The President is promoting a special, bipartisan commission to deal with deficit reduction. It is supposed to produce proposed tax hikes and spending cuts to bring the deficit down. I thought we already had such a commission: it's called Congress.
I confess that I did not watch the State of the Union address, but I have seen the clip where the President calls out the Supreme Court over its 5-4 campaign finance/First Amendment decision last week -- and I have to say that that's the creepiest thing he's done to date, IMO. The standing O he got from Congressional Democrats added immeasurably to the creepiness factor. Legal Insurrection makes some very good points and links to an Instapundit post. (If Legal Insurrection is not already part of your web routine, you really should think about adding it.)
It's getting hard to maintain the illusion that fiscal policy is done in a rational way when the solution to a recession one year is to spend $787 billion and the solution a year later is to freeze spending.
Cato Unbound has an interesting discussion this month under the title "What's Living & Dead in Ayn Rand's Political and Moral Philosophy?" Of course, it's of special interest in MY household, because my wife is one of the discussants ...
Wow. “'All the cars and trucks and plants that have been in existence since the Industrial Revolution, spewing out carbon day-in and day-out, you’ll never convince me that’s a good thing for your children and the future of the planet,' [Graham] told a crowd in South Carolina,... ."
Graham thinks it would be a good thing if we had no cars and trucks, no electricity in amounts that could serve any purpose (and no serious means to construct hydroelectric plants in any case)? He thinks it would be better for us and our children if we lived as in 1800, when the average life expectancy was about 40 - if you survived childhood?
Mr. Reid . . . said the trading is no different than what happens with the thousands of earmarks in the dozen annual spending bills.
He said senators should be embarrassed if they weren't able to carve out exemptions.
"There's 100 senators here, and I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them," he said. "And if they don't have something in it important to them then, it doesn't speak well of them."
-End quote-
And on that note I'd like to wish the faithful readers of DoL a Merry Christmas!
Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region
At least one Kennedy (as in NIMBY, Massachusetts) takes exception:
“This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist and a partner with a venture capital firm that invested in a solar developer called BrightSource Energy. In September, BrightSource canceled a large project in the monument area.
Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.
At least one Kennedy (as in NIMBY, Massachusetts) takes exception:
“This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist and a partner with a venture capital firm that invested in a solar developer called BrightSource Energy. In September, BrightSource canceled a large project in the monument area.
American catfish farmers have demanded that tougher safety rules be imposed on certain fish from Vietnam -- which are hurting their business, the industry says. But U.S. catfish farmers must first get the U.S. Department of Agriculture to say the Vietnamese fish is a catfish. That is a little awkward since just seven years ago the farmers successfully urged Congress to ban the Vietnamese fish from ever being labeled a catfish.
In Washington and elsewhere, trade, sometimes as much as science, has a way of defining a species. Something might look, taste and feed off the bottom like a catfish, but until an agency calls it a catfish, it might as well be a duck.
American catfish farmers aren't alone in trying to manipulate food names. Three years ago, the Maine lobster industry fought restaurants that offered "langostino lobster," saying that the Chilean crustacean isn't a lobster at all. They called it a crab.
And These Folks Think They Can Design the Health Care System
When he earmarked $100,000 in taxpayer spending to go to Jamestown's library, Rep. James E. Clyburn meant for it to go to the library in Jamestown, S.C., which is in his district.
But in the bustle to write and pass the $1.1 trillion catchall spending bill, Congress ended up designating the money for Jamestown, Calif. - 2,700 miles away and a town that doesn't even have a library.
"That figures for government, doesn't it," said Chris Pipkin, who runs the one-room library in Jamestown, S.C., and earlier this year requested $50,000, not the $100,000 that Congress designated, to buy new computers and build shelves to hold the books strewn across the room.
Spend twice as much as necessary and still screw it up--that sums up the U.S. Congress pretty nicely.
The piece, in the Journal of National Affairs, begins:
March 24, 2009, may go down as a turning point in the history of the campaign-finance reform debate in America. On that day, in the course of oral argument before the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, United States deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart inadvertently revealed just how extreme our campaign-finance system has become.
The case addressed the question of whether federal campaign-finance law limits the right of the activist group Citizens United to distribute a hackneyed political documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie. The details involved an arcane provision of the law, and most observers expected a limited decision that would make little news and not much practical difference in how campaigns are run. But in the course of the argument, Justice Samuel Alito interrupted Stewart and inquired: "What's your answer to [the] point that there isn't any constitutional difference between the distribution of this movie on video [on] demand and providing access on the internet, providing DVDs, either through a commercial service or maybe in a public library, [or] providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?" Stewart, an experienced litigator who had represented the government in campaign-finance cases at the Supreme Court before, responded that the provisions of McCain-Feingold could in fact be constitutionally applied to limit all those forms of speech. The law, he contended, would even require banning a book that made the same points as the Citizens United video.
There was an audible gasp in the courtroom. Then Justice Alito spoke, it seemed, for the entire audience: "That's pretty incredible." By the time Stewart's turn at the podium was over, he had told Justice Anthony Kennedy that the government could restrict the distribution of books through Amazon's digital book reader, Kindle; responded to Justice David Souter that the government could prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book; and conceded to Chief Justice John Roberts that a corporate publisher could be prohibited from publishing a 500-page book if it contained even one line of candidate advocacy.
The public perception of conservatives (and I have to lump libertarians into this category, which I think is accurate here, and there's not really separate polling data for libertarians - see below), fostered by Hollywood and TV, many major media publications, and of course liberals, is that conservatives are uptight, unhappy, nasty people.
I have noted in this space that these perceptions are not true - polling data has consistently shown that conservatives are more likely to say they are happy with their lives; they are more active, both in terms of hobbies and sports and in terms of volunteer activities; they are more likely to be satisfied with their sex lives (and to have sex more often), than are liberals.
The latest part of the mantra from the cultural elites is that conservatives are also anti-science. Remember how Barack Obama even promised to restore science "to its rightful place."
Well, now comes an interesting survey from Pew that debunks the idea that liberals are more science oriented, too. In fact, it turns out that liberals are nearly twice as likely as conservatives to believe in astrology (30% to 16%), "spiritual energy" (35% to 18%), or reincarnation (33% to 18%). It's interesting to note that while conservatives and liberals are equally likely to believe in the "evil eye" (17% each), Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the evil eye by 19% to 12%.
Maybe all those "Reagan Democrats" of a generation ago were just fans of Nancy, who was said to have an interest in astrology. But clearly the rejection of science for superstition knows no ideological boundaries.
From an interesting report by the House of Commons on the use and abuse of language in government:
Q2 Chairman: In a sense, we know all this stuff that is floating around us, and we know what Orwell told us back in 1946, that "prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house." We have that all around us in official language, and what I really want to ask you is: Does this drivel matter or does it just irritate us?
Okay, I couldn't come up with a clever title for this blog entry but a story in the Dec. 3, 1909 NYT drew my attention for some reason:
Orders abolishing the standing guard of one company of regular army troops about the tomb of the late President William McKinely have been received here [Canton, Ohio]. Secretary Hartzell of the McKinley National Memorial Association was notified yesterday by Lieut. Householder of the Second Infantry that Secretary of War Jacob M. Dickinson had decided to reduce the guard to two non-commissioned officers. It is believed that this guard will be ample.
I wonder what this is all about. A company of regular army troops is around 100 soldiers. Why would such a force be required to guard the tomb of the late president? Granted McKinley was assassinated and it is plausible that there might have been concern that his grave would be desecrated for some reason, but the cynic in me wonders if the company was in place as some form of "pork spending."
The not so subtle sarcasm of the last sentence is also somewhat interesting.
The situation: My 14 year old daughter and I at Moe's last night for dinner. Me casually watching President Obama on a (muted) television screen behind her. She causaully watching PTI on ESPN on a television screen behind me.
Me [grimacing]: Grrrrr.
She: What?
Me [pointing to the tv behind her]: The president.
My Frivolous Reaction to the President's Speech on the Afghanistan Surge
I watched the President's speech on Afghanistan last night, and I keep seeing clips of it replayed, and one question keeps gnawing at me: where the heck is this place "Pockeestan" that the President kept referencing? Is it near Pakistan? Will our allies from Scotland and France - or are they now to be called "Scootlund" and "Frhawnse?" - know where to find it?
Would the President have referred to our southern neighbor as "Mejico" in a speech? If mentioning India, would have done his best impersonation of Apu?
Me thinks his effort to show off his world knowledge sounded a bit dumb.
The two term governor of New Mexico (1995-2002) appears to be taking the early steps in a long-shot presidential bid.
As governor, Johnson set a record for most bills vetoed, and earned a reputation as the most libertarian governor in the country. A Johnson campaign would focus on runaway government spending and taxes. Could Johnson win the GOP nomination, or even become a player in the primaries?
Pluses:
- Compelling life story (started as a handyman, eventually built New Mexico's largest construction business, which he sold in 1999; has climbed Mt. Everest, completing the hike with a broken leg)
- Never part of Washington scene; executive experience; out of politics since 2002 means no Bush taint, and no controversial votes over last decade.
- Twice won landslide victories in New Mexico, a state with a Democratic tilt. Beat the incumbent Democrat by 10 points the first time out.
- My theory - after the stress of impeachment, the 2000 election, and a pair of crusading presidencies (Bush abroad, Obama at home), people will want a common sense, libertarian approach to government - effective government, no great new initiatives, getting the fiscal house back in order.
Minuses:
- No name recognition
- Unproven as a fundraiser. Johnson self-funded his first run for office and much of his second. But he's not a Mitt Romney, capable of dropping $100 million into a presidential race.
- The big killer - during his second term, Johnson came out against the war on drugs and in favor of legalization and decriminalization.
Johnson offers libertarian voters a new, improved version of Ron Paul. He's got executive experience with proven accomplishments, not a bunch of protest votes; though an "aw shucks" type of speaker, he is better spoken than Dr. Paul; he is better focused, not as likely to drift off into obscure theory or second tier issues; the political climate will be better for an anti-war Republican.
There is already a grassroots rumbling starting to build for Johnson, coming from many of the same folks who had such enthusiasm for Paul. The question is whether Johnson can do what Congressman Paul could not - build on that enthusiastic base to appeal to a broader section of the GOP electorate. That will require not scaring the middle class on the drug issue.
A few links - all of these sites are unofficial, as Johnson has not announced his candidacy:
A short list of the headlines on CNN.com that appear (11:24pm central time, 11/20/09) before stories about the Senate's health care reform bill being voted on tomorrow:
Here's betting there is more mourning for the loss of Oprah's show than for the loss of liberty if the health "reform" passes. In what other private industry can you be arrested for refusing to engage in activities you consider immoral?
Finally the bishops come out swinging, but where were they for the House bill? Only a few have expressed their disapproval on the grounds of subsidiarity subsidiarity: "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run. Don't walk. We're in their homes, and in their heads, and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."
And have you ever wondered if, like, what I see as "red" is what you see as "red?" And are you saying that "like, whatever" isn't a defensible position?
Seriously, thanks for the detailed explanation. The man or woman on the street--someone like me--probably thinks that all relativism is of the lazy variety.
Perhaps there's another idea for a SEGA panel: what are the biggest misconceptions non-specialists have about your field? The analogue to lazy relativism in economics is the mistaken view that "economics" means "money" or that "costs and benefits" are necessarily or exclusively financial. I think of "cost" very generally as whatever we give up when we make a choice and "benefit" very generally as whatever we gain when we make a choice. Every action is an attempt to change the world and to make it a better place (however we choose to define "better," and this is the point at which I refer students to the philosophy department) than the world we leave behind. The cost of an action is the action we didn't take.
The cost of reading this blog post and writing a comment is whatever else I could have done (nap, for example, or grade homework). The benefit was that I now have a better understanding of the difference between lazy relativism and strong relativism. If we really wanted to we could evaluate these in monetary terms. By investing my time in reading the blog post I gave up the opportunity to earn income now by going around the neighborhood offering to rake leaves (like a couple of kids on the sidewalk appear to be doing now) but I gained knowledge that might increase my income in the future. This is one way to think about action, but I think it actually limits our knowledge by throwing out non-pecuniary reasons for action.
The more one digs into Tuesday’s election results, the worse they look for Democrats. This is almost certainly a good thing - the battleground this fall was generally over taxes and spending, and GOP gains indicate voter skepticism of the Democrats efforts to nationalize health care, pass cap & trade, and try to spend us out of economic difficulties. Thus the GOP gains should slow the statist Democratic Agenda in Washington. Let's start by reviewing the high-profile gubernatorial and congressional races, and then talk about down ballot races around the country that emphasize the Republican success.
The three high profile races were New York’s 23rd Congressional District special election, and the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.
The Democrats have to know that NY-23 was a fluke – they can’t count on gross Republican miscalculation in 2010. Meanwhile, Democratic efforts to write off the New Jersey and Virginia losses by blaming them on bad candidates simply don’t ring true.
In Virginia, Creigh Deeds was not a bad candidate. In the primary, despite being vastly outspent, he hammered the powerful Terry McAuliffe. He had the endorsement of the Washington Post, which argued that of three strong Democratic primary candidates, in the general election, “Deeds’ moderate platform would have the broadest appeal.” On liberal blog sites, Deeds was the overwhelming favorite as the best candidate, the one most likely to win the general election.
Jon Corzine was not a bad candidate, either – he could self-fund his race, an enormous advantage, and outspend any opponent 3 to 1, as he did to Chris Christie. He had been elected statewide twice before. What Corzine was, was a bad governor. And why was he a bad governor? Because he followed the same type of policies that the Democrats are now pursuing on a national level. Maybe someone will notice that.
It has been noted lately that the Democrats plan to hold on next fall is to go negative, and to do so early – to “vaporize” opponents, as Harry Reid says. But that is exactly what both Deeds and Corzine tried to do. Corzine, who won by 11 points in 2005, lost by 4 this year. Deeds, who lost to the same man in the attorney general race 4 years ago by fewer than 350 votes, this time lost by 18 percentage points. Meanwhile, President Obama embraced and campaigned with both men. Yet McDonnell won by the biggest margin for a Republican ever, and Christie by the largest margin for a Republican in 24 years. Thus, the Democrats’ two key strategies to hold on in 2010 (other than pray for a better economy) failed miserably – Obama couldn’t save them, and relentlessly negative campaigning couldn’t save them. These men were not bad candidates, as their past success and praise for them suggests – rather, they were running on bad issues in a time in which Democrats are increasingly blamed for the nation’s difficulties.
In the other Congressional special election, California’s 10th District, Lt. Governor John Garamendi won by 11 points after heavily outspending his opponent in a district won by his predecessor in 2008 by 34 points, in which Democrats have an 18 point edge in voter registration, and which Obama carried by 31 points. Not much to crow about.
Down ballot, it gets worse. Republicans rolled to easy double digit victories in the Virginia Attorney General and Lt. Governor races. In the Lt. Governor’s race, Bill Bolling, who won by just 1 percent in 2005, won by 12 points. Republicans gained 6 seats (pending one recount) in the State Assembly, giving them a 61-37-2 majority. Republicans gained a seat in the New Jersey House. Republicans took control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and won six of seven statewide races in the Keystone State. Republicans gained in the heavily populated New York City suburbs , taking control of both Westchester County and Nassau County for the first time in a decade. They even gained a couple seats on the New York City Council (in addition to the re-election of their sort-of Republican Mayor Bloomberg). In Michigan, in a special election for a state senate seat that had gone Democratic by 61-39 when it was last up in 2006, the Republican flipped the landslide around and won 61-36. Republicans also flipped a New Hampshire state house seat in a special election.
When the Republicans are rolling up victories in the northeast corridor and in Michigan, the Democrats have to be worried. But Republican successes weren’t limited to such recent Democratic stomping grounds. In liberal Washington state, a Republican captured 58 percent of the vote to win a state House seat controlled by Democrats for 22 years, and Republican candidates steamrolled to landslide victories to easily retain seats in two other special elections for state house.
We might also note that the Republicans picked up two Democratic seats in special elections last month, winning a previously Democratic state house seat with 63% of the vote in a special election in Tennessee last month, and also picking up a formerly Democrat held state house seat in Oklahoma.
Even in the safest of Democratic bastions, the Democrats underperformed. In a special state house election in Missouri, for example, Democrats held a safe Democratic seat with 61 percent of the vote. Sounds impressive, but in 2008, in what was also an open seat race, the Democrat carried the district with 69 percent of the vote . This year’s showing, in fact, was the worst for the Democrats in the district since at least 1994. Meanwhile, Republicans romped to victories in safe Republican state legislative seats in South Carolina, and two races in Georgia.
Democrats held most of their big city mayors, but Republicans did to as incumbent mayors did well throughout the country, in what were mostly non-partisan races. But a few offices changed party control, however, usually away from the Democrats, and many in the battleground Midwest and in the northeast, where the GOP is supposed to be dead.
Toledo elected independent Mike Bell, ending 20 years of Democratic control. An independent also defeated an incumbent Democrat in Dayton. Republicans picked up the Mayor’s office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In an open seat race in Manchester, New Hampshire, Republican Ted Gatsas kept the Mayor’s office in GOP hands with the best showing by a Republican in the city in more than a decade. In another open seat Mayor’s race, in Norwich, Connecticut, Republican Peter Nystrom easily won election to an office previously held by a Democrat. Republicans also won the Mayor’s office in Stamford for the first time since 1993, winning 55 percent of the vote in a city with a 2-1 Democratic edge in voter registration. A Republican ousted the Democrats from the Mayor’s office in Stratford, Connecticut, and the GOP picked up council seats throughout the state. You have to wonder if Chris Dodd was watching.
Republicans picked up Mayor’s offices out west, too. In a non-partisan race in Washington’s 4th largest city, Republican Tim Leavitt defeated labor-backed, 14 year incumbent Royce Pollard, saying, “My opponent seems to think government creates jobs. Creating jobs is done by the business community. Where government can help out is by getting out of the way.”
The Democrats did pick up one mayor’s office of note, in Charlotte, North Carolina, but Republicans returned the favor by taking the Mayor’s slot away from the Democrats in Greensboro. Democrats were left to find solace in such holding actions, such as not losing as many state assembly seats in New Jersey as they had thought they might.
Republicans ought not, and probably cannot, sit around and hope they can ride into office in 2010 merely on a bad economy and Democratic ineptitude. For one thing, the economy is resilient enough, and the Democrats and the Fed have thrown enough money into it, that the economy and the unemployment numbers should be improved and improving a year from now. Free market economists need to help Republicans explain now why the President’s economic policies are retarding, rather than helping, this economic recovery. And we need to hope that Republicans have learned from the electoral and economic failures of the big spending Bush years. That said, Tuesday was a very good night for Republicans, and the more one looks at it, the harder it is for Democrats to claim otherwise. And that should make it just a little easier to defenders of freedom in the next year, not because a few more Republicans hold office, but because some Democrats will have a some second thoughts about the electoral wisdom of nationalizing the economy.
Lobbyists are quitting the business at a record pace, according to a study released Monday.
Over 1,400 lobbyists "deregistered" with Congress in the second quarter of 2009, according to a study conducted jointly by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and OMB Watch.
Typically, only a few hundred lobbyists quit each quarter.
The giant spike in resignations came just after the Obama administration instituted strict new rules on lobbyist activity.
“While we can’t draw a direct link between the president’s executive order and the increased pace of terminations during the second quarter of 2009, we can say that they came at a most controversial time,” said Lee Mason, director of Nonprofit Speech Rights for OMB Watch.
But the study's authors warn that not all of the deregistered lobbyists may actually be out of business.
"At the federal level, many people working in the lobbying industry are not registered lobbyists, instead adopting titles such as 'senior adviser' or other executive monikers, thereby avoiding federal disclosure requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act," CRP and OMB Watch said in a statement.
With federal govt spending on an upsurge, I'll bet on the latter effect--lobbyists disguising themselves as advisers--rather than a reduction in lobbying activity.
Update: Steve Horwitz reminds me that he is guest-blogging for PBS's Nightly Business Report. So what does PBS stand for now? Praxeology Broadcasting Station? I'm expecting Ashton Kutcher to fling my office door open and explain that I've been punk'd.
I don't think anyone can dismiss this assertion by Sawhill and Aaron.
Anyone who thinks that health-care reform alone is going to close the massive current -- and even larger projected -- U.S. budget deficit is deluded. President Obama has pledged that health-care reform will not make matters worse. But that isn't good enough. There is no way to restore this nation to fiscal health without higher taxes -- for the middle class as well as for the rich. The only question is when. Those increases should be enacted now, phased in gradually after the recovery is well established, and tied to the increased spending that health-care reform will generate. [Emphasis added.]
My only question regards timing. Why didn't this column appear last year, when Obama's platform made the conclusion inescapable?
Maybe Italy has it right, if the conclusion of this WaPo article is correct.
Besides, with Berlusconi as your prime minister, you don't have to take yourself too seriously. You don't have to trouble yourself with geopolitics or the state of the planet, or poverty and failed states. You can stay at home, remain unserious and argue about the latest legal scandal. And maybe that, too, is part of the Italian prime minister's appeal.
I disagree with one point. I would write the first two sentences this way: "Besides, with Berlusconi as your prime minister, you don't have to ... trouble yourself with geopolitics or ...." You can take yourself and things that really matter quite seriously, while marginalizing the goings-on of the state, treating it as the absurdist theater that it often is.
Given Bastiat's provisional definition of the state, "the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else," having it generate a bit of humor is probably not a bad thing.
You may insert your latest Nobel Peace Prize joke here.
To quote the fine theologian, M*A*S*H's Father Mulcahy: Jocularity, jocularity, jocularity.
The October 13, 1909 NYT has a headline you won't see today:
SENATOR FLINT WILL RETIRE.
MUST LEAVE THE SENATE, HE SAYS, TO EARN MONEY FOR HIS FAMILY.
Turns out the good Senator from California felt that there wasn't enough money in being a Senator and that he had to go out in the real world to earn some scratch:
Senator Frank P. Flint announced yesterday that when his present term expires, on March 4, 1911, he would not be a candidate for re-election.
"If I were a rich man," said Senator Flint," I would like nothing better than to remain in the Senate all my life. But I feel that I owe it to my family to get out of politics and gain a competency while I am able.
"My associations in the Senate are very congenial, indeed. I have practically no opposition for a renomination, and the sole reason for contemplated retirement is the urgent necessity of providing for my family.
It is quaint that a U.S. Senator would suggest that there wasn't enough money in national politics to make it worth his while. Perhaps there was a time when this was true. Perhaps Mr. Flint was "clean" and didn't partake of the largess his position would seem to attract.
On the other hand, perhaps this is a thinly veiled jab at the lobbyists of the day. In essence, Flint throws down the gauntlet saying "pay up or I'm outta here and I'm taking my political capital with me."
Do you wonder, as I, whether Flint really retires from public service in 1911? Oh wait, I can look that up (see below the fold for the spoiler)....
Sure enough, Flint doesn't pursue the General Store he might have implied was on his horizon in 1909.
From the March 5, 1911 NYT:
Vice President Sherman to-day appointed Senators Flint of California and Taliaferro of Florida, neither of whom will be members of the next Congress, to vacancies on the National Monetary Commission.
Another Division of Labour Essay Contest on Voting
On October 15, Memphians will choose a new mayor in a special election. I'm deep in the same moral and intellectual crisis that faces me every election: should I vote? I decided that (once again) I will farm this out to Division of Labour readers. I'll offer a prize of some kind for the best 250-500 word essay explaining why I should or should not vote, and the winning entry will be published on DOL. Entries will be accepted via email, and I'm looking for something that addresses the opportunity cost of voting.
It is true that our new President [President Taft] during the first six months of his term had the extraordinary session of Congress on his hands, called expressly to redeem the pledges of the party - pledges made on his personal initiative and strong recommendation. It was natural, and, in a sense, unavoidable, that for this important task he should hold himself peculiarly accountable, and that he should hasten to render his account to the people as soon as practicable.
So, another president, this one a Republican, also brought an active agenda to the first few months of his administration? Haven't heard anyone bring that up lately.
The op-ed continues:
But that chapter is but one of many which he plainly intends to present to the attention, we may say to the anxious and somewhat weary attention, of his fellow-citizens. Even while the tariff job was still unfinished, and at a point where the honest and decent fulfillment of the pledges of his party and himself was trembling in the balance, Mr. Taft sprung upon the country the twin projects of a tax on corporations, avowedly intended as the first step toward minute and comprehensive Federal inquisition and of corporation business, and an income tax, requiring a Constitutional amendment.
Ambitious projects indeed. Would we characterize today's uncertainty regarding public policy as drawing "anxious and weary attention?"
We continue:
Here in the very dawning of his Administration, before he had had an opportunity to address a formal regular message to Congress, we have thrown upon the country a scheme of change more far reaching, more intimately affecting the affairs of all classes of the people than any accomplished, or even proposed during the seven crowded years of Mr. Roosevelt's incumbency.
Change the names to reflect their modern analogues and the statement might apply equally (more so?) today.
But then comes the coup de grace:
It is true that the Constitutional amendment authorizing the income tax and the tax on corporate business were, in effect, if not in intent, a diversion which saved Mr. Aldrich and "his men" from a damaging defeat. It is not exactly reassuring, however, that measures of such scope and portent can be made a mere incident in the campaign of the protracted interests for control of the taxing power of the Government in the pursuit of their selfish interests.
The Gray Lady has an excellent interactive archive of the history of health reform in the U.S. Clicking on Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 campaign platform, we see early glimpses of the eventual breadth and depth of central government control. "[O]ur aim should be," said Roosevelt, "to use the Government as an efficient agency for the practical betterment of social and economic conditions throughout this land." Praising the social plans of Bismarck, Roosevelt blames America's woes on the Republican Party (and no, notwithstanding spastic claims to the contrary, I am not an "ethics-free GOP hack") en route to declaring, "In the National Government one department should be intrusted with all the agencies relating to the public health... This department, through its special health service, would co-operate intelligently with the various State and municipal bodies established for the same end.... [T]he aim would be merely to secure under one administrative body efficient sanitary regulation in the interest of the people as a whole."
