a middle class only extension of the currently active Bush tax cut, high earners actually face a tax hike.
Senior citizens might be some of the hardest hit by the new tax structure, according to Heritage. While the Medicare Advantage supplemental program will be done away with in part to move $500 billion out of Medicare and into Obamacare, subsidies to similar plans will be cut forcing premiums up. Ninety-one percent of all Medicare beneficiaries have some kind of supplemental coverage. While seniors costs will go up, their income may decline due to the dividend tax rate rising (as referenced previously in End The Recession By Taxing The Rich). The taxes are projected to drop the value of stock prices by 211 billion dollars. Seniors hold the most stock of any demographic group and are most likely to hold high dividend stocks which are perceived as lower-risk.
Regardless of his motivation, Obama deserves at least a little credit for proposing the extension of tax cuts but when the alternative is raising taxes in the midst of a recession the amount of credit is small indeed. Although more an idealist than a pragmatist, even Obama saw the political repercussions of not extending the tax cuts. Let's just hope a Republican House can hold his feet to the fire after November and force him permanently into a pragmatic mindset.
And even when it comes to tax cuts, Obama has decided to extend them only to the middle class regardless of the fact that filers in the top 3 percent are responsible for generating 50 percent of small business income. While this would still help the poor and middle class by reducing their tax bill, it would do nothing to improve the economy which would them exponentially more than a tax cut alone. In fact, since Obama's tax cut is really only a middle class only extension of the currently active Bush tax cut, high earners actually face a tax hike.
Senior citizens might be some of the hardest hit by the new tax structure, according to Heritage. While the Medicare Advantage supplemental program will be done away with in part to move $500 billion out of Medicare and into Obamacare, subsidies to similar plans will be cut forcing premiums up. Ninety-one percent of all Medicare beneficiaries have some kind of supplemental coverage. While seniors costs will go up, their income may decline due to the dividend tax rate rising (as referenced previously in End The Recession By Taxing The Rich). The taxes are projected to drop the value of stock prices by 211 billion dollars. Seniors hold the most stock of any demographic group and are most likely to hold high dividend stocks which are perceived as lower-risk.
Regardless of his motivation, Obama deserves at least a little credit for proposing the extension of tax cuts but when the alternative is raising taxes in the midst of a recession the amount of credit is small indeed. Although more an idealist than a pragmatist, even Obama saw the political repercussions of not extending the tax cuts. Let's just hope a Republican House can hold his feet to the fire after November and force him permanently into a pragmatic mindset.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Vacation Post
Happy Labor Day to everyone. I'll be taking a working vacation this weekend trying to clean up the house and hit as many barbecues as possible. This week's update is a riff off of Bud Light's Real Men of Genius ads. This week we salute Vice President Joe Biden.
On my computer, the video seems to be a little out of frame so you can click on the video area itself to go to the Youtube source link if you have the same issue.
On my computer, the video seems to be a little out of frame so you can click on the video area itself to go to the Youtube source link if you have the same issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