Notice the implicit assumptions of benevolence and omniscience that support the claim of government achieving an efficient outcome. There is also, but more subtly, a tension between two conceptions of liberty: the liberty of individuals that informed the American Founding versus the liberty of people as members of a noble collective that was successfully advanced by the Progressives.
Today, the faces have changed. The tag lines are new. The delivery is honed on bothall sides to tip-toe around these basic tensions. But the politics and the principles are ancient. I wonder: what have we learned?
September 2009 November 2008
Label: Positive Negative In Between Positive Negative In Between
Like Reagan 41% 25% 31% 43% 26% 29%
Moderate 35% 12% 51% 40% 8% 50%
Progressive 32% 27% 36% 40% 16% 40%
Conservative 32% 29% 37% 37% 22% 40%
Liberal 15% 41% 42% 19% 36% 41%
Break that down by Favorable/Unfavorable, we see:
Moderate +23
Like Reagan +16
Progressive + 5
Conservative +3
Liberal -26
Change since November in favorable/unfavorable spread:
Like Reagan -1
Moderate -9
Liberal -9
Conservative -12
Progressive -19
Without the crosstabs, which are behind the pay wall, I'm not sure how much this tells us. But it is interesting that "being like Reagan" is the best of the 5 labels tested, and the only one not losing ground. I like to think voters are remembering the Reagan who cut taxes and regulation to break the downward economic spiral of the 1970s.
Mr. Rogers Obama: Can you say, serve the state? Yes you can!
My 14 yr old daughter sent me this txt msg on Wednesday, "had to watch the effin obama speech, soooooooo stupid. very mad. please complain," which I posted on Facebook because I thought it was pretty funny. Several friends chimed in with less than flattering things to say about the Great Leader's speech.
An old and dear, and left-of-center, friend wrote me:
Are your friends ACTUALLY advocating that their chidlren NOT listen to a speech by the leader of the free world? Seriously, this is not a statement in the form of a question.
I was just wondering with a colleague why anyone would keep kids from listening to the POTUS - even if it was only to build your case for debate.
(Though why anyone would debate - work hard, keep trying, etc. is a bit...well way...beyond me.)
My reply:
As Thomas Sowell would say it's a conflict of visions. You see him as the leader of the free world. I see him as a power-hungry man who managed to win some kind of beauty contest. I owe him no fealty for this per se. In my book I owe my plumber more respect than my president. He at least provides me with something I want on an honest basis.
I felt the same about Bush and Clinton too (Reagan not so much then but my views have changed a lot since then). Most of my fb friends would have felt the same I bet. Though I have to be honest that some of them wouldn't have minded one bit if Bush had done this. Be honest, what you you have thought if Bush wanted to do this?
Btw, I could have gotten her out of it. But didn't because I figured she should hear him out. But she was genuinely unhappy with the message: "Work hard and stay in school so you can serve the almighty State?!"
Oddly we really don't talk politics much at all. Obviously, my kid has picked this attitude up from me/us, but I really don't push it on her. She's her own person.
My daughter and I had a nice conversation (thank you, Prez Obama for that much at least) this morning. I told her about Aron Ralston who quit his big fancy corporate job to become a full-time mountain climber bum (and had an unfortunate accident if you remember his story).
In Obama's view I guess Ralston is a bad person for "dropping out" and not contributing to the economy and government as much as he should. What a waste of a great college education Obama would say. But in my world view, he's following his own dream on his own terms and not those of the state or society (whatever that is) and is worthy of respect.
An example of the provincial amateurism of current White House operations was the way the president's innocuous back-to-school pep talk got sandbagged by imbecilic support materials soliciting students to write fantasy letters to "help" the president (a coercive directive quickly withdrawn under pressure). Even worse, the entire project was stupidly scheduled to conflict with the busy opening days of class this week, when harried teachers already have their hands full. Comically, some major school districts, including New York City, were not even open yet. And this is the gang who wants to revamp national healthcare?
I describe in a pair of posts at the Politico, here and here, why I don't like Obama speaking to school kids. I wouldn't mind, actually, if he were using the kids as a backdrop to make a major policy speech - what I dislike is the fact that there is no reason for this speech, really, except that the President seems to think he needs to step in and help us all parent our kids. It's really obnoxious.
But looking at the text of his message, that's pretty obnoxious, too. Some excerpts below the fold.
Analyzing the text of the President's message a bit more closely, I found myself chaffing even more at the statist nature of the talk. Obama has a message that students must strive and take responsibility - that's the OK message I guess - but for what?
"What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future." In other words, you owe it to the state.
"We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country." In other words, you owe it to the state.
"I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?" In other words, your life is not for you, it is for us, the state.
"I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too." Translation - you must serve the state, which provides for you.
"So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down." You owe us. You belong to us.
Citizens United: Corporate Political Speech and Shareholder Rights
On Tuesday of next week the Supreme Court will meet in special session to rehear the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, the government argued that a documentary produced by Citizens United, Hillary: The Movie, could be banned from distribution as a partisan political communication. The Court has specifically asked the parties to argue whether or not it should overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld a ban on all corporate funded political expenditures. The Court's concern was prompted by the government's argument, at oral argument in March, that under Austin it could ban even the publication of books and films containing so much as one line of political candidate advocacy.
Supporters of the ban are in a rhetorical hole, because the reality is that, if Austin is good law and means what is says, the government is right. Yet few really believe that the First Amendment allows for book banning. And while advocates of "campaign finance reform" have long advocated limiting speech, they don't really like to be seen as quite so nakedly in favor of limiting political speech.
Hence, the latest tack of the "reform" community is to claim that corporate spending on politics should be prohibited in order to protect shareholder rights. Below the fold, we slice and dice this argument.
On Tuesday of next week the Supreme Court will meet in special session to rehear the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, the government argued that a documentary produced by Citizens United, Hillary: The Movie, could be banned from distribution as a partisan political communication. The Court has specifically asked the parties to argue whether or not it should overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld a ban on all corporate funded political expenditures. The Court's concern was prompted by the government's argument, at oral argument in March, that under Austin it could ban even the publication of books and films containing so much as one line of political candidate advocacy.
Supporters of the ban are in a rhetorical hole, because the reality is that, if Austin is good law and means what is says, the government is right. Yet few really believe that the First Amendment allows for book banning. And while advocates of "campaign finance reform" have long advocated limiting speech, they don't really like to be seen as quite so nakedly in favor of limiting political speech.
Hence, the latest tack of the "reform" community is to claim that corporate spending on politics should be prohibited in order to protect shareholder rights.
The latest exhibit of the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the poor, unfortunate shareholder (who for years has been scorned by the "reform" lobby for trying to "drown out" the voices of others, for amassing great "war chests," for being a "special interest" and usually the ultimate villain in discussions of campaign finance) is a column by the Brennan Center's Ciarra Torres-Spelliscy appearing in Forbes.
Ms. Torres-Spelliscy is concerned that her 401k investments will be spent by corporations on political advocacy that she doesn't like. She's worried that they will, spend her money to "defeat health care reform resist new regulations on financial instruments or combat environmental controls." (Notice how in the end, its rarely the principle, but the specific issues. She's not, it appears, worried that, like the big pharmaceuticals, they'll spend her money to promote health care reform, or resist excessive regulation and combat extreme environmental controls - it pretty much always comes down to content).
But this already happens. Corporations can give money to charities, including controversial charities, such as universities that bring in controversial speakers such as Ward Churchill or Ward Connerly; Art museums that feature displays by Robert Mapplethorpe; or groups that promote abortion, such as planned parenthood, or limit participation by gays, such as the Boy Scouts. Why, many large corporations, including Bear Stearns and Enron, have supported the Brennan Center over the years. Where are the complaints? When did the folks at the Brennan Center return those contributions out of concern for the poor shareholders who may oppose their 401ks being used to further the Brennan Center's agenda? No, not only doesn't the Brennan Center mind, they actually are quite active in soliciting such corporate support, with no regard whatsoever for the shareholders whose 401ks are being used in this manner. There's a word for that, by the way, starts with "H."
Large corporations will spend at least 10 times as much money lobbying as making political contributions, and those lobbyists may lobby "to defeat health care reform, resist new regulations on financial instruments or combat environmental controls." But of course, though there may be some regulation of lobbying, we can't ban lobbying - as Ms. Torres-Spelliscy knows, lobbying (the right to petition) is protected by the First Amendment. Oops! - so is speech. If concern over shareholders were the issue, these restrictions would appear in laws on corporate governance, not campaign finance. Her 401k funds may be invested in corporations selling products she thinks should be illegal, perhaps tobacco or various chemical products; or following business practices with which she doesn't agree, perhaps outsourcing jobs or failing to provide "adequate" health insurance to employees; or sucking at the government teat when she thinks it shouldn't, such as auto makers; or who knows what all else. The fact is, we have rules for corporate governance that provide management with broad discretion to act in the best interest of the shareholders. Only now does the reform lobby suddenly decide that drastic steps are needed.
The reformers' new tack also demonstrates the overkill involved. The ban on corporate spending includes not just large companies in which Ms. Torres-Spelliscy thinks maybe she has some 401k money, but ideological corporations that people join precisely to further their political views; and closely held corporations in which there are no dissenting shareholders.
Perhaps the biggest jujitsu comes when Ms. Torres-Spelliscy cites a study that "found that large corporate political expenditures are linked with lower shareholder value." We don't quibble with the study - I haven't read this particular study, but other studies have reached similar results and serious campaign finance scholars have long since concluded that political spending generally plays far less of a role in shaping policy than "reformers" would have us believe. But for a staffer at the Brennan Center to say such a thing is stunning. After all, for years it has been an article of faith in the "reform" community that corporations would never spend money if they didn't expect to gain something from it. Apparently it is now Emily Litella time: "never mind."
Here's the bottom line - it's not about protecting shareholder rights, for if it were the Brennan Center would immediately stop soliciting and accepting corporate contributions. It's about limiting speech that they think they will not like. You know it, I know it, and they know it.
Here's David Henderson correcting a common mistake. Corporations aren't allowed to give money to candidates directly. Tracing money in politics is wickedly difficult, but I'm struck by the disproportionate representation of labor unions in big-money politics. At the very least, this suggests that people deriding opposition to the President's health care plan as an elaborate corporation-funded-and-directed "astroturf" movement need to check their premises--particularly since Big Pharma, insurance companies, and Walmart are in bed with the administration on this issue.
I Dreamed I Saw Joe the Plumber Last Night: Health Care & Guns Edition
When I first saw these clips, my gut reaction was "there is no way this is true; the MSNBC video has to have been doctored to make the network look bad." From what I can tell, the MSNBC video is unadulterated. It's a tale of two clips: one is an MSNBC clip in which commentators discuss racial tension and people bringing openly-carried firearms to rallies. The discussion is motivated by video footage of someone carrying an AR-15. You can't identify him from the MSNBC video, but the other clip (and a story on MSNBC.com) reveals that he is an African-American. Needless to say, right-wing groups are seizing on the apparent shenanigans and claiming outright dishonesty on the part of the Liberal Elite Media. I think some of the anti-Obama backlash is racially motivated--see the flood of "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim" emails that went around during his campaign and the Statement of Principles from the Council of Conservative Citizens, which affirms a commitment to "Cultural, national, and racial integrity"--and I don't think the presence of one African-American man toting a gun and protesting the President's plan blows this thesis out of the water. In this light, I thought I'd do a bit of political prognostificationizing. I see two possibilities:
1. MSNBC used judiciously-edited footage of an African-American man carrying an AR-15 at a health care rally to scare viewers about well-armed white racists. If this is true, then I predict that it will strengthen the right's conviction that there is a liberal media bias. Right-wing groups will have an easier time raising funds because they will have clear evidence that the Elite Liberal Media is distorting the news to further a political agenda. Further, the gentleman carrying the AR-15 will become the Right's next Joe the Plumber.
2. Newsbusters.org or a similar conservative group created a judiciously-edited clip that will backfire. Current developments and an MSNBC statement suggest that this isn't the case, but if it is true, then I predict that it will strengthen the left's conviction that the protesters are dishonest corporate flunkies. Left-wing groups will have an easier time raising funds because they will have clear evidence that the Corporate Conservative Media is lying about them to further a political agenda. Still, the gentleman carrying the AR-15 will become the Right's next Joe the Plumber.
Comments are open. HT: Natalie Danielshen, Mason Drake.
At Marketplace.org, Scott Jagow lays out some of the main issues, and he does so nicely until the takeaway:
[Cash 4 clunkers] does seem to be decent stimulus, but car sales will collapse, at least temporarily, no matter when this program ends. C4c is a drug. It even sounds like one. At some point, the car makers need to stop relying on incentives. The car-buying public is addicted to them. Not to mention, these particular incentives are being paid for by the taxpayers.
In the comments, I added:
Market prices are incentives. Government subsidies are distortions. To get correct, car makers and buyers need to stop relying on subsidies, not incentives.
Sorry for being all word police. But it’s a really, really important word. Incentives matter. The rest is commentary.
UPDATE: This was in Chicago not the U.K. So I guess we need a 6th Amendment.
I have previously noted Britian's lack of a 4th Amendment but they also apparently lack a 6th Amendment.
Clifton Williams, 33, of Richton Park, is facing six months in jail for making what court documents call a yawn-like sound in Will County Judge Daniel Rozak's court last month. The yawn happened as Williams' cousin, Jason Mayfield, was being sentenced for a drug charge on July 23.Rozak found Williams in contempt of court and sentenced him to six months in jail...Six months is the maximum sentence judges can give for criminal contempt without a jury trial.
"The young grass-roots army that swept Obama into office has yet to mobilize
now that the fight is about something complicated rather than a charismatic
hope-munger. No, they can’t?" [Maureen Dowd, NYT op-ed]
Prompted by Frank's wondering, I offer this prediction: If AARP does endorse a policy, it will be one that redounds to the advantage of the United Health Group.
In a dog and pony show yesterday, President Obama incorrectly claimed that the AARP was "onboard" with his health care reforms. Hmmm ... a fishy claim ... I wonder if anyone has alerted flag@whitehouse.gov.
The Heritage Foundation paper "Congressional Ethics and the Administrative State" contains the following conclusion: "The system of government that has transformed congressmen from legislators to ombudsmen has spawned the corrupt favoritism that once defined New York's Tammany Hall, but now defines Washington and its emerging scandals. The framers of the Constitution understood the inevitable corruption of the administrative state, and had sought to avoid it with their constitutional prescriptions of federalism and separated powers."
The occasion for this paper was the S & L corruption (McCain, Keating, et al.), but the the analysis applies broadly. One of my favorite applications is to ethanol. There, EPA experts argued in Congress against allowing ethanol onto the list of oxygenating fuels, which Congress was about to mandate. Congress punted by refusing to specify a list. Rather, the EPA was to construct the list. After a few contacts from the likes of Bob Dole, the EPA saw the light and added ethanol to the list. Before long, it became the only oxygenating additive on the list.
A recent column by John Stossel brought this ancient history to mind. He says, "They've given us a system that now can be saved only if bureaucrats limit coverage by second-guessing retirees' decisions. Government will decide which Medicare services have value and which do not. Retirees may have a different opinion."
Dollars to donuts that the legislation, for all of its bulk, contains little specificity. Rather, the bureaucracy that will be created will surpass the EPA as a target of lobbying efforts by members of Congress, as the details are worked out.
I strive hard to avoid what I call Youtube moments - especially when a student asks a loaded question the answer to which might be very easily taken out of context. I am not sure if this compilation is necessarily taken out of context but it would definitely seem to be a "Youtube moment":
Evidently Some Scare Tactics Are Better Than Others
In his town hall dog and pony show (transcript) held in Raleigh earlier this week, President Obama decried the use of "scare tactics" by people opposed to his health care socialism reform. Well, it's not just opponents who are rolling out scare tactics. Check out this commercial that recently came through my tele--pay particular attention about 10 seconds in to the kid on the swing.
This is from the front page at Drudge (I claim fair use):
If the stories are true (evidently they are HT: Phil Miller's facebook page), then this should put all debate over the merits of the stimulus package to bed. If the Republicans or some third party cannot come up with enough arguments to dethrone the current ruling class (not that the Republicans were/are great but would likely not pursue such policies as depicted above - though I admit that's not guaranteed) then we should all plan our exit strategy.
From my travels, the northern coast of Morocco is beautiful (I'll leave it up to the game theorists to think about whether that is an honest claim or not).
There is a new silliness in the Western Anglo Media, comparing the US Emperor's Czar program to the number of Tsars that Holy Russia had. It is a good thing that the US/UK public is ignorant not only of ancient history but also of recent history, otherwise they might start to worry.
So let us go back and establish some historic references. Czar or rather Tsar, is a degradation of the Latin term Ceasar, similar to Germany's Kaiser. [...]
In order to control the vast nation and its revolutionary reshaping during a chaotic time, Lenin and later Stalin, created a system of Commissars. These were not limited to military and instilling party loyalty, but were used throughout Soviet society. A commissar and his staff had absolute authority, answering only to the dictator and by-passing the various local councils and people's senates. Two things to note here:
1. their spheres were ambiguous and often over lapped responsibilities of other commissars. This in turn caused a large volume of infighting. Sure this is very wasteful of resources and confusing, but what it does do, is allow the dictator to keep ultimate power by keeping his most powerful minions at each others throats with the dictator as the ultimate arbitrator of power.
2. The commissars were mostly young, had little achievement outside the power structure, self assured, true believers. They knew very well that outside their positions, created and granted by the dictator, they had little hope of career success. They were given responsibility much higher then their experience levels, further beholding them to their owner. It made them extremely jealous of their power, which in turn made them vengeful against anyone who stood in their way, especially other power hungry commissars.
Fast forward to modern transitional America. The American Emperor has taken the six commissars of his leftist predecessor and created at least 28 more. Yes, commissars do multiply quickly at first and many more are in the works, until the American parliament (congress) and the oblasts (states) assemblies (state senates) are powerless show pieces and all power centers (commissars) flow only to the dictator.
James Waylett, the boy who plays Crabbe in the Harry Potter movies, just got busted for possessing and growing a little mj.
On Thursday, he pleaded guilty to producing cannabis at a court hearing where it emerged that the pair were detained after Waylett took a photo of police while driving past a group of officers.
I know they don't have a 4th Amendment in England, but holy cripes? All he did was take a photo of the police? I guess in England only the police are allowed to take photos now? Sheesh.
As the British newspaper The Independent reported;
“Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned… And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the ‘age of convenience’ was over.” [...]
In the old days, we didn’t have these kinds of problems.
But then Mr and Mrs Peasant start remodeling the hovel, adding a rec room and indoor plumbing, replacing the emaciated old nag with a Honda Civic and driving to the mall in it, and next thing you know [...] they begin taking vacations in Florida.
[...]
[A]t this week’s G8 summit, America’s allies would commit only to the fuzziest and most meaningless of environmental goals. Europe has been hit far harder by the economic downturn. When your unemployment rate is 17 per cent (as in Spain), “unsustainable growth” is no longer your most pressing problem.
The environmental cult is itself a product of what the Prince calls the “Age of Convenience”: it’s what you worry about it when you don’t have to worry about jobs or falling house prices or collapsed retirement accounts.
The content: local warming is reducing mortality among some wild sheep in Scotland. Wonder if the runts that now survive would count this as baaad news? Did I insert enough a's?
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons.
The Powerline blog entry provides links to the CEI correspondence and supporting email messages, and to the suppressed study.
When last month's town council race ended in a two-way tie, Mayor Vincent Francia thought it should be settled cowboy-style: "The two candidates would assemble downtown Cave Creek at High Noon and go at it with paintballs."
Instead they turned to Arizona law, which says tied local elections may be determined by chance: rolling dice, flipping a coin or cutting cards.
Cave Creek Magistrate George Preston, dressed in his black robes, shuffled the deck of cards Monday night that would finally decide the race. About 60 people crowded council chambers, including a few lawyers who had hashed out two pages of rules for the drawing.
The candidate drawing the highest card would be declared the winner.
Which got me to (barely) thinking: if the median voter theory is true, why not just save everyone the expense and headaches of campaigning and decide elections this way? Instead of three hourlong televised debates, you could, during a commercial break, show 30 seconds of McCain and Obama rolling dice to decide the winner. It certainly seems more efficient, since the FEC seems to indicate that there were almost $1.4 billion in total contributions to candidates in the 2008 Presidential campaign. How much does a deck of cards cost?
It also reminded me of the rhetoric of elections. How often do you hear of Presidents winning "landslide" elections? The Stat Abstract shows that the biggest percentage a recent candidate has garnered was Johnson's 1964 61.1%. If you had a student with a 61.1% average, would you consider him to have a "landslide" level of knowledge?
Frank's post reminds me of the situation in Saudi Arabia in 1985. Saudi had supported the production of wheat to the extent that they were self-sufficient, at least for a while.
The rationale was to diversify so that Saudis wouldn't depend so much on oil revenue and could become trained in other endeavors. The reality was that Europeans set up and ran large wheat farms and used foreign labor. Few, if any, Saudis developed any farming skills.
To make the scheme feasible, the government sold water to the farmers at a fraction of the cost of desalination, and it set a price at about five times the world price (if my memory serves). The Economist ran an article saying that the price was high enough to make it worthwhile for smugglers to bring food-aid wheat from Ethiopia via Yemen to sell to the Saudi government.
I'm not sure, but I'm guessing the scheme went belly-up when the price of oil plummeted post-1985.
But these things never go away. Witness the "end" of the farm subsidies negotiated between Newt's Republicans and President Clinton.
The first paragraph of a Barrons article on GM's chairman:
DON'T BE HARD ON GM'S NEW CHAIRMAN EDWARD WHITACRE for confessing during an interview last week that he knows nothing about cars. He simply suffered a Joe Biden moment. Texans often tumble over their tongues when taking a stab at humility. In fact, few car companies, let alone their CEOs, know how to build cars, which is why so many of them are conking out. The Obama administration, in my view, picked Whitacre to run General Motors (ticker: GM) because he has a more important talent: He knows how to play Chicago-style politics.
Folly and Presumption: Federal Reserve Lending Edition
I just sent this letter to the New York Times:
Your June 12 story about political influence on Federal Reserve lending decisions was distressing, but predictable. When the government commits to the principle that some industries and firms are "too big to fail," identifying those firms that are "too big to fail" necessarily becomes a political decision. Adam Smith addressed this over two centuries ago:
"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
This letter to the Economist offers a useful suggestion:
There used to be, in the world of restructurings in the London market, a practice operated in a firm but gentlemanly manner by the Bank of England called the London Approach. It sounds as if the process under way for Chrysler, and widely anticipated for General Motors, could probably be dubbed the Chicago Approach.
So Kenny Boy wasn't just W's buddy. From the first of a series of articles in the Financial Post (Canada):
The climate-change industry ... has emerged as the world’s largest industry. ... Some of the climate-change profiteers are relatively unknown corporations; others are household names with only their behind-the-scenes role in the climate-change industry unknown. ... This series begins with Enron, a pioneer in the climate-change industry.
Almost two decades before President Barack Obama made “cap-and-trade” for carbon dioxide emissions a household term, an obscure company called Enron — a natural-gas pipeline company that had become a big-time trader in energy commodities — had figured out how to make millions in a cap-and-trade program for sulphur dioxide emissions, thanks to changes in the U.S. government’s Clean Air Act. To the delight of shareholders, Enron’s stock price rose rapidly as it became the major trader in the U.S. government’s $20-billion a year emissions commodity market.
Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, keen to engineer an encore, saw his opportunity when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were inaugurated as president and vice-president in 1993. To capitalize on Al Gore’s interest in global warming, Enron immediately embarked on a massive lobbying effort to develop a trading system for carbon dioxide.... To magnify the leverage of their political lobbying, Enron also worked the environmental groups.
The intense lobbying paid off. Lay became a member of president Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development, as well as his friend and advisor. In the summer of 1997, prior to global warming meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Clinton sought Lay’s advice in White House discussions. The fruits of Enron’s efforts came soon after, with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol.
[From an internal memo, posted from Kyoto]: “Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch." [Furthermore]: “I now predict ratification within three years. I predict business opportunities within 18 months. I predict this agreement will have very significant influences on the energy sector within OECD and transitional economies and will accelerate renewable markets in developing countries. This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!”
The May 22, 1909 NYT reports on French military planning at the time:
PARIS - The Superior Council of the Navy has decided upon a programme which includes bringing the number of French battleships up to thirty-eight, a total that would insure France fourth place among the naval powers of the world. It is proposed to lay down in 1910 two 21,000 ton vessels of an enlarged Danton type.
The armament has not yet been decided upon, but the Council is in favor of twelve 12-inch guns in six turrets, those aft to be superposed. The naval artillery experts, however, have brought forward arguments in favor of sixteen 10.8-inch guns in eight turrets.
All of which will mean squat to the men in Verdun some seven years later.
When govco discovers that the masses aren't remitting as expected it turns to long-forgotten means with which to extract the resources it so desperately needs. An example comes from today's Sporting News Today:
Some Bears season ticket holders were surprised to receive a notice saying they owe a city-issued amusement tax on seat licenses purchased up to seven years ago, according to the Chicago Tribune. A Bears spokesman, who says the team was unaware of the tax or the certified letters that were mailed out, says the franchise is looking into the issue.
The city always planned to levy amusement taxes on Chicago Bears season ticket licenses, a city Department of Revenue spokesman said Thursday.
Ed Walsh also said a 7 percent amusement tax was paid by the Bears on the initial sales of the permanent seat licenses between late 2002 and early 2003. The amusement tax was raised to 9 percent this year.
"The amusement tax is applicable when a license is sold," Walsh said. "The tax burden is on the purchaser. This includes initial sales and re-sales, as any amount paid for the right to witness a game is subject to the tax."
Just before 3:00pm today, the Gourmet Beer Bill was brought up by the chair and we passed the Senate by a vote of 19-9. The House concurred with the amended Senate version just before 5:00pm. The amendment attempts to restrict beer with an ABV over 6% from being sold in convenience stores.
Celebrations are certainly in order, but we're not done yet.
At this point, we need the governor to sign the bill. Governor Bob Riley has two options:
He signs the bill and it becomes law.
He doesn't sign the bill and it doesn't become law.
There's no real veto at this point, thanks to the Constitutional "pocket veto" power of the governor this late in the session. The fate of our bill is solely in Governor Riley's hands.
Because of this, we're asking everyone to call, email, and/or fax the Governor's office asking him to sign HB373, the Gourmet Beer Bill.
I just talked to our political grassroots point-man, Dan Roberts. I think he put it best: "If that nice lady that answers the phone in Riley's office doesn't get sick of us and disconnect the phone, we're not doing enough."
One of the Governor's former staffers is a supporter, and offered the following advice:
The volume of letters and phone calls that he receives on a particular issue is reported to him every morning, and he takes them seriously. ... A couple quick points: They have a pretty sophisticated constituent database, so multiple calls/mail from the same person won't accomplish much. They report to him the number of persons, not the number of communications. Any arguments that sounds like something the gambling folks would say should be avoided ("People go over state lines to do it anyway..."). You don't want to equate yourself with those guys in his mind. Arguments about personal liberty and economic development will probably have more sway. Pointing out the surrounding states that allow it will also be helpful. The fact that GA, NC, SC, and WV have passed these bills in the past couple years is persuasive.
The May 11, 1909 prints a letter to the editor that attempts to distinguish among the various Socialist movements:
Materialistic Socialists, alienated from religion by such religious leaders and teachers as Mr. Haldeman, set as their goal the material well-being of the masses. This is precisely why Christian Socialists so designate themselves, and sedulously seek to be so designated. it is not because their economics are different - the difference is not in their method, but in their motive. What is the Materialistic Socialist's goal is the Christian Socialist's first milestone, for he seeks the material advancement - the industrial enfranchisement - of the working classes chiefly as the starting point for them of a life race worth running - not, as now, a mad scramble for the bread that perisheth.
In this material advancement - that is, in the industrial justice which Socialism really means, however variously it may be defined - the Christian Socialist sees the foundation on which every man (not simply the few beneficiaries of past inequality or the present holders of favored and secluded positions) may, if he choose, live the life of Christ.
Without full Socialism, the past one hundred years has led to a dramatic increase in well-being and standards of living in the developed world (and some progress might have been made in the developing and undeveloped world as well). Notwithstanding the Romanticizing of the past, today's world includes so many diversions and opportunities for leisure that it is not clear whether the majority of us would want to actually be "industrially enfranchised."
What I found interesting upon reading the letter is that writer feels the need to distinguish one brand of (low?) Socialism which seeks to use coercion and theft to provide bread alone and another brand of (higher) Socialism which seeks to use coercion and theft to provide bread and circuses. According to the letter-writer, the latter form is to be lauded more because, ostensibly, the ability to address "industrial justice" is simply a matter of organization not a matter of understanding how wealth is generated by individuals not by "the masses."
If the letter was written only to Socialists, perhaps the letter writer can get away with the assumption that Socialism will work in its broad goals; after all, preaching to the choir does not require addressing first premises. However, a letter directed toward a general (i.e., non-Socialist) audience would seem to require stronger evidence in support of the coercion and theft required to introduce and maintain any form of Socialism.
The New York Times reports that at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday night, comedian Wanda Sykes said about one of the President's prominent critics: "I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?”
Really? Wanda, I wish you hadn't said that. Try visiting a dialysis clinic and you'll see why it isn't funny. I'm hard to offend, but that offends me. I'm going to have a hard time finding you funny from here on. Kidney failure is something you shouldn't wish on anyone, even for laughs.
The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.
Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.
The May 6, 1909 NYT has an interesting letter to the editor:
The only relief in sight from existing conditions [concerning the consumption of high-alcohol drinks such as "whisky, cocktails, and various other mixed drinks"], lies, in my opinion, in the imposition of a virtually prohibitive Governmental tax on all highly alcoholic liquors, whose increased cost would have a tendency to lessen their use by the masses. This would have the effect of an increased consumption of milder beverages like beer and wine and would mitigate the evil. To abolish it is impossible.
You can prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks by law, but you cannot prevent their use, even if you make their use a crime.
On the one hand the author wishes to impose prohibitive taxation to alter behavior - looking for a substitution effect - but ignores the possible "scale" effect that individuals might drink more beer or wine in order to obtain the same level of "bliss" that the harder liquors provide.
The author then argues that prohibitions will not work - as the country will so ably prove over the next twenty odd years in the case of alcohol and is still proving today in the context of illicit drugs.
However, what is the difference between prohibitive taxation and prohibition? Granted, when facing two bad choices of taxation versus prohibition, taxation might be marginally more efficient (from society's point of view) as evading a tax is more likely to be penalized with a monetary fine whereas violating a prohibition is more likely to lead to incarceration and the associated social costs of that incarceration.
Both policies increase the expected and actual costs of consumption from the point of view of the consumer, and as such will price at least some individuals out of the market for the good - perhaps driving individuals to substitute goods. However, there is an additional cost to such policies because in both cases sime consumers, in their quest to obtain an arbitrarily expensive or banned product, face increased risk of consuming an adulterated product, the so-called "bathtub gin" problem, which might prove more dangerous than the original "sin."
When open markets are closed, whether through taxation or prohibition, many of the self-reienforcing mechanisms that consumers take for granted are likewise lost. Under-appreciated elements of the open market such as contestability (that is, the threat of entry and competition), reputation, self-imposed quality and innovation, and, ultimately, the threat of legal action for maltreatment of consumers, are all lost when either prohibitive taxation or prohibition is employed.
The letter writer makes a plea against prohibition, something that might be gaining more traction in today's world, but makes the mistake of assuming that behavior of the masses can be materially and permanently manipulated through arbitrary taxation. Unfortunately, this philosophy is alive and well in our modern world.
The professed aim of the Socialists, or the one as to which most of them are, so far as we can make out, most nearly agreed, is the abolition of certain kinds of private ownership and of competition. The reason for the adoption of this aim that most of them advance is that private property, in the hands of its actual owners, is made the source of infinite wrong to the people generally; that it stimulates greed and injustice and cruelty and dishonesty; that it makes men heedless of the rights of others, and of the law which is intended to protect those rights; and that it gives rise to a system of organized plunder, under the form of law sometimes, often in violation of the law, by which the rich grow richer and the poor become poorer. They - the Socialists - insist that under the demoralizing and perverting influence of absolute ownership, the wealthy constantly evade their obligations to their fellows, and especially that they resort to every means acute and highly paid brains can devise to shift their share of the burdens of the cost of Government to the shoulders of the helpless poor. Competition the Socialists regard as a system that aids in the attainment of these ends, arming the rich, disarming the poor, reinforcing the strong, tending to make the weak helpless.
It seems that the current administration takes a similar view to competition. Whether in the area of consumer credit, student loans, home mortgages, health care, foreign profits, K-12 education, radio and print media, tax breaks for the "rich," "corporate greed," financial industry "stress tests," or any number of other issues, the continuing mantra that the private sector is fundamentally flawed and that it can only be efficiently replaced by the benevolent bureaucracy of the Federal and State governments seems to fit nicely with the characterization offered by the NYT editorial.
Free-market philosophy seems to be against the ropes at the moment; perhaps it will be for the next few years. However, when the ponzi scheme is revealed, whether through bureaucratic rationing or through massive overt and covert taxation, will the political will exist to roll back the regulations and policies that the current generation of politicians are using to purchase their continued employment?
I seem remember President Clinton referring to his early years in Hot Springs, Arkansas, as having some impact on his life. To be honest, I didn't pay that much attention.
But if true, then an event that merited four lines in the May 5, 1909 NYT might have yielded such unintended consequences:
LITTLE ROCK - The Senate, by a vote of 27 to 12, today passed the Wadley bill, permitting racing at Hot Springs. The bill will be reported to the House tomorrow.
Larry Summers's nap at a White House meeting yesterday has been circulated around ye olde internet. Here's hoping he's started a trend of nice long siestas among Washington officials at both ends of Penn. Ave. It's hard to imagine we'd be much worse off. The Congressional Effect Fund seems to bear out my thinking.
While I'm being snarky about politics ...
... here's a brickbat for Dick Morris. The title of his recent column is "Obama’s leap to socialism." Excuse me--that's no leap--it's Obama's true character as was abundantly clear during last year's campaign.
... and here's a swipe at Obama's Cuba policy. From a news report: "Obama administration lifted restrictions Monday on Cuban-Americans who want to travel and send money to their island homeland." Fantastic, but what if I--not a Cuban American--want to travel to Cuba? And isn't it unconstitutional to enact policies based on nationality and the like? Surely one couldn't pass a law saying that Cuban American must pay higher income tax rates just for being Cuban American. In fact, isn't there a cottage industry of lawyers who bring suit over policies that don't explicitly single out some group or another but supposedly have "disparate impact"? Maybe I should find one and file suit against Obama's policy on grounds that it has disparate impact on non-Cuban Americans. (Snark aside, I suspect the weasel wording that avoids the legal problems is a reference to relatives living in Cuba not to being Cuban American per se.)
The April 23, 1909 NYT published the following letter:
A man with a moderate fixed salary finds it impossible now to support his family decently with the high price of food, clothing, and rent. Those in this class, and it comprises the bulk of the country's population, read of the wild extravagance of Congress, but don't seem to realize that they are taxed for it; that if it was not for this wicked extravagance the cost of their living would be greatly reduced; that there would be no deficit in the Treasury, and that food, beef, mutton, poultry, butter, eggs, etc. would be brought into the country free of duty.
Now, on top of all of this, comes the prospect of dearer bread.
State Senator Timothy Sullivan is not wholly unreasonable in his contention that $1,500 per year is poor pay for Assemblymen and Senators, though he oversteps the bounds of reason when he declares that amount of wages would hardly pay a street cleaner...Some of the competent and earnest men in both houses are worth more. But on the whole the State pays a pretty high price for its annual lawmaking, considering the result. The Legislature as a body is worth no more than it is paid. Doubtless it is not worth as much as it gets. Whether or not better service could be obtained for larger salaries, under present political conditions, is an open question.
The April 21, 2009 NYT reports on tax policy as seen through the eyes of President Taft:
President Taft agrees with Senator Aldrich that no new form of taxation will be necessary or advisable in case the Tariff Bill, as finally enacted, will raise sufficient revenue to meet the expenses of the Government. In case additional revenue is necessary, the President is in favor of trying first an inheritance tax, and next an excise tax on corporations.
How refreshing that the President didn't want to tax for taxation's sake.
An income tax is the kind of additional revenue measure least of all favored by Mr. Taft. In fact, he is of the opinion that such an income tax is undesirable, because, in the first place, it would fly directly in the face of the Supreme Court, and, in the next place, it would be a direct incentive to perjury. Certain men would be sure to evade it by perjury, while others paid it honestly, and it would be an unequal tax.
The President does not mention, or at least it wasn't reported, the incentive to avoid, rather than the more distasteful (from the government's point of view) evade, an income tax. One wonders if Taft is taking a merely pragmatic view that the perjury would reduce the ability to collect the tax or if he is making a moral pronouncement.
In that event [that there is insufficient revenue raised by the Tariff bill] his effort would be to secure the adoption of the inheritance tax. He believes that an inheritance tax is the most certain of collection and the easiest of all forms of additional taxation suggested.
It is true that dead men tell no lies, thus the perjury concern is probably off the table in the case of an inheritance tax. However, there is still an incentive to avoid the inheritance tax or at least the incentive to reduce the impact of the tax on one's estate. Again, no mention of avoidance.
If the Federal inheritance tax is not to be tried, then the President is in favor of an excise tax on the profits of corporations. He is convinced that it would entirely constitutional, and that no great difficulty would be experienced in its collection.
As if corporations are black boxes rather than being managed by the same households about which the the President expresses perjury concerns? Excise taxes on corporate profits are simply profits on the individuals who hold the residual claims on the firm. Supposedly the corporate profits tax is a path of less resistance but a corporate profit tax is still distortionary and creates incentives to avoid the tax.
Taft then hits a theme that sounds rather similar to today:
Mr. Taft agrees with Senator Aldrich in the effort to reduce expenses and has told his callers that he would back the Senator to the limit in everything aimed at that end. He thinks that there could be great savings in the War and Navy Departments. He has been informed by navy officers that consolidation of the bureau work in the navy yards will save at least $5,000,000 a year. The President means to go at this question of reducing expenditures with the greatest possible vigor.
Perhaps there was a culture of "small g" government in the early 1900s which would give Taft's words credibility. On the other hand, generally speaking vigorously trying to reduce the expenditures of the government in one area seems to be offset by vigorous increasing expenditures in other areas.
I'd Take the Tea Party Movement More Seriously If ...
... the one in Rome didn't feature a congressman who scored a paltry 52% on the Club for Growth's RePork Card. The congressman isn't the solution--he's part of the problem (though, to be fair, he's not alone and is hardly the most egregious).
The headline provided by Real Clear Politics says it all: "Poor, Black School Kids Don't Pay Union Dues." The rest of this article is details, but they're telling details.
Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the Financial Services Committee, told a hometown crowd in Alabama today he believes there are several socialists in the House.
Actually, he says there are exactly 17 socialists in the House of Representatives.
Source. A more accurate count would be something around 400, perhaps including Rep. Bachus.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - The State Senate to-day passed a bill placing a heavy penalty on persons drinking intoxicants on trains in the State or on station platforms. This will probably affect buffet cars, although intended only to stop rowdyism.
In Britain, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) reviews new medical treatments to determine whether or not a treatment's effectiveness justifies its price tag. Based on this assessment, NICE recommends whether new treatments should be covered under the country's public health care system, the National Health Service. Most of the time the NHS makes those recommendations hard-and-fast policy. As a result, NHS physicians are often prohibited from prescribing newer, more expensive treatments because NICE has determined they're not worth the cost.
Headline News just reported about a letter sent to President Obama by a couple of young girls asking why it is taking Congress so long to help people like their father, who is looking for work. The dark cloud: after piles of government make-work programs, the state might get numerous devotees and fans for life. The silver lining: maybe massive state failures will cause crises of faith among young statists.
Libertarianism has much to offer our political discourse, but every belief system has its dogma, its blind spots. Libertarianism classically has two:
1. Government is the only agent of oppression.
2. Government can do nothing right.
Hmmmm....well this libertarian believes the following:
1. Only people can be agents of oppression. All people in government are agents of oppression; people engaged in market exchanges are never agents of oppression; people not in government or in markets are sometimes agents of oppression (theives) and sometimes not (friends).
2. People in government can do the right thing or the wrong thing, but either way, only by violating my freedom.
This letter to Edward Liddy addresses at least three questions:
1. Why do we need to give the AIG executives bonuses? After all, do they really have any alternatives?
2. Didn't they just lose a bunch of money, and now they want to be compensated for incompetence?
3. What are the identities of two of the thugs who are leading this witch hunt?
That's the title of today's superb column by George Will. Here are three paragraphs but read the whole thing:
TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories."
Another embarrassing auditor of American misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America's high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also decorously but clearly expressed sensible fears that his country's $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.
From Mexico, America is receiving needed instruction about fundamental rights and the rule of law. A leading Democrat trying to abolish the right of workers to secret ballots in unionization elections is California's Rep. George Miller who, with 15 other Democrats, in 2001 admonished Mexico: "The secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Last year, Mexico's highest court unanimously affirmed for Mexicans the right that Democrats want to strip from Americans.
I wondered why ABC News would spend 2 1/2 minutes of their Sunday night broadcast interviewing the granddaughter of Bank of America's founder, who trashed current management. No suggestion was made that she has any expertise. Then this article ("Cuomo wins ruling to name Merrill bonus recipients") made it clear. Andrew Cuomo is, of course, the brother of Chris Cuomo of ABC News.
Everybody makes mistakes, and I made a beaut the other day. I was wrong to call members of Congress blow-hards and buffoons and declare them worse than useless.
I was too kind.
I should have said our representatives are gangsters in pinstripes and pearls. They are petty tyrants and the more power they grab, the more at risk we are. Homeland Security should flash Code Red any time this Congress is in session.
[...]
The House vote to use the tax code to retroactively punish bonus babies was an act of sheer madness. What started as phony outrage at AIG has crossed the line into insane policy. It is stunning that the vote was lopsided and bipartisan.
[...]
That Congress is a gang of cheap connivers is not news. Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, Charles Grassley, Barney Frank - they have been national embarrassments for years.
But now they are dangerous, emboldened by public fear and anger. They know nothing, but have power and smell opportunity for more.
Missing in action is the Barack Obama who vowed to unite the country around common values. Lately he has been the very opposite of the man he promised. Instead of hope, many have a growing fear of the arrogant government he leads.
Obama is smart, quick and charming, and, as he showed on "The Tonight Show," owner of a thousand-watt smile he can deploy at will. He silkily manages to make the ridiculous sound reasonable.
Charles Murray is back on ground that he covered in his second (and, of the ones I've read, best) book, In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government. Here's the central paragraph, plus one sentence:
For some years a metaphor has been stuck in my mind: The 20th century was the adolescence of Homo sapiens. Nineteenth-century science, from Darwin to Freud, offered a series of body blows to ways of thinking about human life that had prevailed since the dawn of civilization. Humans, just like adolescents, were deprived of some of the comforting simplicities of childhood and exposed to more complex knowledge about the world. And 20th-century intellectuals reacted precisely the way adolescents react when they think they have discovered that Mom and Dad are hopelessly out of date. It was as if they thought that if Darwin was right about evolution, then Aquinas was no longer worth reading; that if Freud was right about the unconscious mind, then the Nicomachean Ethics had nothing to teach us.
The nice thing about adolescence is that it is temporary, and when it passes, people discover that their parents were smarter than they thought.
I don't think Krauthammer hammers enough on the rank indecency of the posturing over the AIG bonuses, but he gets in some zingers. Two follow:
It is time for the president to state the obvious: This recession is not caused by excessive executive compensation in government-controlled companies. The economy has been sinking because of a lack of credit, stemming from a general lack of confidence, stemming from the lack of a plan to detoxify the major lending institutions, mainly the banks, which, to paraphrase Willie Sutton, is where the money used to be.
Free trade is the one area where the world indisputably turns to Washington for leadership. What does it see? Grandstanding, parochialism, petty payoffs to truckers and a rush to mindless populism. Over what? Over 97 Mexican trucks -- and bonus money that comes to what the Yankees are paying for CC Sabathia's left arm.
Talented political performer that he is, Obama primed the audience by promising that Caterpillar would give some workers their jobs back if Congress passed the rescue plan.
"The chairman and CEO of Caterpillar said that if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan passes, his company would be able to rehire some of those employees," Obama said in a speech in Virginia yesterday.
Caterpillar Inc. on Tuesday announced plans to lay off more than 2,400 employees at five plants in Illinois, Indiana and Georgia as the heavy equipment maker continues to cut costs amid the global economic downturn.
Among the affected workers are 1,726 people at plants in Illinois. They include 911 workers at a plant in East Peoria that makes track-type tractors and pipelayers and 815 at a plant in Aurora, where the company produces hydraulic excavators and wheel loaders. Caterpillar notified the employees Tuesday of the layoffs which are expected to last at least six months starting in June.
Wonder if these jobs are some of the ones that the stimulus plan was supposed to save.
The March 18, 1909 NYT reports on the development of Maxim's silencer for firearms:
Who shall be authorized to carry and use firearms equipped with Mr. Hudson Maxim's "silencer"? No private person, surely. A true sportsman would not use it, and the "pot hunter" must be forbidden to hunt silently. The burglar, the highway robber, and the Black Hand assassin are the only other persons to whom it could be of advantage...
We therefore see a reason for the passage of Assemblyman Joseph's bill making it a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years, to make or sell the instrument for duly authorized military or civic organizations, or to have or to carry it concealed upon the person.
When the silencer is outlawed, only outlaws will have silencers?
I wonder if the editorial suggests that the pot hunter should forbidden to hunt silently because to do so would pose a negative externality on others. When a gun is fired by the pot hunter did the report serve as a warning to others in the area that someone was blasting away? The only other reason I can see is to provide a warning to the other (non human) animals in the area.
More seriously, I always find it interesting that our problems are not new - gun control issues have evidently been with us for quite some time.
After my recent post showing North Dakota's "deficit hawk" Sen. Kent Conrad holding up a copy of the Obama budget with a big grin on his face, I was pleased to see Kim Strassel's column in today's WSJ. It's good to see a big media platform like the WSJ digging into Sen. Conrad's fiscal conservative phoney baloney; there's even a picture of the senator grinning holding up the Obama budget.
In a recent Gallup Poll [conducted in certain countries outside the US] ... more than 85 percent of [adherents to a certain religion] surveyed said they believe democracy is the best form of government. Thus, they are not interested in imposing their views on others but wish to live according to the teachings of their religion while respecting people of other religions or opinions.
How does belief in democratic selecting the government imply disinterest in imposing one's views on others? If members of a single religious group are in the majority, can't they use majority rule to elect legislators who will impose their views and their restrictions on others?
They can. This been famously emphasized by Fareed Zakaria in his warnings about the dangers of illiberal democracy.
The 1909 inauguration of William Howard Taft was not a pleasant experience, either for Democrats or for the bystanders. As reported in the March 6, 1909 NYT, "[t]he results of the exposure are to be found in the crowded conditions of the hospitals to-day, scores having been taken ill because of the weather." The story goes on to report:
Speaker Cannon agreed to-day to assist in the movement for change [of the inauguration date]. Two bills have passed the Senate in times gone, the date in each being fixed for the last Thursday in April. The speaker believes, however, that this date is not late enough, and favors the substitution of May 1.
"That would give more assurance of fair weather," he said to-day, "for April showers are proverbially uncertain. As a Representative in Congress i will lend my efforts to having the change put into effect."
If this had been accomplished, we might have had three more months of Bushco, to the dismay of Obamaco, but then we might have actually heard rather than just watched Yo Yo Ma play his cello.
Last summer, ND Sen. Kent Conrad said, "President Bush will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history."
Well, here's Sen. Conrad yesterday holding a copy of the Obama budget calling for huge spending increases and large budget deficits. Compared to this budget, President Bush's spending looks downright miserly. So, Sen. Conrad, why the big grin?
ADDENDUM: Below is a statement from Sen. Conrad's website; it's rather hard to square this statement with his grin about the Obama budget.
Senator Conrad is particularly concerned about the soaring federal debt that is forecast for the nation's long-term budget outlook. He believes that reducing this debt burden is essential to the future strength of the nation's economy. Over time, large deficits and debt will raise interest rates, crowd out private sector investment, and slow long-term economic growth.
ADDENDUM2: A better title for this post would have been "A Deficit Chicken Hawk."
Don Boudreaux comments on one aspect of this NYTimes story. Here's another:
The New York Times reported yesterday that the softness sought in toilet paper by Americans is wiping out forests. After all, paper doesn't grow on trees. Oh wait, it does. and that's the problem.
[...]
Swooping in to save the day are Wallypop toilet wipes, a reusable cloth product. The sales pitch: They're comfy and environmentally friendly. You can use them wet, and they won't fall apart.
The column concludes:
The company admits there's "a certain ick factor involved." Indeed. If you try this at home, let us know how everything comes out.
Maybe we should bring back corncobs. The increased demand for corn might provide political cover for a reduction in the ethanol subsidy.
Oops. I should have seen Frank's entry before posting this.
Is there any sense of irony in the Federal Government?
Programs, agencies, OMB, and the new, $84 million Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board (see p. 175 of the bill) are all required to report on the progress of spending, often on different timetables. In fact, according to new OMB guidance, there are eight levels of reporting that are now required, with the first report from agencies due March 3.
For real? The RAAT Board? Of course, it would have to be pronounced "the rat board"?
The strength stocks have shown lately vanished on Tuesday as the government unveiled a new bank-rescue plan and congressional action neared on a fresh round of fiscal stimulus for the wheezing U.S. economy.
Investors bid up stocks last week in anticipation of the plan's unveiling and were quick to unload them after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner revealed details of the package in a late-morning speech and the Senate passed the stimulus measure.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was recently off about 345 points, or 4.2%, at 7927. Bank of America was its weakest stock, dropping 18%, and Citigroup was off more than 12%. But all 30 of the blue-chip average's components were in the red. The S&P 500 tumbled 4.4% to trade near 832. All its sectors fell, led by an 8.4% slide in financials. The Nasdaq Composite Index slid 3.5% to 1535.
Source. Can we get a hippocratic oath for politicians?
Michael Phelps ... has violated the law. ... [H]e admitted the crime. The same crime for which the better part of a million people were arrested last year.
Shouldn’t Phelps be charged? Along with President Obama and his two predecessors, all of whom, it seems, used illegal drugs? If not, perhaps it is time to have a serious debate about the drug laws.
[...]
[H]undreds of thousands of Americans ended up in jail for doing precisely what Michael Phelps did: lighting up. Roughly three-quarters of those arrested for marijuana offenses were, like Phelps, under 30. With most of their lives ahead of them, they face the greatest harm from prosecution under the drug laws.
So why shouldn’t Phelps go to jail?
To ask the question is to answer it. While smoking pot may be a stupid thing to do for many reasons—risking adverse health effects, endangering endorsements, undermining Phelps’s status as a celebrity role model—he hurt no one but himself. He could have been photographed while drunk and stumbling out of a party, and it would have been no different. Bad press and angry sponsors would have forced an abject apology, and everyone would have moved on. Just like with his marijuana hit.
The Feb. 5, 1909 NYT provides a draw from the "Because I want it so" drawer:
A reduction of 2 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity in Brooklyn is provided for in a bill introduced to-day by Senator Cullen. The bill reduces the price from 12 to 10 cents, making it uniform in the Boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn. The measure was referred to the Cities Committee, notwithstanding the protest of the introducer, who desired that it be referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Corporations.
The "Committee of Miscellaneous Corporations"? Such a committee actually existed and was given that name?!? I understand that mandating lower prices for Brooklyn might have been seen as a "populist" stance, but how could Mr. Cullen have known what the optimal price for electricity was at the time? What would Mr. Cullen have done if such a law killed the infant electricity industry in its crib? I am sure he would have been outraged that the good "hard working" citizens of Brooklyn were being unfairly denied access to the life-improving, indeed in cases life-saving, service of electricity.
Today's s national average cost per kilowatt hour? 11.96 cents (not adjusted for inflation).
There was a time when K Street was just another street in Washington, DC. There was a time when it was less need to send "representatives" to Washington to lobby for and against legislation, there was less need to have "a man in Washington" to watch your six. There was a time when the Legislature wasn't used to tell others what to do with their private property.
Then along came "Populism" and the perception those with "too much" private property would use this property to harm others, to steal from others, to deny others their basic necessities. The cure was to use the Legislature to tell others what to do with their private property. This, in turn, created an incentive for those being attacked to "defend themselves" from the Legislature. It is reasonable for private property owners to respond in this manner, although I might be confusing cause and effect in certain instances.
Unfortunately, once the fixed costs of protecting property rights from the Legislature were borne, the marginal cost of shifting form the "defensive" to the "offensive" in Washintong. That is, using lobbyists, political contributions, graft, and other (perhaps even more objectionable) means to use the Legislature to protect or create profit potential, to erect entry barriers and increase the costs of potential and actual competitors, to finalize the creation of the "mixed economy."
The Feb. 5, 1909 NYT reports on the birth of such an "organization" in the wall paper industry:
Thirty manufacturers of wall paper, representing the largest wall paper mills in the country, met yesterday in the Hotel Victoria and organized the Wall Paper Manufacturers' Association of the United States. A call for the meeting had been sent to practically all the heads of wall paper manufacturing companies in the country, and nearly all responded...
A chief object of the association, outside of its social features, will be to keep the manufacturers posted on legislation and other matters likely to affect the trade. Committees are to be appointed to investigate conditions and, if possible, to prevent injurious or unwise legislation.
When the Congressional Committee was hearing arguments on the tariff, for instance, the wall paper manufacturers were deeply concerned, but, owing to the lack of organization, only a few individual manufacturers went to Washington to present their cases before the committee. Had the association of wall paper manufacturers been in existence then, its organizers say, a committee of much authority would have been sent to argue on behalf of a membership representing practically all of the wall paper plants in the country.
And so it began in the wall paper industry and a similar story was told in any number of other industries. One hundred years later not much seems to have changed.
The Democrats always rail against tax cheats, and complain that the rich don't pay their share of taxes, etc. etc. Now it appears from the President's cabinet nominees that every third Democrat doesn't pay his or her taxes. And why is it that they all seem to have nannies, drivers, and seven figure family incomes?
Meanwhile, Republicans are the party of public morals and opposition to free love and gay sex. Just ask Senator Craig and Representative Foley. Yet they get all the juicy sex scandals.
I'm sure there is some hidden message here. Your homework is to write a 500 word essay on the topic.
Not 1 but 2--Daschle and Nancy Killefer who apparently is yet Obama appointee with tax problems. It seems that Mark Perry's cartoon of the day is spot on.
Sorry, Bob. It's not a Cinemax title. Launched officially today, it's the cool new wiki that lets you search, evaluate, and "vote" for individual line items proposed for the the stimulus package. Brought to you by our friends Jerry Brito and Eileen Norcross. With details here.
By John Hasnas, posted on his website. What does it feel like to be a libertarian these days?
I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with a level of frustration that is nearly beyond human endurance. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events.
[...]
I remember attending a lecture at Georgetown in the mid-1990s given by a member of the libertarian Cato Institute in which he predicted that, unless changed, government policy would trigger an economic crisis by 2006. That prediction was obviously ideologically-motivated alarmism. After all, the crisis did not occur until 2008.
Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.
ATSRTWT. Don't be fooled by John's brevity. There is much packed into few words here. Well worth the read. And well worth saving these ideas!
When Having One Tax Cheat in Your Cabinet Isn't Enough ...
Tom Daschle, President Barack Obama's choice for secretary of Health and Human Services, paid about $140,000 in back taxes and interest after questions surfaced during the vetting of his nomination, according to documents being prepared by the Senate Finance Committee.
Mr. Daschle made the payments to cover a luxury car and driver provided to him by an investment firm where he was an adviser after leaving the U.S. Senate in 2005, but which he didn't report as income, people familiar with the report said. The payments also covered unreported consulting income and unwarranted charitable deductions. The tax period covered 2005 through 2007.
to be shocked, that is. Lobbyists won't be marginalized after all, according to this AP release.
President Barack Obama's ban on earmarks in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill doesn't mean interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't be able to funnel money to pet projects.
They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.
[...]
"'No earmarks' isn't a game-ender," said Peter Buffa, former mayor of Costa Mesa, Calif. "It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there."
It won't be in legislative language that overtly sets aside money for them. That's the infamous practice known as earmarking, which Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to nix for the massive stimulus package, expected to come up for a House vote this week.
Instead, the money will be doled out according to arcane formulas spelled out in the bill and in some cases based on the decisions of Obama administration officials, governors and state and local agencies that will choose the projects.
I felt left out when I didn't make the list of ethics free Republican hacks like Ed and some other folks I know. So try, try again.
In his inauguaral address, President Obama called for a "new era of responsibility." This from the president who wants an $800B "stimulus package" (The Real Voodoo Economics) and plans for deficit spending in excess of $1 trillion.
There was also some blather about ""our collective failure to make hard choices." This is offensive. For example, my wife and I have bought two houses, making a large downpayment on both. We've been aggressively saving for retirement (only to see our savings nearly halved by the Fed and the pols). The fact that many other citizens and our spendthrift pols have not similarly lived within their means does not make me complicit in their failure. Alas, genuinely responsible chumps people are likely the ones who will bear the cost of Obama's grandiose schemes.
This, on the inauguration of The One who will, inter alia, reverse the trend toward global warming:
The carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration could exceed 575 million pounds of CO2. According to the Institute for Liberty, it would take the average U.S. household nearly 60,000 years of naughty ecological behavior to produce a carbon footprint equal to the largest self-congratulatory event in the history of humankind.
The Jan 9, 1909 NYT reports on a very different approach to announcing the incoming cabinet than the current "Office of the President-elect":
The Taft-Knox Cabinet conference is over and the Pennsylvania Senator is to-night on his way back to Washington. Neither the President-elect nor his adviser will discuss the result, and it is strongly hinted by Mr. Taft to-night that his Cabinet will be made known for the first time when he sends the names of the men who are to compose it to the Senate for confirmation after March 4.
There is more to the story, primarily discussing the Taft will attend a barbecue in South Carolina and that Governor-elect Joe Brown of Georgia had visited with Taft.
Perhaps it is better to release the names of the proposed cabinet members earlier than later so that the public and those with axes to grind in Congress can have time to amass their arguments against any proposed cabinet member. Moreover, there might be Richardson-like outcomes of a nomination that any president-elect would rather have occur before the actual nomination hearings or votes occur.
Nevertheless, given the extended announcements and bromide-filled press conferences held by the new species "Office of the President-elect" over the past two months, Taft's approach might have been preferred.
The Post Office Department is now engaged in an effort to collect $16 from Senator Tillman in postage on a typewriter, which he franked from his home in South Carolina to Washington recently.
Yesterday the department had a letter from him refusing to pay, and saying that the department could burn up the machine or do what it liked with it, as it was Government property and he would not pay postage on it.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. - County school teachers here have not received their pay because the Biltmore estate failed to pay its $24,000 county taxes as expected. The county authorities have cabled Mr. Vanderbilt direct at Paris.
In the past Mr. Vanderbilt has paid half his taxes in December and half in January, and the estate office promised to make such payment this year. The taxes on an assessment of two and a half millions on Biltmore village and the estate proper were due in October.
I do not know what the operating budget of Buncombe County was in 1909, but I would wager it was considerably more than $24,000 per year. To blame the failure to pay teachers on a single tax payer is pathetic but, I suppose, rather Progressive.
Google search of blogs shows Greg Mankiw has picked this up, but I didn't find it elsewhere, so here goes. By email forward from Veronique de Rugy:
Subject: WANTED: STIMULUS SPENDING SKEPTICS
OBAMA AIDES SAY “ONLY ONE OUTSIDE ECONOMIST” HAS EXPRESSED SKEPTICISM ABOUT MASSIVE STIMULUS SPENDING PLAN
An AP story this morning (Kuhnhenn, Jim; “Obama Considers $1 Trillion Plan to Jolt Economy,” Associated Press, 18 Dec 08) indicates President-elect Obama and his advisors are contemplating an economic “stimulus” spending bill with a price tag as large as $1 trillion, with the vast majority of that number going to new spending on government programs and projects. The article quotes Obama transition officials as saying “[o]nly one outside economist contacted by Obama aides. . .voiced skepticism” about the President-elect’s emerging spending plans.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is compiling a list of credentialed American economists who would like to add their voices to the list of stimulus spending skeptics. If you know of an economist who would like to be added to this list, please visit http://gopleader.gov/jobs. The page includes a contact form that allows readers to sign up and submit comments. Please be aware that information submitted through the webpage can, and most likely will, be shared publicly.
Bill Greene
Republican Leader’s Office
202-225-4000
Here is Tyler Cowen "driving home the point" that there is no evidence to support the putative economic benefits of stimulus spending.
You might want see how your neighbors are making out. In my home county, four members of one family accounted for about one-third of the USDA subsidies.
... if the media will stop drooling over Caroline Kennedy long enough to point out that she has less experience than the (somewhat deservedly) maligned Sarah Palin. I'm not sure experience is a good thing, but if it's a fair charge to raise against Palin then it should be a fair charge to raise against Kennedy.
... if we'll hear anything about Bernie Madoff (and other Madoffs who I assume are related to him) making political contributions to Democrats (including Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer) in the same way we heard about George Bush's ties to "Kenny Boy" Lay in the wake of Enron's collapse.
Most Americans continue to oppose a government-backed rescue plan for Detroit's Big Three automakers as majorities blame the industry for its own problems and are unconvinced failure would hurt the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Maybe they think G. W. Bailout will not read that deeply into the paper. Maybe they're right.
Congratulations to Jeff Daiell, who won the Essay Contest I sponsored earlier this month. Jeff won a copy of Buchanan and Tullock's The Calculus of Consent, and I learned a lot. Thanks for all the entries (a few dozen or so). And for people who are interested, I did vote (and then chose a winner after the fact). Jeff's winning essay is below the fold.
Refuting The Arguments Against Libertarians Voting
Copyright 2004 by Jeff Daiell. All Rights Reserved.
I have heard two major arguments against libertarians
voting, even for explicitly and uncompromisingly
libertarian candidates. I offer these rebuttals.
Argument A. "Voting Is Immoral, As It Gives Sanction
To The System"
Rebuttals:
1. You have just received a visit from thugs
representing the neighborhood gang, who told you that
if you do not pay a certain amount each week, your
business would be firebombed. You hire a private
investigator, who infiltrates the mob, brings them
down, and saves you from their extortion.
Have you, or the investigator, "given sanction" to the
mob? Of course not. And voting for libertarian
candidates (and/or being one yourself) who will
infiltrate the ultimate gang -- The State -- does not
give sanction to the system.
2. Majority rule does not justify violating Rights
and, therefore, is not a valid way to decide what
Government will do. However, the mere fact of an
individual holding any given public office -- even if
one believes, as I do, that such offices should not
exist -- does not, -in and of itself-, violate Rights;
therefore, the use of majority (or plurality) decision
to determine who will hold any given office is morally
acceptable.
Argument B. "Don't Vote - It Only Encourages Them"
This makes for a cute bumper-sticker, but that's about
all.
Rebuttals:
1. When have you ever heard a politician -- or
Establishment pundit -- point to a *high* voter
turnout as a sign of contentment? You haven't. Low
voter turnouts, however, are often cited as evidence
the public is happy with the statist quo.
2. If statists want libertarians to vote, why do they
make it so hard for the Libertarian Party to even get
on the ballot?
3. Most laws and regulations supposedly designed to
make registration and voting easier do *not*
facilitate either process for legitimate voters, but
rather for voters not eligible (said ineligibility
being for a variety of reasons, such as having died
years before). Reforms which might well encourage
more eligible voters to go to the polls (such as
weekend elections or longer voting hours on Election
Day itself) are rarely even proposed, let alone
adopted.
Argument C. "Your Vote Doesn't Matter"
Rebuttal:
The odds that a single vote will determine who
finishes first in an election are indeed tiny. But
politicians and their handlers read the election
returns. If they think changing a policy -- or
policies -- will bring them more votes at the next
election, they'll make that change (or those changes).
This is especially true when a third-place finisher
garners a number of votes greater than the number
separating the winner from the runner-up. This is so
often true that the examples are too numerous to cite.
So, libertarians: vote! In good conscience, go vote!
I had just read this in a thoughtful column by Kevin Hassett:
The U.S. has always distinguished itself relative to its major trading partners by having a higher faith in free markets and a greater respect for the limits of big government. Sure, the U.S. passed a stimulus package now and then, but it also let failure run its course and refused to resort to excessive big- government intrusions into the private sector.
The risk is that we will forget this lesson. First we bailed out the financial companies; now President-elect Barack Obama is asking for $50 billion to bail out the auto companies, an effort backed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Next we will see a tax credit for people who buy General Motors Corp. cars at stores of bankrupt retailer Circuit City, provided they use the car to go to a Detroit Lions game.
A look at economic history suggests that the crazy policy intrusions have to stop.
Failure can be a good thing, and recessions force economic stragglers to make tough decisions. Those tough decisions set the stage for the recovery.
Then I read this in a puzzling column by Bill Kristol: "I don’t pretend to know just what has to be done. But I suspect that free-marketers need to be less doctrinaire and less simple-mindedly utility-maximizing, and that they should depend less on abstract econometric models."
Finally, a note posted below Kristol's article cleared it up: "Paul Krugman is off today." Nice of Kristol to fill in for him.
Not that it's likely to matter any time soon, but here's an excellent summary of at least one part of the ANWR debate.
The proponents of ANWR development have also distorted the picture by themselves making false arguments. First, it should be acknowledged that ANWR oil production will not in itself come close to achieving energy independence for the United States. Second, ANWR production alone will not affect oil prices significantly. Even the large reserves that ANWR possesses are not large enough, relative to the total world oil market, to have much effect on future world prices.
The real issue in ANWR is the proper use of the fiscal assets of the U.S. government. The oil there is worth, minimally, $500 billion in gross value and, potentially, $1 trillion dollars or more - depending obviously on the future world price of oil.
Obama, as it happens, won by offering voters the same thing Reagan promised: tax cuts. Most of those who supported him did so on the assumption that they would not fall in the class of people who will have to cough up more to the IRS.
Not only that, but many voted against McCain partly because Obama successfully branded his health-care program as a tax increase. Americans are willing to embrace a bigger and more expensive federal government on one condition: that it doesn't cost them anything.
In this respect, the president-elect promises a continuation of the last eight years. With the exception of the recession brought on by the financial crisis, the biggest challenge is a vast array of commitments that have outgrown our willingness to pay for them. Living within our means is not a change Americans can quite believe in. Like Bush, Obama may hope to escape two terms without taking action on that front.
With all the precincts in Missouri reporting, unofficial totals as of this morning have McCain carrying the state by only 5,868 votes over Obama. In percentage terms, the outcome was 49.4% to 49.2%. You could say that Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, with 11,355 votes (0.4%) , held the “balance of power” or was a “spoiler”. But then you’d have to say the same about Ralph Nader, who drew 17,769 votes (0.6%).
Democrat Barack Oama has a 12,000-vote lead over Republican John McCain, and Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, has 25,181 votes, or 1 percent.
I'm going to post a few thoughts as the evening progresses. Comments are open.
First up--CNN has "The Diff" in its election results.
Looks like Obama has it won; Fox has called PA and OH for him. FL, IN, NC, and VA are not yet called so Obama might take several moderate to large states from McCain.
Decent news on the gridlock front--GOP senators in GA and KY have held on and it looks like Trent Lott's seat in MS will stay GOP and there's some chance of taking a Dem seat from LA. Maybe the filibuster will still be an option.
UPDATE (9:30)--Bryan Caplan raises an issue I've been wondering about--would McCain have fared better if he had voted against the bailout? I think so.
UPDATE (9:40)--The Raleigh NC News and Observer reports co-blogger Mike Munger has 3% of the vote with 24 NC counties reporting complete results and 49 others reporting partial results.
UPDATE (10:00)--Much has been made of Starbucks giving out free coffee today (to the benefit of two of my favorite students), but Instapundit points to a shop giving out sex toys to folks who vote.
UPDATE (10:45)--Obama repeatedly charged that McCain supported tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas. What specifically was he refering to? Surely there is no tax credit or other break specifically for transferring a job from the US to overseas.
Last update of the night--Obama's large margin (13) in PA leaves me wondering why McCain spent so much time there over the past 10 days. Not that it mattered since Obama is rolling to about 375 electoral votes. Senate is Dems plus 5 with OR, MN, and AK to go.
On this election day, we do well to consider the opening of Frederic Bastiat's "The Law:"
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perveted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
I received quite a few emails about my decision to not vote. One issue was the question of whether I thought my vote matters. On this point it is important to note that my switch to non-voting status has nothing to do with whether I think my vote matters. I've always understood that my vote doesn't matter and yet I still voted previously.
The "logic" of my decision has to do with a change in my premise about the nature of voting. If your premise is that democracy is how we make decisions collectively, then there's nothing per se wrong with voting. I see nothing wrong, for example, with a group of people taking a vote to determine which restaurant to go to so long as individuals are then free to go with the group or not.
But my evolving premise is that democracy is closer to rape--that is, it is about some people forcing other people to go along with their will. Given that premise, which I consider immoral, I choose not to participate.
To be sure (1) I think someone who votes because he thinks his vote will matter is wrong as a matter of fact, but the main issue is that (2) I think someone who votes because she thinks voting is some sort of uplifting civic good needs to "check her premises" as Ayn Rand used to say.
Oh, say,
To-day
The great Bald-Headed Eagle
Roosts on the peaks remote
And screemless folds his wings and tail
To watch the People vote.
The Bird
Hasn't a word
To say
Either way.
The Declaration's thunder tones,
Which erstwhile sent a thrill
Through tyrants' hearts
And other parts,
To-day is hushed and still.
The Glorious Fourth, our natal day,
This day, has been deposed;
Its fierce uproar
Is heard no more
Until the polls are closed.
The Starry Banner of the Free
Floats silent in the sky;
And that is all -
It has no call
Except to wave on high.
The Constitution holds its breath
And dodges out of sight
Until WE say,
By vote to-day,
What is or is not right.
The Ship of State is shaking now
From mizzenmast to keel,
And all her crew are wond'ring who
Will take her by the wheel.
The Nation's glories and her gods
To-day are merely dross,
And common stuff
To make a bluff -
VOX POPULI is BOSS.
After voting in every presidential election since 1988 and almost every other election and special election since, I have decided to cut my losses. I have not registered to vote in my new state of Alabama and will not vote tomorrow or perhaps ever again.
My working metaphor for politics is gang rape. If 9 rapists and a woman are in a room and hold a vote, it's 9-1 in favor of raping the woman. If the woman doesn't vote, it's 9-0. Same result. But at least the victim doesn't have to sanctify the process that violates her rights. I am no longer going to go to the polls to give legitimacy to these criminal politicians.
Though I appreciate and agree with Brad's point that Obama is a serious threat to liberty--far more than McCain in fact. This is a case where I simply can not vote for the lesser of two evils.
I read a saying somewhere recently (where? anyone know?) that says "when faced with a choice between two evils, it is important to pick neither." Words to live by. [UPDATE: possible source: Charles Spurgeon. HT: Craig]
I sent this email replying to an email I received earlier today.
Dear X:
I care a lot more about losing our liberties than I do about our bulging waistlines. Americans should be free to eat 8000 calorie burgers and ogle all the naughty nurses they wish, and busybodies like you have no right to tell them otherwise.
Please do not solicit me again with such nonsense.
I've just been told that a restaurant called the Heart Attack Grill is going to be opening near campus. Their slogan is "Taste Worth Dying For!"
Anyone who finishes the Triple Bypass Burger gets pushed out to their car in a wheelchair by the Naughty Nurse waitresses.
I read an article saying that the Quadruple Bypass Burger has 8,000 calories. Isn't America fat enough already?? Hopefully someone on the faculty can help keep this idiocy away from our campus.
Much has been made of the respective ages of the two candidates for U.S. President in 2008. One is thought by many to be too young and one is thought by many to be too old. Is it possible to be a vigorous President at 72? Is it possible to be a wise leader at 47? We will find out the answer to one of these questions next week, but the Oct. 29, 1908 NYT reports on the ages of the prevailing "world leaders" at the time:
Theodore Roosevelt, President, United States, 50 years old.
Francis Joseph, Emperor, Austria-Hungary, 79 years old.
Porfirio Diaz, President, Mexico, 79 years old.
Leopold II, King, Belgium, 74 years old.
Armand Fallieres, President, French Republic, 67 years old.
Edward VII, King, England, 67 years old.
Frederick VIII, King, Denmark, 65 years old.
Abdul Hamid II, Sultan, Ottoman Empire, 57 years old.
The Oct. 29, 1908 NYT reports more wagering on the upcoming 1908 elections:
A number of small wagers were made in the financial district yesterday at even money on Hughes and Chanler. Bets on Taft were few and far between, but a few were placed with odds on Taft, ranging from 4 1/2 to 3 to 1.
The largest bet heard of was one made early in the day by a Hughes man, who placed $5,000 on Hughes against $4,500 on Chanler. Later several bets of $1,000 were made on the State contest.
The largest bet on the Presidential outcome was reported from the Cotton Exchange, where it was said that $3,000 Taft money had been placed against $1,000 on Bryan. One Broadway Stock Exchange house placed $1,000 on Taft against $300 of Bryan money.
Those who have followed betting in Wall Street are agreed that there has never been a Presidential contest for a generation in which the wagering has been so light. Taft money seems to be plentiful, but the odds demanded by those with cash to bet on Bryan are considered prohibitive.
A common argument in favor of voting is that it allows the voter to let his or her voice be heard in the political process, but others have argued that silence can be deafening. Take a position: should I vote or not? In 500 words or less, persuade me to do one or the other.
Entries are limited to 500 words and must be submitted by email to cardena@rhodes.edu by 6:00 AM Central Time on Tuesday, November 4. Depending on the number of entries, I reserve the right to read only the entries I have time to read. Happy writing.
Update, 3:18 PM: the entries are rolling in, and they're pretty good so far. Keep 'em coming!
The October 28, 1908 NYT reports on an interesting investment opportunity:
Speyer & Co. and the National City Bank, having charge in this country of the subscription lists for the new thirty-five year 4 1/2 per cent. sinking fund gold bonds of the Institution for Encouragement of Irrigation Works and Development of Agriculture in Mexico, announced yesterday that these lists would be closed to-day. They report a large number of subscriptions having been received from all parts of the country.
I wonder how the Institute "encouraged" irrigation in Mexico and whether the Institute actually paid off on their bonds - after all, a lot is going to happen in the next 35 years.
The October 28, 1908 NYT reports a surprising fact concerning President Roosevelt's eldest son:
The announcement from Hartford, Conn. that Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., has been promoted to the worsted room of the Hartford Carpet Company, but that his promotion carries no increase of wages, is supplemented by the statement of a close personal friend here that the weekly pay envelope of the President's eldest son contains exactly $4.50 [$104.60 in CPI adjusted 2007 dollars].
From the same source it is learned that Theodore, Jr., is likely to be advanced to $5 per week during the coming month.
The story is based on an unnamed source, which today would be (somewhat) frowned upon. However, if the story is true, the President's eldest son earned approximately $235 per year? EH.net suggests that nominal per-capita income in 1908 was about $340, which would mean that the President's namesake was paid less than the average citizen?
I am not sure I am buying this unless a) Theo, Jr. was simply a terrible worker, b) Theo, Jr. was intentionally taking a lower salary in order to "learn how the other half lives," or c) Both (a) and (b). On the other hand, perhaps Theo, Jr., was being paid considerably more than the average worker and this story is simply a viral means of deflecting from the state of privilege enjoyed by the children of politicos - especially "populist Republican" politicos as opposed to "populist Democrats" of today - about a week away from a Presidential election.
Imagine this: Barack Obama proposes a Social Security payroll tax cut for low earners. Workers earning up to $8,000 per year would receive back the full 6.2% employee share of the 12.4% total payroll tax, up to $500 per year. Workers earning over $8,000 would receive $500 each, with this credit phasing out for individuals earning between $75,000 and $85,000.
Hold on a minute--I thought the 1993 Clinton EITC expansion already offset the payroll taxes for low income workers. Indeed, this snip from The American Prospect (a lefty mag) confirms my memory:
The EITC dates to 1975. The original idea was to offset the bite of payroll taxes on low-wage workers in low-income families. Since then, the credit has been expanded considerably. There are now three different schedules: a small credit for single-person households and childless couples, a much larger credit for families with one child, and a still larger credit for families with two or more kids. And since eligibility is keyed to family income, the subsidy is quite finely targeted (rich kids with after-school jobs need not apply). As family income rises, EITC benefits initially grow, then level off, and then begin to phase out. A working parent with two children gets 40 cents in tax credit for each dollar earned up to an income level of $9,720. (These figures are for the year 2000.) The maximum annual benefit is thus $3,888. Then, starting at $12,690 in annual income for this type of family, the tax credit declines by 21 cents for each dollar earned, phasing out altogether at an annual income of $31,152. For a family with one child, the peak benefit is $2,353, and for a single person, it's $353.
Drop the payroll tax pretense--the EITC is already more than double the payroll tax (including the employer part) that low income workers pay--and call Obama's scheme the confiscation that it is.
The Oct. 22, 1908 NYT reports on a firebrand speech given by Eugene W. Chafin, who was the Prohibition candidate for president in 1908. He was giving his first speech at the Cooper Union. Some choice nuggets were reported:
"The Democratic platform is so long that it takes two newspapers to print it. It is like an old fashioned Mother Hubbard - is (sic) covers everything and touches nothing. The only difference between that and the Republican platform is that the latter looks like it was made for a child of four."
And he had this bold prediction:
This is a peculiar campaign. The people haven't yet made up their minds. Such a thing hasn't happened in forty years...Why haven't they made up their minds? they are thinking. They are not satisfied. This is the last battle of the Republican and Democratic Parties, anyway. In fact, there is no Democratic or Republican Party. It is either a Bryan or a Roosevelt party, each doing the master's bidding.
"One time in the House of Representatives [a colleague] told me a story about a proposition that a teacher put to a boy. He said, ‘Johnny, a cat fell in a well 100 feet deep. Suppose that cat climbed up 1 foot and then fell back 2 feet. How long would it take the cat to get out of the well?'
"Johnny worked assiduously with his slate and slate pencil for quite a while, and then when the teacher came down and said, ‘How are you getting along?' Johnny said, ‘Teacher, if you give me another slate and a couple of slate pencils, I am pretty sure that in the next 30 minutes I can land that cat in hell.'
"If some people get any cheer out of a $328 billion debt ceiling, I do not find much to cheer about concerning it." [Congressional Record, June 16, 1965, p. 13884].
We’ve got an antique regulatory structure. Need to put back early 20th Century laws!
McCain:
Got to do something about home values. We have to make sure that markets prices don’t adjust. Government should buy tons of houses …
[Will the economy get worse before it gets better?] Not if we give people free houses!
Healthcare
Obama:
I’m gonna reform health care, which won’t cost anything.
When we’re this wealthy, the idea that sick people should have to not spend other people’s money is an outrage. Mandate won’t hurt that much. It’s for your own good. McCain doesn’t give a crap for kids because giving a crap for anything means voting to give them things.
McCain:
Online records, improve efficiencies. Obama is all like “government this government that.” Obama will fine you if you don’t get insurance. I’ll give you tax credit you can take anywhere.
Energy and the environment
Obama:
People other than us benefit from higher oil prices, which is outrageous. … Let’s think harder about how we use energy. Holy god there is nothing more important than not trading with foreigners for energy.
We can centrally plan green economy into prosperity.
McCain:
If only we had nuclear power Indians would not weep. The French do it! America’s the best! We can do anything!
Fiscal policy
Obama:
If people make more than you, its not fair for you to have to tighten your belt.
I will cut taxes for everyone other than the despicable wealthy.
McCain:
Freeze spending, except defense, VA, entitlements, and buying every house in America.
Foreign policy
Obama:
Basically, I have no principle. I leave it at the discretion of my evolved moral intuition.
Iran can’t get nukes. But let’s talk about it.
McCain:
America is greatest force for good in history of universe forever. We shed our blood everywhere. The question of when to kill people needs to be left [to] soldiers like me. Our wars are awesome because we’re a nation of good.
We should do whatever we can to help whenever we can. I have no principle for intervention either.
I'm guessing Joe the Plumber will be getting an IRS audit next year if we have an Obama victory. On a related note, Joe the Plumber is featured in Mike Lester's cartoon in today's RNT.
Folks who doubt gridlock is good might want to check out this article (scroll down to the box) in today's WSJ. The Repubs ability to filibuster the Senate has stopped much mischief. Here's hoping the GOP, for all its flaws, can keep at least 43 Senate seats.
As most DOL readers are likely aware, tonight brings a new John Stossel special, the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics." That's must see tv at my house. 10:00 Eastern.
I'm not normally one to whine about how Americans take so little interest in the affairs of other nations. But I couldn't help noticing this morning that my daily paper, the Columbus Dispatch, did not include any mention of yesterday's parliamentary elections in Canada.
This is one of the 30 or so largest daily papers in the U.S., in the capital city of a state which shares an extensive (albeit lake) border with Canada, the United States' largest trading partner. Trade between Ohio and Canada amounts to about $30 billion annually, about six times the trade between Ohio and any other foreign nation. It has been estimated that over 200,000 Ohio jobs are dependent on trade with Canada.
I found not a word about the Canadian elections in either the print or on-line editions of the Dispatch.
By the way, for those interested, the ruling party, the free-trading Conservatives, returned an increased plurality, but still fell short of a majority. They are expected to form another minority government. At the same time, the anti-NAFTA, anti-trade New Democratic Party and Green Party both gained seats in parliament.
The October 13, 1908 NYT reports on the pending new world order (I suppose we are still waiting):
The Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, D.D. of the International Reform Bureau, who spoke at the Warren Avenue Baptist Church last night, declared in his address that within a few years Theodore Roosevelet would be "President of the World."
Dr. Crafts said that his bureau's work would result in an international government at The Hague with legislative and executive departments. At the head would be Mr. Roosevelt bearing the title above mentioned.
The Oct. 9, 1908 NYT reports on the response in Serbia of the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina:
Belgrade, Servia: Great crowds surrounded the palace to-night shouting for war and calling for the King to appear. Finally King Peter, accompanied by the Crown Prince, came to the balcony, and implored the people not to cause disturbances. He said:
"Trust me and my government: both will do their duty."
The crowd cheered the King but continued to shout "war with Austria."
Nevada authorities have raided the Las Vegas office of the community-organizing group ACORN seeking evidence of voter fraud.
Investigators seized records and computers from ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The office was unstaffed at the time.
Secretary of State Ross Miller said fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.
"Tony Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada, and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4," Miller said, according to the Associated Press. He said others used false names or information, or had duplicated information on multiple forms.
Think the "battleground state" is a new development? The October 6, 1908 NYT reports:
New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana - these are the determining States. In both National committees this is fully recognized. From now until election day these are the States in which both the Republican and Democratic managers will centre their efforts. Into these states will go both Mr. Taft and Mr. Bryan. Bryan will reserve New York for the last.
The story goes on to show that candidates have ceded states to their opponents for quite some time:
Norman E. Mack, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, came here to-day and told the newspaper men that he left for the Republican in the East only Pennsylvania and two or three of the New England States, but some of his colleagues at the headquarters, when they learned that he had not put Pennsylvania into the debatable column, protested that he was altogether conservative.
Contrary to Joe Biden's claim that FDR took to the tele in 1929 to calm the nation after the stock market crash, the first televised White House address by a president was Harry Truman's address 61 years ago today.
I've told people before that my Plan for World Domination is to someday hire a group of fourth graders to follow me around singing "I Believe the Children Are Our Future," in which case I would be able to get whatever I want. If this video is legit, it looks like some of Barack Obama's supporters have beaten me to the punch:
Apparently John--I don't do earmarks--McCain intends to vote for the bill. To be fair, the wooden arrow provision isn't technically an earmark; it's a narrowly defined tax exemption not a specifically targeted federal expenditure. But that baby sure walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
... is to take a dubious proposition--the $700B bailout package--and make it worse:
Senate leaders scheduled a Wednesday vote on a $700 billion financial bailout package after accepting tax breaks and a higher limit for insured bank deposits in a bid to win House approval and send legislation to President Bush by the end of the week.
Top lawmakers said the Senate proposal, worked out after a day of behind the scenes maneuvering, would include tax breaks for businesses and alternative energy and higher government insurance for bank deposits.
President George W. Bush on Tuesday signed into law a mammoth spending bill to keep the government running until early March 2009 that includes a $25 billion loan package for troubled automakers.
The $25 billion loan package, the biggest federal subsidy for the auto industry since the 1980 bailout of Chrysler, cleared Congress last weekend when the focus was on the debate over the $700 billion financial rescue package.
Below the fold: the transcript of the live chat that occurred at www.commercialappeal.com earlier this evening (posted for my econ 101 students, who have a homework assignment based on the debate due on Tuesday). UPDATE: Apparently, I was only able to copy and paste the first 40 minutes of the chat. The rest is available here: http://www.commercialappeal.com/debatechat/.
7:43
Commercial Appeal: Hi all. Welcome to The Commercial Appeal's live online chat! We're going to be watching the Presidential debate in Oxford and discussing.
7:45
[Comment From Nrogara]
Hi all
7:45
[Comment From Babs]
Hey
7:45
[Comment From Guest]
Vote Nader! There’s something fishy when both candidates exclude third parties from the debate. It’s as if the Dems and Republicans have rigged a system in which they alternate as President every 8 years.
7:45
[Comment From Andre]
Good evening
7:45
Commercial Appeal: Welcome
7:46
Commercial Appeal: Good question, guest. Not sure. But that's a question for another day, I think.
7:47
[Comment From Guest]
Why is Ralph Nader excluded from the debates? He’s the only candidate against this communist move to send 700,000,000,000 tax payer dollars to corporate fat cats who are destroying the economy. What is going on? Are these debates rigged or something? Nader’s at 5% in the national polls. That’s impressive considering he’s been ignored by the wall street owned media.
7:47
[Comment From Guest]
Hello, Michael here
7:47
[Comment From Stop]
Chat should never have sound
7:47
[Comment From Michael]
Hello,
7:47
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
Good evening everyone
7:48
Commercial Appeal: hi michael, hi kesha.
7:48
Commercial Appeal: 11 minutes on the countdown
7:48
[Comment From Stop]
Ralph Nader is a joke.
7:48
Commercial Appeal: let's leave ralph nader for another discussion.
7:48
[Comment From Kareem]
Hello everybody
7:49
Commercial Appeal: any early predictions on who will do well?
7:49
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
I say put in Prince Mongo... LOL
7:49
[Comment From Michael]
I didn't know that Nader was polling at 5% nationally. Where did you read this?
7:49
[Comment From LaTasha]
Hello everyone!
7:50
[Comment From Michael]
Obama will do much better than McCain with all but die hard McCain fans.
7:50
[Comment From Wayne]
Evening all...
7:50
[Comment From Nrogara]
Obama has an early advantage cause He can call out McCain on what he did just 48 hrs ago
7:50
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
I think both will do well. If Obama doesn't studder and McCain keeps his cool.
7:51
Commercial Appeal: what's everyone watching on? i have msnbc on
7:51
[Comment From Babs]
We all know that Obama has a talent for public speaking.
7:51
[Comment From Kareem]
CNN
7:52
[Comment From Babs]
WJCL
7:52
[Comment From B-Rob]
CNN here
7:52
[Comment From Wayne]
I am viewing on Channel 5
7:52
[Comment From Michael]
McCain is not to good under the gun. He did better than Obama at Ric Warren's event because o0f the nature of the questions and the lack of follow up questions.
7:52
[Comment From LaTasha]
channel 5 here
7:52
[Comment From Nader for The People]
Nader is polling at 5-7% in several natl polls
7:52
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
NBC
7:53
[Comment From Babs]
I think they both agreed on a freestyle debate tonight, right?
7:53
[Comment From Michael]
I'm watching on channel 5
7:53
Commercial Appeal: jim lehrer will be in charge, as usual. we'll see what style it takes. been an interesting couple of days leading up to this.
7:53
[Comment From Nader for The People]
the questions are prechosen
7:54
[Comment From doc1]
let's get ready to rumble
7:54
Commercial Appeal: LOL at doc1. we should have michael buffer announce.
7:54
[Comment From vera]
good evening!
7:54
Commercial Appeal: hi vera
7:55
[Comment From LaTasha]
is there some lag on here?
7:55
Commercial Appeal: i have to approve the comments, but i'll be setting it up for the folks i've been working with so that stops. shouldn't be a problem
7:55
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
yes there is
7:55
[Comment From doc1]
it will be an interesting evening, lets be civilized and have a good debate
7:55
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Good evening, everyone. Gary Robinson, are you here?
7:56
Commercial Appeal: hi Michael Huggins. i am
7:56
[Comment From Babs]
The lag's probably from them screening us.
7:56
[Comment From LaTasha]
oh, i see... i thought it was my system!
7:56
[Comment From Guest]
Cnn
7:56
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Am I logged in correctly to do what I need to do?
7:56
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
Everyone remember the golden rule, pls
7:56
Commercial Appeal: Michael, you're just fine.
7:56
[Comment From Art Carden]
Greetings, everyone. In addition to the debate between McCain and Obama, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr will be responding to debate questions at http://www.mogulus.com/reason, and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney will be responding at www.bloggingthedebates.com. Does anyone know if Nader or any of the other candidates are responding in real time anywhere?
7:56
[Comment From doc1]
Gary, will you be involved in the debate or would u be just moderating
7:56
[Comment From Sarah]
how does this work
7:57
Commercial Appeal: Doc, most of my time will be just keeping up.
7:57
[Comment From vera]
I hope that this is a group for tangible and realistic discussion and not attacks! Are there ground rules Gary?
7:57
Commercial Appeal: Sarah, you just type your thoughts.
7:57
[Comment From Nrogara]
Sarah this works kinda like a chat room
7:57
Commercial Appeal: exactly, vera, thanks!!
7:57
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Out of curiosity, is anyone else logged in to MySpace.com/MyDebates to watch this online?
7:57
[Comment From Stop]
who is the moderator?
7:58
Commercial Appeal: Stop, i am the moderator. i'm Gary Robinson, online news editor at the CA.
7:58
[Comment From doc1]
we all r
7:58
[Comment From Michael]
Ladies and gentlemen, standing 6' 3'' tall, weighing 200 lbs, wearing the dark suit and red tie, from Chicago, Barrrrrrrack OOOOOOObamaaaa
7:58
[Comment From Aaron]
I'll try and keep up here, but am working over on Twitter during the debate
7:58
[Comment From doc1]
it is time fasten your seat belts ya'll, it will be a ride to remember
7:59
Commercial Appeal: OK folks, like vera says, let's have a great, sane, decent discussion about what comes up during the debate.
7:59
[Comment From Patricia]
Hello everyone!
7:59
[Comment From Michael]
And his opponnent.....
7:59
[Comment From Nrogara]
I'm watching this on cnn.com live and they're gettin ready
7:59
[Comment From 6burkes]
hello
7:59
[Comment From LaTasha]
let's do this man!
7:59
[Comment From Sarah]
talking about Memphis on CNN
7:59
[Comment From Nader for The People]
Nader has many people blogging, and will be on Bill Maher after the debate and will release online answers to all the q's right after the debate
7:59
[Comment From Shelton]
hello
8:00
[Comment From Frank]
Hello Everyone.
8:00
[Comment From Michael]
Sane and decent? Remember we're talking about politics!
8:00
[Comment From Aaron]
Who is playing the Debate shot game? Take a shot if McCain says "My Friends", Obama says "Change", Lehrer says "Senator, Two Minutes". HAVE FUN!!!
8:00
[Comment From Dawn S.]
Hi everyone
8:00
[Comment From Guest]
Hello from Corinth. MS
8:00
[Comment From GObama!]
Hey all
8:00
[Comment From TLH728]
Hi
8:00
Commercial Appeal: the debate shot game? LOL oh terrific.
8:01
[Comment From doc1]
everybody remember we r here to have a discussion so please be civilized and bring up good points lets c if we can solve our problems right here!!!
8:01
[Comment From TLH728]
I am ready!
8:01
[Comment From Dawn S.]
Here we go!
8:01
[Comment From vera]
Michael, even in politics there are exceptions:)
8:01
[Comment From doc1]
Gary r u ready?
8:01
Commercial Appeal: i sure hope so, doc!
8:01
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Jim Lehrer just said "You all." Being in the South must be getting to him!
8:01
[Comment From Nrogara]
Doc u ready??
8:01
[Comment From Jabril]
Well it's that time. Stand up Oxford.
8:01
[Comment From LaTasha]
Aaron that sounds very dangerous. You may risk alcohol poisoning.
8:01
[Comment From marcina1127]
hello everyone
8:02
[Comment From doc1]
cnn has a great set up
8:02
[Comment From JYoungest1]
woo how many people are in here
8:02
[Comment From Aaron]
Watching on CSPAN2, so no talking heads, just the debate
8:02
[Comment From doc1]
they have score cards for each candidates
8:02
[Comment From Dawn S.]
yeah, i'm on cnn too.
8:02
[Comment From LaTasha]
what's up with cnn's scorecard?
8:02
Commercial Appeal: a lot of folks here already
8:02
[Comment From doc1]
it will be fun to c the scores
8:02
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Direct exchanges between the candidates are permitted. This should be interesting.
8:02
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
whew! I am tired already.
8:03
[Comment From TLH728]
Because this is a very important debate
8:03
[Comment From Aaron]
Lehrer is DA MAN!
8:03
[Comment From JYoungest1]
Is CNN the only one broadcasting this
8:03
[Comment From LaTasha]
applause!
8:03
[Comment From Nrogara]
no
8:03
[Comment From JYoungest1]
online at least
8:03
[Comment From Kareem]
CNN has perception meters to from a group of registered ohio voters at the bottom that are holding little devices that they use to rate what the candidates are saying realtime
8:03
[Comment From doc1]
all channels are
8:03
[Comment From 6burkes]
not only cnn, its all over the tv
8:03
[Comment From Guest]
MSNBC is too
8:04
[Comment From JYoungest1]
i mean online wise
8:04
[Comment From doc1]
stright to economy
8:04
[Comment From Jabril]
Good Question
8:04
[Comment From Sarah]
stop thanking , start talking
8:04
[Comment From Nrogara]
I believe thanks is in order
8:04
[Comment From Michael]
Don't waste too much time with thanks
8:04
[Comment From LaTasha]
someone mentioned myspace
8:04
[Comment From TLH728]
I hope Obama does not give a speech
8:04
[Comment From 6burkes]
answer the question already
8:04
[Comment From Diane]
Hi everyone - good luck to each candidate!
8:04
[Comment From doc1]
he is right we r struggling
8:04
[Comment From Nrogara]
look how Obama is looking right at the camera as if he is talking to the people
8:04
[Comment From Jabril]
You greet your audience first. Comparative talking one on one.
8:04
[Comment From Michael]
Good relate it to the individuals
8:05
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
He's taking too much time "setting the stage," for an allocation of only 2 minutes.
8:05
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
New comers go back and read the house rules
8:05
[Comment From vera]
keep i
8:05
[Comment From TLH728]
I am glad he is giving a plan
8:05
[Comment From vera]
keep
8:05
[Comment From Stewart]
Isn't two mns. up yet?!
8:05
[Comment From Dawn S.]
i like how he's numerating his remarks
8:05
[Comment From Aaron]
He is going point by point
8:05
[Comment From doc1]
yey for te tax prayers
8:05
[Comment From Sarah]
nope..
8:05
[Comment From Diane]
Who's for McCain in here who's for Obama?
8:05
[Comment From Sarah]
that man is my hero
8:05
[Comment From 6burkes]
those are thery points, what is he going to actually do
8:05
[Comment From Stewart]
mccain
8:05
[Comment From Nader for The People]
there are more choices
8:05
[Comment From TLH728]
shot number 1
8:06
[Comment From JYoungest1]
wow Diane what a crazy question
8:06
[Comment From vera]
keep in mind Obama is a constitutional lawyer and accustomed to make presentations, not suggesting that McCain cannot. He did well at Saddlecreek, in my opinion.
8:06
[Comment From doc1]
good last [unch with bringin bush oin
8:06
[Comment From TLH728]
I am for Obama
8:06
[Comment From Dawn S.]
it's a lot to consider...this bailout thing. hard for anyone to really 'get it'
8:06
[Comment From Michael]
I for the truth. End the lies and the rest will take care of itself!
8:06
[Comment From Nrogara]
Oh my name it is nothin and my age means les
8:06
[Comment From TLH728]
oh gosh
8:06
[Comment From Jabril]
Shouldn't matter who you are for right now. Learn their policies and views
8:06
[Comment From Kareem]
there are only two realistic choices, otherwise i would vote for Barr or Ron Paul
8:06
[Comment From Aaron]
Good opening for Obama
8:06
[Comment From doc1]
can he talk any faster
8:06
[Comment From LaTasha]
mccain is wasting time...
8:06
[Comment From vera]
I think that we should be bi-partisan on this blog and discuss the tangible aspect of the debate and not whose bandwagon we're on, don't you agree!
8:06
[Comment From Sarah]
awww.. hes fewing a wittle better tonight
8:06
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain's mention of Kennedy is gracious, but he sounds sad and tired. Obama, by contrast, sounds determined and energetic.
8:06
[Comment From Frank]
I'm pro-Obama; but I'm hoping that he will stick with the issues and not attack McCain as he just did. Taking a strong position on the issues will suffice given the gravity of the issues.
8:07
[Comment From 6burkes]
they both are wasting time
8:07
[Comment From Nrogara]
McCain is looking at Leher and the people at the building notice the change between the two already
8:07
[Comment From Sarah]
McCain is exhausted
8:07
[Comment From Rob]
Their answers sound so prepared
8:07
[Comment From Stewart]
I disagree, Jabril.... most Americans are decided... and the debates do nothing but solidify their decisions.
8:07
[Comment From TLH728]
Yea Mccain you have been around a while
8:07
[Comment From Sarah]
poor old man.
8:07
[Comment From doc1]
mccain hasn't used "my friends" once yet
8:07
[Comment From Patricia]
With each candidate presentation means a lot, Certainly Obama leads in that category
8:07
[Comment From vera]
It's easy to watch on TV and become critical. If we were in their shoes things would be different.
8:07
[Comment From LaTasha]
i agree frank
8:07
[Comment From Nader for The People]
please stop saying we have to fix it and tell us how you will
8:07
[Comment From Dawn S.]
mccain seems faltering a little
8:08
[Comment From JYoungest1]
Since main stream media all the debates have been fake as the canidates
8:08
[Comment From matt]
There is no transparency or oversight in Paulson's package. What's McCain talking about?
8:08
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain is doing well in that he sounds like your wise and experienced uncle who has been around the block a few times. Obama, by contrast, sounded a little "theoretical," as someone noted earlier.
8:08
[Comment From 6burkes]
anyone truly undecided at this point is just not that interested
8:08
[Comment From Diane]
Jabril, I've already learned their policies and views haven't you? Just wanted to know who's for who already. I agree with Sarah.
8:08
[Comment From julie cee]
sorry I am late...major tech diffs
8:08
[Comment From Kareem]
my friends is irritating
8:08
[Comment From Jabril]
If anyone is decided before they even know what will happen before the election, they are not savvy voters
8:08
[Comment From Patricia]
Telling the truth is not really attacking another candidate it is the truth
8:08
[Comment From Stewart]
All Obama is, is theoretical.
8:08
[Comment From waqe]
I suspect even if mccain does well tonight, the vice-pres debate will reverse any gains made here.
8:08
[Comment From julie cee]
Neither Senator looks more tired than the other....focus on what matters, please
8:08
[Comment From Todd]
NOW he's for oversight...lol
8:08
[Comment From vera]
what does oil have to do with the recovery plan mentioned by mccain
8:08
[Comment From Lin]
Hi all
8:08
[Comment From Michael]
McCain meander too much and sounded weak.
8:08
[Comment From doc1]
hoe did oil from forgin came about about the plan
8:09
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain sounds as though he has been up all night, with his sleeves rolled up, working on this crisis. That buys sympathy. Obama needs to achieve a decisive tone that convinces hearers that he is the one to solve the problem.
8:09
[Comment From TLH728]
Oh gosh mccain start talking about what your plan is
8:09
[Comment From Art Carden]
Style points: Obama looks better than McCain after the first question. Here's an interesting question: what were the changes in incentives that produced the crisis?
8:09
[Comment From Frank]
I'm glad Lehrer didn't let them "off the hook."
8:09
[Comment From Sarah]
I agree. I'm very excited about seeing Palin fail.
8:09
[Comment From TLH728]
what is the plan
8:09
[Comment From Patricia]
I agree with that wage
8:09
[Comment From 6burkes]
obama asks himself a question instead of answering the one given
8:09
[Comment From doc1]
good call vera
8:09
[Comment From TLH728]
i agree doc1
8:09
[Comment From julie cee]
Obama is an empty suit as far as I am personally concerned, but our goal/role here is to be objective as possible.
8:09
[Comment From Jabril]
I will vote for the party that will best help America get out of the mess it is in
8:09
[Comment From Nader for The People]
It's not main stream media making the debates fake, it is the cpd taking control of the debates from the league of women voters - the cpd is run by the dem and repub parties
8:09
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
please can someone tell me how I can get my money right
8:09
[Comment From LaTasha]
obama was up all night too huh>
8:09
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
Pls go and read the house rules
8:10
[Comment From julie cee]
AMEN jabril...
8:10
[Comment From Diane]
uh...haven't things gone on for the last year +? Things have _already_ happened. This last couple weeks before the election is the rest of it.
8:10
[Comment From Patricia]
Remember McCain is old, probably up past his bed time
8:10
[Comment From LaTasha]
Good point Keesha
8:10
[Comment From bporlando]
I tought this debte was about foreign poicy
8:10
[Comment From TLH728]
jeez
8:10
[Comment From doc1]
look we all know people are going to vote party line but the undecided are important
8:10
[Comment From LaTasha]
Jim is a tough cookie.
8:10
[Comment From TLH728]
mccain
8:10
[Comment From Aaron]
Stop clearing your throat John
8:10
[Comment From Stewart]
Jabril.... after all of the policitics over the last year, you haven't figured out which party you think you will vote for? Come on... get real.
8:10
[Comment From Rob]
Where are the other candidates?
8:10
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
oh.. here we go another war story!!
8:10
[Comment From Sarah]
this is a bad night for him
8:10
[Comment From doc1]
i am falling sleep mccain
8:10
[Comment From TLH728]
i do not know anything about eisenhower answer the question
8:10
[Comment From Diane]
lol Patricia
8:11
[Comment From TLH728]
and i have heard this analogy 3 times
8:11
[Comment From Dawn S.]
where is mccain going with this? stay on topic dude!
8:11
[Comment From JYoungest1]
Nader for the People, all the candidates are fake now, they are made of so much plastic its ridiculous. No one needs the money they waste on their campaigns and if you like nader you know
8:11
[Comment From Aaron]
Answer the question!!
8:11
[Comment From Patricia]
Why vote party, instead of voting for the best candidate
8:11
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
how yourself accountable, McCain
8:11
[Comment From Michael]
Stories work good under some circumstances, but McCain looks like he is waisting time.
8:11
[Comment From Sarah]
I got excited for this?
8:11
[Comment From Diane]
Anyway Jabril, your views about this are only _one person's_ views and not the views of the whole. So thanks for your opinion - but no thanks.
8:11
[Comment From doc1]
somebody stab me with this story
8:11
[Comment From Sarah]
This is the first presidential debate I've ever watched
8:11
[Comment From julie cee]
TLH--google it for a history lesson--he preceded all of us!
8:11
[Comment From jake]
so far sooo boring
8:11
[Comment From Rob]
Yea how come Nader isn't here anyway?
8:11
[Comment From Stop]
he can't answer the question
8:11
[Comment From N.S]
They can't answer the question because they don't know what the plan is.
8:11
[Comment From matt]
Chairman of SEC will retire at end of Bush admin. That's an empty threat
8:11
[Comment From Jabril]
Look in the last few days a candidate wanted to suspend his campaign, this shows that neither the candidates are made up on what to do
8:12
[Comment From Dawn S.]
he's not saying anything concrete
8:12
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
tah dah!
8:12
[Comment From 6burkes]
they both are lame so far
8:12
[Comment From LaTasha]
i agree that we should hold the 'fat cats' accountable but hasn't this been going on? Where was he before now?
8:12
[Comment From TLH728]
i know julie cee...
8:12
[Comment From Michael]
Good verbal judo, but then a stumble.
8:12
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
The Chairman of the SEC wasn't chiefly responsible for this. McCain, again, has the right tone--the wise and experienced elder statesman who feels all this in his heart--but he and Obama both need to say specfically what they believe needs to be done.
8:12
[Comment From Nrogara]
McCain seems bored at this on CBS
8:12
[Comment From julie cee]
OBAMA's been smoking too much....he's anorexic...bless his heart
8:12
[Comment From Art Carden]
McCain on Greed: greed is a constant. Did the underlying level of greed change, or was it a change in incentives?
8:12
[Comment From tink]
yep
8:12
[Comment From doc1]
mccain knows about president eisenhwer b/c he was there with him writing the letter
8:12
[Comment From Frank]
They are afraid to answer the question. They both know that they are going to vote for the "bailout" plan. They are uncertain, though, about how the public feels about this payout. So they are deliberately posturing to be tentative.
8:12
[Comment From TLH728]
i dont need to know about eisenhower 3 times already
8:12
[Comment From Sarah]
lol...what's funny?..why are they laughing
8:12
[Comment From Nrogara]
good one doc
8:12
[Comment From Michael]
Nice body shot by Obama on fundementals
8:12
[Comment From Dawn S.]
good point frank.
8:13
[Comment From Art Carden]
"Wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down..." comparisons of medians, particularly for households, can be very misleading. In addition, benefits as a percentage of total compensation has increased.
8:13
[Comment From 6burkes]
Obama has not said anything all night
8:13
[Comment From doc1]
good call obama
8:13
[Comment From TLH728]
there is that key word...main street
8:13
[Comment From Michael]
Leher is tough on McCain
8:13
doc1: both senators had time to fix this mess in the senate in the past few years
8:13
[Comment From N.S]
MCcain suspended his campaign and still does not know the details of the plan
8:13
[Comment From Aaron]
Lehrer wants a fight!
8:13
[Comment From matt]
That's right. I need to know that my account (at Wachovia, which is searching for a buyer) will be worth tomorrow what its worth today!
8:13
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Obama is not being sufficiently aggressive as a debater. He needed to have turned to McCain and said, "Senator, what did you mean when you said the fundamentals of the economy were sound?" And then fold his arms and wait for an answer.
8:13
[Comment From marcina1127]
i don't think mccain has an answer to the first question. he went from "i hope i will support the plan" to "i will support the plan". he should know if he is or is not by now.
8:13
[Comment From Nader for The People]
Again, Nader and other candidates, McKinney, Baldwin, etc are not here bc the CPD is party controlled. Read the League of women voters statement on the '88 takeover of the cpd
8:14
[Comment From tink]
if i hear main street wall street one more time I"m gonna hurl
8:14
[Comment From vera]
try to be bipartisan if possible
8:14
[Comment From Rob]
here watch this it's more exciting a. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5WiE6MnmCM
8:14
[Comment From LaTasha]
good point NS
8:14
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Yes, Lehrer is being tougher on McCain than Obama is.
8:14
doc1: i was out for a while
8:14
[Comment From TLH728]
are we main street? or are american citizens
8:14
[Comment From Todd in Boise]
then pay them more, McCain
8:14
[Comment From Nrogara]
yea McCain quit Letterman pointed that out 2 nights ago
8:14
[Comment From Stop]
we need a commercial break
8:14
[Comment From Lin]
I thought McCain had a solid idea to help with bailout solution.
8:14
[Comment From vera]
lehr wants dynamics which is great for a debate, not a dialogue
8:14
[Comment From 6burkes]
there are no other candidates tonight, so go away
8:14
Kesha Williams: so true. Even though Obabma voted present at least he was there to know what was going on.. McCain wasn't there. he had to get the notes like he was in college.
8:14
[Comment From Nader for The People]
ALL ballot qualified candidates should be here - no one is harmed by hearing more views
8:14
[Comment From Michael]
Like two little senators can do something about a train about to wreck.
8:14
[Comment From LaTasha]
Nader for the People - can we discuss the candidates on the screen?
8:14
[Comment From julie cee]
i want to hear details, but it may be an unrealistic desire.
8:14
[Comment From Patricia]
McCain suspended his campaign because he was Grantstanding
8:14
[Comment From TLH728]
earmarks..pork belly spending
8:14
Commercial Appeal: Obama vs. McCain is our discussion tonight, please
8:15
[Comment From Stewart]
Yes... spending, spending, spending.... it is out of control and Obama wants even more!!!
8:15
[Comment From Jabril]
If people cannot look at this as a dress rehersal for the white house, then why have a debate. these debates are suppose to be for voters to find out what candidates really know and what they will do. why have them if everyones mind is made up. just go straight to the election.
8:15
[Comment From JYoungest1]
Not big on Mccain but he said that last one well
8:15
[Comment From julie cee]
Nader is not here...can we focus on what we're tasked with, please?
8:15
Kesha Williams: so did it take 8 yrs to find out that the spending was wrong?
8:15
[Comment From Michael]
What about earmarks in Alaska?
8:15
[Comment From matt]
he's used that joke before. kill it
8:15
[Comment From Sarah]
he's got a pen!!!!
8:15
[Comment From TLH728]
they both want to spend more
8:15
[Comment From TLH728]
famous?
8:15
[Comment From N.S]
We heard all of this before.
8:15
[Comment From Nader for The People]
we're tasked with the future of our country, no?
8:16
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain's obsession with earmarks is shortsighted. He rightly notes the incredible expansion of government spending, but the biggest single increase was in fighting the Iraq War. The earmarks he is so fond of denouncing account for only about $80 billion a year.
8:16
[Comment From matt]
Ask him about Palin's earmark requests
8:16
[Comment From Bobbieee]
not just any pen an old one
8:16
[Comment From Art Carden]
McCain is right that we have to get spending under control, but we've heard this before from politicians from both parties for decades. He isn't very clear on the specifics.
8:16
[Comment From Mem]
It didn't take 8 years . They didn't care
8:16
[Comment From doc1]
why did u vote for all the spending in the first place to now veto it
8:16
[Comment From julie cee]
ok...we getting specific amounts.....now--are they accurate?
8:16
[Comment From Michael]
Good Point Michael Huggins Iraq War
8:16
[Comment From Stewart]
Because, Jabril, it is educating the voters.
8:16
[Comment From Frank]
McCain says that he will veto every spending bill that comes across his desk. I wonder, though, if he would veto the "bailout" plan?
8:16
[Comment From Mem]
McCain is a lair.
8:17
[Comment From Stewart]
Question for the group... Have you decided who you are voting for? Just a quick Yes / No
8:17
[Comment From Jabril]
No president will be able to turn this mess we are in, without bi-partisanship. Americans have to work with whoever is elected President
8:17
[Comment From Sarah]
I can't vote!
8:17
[Comment From Dawn S.]
yes
8:17
[Comment From doc1]
good call obama
8:17
[Comment From marcina1127]
hes saying that he is going to stop excessive spending but he is supporting the bailout and at least 8 more years in iraq...
8:17
[Comment From Frank]
Yes.
8:17
[Comment From Guest]
yes
8:17
[Comment From LaTasha]
yes
8:17
[Comment From N.S]
Obama is making a very good point with nice figures.
8:17
[Comment From Patricia]
Frank do you need askm McClain will vote the bailout plan
8:17
[Comment From waqe]
mem, yes, seemingly considerably more than obama.
8:17
[Comment From julie cee]
can anyone validate the 18 million e-marks for 2007?
8:17
[Comment From matt]
I really don't care how much Obama (or anyone) raises taxes for the rich. I'm all for it. Tax the rich, feed the poor.
8:17
[Comment From Patricia]
dittop DOC1
8:17
[Comment From Mem]
Obama
8:17
Kesha Williams: can't have anything stable without a strong foundation or roots
8:17
[Comment From doc1]
sounds good to me lets tax people who make more
8:17
[Comment From Stewart]
yes
8:17
[Comment From Dawn S.]
realistically tho..can we expect a tax cut if we have to pay for this bailout?
8:18
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Obama still sounds too much like an economics professor discussing pros and cons in front of a class, and less like a warrior for his cause, seeking to defeat an opponent.
8:18
Kesha Williams: from the bottom up
8:18
[Comment From Frank]
Patricia, both of them will vote for the plan.
8:18
[Comment From conventional1]
These are both Senators talking like they are on the outside looking in when they comment on the financial crisis--suggesting they have to be President in order to monitor the greedy execs on Wall street
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
You
8:18
[Comment From TLH728]
oh gosh
8:18
[Comment From Donna]
If McCain uses the word "fundamental" again, I'm going to scream!
8:18
[Comment From Patricia]
mATT you can't really believe that
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
You
8:18
[Comment From matt]
I think a tax cut for most and a raise for the top 2% - 5% is reasonable
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
need
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
ome
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
one
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
who
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
can
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
hink
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
to
8:18
[Comment From Michael]
McCain is making a mistake
8:18
[Comment From Guest]
are yall watching the debate on cnn... they have the audience reaction gauge
8:18
[Comment From Art Carden]
Obama on "growing the economy from the bottom up:" how will tax cuts work without spending cuts?
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
run
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
the
8:18
Kesha Williams: uh oh sheriff= maverick
8:18
[Comment From Stewart]
I didn't see any NO's... sounds like eveyrone her has decided already... and so have most Americans.
8:18
[Comment From 6burkes]
once 51% learn they can screw the other 49% the whole country is doomed
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
country
8:19
[Comment From Mem]
not
8:19
[Comment From Mem]
a
8:19
[Comment From conventional1]
Neither one have any specifics--uh, we have to have reform
8:19
[Comment From matt]
Donna, you'll be hoarse by tomorrow morning
8:19
[Comment From TLH728]
keating 5
8:19
[Comment From Dawn S.]
a republican talking about corruption? thats laughable!
8:19
[Comment From Jabril]
The next president is going to have to reel in the federal reserve, many people don't know that it is a private entity
8:19
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
The "Reaction Gauge" is pretty confusing.
8:19
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
If McCain was called "The Sherriff," he needed to have exercised some of that spirit when dealing with Charles Keating.
8:19
[Comment From marcina1127]
from "maverick" to sherrif"... :-)
8:19
[Comment From N.S]
What is McCain reading from.
8:19
[Comment From Sarah]
that's neat.. audience meter
8:19
[Comment From Michael]
McCain is making a big mistake defending tax cut for wealth
8:19
[Comment From Aaron]
On snap, here we go!
8:19
[Comment From Guest]
hey dont make fun of my reaction gauge. ha, but yes all the colors just blur together.
8:19
[Comment From LaTasha]
that scared me!
8:20
[Comment From sarah]
took him long enough
8:20
[Comment From Donna]
The Kennedy comment McCain made was for sympathy only.
8:20
[Comment From Frank]
Obama JUST became impressive.
8:20
[Comment From Frank]
Obama JUST became impressive.
8:20
[Comment From Art Carden]
We can analyze Obama's health care program using basic supply and demand (giant hint, students). If the price of health care is zero, what happens to quantity demanded and quantity supplied?
8:20
[Comment From sarah]
eye contact!
8:20
[Comment From tink]
go Barak...interrupt and make your point....get tough....he needs to get a bit heated
8:20
Kesha Williams: abra cadabra
8:20
[Comment From Lin]
McCain is using scare tactics to capture voters
8:20
[Comment From Sarah]
what are earmarks? It might be more interesting if I understood what they were talking about.
8:20
[Comment From Aaron]
Obama is going after him. Here we go.
8:20
[Comment From waqe]
let's hear his comments on taxes.. i hope he not say he cutting taxes for everyone.
8:20
[Comment From TLH728]
the health plan will not happen
8:20
[Comment From 6burkes]
productive parts of society do not need the government unlawfully redistributing their work efforts
8:20
[Comment From B-Rob]
This "respond directly to the opponent" nonsense seems more like couples counseling than a debate
8:20
[Comment From Patricia]
McClain looks a little up set
8:21
[Comment From sarah w.]
what ever happened to caring about actual people...
8:21
[Comment From vera]
earmarks are pork (excess spending or special interest spending)
8:21
Kesha Williams: let's hope that his temper doesn't flare...it will turn into one of his tv ads.
8:21
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
Ireland? What happened to China or Taiwan? =D
8:21
[Comment From waqe]
he has twisted the comments on personal taxes, and replying about corporate taxes.
8:21
[Comment From doc1]
here we go again, we r talking about ireland
8:21
[Comment From Patricia]
A Health plan needs to happen
8:21
[Comment From Stop]
Obama needs to snap on McCain about his choice of running mate and her earmarks
8:21
[Comment From Donna]
My thought is that McCain came into the debate behind, (tried to get out of it) so it's all downhill from there for him.
8:21
[Comment From Dawn S.]
mccain i don't want a story...tell me what these business tax cuts are really going to do to stimulate the economy
8:22
[Comment From LaTasha]
I recall mccain mocking obama for taxing corporations... am i alone in that?
8:22
[Comment From conventional1]
dumb comment from McCain on low taxes in Ireland--there aren't plentiful jobs in Ireland or a thriving economy there except for maybe tourism
8:22
6burkes: how can the government pay for your health when only the individual bears responsibility for being unhealthy
8:22
[Comment From Frank]
McCain can help himself, here, by speaking to the issue of the "hurting people."
8:22
[Comment From Aaron]
McCain is already repeating himself.
8:22
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
I want people to have free money, but thats not gonna happen now is it McCain?
8:22
[Comment From TLH728]
the road to nowhere
8:22
[Comment From Art Carden]
We can learn a lot from Ireland. It has been called the "Celtic Tiger" because of its robust economic growth in the last couple of decades, largely as a result of sound economic policies.
8:22
[Comment From Sarah]
I didn't hear anything about Ireland......oh my goodness
8:22
[Comment From doc1]
where does the 5000 will come when u r gining 700bil to corporations
8:22
[Comment From sarah w.]
who cares about a tax credit when you can't get coverage...
8:22
[Comment From Nader for The People]
paulson should reign end of story
8:22
[Comment From waqe]
700B bailout, and he wants every family to have tax cuts...
8:22
[Comment From vera]
How can we afford personal healthcare and gas at the same time?
8:22
[Comment From Jabril]
Greenspan was over the economy from the Reagan era, through George W, he had a lot to do with what is happening in America today. The next President must have control over the federal reserve and how wall street types are able to do business
8:22
[Comment From Guest]
arent earmarks basically a PS. we get more $ for ___ added on a piece of legislation
8:22
[Comment From julie cee]
well said, 6 burkes
8:23
[Comment From tink]
250000 WOW that is a lot of money!!!! do you make that much??????
8:23
[Comment From matt]
250 grand sounds fair to me
8:23
[Comment From Michael]
Nice counter punch by Obama
8:23
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
McCain didn
8:23
Kesha Williams: That is true 6Burkes
8:23
[Comment From TLH728]
im liking that obama is looking at mccain
8:23
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Obama needs to stop hemming and hawing. If he's this much of a milquetoast debating McCain, I wonder how he'll do if he faces Putin.
8:23
[Comment From Dawn S.]
obama's getting him good now.
8:23
[Comment From tink]
I'll take 150000 thank you!
8:23
[Comment From julie cee]
man...we need gas to drive ourselves TO health care
8:23
[Comment From Squatchmo]
Definition of rich: When you're not sure how many homes you own.
8:23
[Comment From Frank]
Obama is absolutely right concerning the disparity between the business tax rate and the effective tax paid.
8:23
[Comment From Donna]
Can anyone else hear the "education" behind Sen. Obama's comments versus the "off the cuff" comments spilling out of McCain's moutn?
8:23
[Comment From julie cee]
OBAMA was looking off into the wings and mouthing to someone...didja catch it?
8:23
Kesha Williams: There is that temper!!
8:23
[Comment From doc1]
good hit obama
8:24
[Comment From Michael]
If this was a boxing match, McCain would already be in trouble
8:24
[Comment From Art Carden]
On the comment about the President controlling the Fed: that's a really, really bad idea. Central Bank Independence is fundamental to a sound economy over the long run.
8:24
[Comment From vera]
Obama is standing his ground, like it or not!
8:24
[Comment From conventional1]
Ireland is not robust. have you been there? it's a more laid back England
8:24
[Comment From LaTasha]
who is this castellanos on cnn
8:24
[Comment From julie cee]
who besides me is a CPA here and has any clue about tax theory?
8:24
[Comment From Sarah]
oh..my ..goodness.. talking the talk
8:24
[Comment From Patricia]
If all the poor [people leave the US, what would the happen to the rich. There has got to be a happy median
8:24
[Comment From doc1]
why can't have both of them just tell the truth
8:24
[Comment From Nader for The People]
single payer healthcare solves lots
8:24
[Comment From TLH728]
not you mccain
8:24
[Comment From Guest]
no explain julie
8:24
[Comment From Donna]
If this was a boxing match....Sen McCain would already be in the dressing room....done.
8:24
[Comment From Michael]
McCain is swinging wildly
8:24
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
Who?
8:24
[Comment From waqe]
sarah, getting deep in there.
8:24
[Comment From julie cee]
OBAMA has not been there (DC) long enough to GET a record or in the us for that matter.
8:24
[Comment From Rob]
People should go to http://www.opensecrets.org to see how both McCain and Obama are getting tons from Wall Street
8:25
[Comment From TLH728]
nobody in their right mind would want the old tax code
8:25
[Comment From Jabril]
It was this maverick independent free loaning and spending that got America in this mess. There should be rules and regulations in everything
8:25
Kesha Williams: by vote, how many people on here make more than $250,000...
8:25
[Comment From Rob]
Spending on wars -- billions and billions -- and giveaways -- earmarks are tiny
8:25
[Comment From matt]
choose your tax code? that's sounds unnecessarily complicated?
8:25
[Comment From Patricia]
McCain has been there too long
8:25
[Comment From Troy]
Everyone in congress make lots of money on the side
8:25
Kesha Williams: Not me...
8:25
[Comment From Wayne]
looks like Obama is about to lose his cool
8:25
[Comment From Donna]
Rob....stick to the debate issues.
8:25
[Comment From doc1]
mccain is talking about shifting hahahah
8:25
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain has the better speaking style--clear and too the point. "It was festooned with Christmas ornaments. I voted against it; Senator Obama voted for it."
8:25
[Comment From tink]
not us!
8:25
[Comment From fingers]
not me
8:25
[Comment From conventional1]
middle America--yes you decide if you want to be taxed to death or if you want a different tax code--duh
8:25
[Comment From LaTasha]
aaron you may need to add fundamentally to the drinking game?
8:25
[Comment From Michael]
Rob I agree, but after Bush I am looking for the lesser of two evils
8:25
[Comment From julie cee]
Please don't start talking about tax theory (effective/vs business--not even related) if you don't know what you're talking about....that's all I am asking.
8:25
6burkes: obama makes more the 250k
8:25
[Comment From Rob]
McCain is claiming he is raising a fuss of $18 billion in spending he doesn't like -- what about the $700 billion NOW.
8:25
[Comment From guest]
corporate funding is always an issue
8:25
[Comment From Art Carden]
Obama and McCain on Oil Company Profits: what do profits do in a market economy?
8:26
[Comment From alicia]
looks like mccain has to pee!!
8:26
Kesha Williams: in this room 6Burkes
8:26
[Comment From doc1]
mccain can't take a shot he keeps sneering
8:26
[Comment From Patricia]
Alicia LOL
8:26
[Comment From Nicole]
Looks like Mccain is about to cry
8:26
[Comment From otis]
Obama seems to be passionate about the $250.000
8:26
[Comment From Michael]
The referee seperates the two fighters
8:26
Kesha Williams: what I am trying to say is that a majority makes less than $250,000
8:26
[Comment From Troy]
mccain wet his depends
8:26
[Comment From julie cee]
There's ONLY one thing that will fix TAXation for individuals and it will NEVER happen....clean slate/start over.
8:26
[Comment From LaTasha]
the sneer means he's getting angry?
8:26
[Comment From Aaron]
Notice that McCain is not wearing a US Flag pin and Obama is. Where are the attacks on McCain's patriotism??
8:26
6burkes: a majority don't deserve $250
8:27
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
Not to say that the whole financial rescue plan isn't riveting, I am kind of hoping to cover at least one more topic.
8:27
[Comment From Patricia]
McCain is nervous, he tried to backout
8:27
[Comment From Wayne]
If the company I work for pays less taxes, they make more profit and can afford to give me a raise. Makes sense.
8:27
[Comment From Art Carden]
Here's a great economics question from Lehrer: what do you give up for the $700 billion bailout? Excellent question.
8:27
[Comment From fingers]
obama's tie is much better
8:27
[Comment From waqe]
ROB -- nice recommend, will read after debate ends.
8:27
Kesha Williams: never said that they do. Just a fact that they don't
8:27
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Again, Obama is going to have to stop saying "Well......uh uh uh..." as he launches into his points.
8:27
[Comment From Rob]
Thank you
8:27
[Comment From tink]
McCain has got flag underoos on...no prob
8:27
[Comment From matt]
and NO CLEAN COAL!
8:27
[Comment From Jabril]
He should give up on hoping that Americans will help themselves, it seems as if most of us need to be led by the hand
8:27
[Comment From conventional1]
no wayne it just means that your CEO gets a bigger bonus
8:27
[Comment From alicia]
did you all see the diane sawyer interviews before the debate
8:27
[Comment From otis]
Why does McCain blink so much. Obama seems more relaxed.
8:28
[Comment From Nader for The People]
if we can talk about wearing depends and whose tie is better, I would hope that substantive issues like funding can be discussed
8:28
[Comment From LaTasha]
can someone repeat that web address for both records?
8:28
[Comment From doc1]
i say lets give up some of our 16 homes
8:28
[Comment From Michael]
Wayne, if the give you a raise they don;t have to pay tax on the money, but you do!
8:28
[Comment From julie cee]
we all need flag underoos....LOL...good joke!
8:28
[Comment From Art Carden]
Here's another point that can be analyzed with the theory of comparative advantage: why should we care about whether fuel-efficient cars are made in the US or in Japan?
8:28
[Comment From Nicole]
Blinking is a sign of lying
8:28
[Comment From TLH728]
we need a new deal
8:28
[Comment From fingers]
blinking is a sure sign of lying
8:28
Kesha Williams: Well, I have one house. If I had 6 or more I wouldn't be worried either.
8:28
[Comment From alicia]
or old age. sorry, done with th einsults.
8:28
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
If I recall, Lehrer's question was "What are you willing to give up?" I can't see that that question is being answered.
8:28
[Comment From fingers]
also, he is probably sending morse code
8:28
[Comment From waqe]
obama has great ideas, and with how the republican machine has been and is still running, i am going to give him the shot with my vote.
8:28
6burkes: obama says eliminate programs that dont work... but which ones would he cut?
8:28
[Comment From marcina1127]
i like how obama numbers all of his points when answering a question. that lets you know he has a real plan
8:29
[Comment From Arien]
it's not a matter of where they're made; rather that america does not have them yet
8:29
[Comment From Sarah]
that's silly. blinking is blinking.
8:29
[Comment From Michael]
Blink Blink Blink
8:29
[Comment From Art Carden]
TLH728: why would we need a New Deal? The New Deal made the Depression worse (see Robert Higgs, "Depression, War, and Cold War"
8:29
[Comment From Patricia]
Debaters remember there is an age difference here. Young versus Old. Believe me It Is hard on the old, I know because I am there
8:29
Kesha Williams: That's a great observatioon ^ Burkes
8:29
[Comment From conventional1]
competing hard in a global economy is difficult when our labor is cheaper overseas
8:29
[Comment From Dan Raphael]
A couple of months ago, Obama said "I love the market." Now we see his love child...and it turns out to be Rosemary's Baby! How come we only hear from these two corporate cutouts, and someone who predicted this meltdown--Ralph Nader--is excluded from the debate?
8:29
[Comment From Michael]
McCain is swinging wildly
8:29
[Comment From doc1]
how do we cut spending if we r giving away 700 bill
8:29
[Comment From Frank]
Michael, I agree.
8:29
[Comment From fingers]
Liberal voting record, wowowwowow
8:29
[Comment From alicia]
lol
8:29
[Comment From matt]
I agree with opposition to ethanol subsidies... and most agri-business subsidies
8:29
[Comment From Nicole]
sorry it's not...there is research on signs of lying
8:29
[Comment From Virgil]
so who's winning?
8:29
[Comment From Jabril]
Cut spending good idea, so that means that the military industrial complex needs to be curtailed
8:29
[Comment From julie cee]
M Huggins is the only one of us paying attn....questions aren't being answered...but what's new?
8:29
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain is no better. "No matter what, we've got to cut spending." Very well, the biggest components of spending are Medicare and Social Security. What percentage of those is McCain willing to cut?
8:29
[Comment From vera]
Patricia,
8:29
[Comment From Art Carden]
McCain scores a rhetorical point with "it's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left."
8:29
[Comment From Donna]
Blinking does indicate nervousness and lying. Stop blinking so much Sen. McCain.
8:29
[Comment From waqe]
ethanol subsidies one of few things i like about mccain, i heard obama is for the ethanol subsidies, is that true?
8:30
[Comment From vera]
There is a difference in personalities; give them each a fair chance and place yourself in their shoes!
8:30
[Comment From Justin]
they aren't giving away 700 bil they are investing
8:30
[Comment From TLH728]
gosh if you listen to these 2 guys....apparently there are sooooooooooooooooo many subsidies, earmarks, and freebies given to companies and not to the "main street"
8:30
[Comment From tim]
How is John going cut spending when he refuses rolling back wealthy and oil tax breaks
8:30
[Comment From Rob]
McCain wants to cut the military budget? Now he DOES sound like Nader.
8:30
Kesha Williams: it is in the character of politians to avoid questions
8:30
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
Intresting thing to read: http://www.learnbodylanguage.org/body_language_lying.html Body language is always fun... Look how thin McCains Lips Are?! GASP!
8:30
[Comment From doc1]
investing on what justin
8:30
[Comment From conventional1]
McCain is right--ethanol is a loser. drives the price of corn up and the owners can't even buy corn to fuel the plant. it's stupid
8:30
[Comment From julie cee]
The programs in the NEW DEAL were never meant to last....but both houses of Congress have perpetuated it...to where we are today.
8:30
[Comment From otis]
I am upset that McCain did not want to come. He should be able to do two things at once.
8:30
[Comment From Art Carden]
Econ 101 students: we haven't gotten to this in class yet, but how will government subsidies to ethanol producers affect the supply curve for ethanol?
8:30
[Comment From Aaron]
Piss off those Boeing employees
8:30
[Comment From doc1]
stock market
8:30
[Comment From Michael]
I'm glad I'm not in their shoes
8:30
[Comment From Nader for The People]
yes, obama is for ethanol
8:30
6burkes: change what!
8:31
[Comment From JS]
Corporations don't pay tax...they have to make a profit so they have to pass that cost along to the consumers so we are paying the corporate taxes and our income taxes and our sales taxes and our property taxes and so on and so on!!!!
8:31
[Comment From julie cee]
GO JIM GO...JL nailed the jello to the wall.
8:31
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain is correct about the shortsightedness of ethanol spending. He needs to elaborate on that. Still, he keeps misrepresenting the entire situation as a criminal conspiracy among wastrels, with himself as the prosecutor. That is drama, not a solution.
8:31
[Comment From Donna]
I don't care for Lehrer....never has.
8:31
[Comment From Justin]
doc: the "toxix assets" are still assets. they can't move in the market but that doesn't mean they are all bad.
8:31
Kesha Williams: Need? How do you piece apart a plan?
8:31
[Comment From fingers]
This isn't a debate. I want to see them go at it
8:31
6burkes: they both are just trying to not lose their current supporters, but are not saying anything really at all
8:31
[Comment From Nader for The People]
"neither one of you is suggesting any major changes!!" you heard the man
8:31
[Comment From Art Carden]
And here's another thing that can be analyzed with supply and demand. What do ethanol subsidies do to the demand for corn? Therefore, what happens to the price of corn? And what happens to the price of soybeans as a result?
8:31
[Comment From waqe]
Nadar, thats one thing i dislike about him. being for ethanol. &-:
8:31
[Comment From julie cee]
Is it safe to extrapolate that McCain's against subsidies PERIOD...and ethanol happened to be at hand?
8:31
[Comment From Nader for The People]
nader is not for ethanol
8:31
Kesha Williams: CaN i just gey gas prices like in 2000? .75 a gallon
8:31
[Comment From Sarah]
Tom..lol
8:31
[Comment From conventional1]
I was mad at first thinking McCain was going to backup but the bailout they tried to push through was a dog--he did the right thing
8:32
[Comment From julie cee]
NADER not NADAR
8:32
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Obama needs to learn to pronounce "insurors," just as Bush needs to learn to pronounce "terrorists."
8:32
[Comment From waqe]
as pres what will you give up in terms of spending -- the iraq war........
8:32
[Comment From Arien]
well corn prices would spike
8:32
[Comment From Justin]
doc: the reason they won't trade is because no one knows what the default rate is. overall it hasn't been that bad. citizens will realize most if not all of that 700 bil back
8:32
[Comment From TLH728]
obama has been using up alll of his minutes
8:32
[Comment From Banana]
he's for solar energy not ethanol
8:32
[Comment From Arien]
but then again at least we can grow corn on home soil
8:32
[Comment From Donna]
Bush's long headed policies.....I love it!!!!!
8:32
[Comment From Patricia]
What is wrong wtih being for ethanol, cheaper
8:32
[Comment From fingers]
McCain needs to avoid talking about jail....he should have been in one for Keating 5
8:32
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain is cleverly countering his well known reputation for irascibility by standing and smiling quietly as Obama makes his points.
8:32
Kesha Williams: Ethanol is $2.89 in MD right now
8:32
[Comment From Banana]
ethanol is completely inefficient
8:32
[Comment From N.S]
Why does he keep going with this question.
8:33
[Comment From Banana]
we can use wind and the sun
8:33
[Comment From Donna]
Maybe Jim Lehrer should have ran for President.
8:33
[Comment From JS]
might be 2.89 but you only get 1/2 the gas milage out of it
8:33
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
Google would probably invest in "Google For Goverment" ??? They would make a beautifle GUI and in between spending they could have ads for "Money Management Help"
8:33
[Comment From Art Carden]
Here's another question that can be analyzed using comparative advantage: should we care whether we grow corn domestically (Google "Iowa Car Crop" for more information).
8:33
[Comment From Dawn S.]
spending freeze sounds like a last ditch effort.
8:33
[Comment From LaTasha]
spending freeze will be very bad
8:33
[Comment From julie cee]
we cannot produce ENOUGH corn to make ethanol viable....in compatability with other products currently based on corn crops.
8:33
[Comment From Michael]
Nice finesse by Obama
8:33
[Comment From fingers]
early child hood education....YAH!
8:33
[Comment From matt]
McCain would'nt pass the GI Bill! What does he care about Vets affairs?
8:33
[Comment From Frank]
"You're using a hatchet where you need a scapel." That's the statement of the night, so far.
8:33
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Lehrer represents a frustrated public, wishing that the candidates would give straight, specific answers.
8:33
[Comment From Guest]
Typical democrat... can't just freeze spending
8:33
Kesha Williams: but what about us who don't have vehicles that can use it. So I have to get more debt ( new car pymt)so I can get a compatible fuel
8:33
[Comment From Donna]
If you don't look at the tv when McCain is speaking, he sounds just like Bush.
8:33
[Comment From Ali]
Neither of the two candidates care about the American people. Obama spits on the fact that he is half white and McCain has supported Bush for the past eight years. Nader has my vote on November 4th and anyone who cares about this country please do the same. Nader ‘08
8:33
[Comment From conventional1]
if we get out of Iraq we would have some money
8:34
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
Wind-tied Solar Natural Gas? Wow...
8:34
[Comment From Dawn S.]
alternative fuel shou;d have been dealt with 30 years ago...too little too late.
8:34
[Comment From Sarah]
hello...McCain was the one who brought up the freeze
8:34
[Comment From fingers]
DRINK....terrorist
8:34
[Comment From alicia]
how ignorant.
8:34
6burkes: Iraq should pay the US treasury back for the war
8:34
[Comment From Art Carden]
McCain: "we're sending $700 billion overseas..." here's another question about international trade: what is being sent back?
8:34
[Comment From Nicole]
lol he does sound like bush!!!
8:34
[Comment From LaTasha]
good point dawn -
8:34
[Comment From conventional1]
we do need nuclear--it's all over Europe
8:34
[Comment From Rob]
Nuclear energy? We need renewable energy!
8:34
[Comment From Patricia]
Please, Nadar has spent his political life being a spoiler
8:34
[Comment From Sarah]
are there commercial breaks?
8:34
[Comment From matt]
Nukes are necessary, but as few as possible
8:34
[Comment From julie cee]
DEMS just let ban on off shore drilling lapse.....cannot one of them REMEMBER THIS....it just happened this week....
8:34
[Comment From Nader for The People]
they both support nuclear
8:34
[Comment From fingers]
freeze spending you cut your nose off to spite your face
8:34
[Comment From Michael]
If you live in Tennesse it doesn't matter wgo you vote for; McCain has a big lead.
8:34
[Comment From Rob]
Solar energy is all over Europe
8:35
[Comment From Frank]
Here's the score: McCain 0; Obama 0; Lehrer 4
8:35
[Comment From Guest]
Mccain is talking about helping veterans but he has consistently voted against veteran benefits
8:35
[Comment From otis]
Why are they skirting around the question?
8:35
[Comment From SueP]
We already had research on high-lipid algae as a biomass source twenty-five years ago...Reagan killed the research. FYI
8:35
[Comment From Nader for The People]
every candidate spoils for every other one.
8:35
[Comment From conventional1]
we should be driving eleectric cars, investing in solar and wind energy
8:35
[Comment From Michael]
Europe isn't run by oil companies
8:35
[Comment From alicia]
frank add McCains hair: -1
8:35
Kesha Williams: what about the veteran that are one Beale begging for money?
8:35
[Comment From julie cee]
I don't like the freewheeling use of eventually.
8:35
[Comment From vera]
I think Lehr is beating a dead horse. The abvious answer is yes. The economical situation will effect EVERYTHING!
8:35
[Comment From Dawn S.]
of course it will...this finacial thing has changed the playing field forever.
8:35
[Comment From Patricia]
If you live in Tennesee it does matter who you vote for.
8:35
[Comment From Rob]
This is why the debates need third party candidates, to force them to answer to the issues!
8:35
[Comment From Art Carden]
Lehrer: "the way you rule the country as President of the United States..." I'm sure this was a slip, but when did this become a monarchy? In what sense should the President "rule?"
8:35
[Comment From LaTasha]
why hasn't mccain done more to create ways to utilize alt energy before this new green rage
8:35
[Comment From Nicole]
Michael same for Florida....but you never now how it will all pan out on election day
8:36
[Comment From julie cee]
Nuclear energy will supplant electric car resource needs....or am I off base?
8:36
6burkes: I doubt those are real veterans, and the few who are, were messed up before hand
8:36
[Comment From Michael]
Nice move by Obama
8:36
[Comment From Robbie]
McCain wants to cut spending but raise defense spending
8:36
[Comment From vera]
Mccain i
8:36
[Comment From vera]
s
8:36
Kesha Williams: how so 6Burkes?
8:36
[Comment From vera]
mccain
8:36
[Comment From vera]
s
8:36
[Comment From Troy]
Time to make the iraqis to pay us back
8:36
[Comment From JS]
We should use our own oil for the next 10 years while alternatives are implimented. It can't happen over night.
8:36
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Obama may have outstanding strategists in David Plouffe and David Axelrod, but if he doesn't get a good debate coach, he is headed, not for the Presidency of the United States, but for the Presidency of the Socratic Union at Oxford. I'm just glad he wasn't the prosecutor in LA in 1970, or Charles Manson might have gone free.
8:36
[Comment From LaTasha]
seems to me that if he's BEEN for it, he could have done more before 2008
8:36
[Comment From julie cee]
SCREECH....from energy to Healthcare with no seque?????
8:36
[Comment From vera]
mccain is too rich to understand what healthcare plans mean
8:36
[Comment From otis]
I am from Milwaukee and I wanted to know other views. What do you think of this debate?
8:36
[Comment From Frank]
Obama wins were "moves" are concerned; but neither one has answered the questions.
8:36
[Comment From Art Carden]
How is health care "crushing on people all over the country?" Sure, it's expensive, but it is technologically advanced and progressive.
8:36
[Comment From doc1]
why noy, we r giving everything else to the federal gov why not the healthcare
8:37
[Comment From waqe]
onion headline the other day: "Diebold accidentely (sp) leaks 2008 election results..."
8:37
[Comment From julie cee]
SO enuff he said/he said....tell me what you're gonna do..PLEASE
8:37
[Comment From N.S]
What do you all think about the audience reaction on CNN.
8:37
[Comment From Sarah]
What else is on?
8:37
[Comment From conventional1]
bad comment on medical by McCain--let families decide. who? families that don't have healcare, moron?
8:37
[Comment From matt]
Privatizing healthcare will only increase costs as healthcare companies look for more profit and fewer payouts. awful ide3a
8:37
6burkes: "veterans" come from the population, some enlist with preexisting problems, so when they get out, they are still problematic
8:37
[Comment From Robbie]
Obama has most closely answered the questions
8:37
[Comment From fingers]
NO NEW TAXES! sound familar
8:37
[Comment From Michael]
McCain hammering away and unless Obama answers then round goes to McCain
8:37
Kesha Williams: oh ok. Thanks for elaborating.
8:37
[Comment From Stop]
have you ever tried to purchase private health care insurance?
8:37
[Comment From Nader for The People]
most industrialized countries have single payer healthcare
8:37
[Comment From Stop]
health care is mutha
8:37
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
A spending freeze is too blunt an instrument. For one thing, we need to spend *more* on our badly outdated infrastructure.
8:37
[Comment From JS]
How about NO taxes. Sales tax only!
8:37
6burkes: Fair tax
8:37
Kesha Williams: For a single healthy 25 yr old insurance is $230 a month
8:37
[Comment From Rob]
We should have single payer healthcare for all Americans
8:38
[Comment From waqe]
but he will not name one of them that he would cut...
8:38
[Comment From Mem]
He has fought agains spending but it is out of control
8:38
[Comment From Michael]
Nice counter by Obama
8:38
[Comment From Sarah]
ORGY of spending
8:38
[Comment From Donna]
If McCain have fought against excessive spending all of his life, why does he have so many homes across the world?
8:38
[Comment From vera]
its interesting that mccain has 90% of the time voted for Bush and now he wants to be the lone rager
8:38
[Comment From N.S]
Why is McCain a republican his party is the one that is doing the spending.
8:38
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain is like someone who talks of taming a werewolf by trimming the creature's nails.
8:38
[Comment From otis]
What about education? healthy children? housing market? I want to sell my house and I was told that it is 35% less. What are we going to do to make headway?
8:38
[Comment From SueP]
McCain creepy smile, when did he get so creepy?
8:38
[Comment From conventional1]
yeah our bridges are crumbling and roads falling apart
8:38
Commercial Appeal: domestic issues are next debate otis
8:38
[Comment From Rob]
We need to take this country in a new direction.
8:38
[Comment From N.S]
Another line we have heard
8:38
[Comment From Donna]
McXain
8:38
[Comment From alicia]
orgy... "hard to swallow" man obama keep it pg
8:38
[Comment From Nicole]
nicely said Obama!
8:38
Kesha Williams: uh oh.. here we go again. ANOTHER WAR STORY FROM THE MAVERICK
8:38
[Comment From LaTasha]
McCain smile means his temper is boiling
8:38
[Comment From Michael]
Obama needs to defens his own record
8:39
[Comment From Donna]
McCain
8:39
[Comment From Sarah]
when is the next debate?
8:39
[Comment From JS]
how many rebublicans can say they have ONLY voted with Bush 90%
8:39
[Comment From vera]
mccain keeps focusing on his "maverick" style, yet his vote does not align with his banter
8:39
[Comment From Sarah]
ooooh Vietnam
8:39
[Comment From Robbie]
McCain is just answering with attempting to draw attention to his record, but his record isn't the issue
8:39
[Comment From Nicole]
Lol kesha
8:39
[Comment From Mem]
McCain has voted with bush 95%
8:39
[Comment From Michael]
Round even
8:39
[Comment From fingers]
MAVERICK...drink
8:39
[Comment From Donna]
McCain
8:39
[Comment From Art Carden]
The problem with the "health insurance" debate is that what is being described as insurance isn't actually insurance: it's third-party subsidized consumption.
8:39
Kesha Williams: nice plug for your VP, McCain...not
8:39
[Comment From vera]
thanks Mem
8:39
[Comment From julie cee]
Remember, John McCain has health impairments from serving and protecting...I think he probably understands healthcare issues better (in the big picture) than any of us young'uns do....and he DOES have a history of doing what is right, rather than what is popular. Perhaps Obama would have same record if he were not in his infancy as a public servant.
8:39
[Comment From Rob]
Obama has voted with Bush and the Republicans more times than not
8:39
[Comment From Donna]
McCain
You've got to love bureaucracy, if only for the laughs. Libertarians like to mock government bureaucracy, but private bureaucracy can be just as intransigent and mind-numbing. The key thing about bureaucracy is that it always rolls on, a big, inpersonal machine that grinds all before it. And bureaucrats do what they are tasked to do, regardless of the circumstances.
Here, for example, is the last press release from Washington Mutual, issued September 24, as the company teetered on bankruptcy, one day before the buy-out by JP Morgan - Chase:
WaMu Recognized as Top Diverse Employer—Again
Company ranks in top ten of Hispanic Business’ Diversity Elite and earns perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index
SEATTLE, WA (September 24, 2008) – Washington Mutual, Inc. (NYSE:WM), one of the nation’s leading banks for consumers and small businesses, has once again been recognized as a top employer by Hispanic Business magazine and the Human Rights Campaign.
Hispanic Business magazine recently ranked WaMu sixth in its annual Diversity Elite list, which names the top 60 companies for Hispanics. The company was honored specifically for its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees, reach out to Hispanic consumers and support Hispanic communities and organizations.
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) civil rights organization, also awarded WaMu its second consecutive 100 percent score in the organization’s 2009 Corporate Equality Index (CEI), which measures progress in attaining equal rights for GLBT employees and consumers. WaMu joins the ranks of 259 other major U.S. businesses that also received top marks in the annual survey. The CEI rated a total of 583 businesses on GLBT-related policies and practices, including non-discrimination policies and domestic partner benefits.
In both surveys, WaMu earned points for competitive diversity policies and programs, including the recently established Latino, African American and GLBT employee network groups, all of which have a corporate executive sponsor and champion.
“Diversity is an integral part of cultivating a welcoming, innovative and dynamic workplace here at WaMu. We are proud to be recognized for the opportunities and benefits we offer to all of our employees, including the specific efforts we have made to engage Hispanics and the GLBT community,” said Steve Rotella, WaMu president and COO. “We are committed to diversity at WaMu and pledge to listen to our customers and work closely with our employees to continue to make progress.”
You can't make this stuff up.
The full release is here. Hat tip to Mark Krikorian at The Corner .
A rich New Yorker may have a swimming pool in his yacht, as one of them has planned; he may have a marble bathtub, though porcelain-laid tubs do very well for ninety-nine out of every hundred; he may bathe in cow's milk, goat's milk, or white asses' milk, as the books say some Romans did, but he may not have two doors to his bath room if it is in an apartment house in New York City...
The Tenement House Department has adopted a rule that no bath room shall have more than one door. And so the plans of the west side man for his bathrooms had to be changed.
"Two doors in a bath room," explained Commissioner Butler yesterday, "makes for the accidental collision of persons in the bathroom. It is so easy to forget about locking the door through which you did not come. There doesn't seem to be any good reason why the rule shouldn't be general. I don't know why anybody should want two doors in a bathroom."
Indeed, I am sure Mr. Butler didn't have a clue as to why someone would want two doors to a bathroom. Thus, as is too often the case with the "benevolent social planner," Commissioner Butler's preferences ruled supreme. Yet, did Mr. Butler's lack of knowledge and/or understanding of other people's preferences improve efficiency and social welfare? Hmmm.....
From Mike Munger, a Duke University professor of economics and political science, and the Libertarian candidate for governor.
“The state is the great fiction by which each of us seeks to live at the expense of all of us.” The 19th French economist Frederic Bastiat recognized something that seems to be eluding our wise men in Washington, and Wall Street.
If Bastiat were alive, I can guess his reaction to the bailout: First, we don't know what we are doing, and we are as likely to do harm as help. The desperate hurry comes from electoral politics, and not from any real economic necessity.
Second, we aren't creating value. Government can't create value in financial markets. All we are doing is shifting costs from one group (Wall Street bankers, and mortgage sellers who took enormous and unsupportable risks) and transferring them to another group (taxpayers, who don't know any better).
When you hear someone say “The government bailout of Wall Street,” make a mental substitution: “The taxpayer-funded bailout of Wall Street.” And then remember that we have a federal debt bigger than Jupiter.
Deficits are future taxes. The bailout is simply a way of allowing irresponsible lenders to escape unharmed. If you have a mortgage, and can't pay, then you are responsible. If AIG has debts and can't pay, our leaders want to soak taxpayers for the bill.
The point is that you can't take money away from taxpayers who earned it, give it to the financiers who squandered it, and call that a good policy. There is no danger of another Depression, which was caused by a deflationary monetary policy. We are facing a temporary credit crunch, and it will sort itself out if we leave it alone. Things aren't so bad that a panicked bunch of politicians can't make it much, much worse.
Each can't live at the expense of all. Not even if you are a rich banker.
The Armchair Economist, Steven Landsburg, makes the best case I've seen for lovers of liberty to support Senator McCain for President.
I love this little discussion of free trade:
"[P]rotectionism, like creationism, requires an extraordinary level of willful ignorance. The consensus for free trade among economists is approximately as solid as the consensus for evolution among biologists, and it is a consensus supported by a solid body of both theory and observation. To ignore that consensus betrays a degree of anti-intellectualism that frightens me.
"McCain is quite good on this issue, not just in terms of rhetoric (which I've known for a while) but in terms of voting record (which I've just recently researched). Obama, by contrast, promises to be our first explicitly protectionist president since Herbert Hoover."
Landsburg's bottom line: he, "support[s] John McCain. With trepidation."
Reason #74 why libertarians don't gain much ground
From the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (hey, sounds good so far) comes a blog post by one Nicholas Provenzo (9-16-08 entry). The first paragraph reads:
Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.
Now, I am anti-abortion and, to the horrors of many libertarians, Catholic to boot. But I also consider myself libertarian. What has bugged the crud out of me for many years is the strident belief by many libertarians (Reason magazine seems to tilt strongly in this direction, or at least it did when I subscribed to it a year ago) that anyone religious is a backwards boob secretly or overtly determined to submit everyone who isn't hip to theocracy to an Inquisition.
My own thought, and I have read counter-arguments to my opinion, is that in normal situations a new human being begins when the full genetic blueprint for a new person is created, at conception. I don't see how, after the two haploids become a diploid, this being is anything but human, and thus deserving of the rights any other human has. So, in that sense, abortion violates the nonaggression axiom that virtually all libertarians profess. Sure, some humans are born with genetic defects just as some are born with attached earlobes, but to me that makes them no less human. But Provenzo would kill 'em all, even those with no genetic problems, and call it moral. I feel like I have to take a shower just typing that sentence.
Regardless, I don't see how a blog post such as Provenzo's would make an ideological fence-sitter say "well, heck yeah, gimme some more o' that capitalism then! I now think price controls and universal health care are wrong!" I get the same queasy feeling when obvious potheads call themselves libertarians just so they can get their drugs cheaper.
I realize this strain of thought is due to Rand's anti-religious bigotry, but I don't understand why these folks can't realize that a love of liberty and religion are not mutually exclusive. Heck, even higher-ups at the Vatican acknowledge that belief in God and in evolution can be compatible. Until this sect of libertarianism stops acting so fundamentalist, I'll continue to be slightly embarrased to admit my libertarian leanings.
Picking Palin certainly made things more interesting. She will likely help shore up pro-life votes for her side, since McCain can be faulted for wanting embryonic stem-cell research (which hasn't demonstrated any medical benefits, while adult stem cells have). Add that to the dual gaffes that both Pelosi and Biden have made on when life begins, which brought a united front of US bishops objections, and I think the McC-P side picks up most cultural conservatives, Dem or Rep.
Of course, the beauty pageant that is the US Presidential election will probably show the Obamessiah ascending, with the help of the press. They don't really need to worry about anything until two weeks before November anyway, since our attention spans won't remember or care about anything that happens now. And who cares about the prospect of nationalizing the US health care industry when you look so good on the beach?
Bottom line: Bush fatigue + McCain being an old fart + Obama rockstardom = Obama victory + Tim looking at the EFW index to find a country more free than where we will regress to.
I think Bob's prediction is close, but I still give the edge to Obama. Here's why--OH is almost certainly going to shift to Obama (though I'm not sure it'll yield as big a margin for Obama as Bob predicts--it probably depends on the def of big margin). A poll at RCP does have McCain up 2.2% in Ohio, but I think it's unlikely to be correct and/or sustained. The flipping of OH holding all else constant would give Obama a 272-266 Electoral College Victory.
As for other states, I think they are, on net, more likely to shift to Obama than away from Obama. While McCain may pick up NH, his next best hopes are probably places like MI, PA, and MN all of which are pretty Democrat states. By contrast, Obama is currently ahead in polls in CO and NM and also has a chance at VA.
As for events, momentum, etc--I'm guessing this might be something of a high water mark for McCain. I expect some of the Palinmania to subside (too bad--anyone who supported Steve Forbes in 1996 is off to a good start in my book); we may also get more gloomy (or at portrayed by the media as more gloomy) economic news. Or Cindy McCain may buy another house.
I realize I'm going against the current Intrade odds (53-46 in favor of McCain). I'm also going against my ever so slight preference (because gridlock is good!) for McCain.
1. Obama wins the popular vote on the basis of big majorities in NY, IL, OH and CA.
2. McCain wins the Electoral College vote, and presidency, on the basis of slim victories elsewhere.
3. Democrats will cry election fraud in every state they lose. (Note, they will not complain about Ohio this time.)
4. After winning the popular vote but losing the election for the second time in recent memory, the Democrats will begin a serious drive to amend the Constitution to eliminate the "undemocratic" Electoral College in favor of a simple majority vote.
Mary Theroux has a blog post about the various Depression-era Western apologists for communism. Heck I remember such apologists in my college days in the 1980s among fellow students as well as professors.
Her post reminded me of a recent conversation with a small group of people including a somewhat prominent mainstream economist.
We were talking about the Georgia-Russia war, and someone compared Russia's actions with the Nazis. I kinda chuckled and told a story about a poster I had in college. It had a swastika, a hammer & sickle, and picture of Stalin and Hitler. The caption read "Two Faces. One Ideology." I just loved that poster! It used to infuriate my commie-pinko leftist friends in college, which is precisely why I liked it so much.
Anyway, after a momentary pause, this prominent economist says, "Gee, I don't know if that's fair. I think they [i.e., the communists] meant well."
WTF? They meant well?!? They meant well?!?
For the record:
(1) No they didn't!
(2) Even if they did, that's no excuse!
At last week's GOP Convention, much attention was focused on John McCain's heroic life and the personal sacrifices he has made in defense of his country. It is easy to forget just all that Senator McCain has been through - this is a man who can no longer lift his arms over his head, as a result of the tortures he suffered in Vietnam - as Fred Thompson said, in a moving speech, Senator McCain, "can no longer salute the flag of the country he loves."
I am moved by Senator McCain's story as much as anyone - I have always said that he is a true American hero.
In his acceptance speech, Senator McCain explained that he "fell in love" with the United States during that time as a prisoner in Vietnam. Why did he finally fall in love with America? "[F]or it's decency, for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for."
What's missing there? The decency of America, and the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people are all things I believe in, and reasons why I love this country. But I cannot imagine that if I were asked "what do you love about the United States," my answer would not begin with, "freedom." "Freedom" didn't make Senator McCain's list.
By this I don't suggest that Senator McCain doesn't value freedom. Clearly he does. Senator McCain closed his speech by saying that he "fight for the ideals and character of a free people" (good, although I didn't ask John McCain to fight for my "character," and I'm not quite sure what that means. If he meant he was going to stand up for my own character, well, that's one he forfeited long ago). Perhaps "freedom" is what he meant by the "idea" of America that he vaguely referenced. He did warn us of the "threats to peace and liberty." But there were no other uses of "free," "freedom," or "liberty" in his speech.
It is, perhaps, a telling omission that "freedom" did not make this list of core values, in a speech that must have been reviewed umpteen times to get every word just right.
The Onion covers the emerging Joad Cressbeckler campaign. One supporter says she is "voting for a man [she] can imagine drowning a bag of cats," but I have to take issue with his trade policy.
Just as Putin was arriving with a group of wildlife specialists to see a trapped Amur tiger, it escaped and ran toward a nearby camera crew, the country's main television station said. Putin quickly shot the beast and sedated it with a tranquilizer gun.
A few thoughts on campaign dynamics. I just saw that an organization is offering free campaign schwag supporting a candidate for whom I do not plan to vote. I see a couple of possibilities:
1. I take the schwag, stick it in a drawer, and thereby impose costs on an organization that supports policies with which I disagree.
2. I take the schwag and wear it ironically, thereby using this organization's political ammunition against them.
3. I take the schwag and try 1) or 2), but the organization is able to get political mileage out of the fact that people want their stuff. My attempted subterfuge backfires.
4. There is an implicit agreement whereby I agree not to take someone else's campaign schwag unless either I collect it or I use it to support the organization. Incentives in the system imply that the agreement always breaks down, which could be one of the reasons why clean campaign rhetoric doesn't match dirty campaign reality. That could be an interesting political history paper, though I'd be surprised if someone hasn't written it already.
5. I blog about it, ignore it because accepting the offer will get me on every political mailing list in the solar system, and go on with my life.
OK, OK, presidential campaigns are no place to try to find economic wisdom, but this year's campaign seems more devoid of economic knowledge, and full of economic idiocy, than any I can remember in my lifetime -- a lifetime that remembers campaigns by Richard (wage & price controls) Nixon and Gerald ("Whip Inflation Now" buttons) Ford, not to mention a campaign by Walter Mondale.
Here we have Barack Obama, whose proposed solution to rising energy prices is to take steps to a) decrease supply (with new taxes and regulation of "big oil") and b) increase demand (by using the tax revenue so raised from suppliers to fund cash payments to consumers), up against John McCain, to whom "economics" is sort of like "the vision thing" was to the senior George Bush - it's something he knows is important, but he just can't quite get a handle on it, and often it appears that he's not even quite sure why it's important.
Now Senator Obama has decided to supplement his economic illiteracy by selecting Senator Joe Biden as a running mate. Biden is known for many things, but economic policy is not one of them.
Meanwhile, if Senator McCain picks a Senator as a vice presidential candidate, he'll complete an unprecedented sweep - all four members of the major party tickets will be sitting U.S. Senators. I'm pretty sure this is a sign of the apocalypse, but hold on while I check my references.
...
Yes, it is.
Meanwhile, poor old Bob Barr continues to make his pitch for voters to vote capital "L" Libertarian. Is he having success? John Zogby's latest interactive polls continue to include Barr, who makes some surprisingly strong showings. To wit:
Colorado: 8%
Florida: 5%
Michigan: 5%
Nevada 10%
New Hampshire: 11%
New Mexico: 5%
Ohio: 8%
Pennsylvania: 5%
Virginia: 5%
This is remarkable, really. Note that in none of these polls does Ralph Nader (also included by Zogby) top 3%. Of course, "interactive" polling remains highly controversial among pollsters. Even assuming these numbers are accurate, the norm is for third party support to fall off sharply close to election day, especially if the race between major party candidates is close. Nevertheless, these are surprisingly strong showings, especially given that Barr's fund-raising has been so-so and, like any third party candidate, he struggles to find any media oxygen (though he certainly is outdoing any previous Libertarian candidate). Could Barr really poll double digits, even in relatively libertarian Nevada or New Hampshire? And remember that Zogby's polling in early July showed Barr at 8% in Georgia (which he represented in Congress for four terms), six and seven percent in neighboring South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively, six percent in giant Texas, seven percent in McCain's home state of Arizona, and 5% in Obama's home state of Illinois, among other showings.
Common wisdom is that Barr's support comes primarily from Republicans, but it may be wrong to assume that Barr's candidacy helps Obama. It strikes me that at least as likely is that Barr gives libertarian leaning Republicans upset by the GOP's spending binge, corruption, and conservative positions on "social issues" a place to park their support short of pulling the Obama lever (or, for you conspiracy theorists, pushing the Obama button on their Diebold-rigged machine that will record their votes for McCain anyway). If that's the case, then Barr's candidacy helps McCain.
If I can find a bit of time, I hope to look at the Barr campaign's pronouncements on the economy to see if they actually do make more sense than the nonsense coming from the Obama camp and the bewilderment released by Senator McCain. I'll share the results here.
Just got back from a doctor's office visit (darned high cholesterol!), and we had an interesting chat about the upcoming election. He told me that if the vote results in a particular candidate being elected, leading to a single-payer system, then the practice (of which he is part owner along with a few of the other docs) will end up laying off a huge number of staff. He bases this conclusion on the comparison with Medicare patients, who are a financial loss for the business.
If his thinking is correct, this could really harm our area, since there is a large presence of health care businesses here. Of course, would the voting public draw the connection between unemployed medical staff and universal health care? Would they recognize that the large wait times due to both less staff and increased quantity demand from patients is the inevitable result of their wishes for medical care at a zero price? Would they understand that the substandard medical care they are receiving is due to the neglect of prices and incentives? Do I really want the remaining overworked and underpaid staff to be sticking me with needles?
The only bright spot in our discussion was my doc's thought that, should this all happen, he would open a new practice with a visibly posted fee schedule, so patients knew what they were paying. Reminded me of John Stossel's Sick in America.
Hundreds of South Ossetian rebels with some Russian army personnel went house-to-house in villages near Gori. They set houses ablaze and looted buildings, witnesses said.
The body of a man, his mouth caked with blood, lay in a street in the village of Dzardzanis and nearby the body of a bearded man could be seen crushed under an overturned mini-van, an AFP journalist reported.
The Human Rights Watch group said its researchers in South Ossetia had on Tuesday "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians."
Thank you for your heartfelt admission of guilt of cheating on your marriage vows and lying about it for the last two years. As these sorts of celebrity/politician apologies go, yours was as genuine as I can remember.
I was particularly struck by this part of your statement, "I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic." Who can blame you? You spent the last several years being wined and dined by the most powerful people in the world. You had scores of people telling you how great you and your ideas were. You could have become president! Heck I bet haven't driven yourself to work or gone to a grocery store in years!
Who wouldn't let this go to his head?
I fear this typically happens even to good people when they are elevated to political office. And this is precisely why it is so dangerous to give you politicians the kind of unlimited power over our lives that we have given you. Your political career is over perhaps, but we citizens still have to live under the rule of your "egocentric and narcissistic" colleagues who remain in office.
Speculators accept risk that somebody else doesn't want. And speculators are rewarded for accepting risk if they prove right, and they lose money if they get it wrong.
Consider an important example today. Airlines have enormous demand for fuel. Those that can do so often hedge against a rise in the price of oil. The price of oil may or may not rise. The risk exists in any event. The question is: Who is going to bear the risk?
The airline doesn't want to bear the risk of higher oil prices. That's not their business. But at the right price, the speculator will take that risk. So the speculator contracts with the airline to deliver an amount of oil (or jet fuel) at a certain place and time and for a fixed price. The speculator, of course, does not have the oil. Rather, at the appointed time, the speculator buys the oil on the spot market for delivery. If the spot price is then below the price contracted with the airline, the speculator makes money. If not, the speculator loses. Either way, the airline's price is locked in.
A July 29, 1908 NYT article concerns the militarization of the southern border of the U.S.:
Tired of being made the recruiting ground for filibusters the United States is taking steps to put an end to the hatching of conspiracies against the peace and welfare of its neighbors. The State Department is using every resource of the Government to prevent such violations and to punish the infringement of the neutrality laws. A stop is to be put in this country to such plotting as preceded the uprising in Northern Mexico...
Ambassador Creel's Government [of Mexico] is anxious to have the cooperation of this Government in establishing a chain of forts or army posts along the border between the United States and Mexico. The plan is for both countries to divide the expense of maintaining this chain of forts.
Meeting last November with the leaders of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (Acorn)—the nationwide network of left-wing community groups that taps government money for a host of causes—Obama declared: “I’ve been fighting alongside Acorn on issues you care about my entire career,” including representing Acorn in a court case in Illinois. Acorn members apparently reciprocated by working hard to turn out voters for Obama’s Illinois campaigns, according to a 2003 piece in the magazine Social Policy by a Chicago-area Acorn organizer. After the candidate’s November appearance, Acorn’s affiliated political action committee endorsed Obama for president.
Obama’s nomination will be celebrated as a first for African-Americans. But the racial symbolism may obscure the importance of his presidential run to the tens of thousands of government-funded community groups that stand to benefit from an Obama agenda that’s right out of the 1960s. His presidential platform touts programs that would refuel the nonprofit sector, ranging from a commitment to boost money for federal relics like the ineffective and wasteful Community Development Block Grant program . . . to a plan for providing “a full network of services, including early childhood education, youth violence prevention efforts and after-school activities . . . from birth to college” to a series of “Promise Neighborhoods.”
It’s tough to be a lobbyist these days, baby. It’s not all capture and vote-buying as the populists would have you believe. As Kimberly Strassel writes in today's Opinion Journal, politicians have no reason not to use what leverage they do have back against you.
As most of Washington met last week to fret over the economy, Harry Reid was attending a less-noticed summit. The Senate majority leader had summoned the titans of more than a dozen industry trade groups to a Capitol Hill meeting, where he delivered a crisp message: Get with our program, or get demolished.
[...]
In private, and public, Democrats are telling companies they're frustrated with what they view as too slow a shift in the political makeup of lobby shops. New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez recently quipped that if companies didn't start sending friendlier faces, they might find it "a little difficult at the end of the day for them to achieve the success they want." North Dakota's Byron Dorgan (who apparently has read the ethics law) clarified: "It's not about how many Democrats are hired. It's about how they weigh in on issues."
Mr. Reid stepped up the pressure with last week's pow-wow. Democrats invited only presidents and CEOs of the most powerful trade groups, hoping to circumvent GOP lobbyists and take their message straight to the top. That message? According to one participant, the meeting was cordial, but the theme clear: "We have a narrow margin right now, and it is tough for us to get anything done. But there will be more of us next year, you'd better get used to it, and you better find a way to work with us."
It’s called “rent extraction” in the public choice literature. Fred McChesney did most of the work on it, culminating in his 1997 book, Money for Nothing. A variant of rent extraction is so-called “milker bills,” where legislators “float” a regulatory proposal that would harm industry or firm X, who is supposed to get the hint that a few extra campaign dollars could help get the proposed bill onto the back burner. Another variant is so-called tax farming, where the politicians play nice with tax base X while finding indirect ways to tax them. One indirect mechanism that’s become increasingly popular in recent decades is tort law. Take big tobacco, for example. Most of the monies that states have collected under the $246 billion master settlement have simply substituted for general tax dollars. A New York Timesstudy did some of the bean counting, and found that 95 percent has gone to fund public works projects or property and sales tax relief. On this point, Jeffrey Haymond has a chapter in my forthcoming book, Law without Romance, titled "Class Action Rent Extraction." Torts, of course, are a kind of hidden broad-based tax. The Council of Economic Advisors in 2002 estimated the annual “tort tax” (higher prices imposed by business sector to cover costs of litigation) at nearly $200 billion. These lobbyist shenanigans—the K Street Project—aren’t much different.
So from a public choice perspective, the so-called "K Street Project Part Blue" isn't much of a shock at all. Sure, it is vaguely sordid to see pols strong-arm the hiring decisions of Big Lobby. But the article misses the larger point that rent seeking is socially costly in the first place, and rent extraction only furthers and compounds those losses.
Lindsay Campbell at www.moblogic.tv makes the case for non-voting:
I'll elaborate on an important point that she makes. If you stand in line at the store for a couple of hours on the day after Thanksgiving, if you line up to get the new iPhone, or if you line up at midnight to see The Dark Knight (we didn't, but if there's a midnight showing of The Clone Wars in a few weeks, I'm there), you at least have something to show for it. If you stand in line for a few hours to vote, you exert exactly zero influence on the outcome and maybe you come away with an "I voted today" sticker. I still do it, though. My thoughts on voting in Presidential elections are here. Here's South Park's very intelligent but very less-than-wholesome take on voting. They use obscenity and vulgarity in the service of satire, but you've been warned.
Letter to the Editor: Mike Munger in the NC Debates
I just sent the following to the Raleigh News & Observer. The letter's marginal contribution to the probability that Mike is included in the debates is probably small, but every little bit helps and the idea is now on record.
While I am not a North Carolinian, I have been watching the discussion over whether Libertarian candidate and Duke University political scientist Michael Munger should be invited to the gubernatorial debate with some interest. I only first met Dr. Munger at a professional meeting in March, but I have admired his scholarship and contributions to the public understanding of economics and political science for years. Dr. Munger and the Libertarians did all that was required of them to appear on the ballot, and they did it all in very timely fashion. For this reason alone, Dr. Munger should be invited to the gubernatorial debates. Beyond this, however, Dr. Munger holds a PhD in economics and chairs the political science department at one of the world's elite universities. Including him would elevate the level of the debate considerably. Excluding him from the debates would be unfair to Dr. Munger, but the real injustice is done to the voters of North Carolina. If Dr. Munger is excluded, the voters are denied the opportunity to have a debate featuring all the legitimate candidates.
Via Cafe Hayek, here's an interesting dissection of proposals to mandate volunteering. I particularly like the discussion of intractable measurement problems: what is "service," what isn't, and who decides?
This exposes a glaring inconsistency in US labor policy. Working voluntarily for a wage of $5.00 per hour is unacceptable exploitation and is therefore illegal. Working involuntarily for a wage of $0.00 per hour, on the other hand, is ennobling service and may soon be required.
Lots of folks helped with the Money Grenade, and with getting word out about the difficulties I have been having even getting access to the normal assets of campaigning.
I can't cite them all. So, for those I have missed: a blanket thank you, and a heartfelt one. In addition to the net postings I have missed, I want to thank Joy Elliott, Paul Elledge, Linda Ellis, Susan Hogarth, Barbara Howe, Tom Howe, Phillip Rhodes, Rob Rose, Rusty Sheridan, John Szamosi, and Richard Schilhavy. (Again, I'm sorry if I left you out, but it's 6:30 am, and I am at the beach celebrating my anniversary with my wife, and I have to get back to the room; there's marital work to do...)
As I noted, there were lots of internet mentions, and I appreciate them. But there are some I have to mention specifically.
BUT: The main prize, the above and beyond, the hardest working man in the Blogosphere for the Munger campaign, has got to be.... Steve Newton! This post clearly brought in quite a few contributions, and I appreciate it!
So who's the criminal? According to James Hansen, it's greedy CEOs:
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
The June 27, 1908 NYT reports on what is expected to be in the Democratic Party's platform, to be introduced by William Jennings Bryan, the party's nominee that year.
It is fascinating that the next 100 years, during much of which the Democrats were in control of Congress (and occasionally the White House), the party platform has changed very little, suggesting that they haven't been very successful in implementing their goals. Whether this is an indictment of Democratic leadership or of their opposition, I am not sure.
Here is a paraphrased list of what the paper suggests will be in the Democratic party's agenda:
"A few general declarations in which the Republican Party is arraigned for having subordinated the Government to the favor-seeking corporations."
Insisting on a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
The establishment of equal rights, and the abolition of special privileges.
Laws prohibiting the pass and rebate [in railroads]
Making it unlawful for corporations to contribute to campaign funds
Requiring publicity of contributions before election, "of all individual contributions above a reasonable minimum."
Centralization of power through judicial concentration is opposed.
Constitutional authority of the General Government to prevent monopoly must be exercised via the Interstate commerce clause.
Laws to compel foreign corporations to submit their legal disputes to the courts of the States in which they do business.
The election of U.S. Senators by direct vote of the people.
Private monopoly must be made impossible.
Enforce the laws against trusts and trust magnates.
Immediate reduction of trade duties
Articles competing with trust-made articles should be duty free.
Constitutional amendment authorizing a tax upon individual and corporate incomes.
A national inheritance tax to reach the "swollen fortunes."
Immediate declaration of intent to recognize the independence of Philippine Islands "as soon as a stable Government can be established."
Powers of the National and State Railway Commissions should be expanded to protect people against discrimination and extortion.
Railroads should be forbidden to engage in any business that will compete with their shippers.
Railroad rates should be reduced until they reach a point that will leave only a "reasonable return on the present value of the roads."
Postal savings banks are favored as are rules protecting bank deposits.
An employer's liability law and an eight-hour day.
"The admission of Asiatic immigrants who cannot be amalgamated with our population is opposed."
A stricter enforcement is demanded of immigration laws.
<\blockquote>
Certain planks have moved from one part to the other, but as far as populist agenda items go the current Democratic party might have be very similar.
Will Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr be a factor in '08? Probably not, but don't discount the idea completely: at least some polls show Barr polling in the six percent range nationally. Third party support typically falls off close to election day, but in some crucial states. notably Georgia, which Barr represented for most of a decade in Congress, there is reason to believe he can hold most of his support, which has neared the 10 percent level in some polls.
Barr's fundraising has been so-so: he's raised about $50,000 a week, on average, since gaining the Libertarian nomination four weeks ago. But his media coverage has been impressive. He's done, among others, Fox News (at least twice) and CNN, the hip Colbert Report on Comedy Central, a full hour on Glen Beck's TV show on CNN, and Geraldo. This week he'll be doing some major talk radio, including Dennis Miller on Monday and Bob Grant later in the week.
If this is not quite Cadillac coverage, it's better than any Libertarian candidate has ever gotten before. A Lexis/Nexis search finds 427 stories referencing "Bob Barr" in the four weeks since his nomination on May 25 - by comparison, a Lexis search finds just 49 stories mentioning 2004 LP nominee Michael Badnarik in the four weeks after his nomination on May 27, 2004.
He's also got the requisite meet up groups going at Meetup,Facebook, and MySpace, and other web sites.
The obstacles to Barr's success - or that of any third party or independent candidate - are enormous. Ballot access laws force minor parties to spend large sums just getting on the ballot, whereas the Republican and Democratic Parties typically get automatic access in all 50 states. Campaign finance laws work against third parties, by limiting the amounts that can be contributed (historically, new parties, because of their smaller base of support, are more reliant on large donors) and by scaring away donors (I know of at least three people who have intentionally donated less than $200 to Barr's campaign in order to avoid having the names disclosed, as required by law for donors of $200 or more. Surely there are many more who limit their support or don't donate at all. For business and political reasons, many supporters, especially those active in politics or with business before the government, are afraid to make their support public). As Michael Munger has learned in his run for North Carolina Governor, it is almost impossible for even the most credible third party candidates to get into public debates. Most of all, the winner take all system of voting used in the U.S. (which I support) will always make it very difficult for a new party to break the two-party monopoly.
Still, Barr may be the is the strongest Libertarian nominee ever, and almost certainly since the articulate Ed Clark, funded by his wealthy running mate David Koch, picked up a bit over one percent of the vote in 1980. With many small government Republicans dismayed over the nomination of John McCain, there is an opening for Barr to gain meaningful numbers of votes and to draw attention to the need for and benefits of limited government.
Some background, on the decision of five different organizations "independently" to exclude me from the gubernatorial debates. What are the odds of THAT happening, do you think?
An interesting exchange, worth reading in its entirety, on Steve Newton's blog.
Some thoughts:
1. I announced my candidacy in May 2006. I have been included in MANY forums and debates, and have appeared three times on the same stage as Bev Perdue and Pat McCrory at forums. Admittedly, these were serial, rather than simultaneous, appearances, but it was within minutes.
2. The success of the Libertarians in getting on the ballot was known in March, and was official in May. Furthermore, this is the 8th time the Libertarian candidate for Governor will be on the ballot, officially. This is not new, either in terms of history over 30 years, or formal process this election cycle.
3. The NC Bar Association is a private organization, and as far as I can tell the event will not be televised externally. That means that this is NOT an in-kind contribution to the candidates. So, as a matter of principle I would defend the right of that organization to choose the folks who will appear at their convention. But, to paraphrase Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction," I'd have more respect for the NCBA if they'd just tell me to frig off. "We didn't know", if true, means that these people are way too dumb to be trying cases in state court. Fortunately, it's just not true. I think you would rather have a lawyer who is a good liar, compared to an idiot, right?
A summary of some of the sources of bias in WHO's health care quality index:
Michael Moore made great sport in his film "Sicko" of pointing out that the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked US health care a lowly 37th in the world, considerably below France and Canada. But, much like Mr. Moore himself, the rankings are far from impartial or empirically sound. [. . .] But an examination of the index tells us more about the ideology of the authors than it does about the quality of American healthcare.
[. . .]
The most obvious bias is that 62.5% of their weighting concerns not quality of service but equality. In other words, the rankings are less concerned with the ability of a health system to make sick people better than they are with the political consideration of achieving equal access and implementing state-controlled funding systems.
One of the five factors in the calculations is called "Financial Fairness". This favours systems that charge richer people more health tax, irrespective of how much, or little, health service they use. Colombia comes top. This measure has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare, yet it counts for a quarter of the weighting.
[. . .]
The rankings include measures for "health level" and "responsiveness." "Health Level" is their way of saying life expectancy, while "responsiveness" refers to a survey based on "respect for persons" and elements such as speed of service, convenience and choice—yet even in these cases half the weighting is determined by considerations of equality. Thus a country with a poor level of "responsiveness" throughout the population will score higher than a country with a good level in some parts and an excellent level in others.
[. . .]
Americans generally believe that whatever the other problems with the US healthcare system, its standards of care are high. In the details of the rankings there is evidence to support this belief. It shows the USA as having the most responsive health system in the world but this measure makes up only a small part of the overall rankings.
"Industry, as well as consumers, need much better protection. They should not have to wait until the next food scare before Washington comes to the rescue."
Meanwhile, the FCC held hearings today on whether to prohibit early termination fees charged by mobile phone carriers. Public choice founder, James Buchanan, has argued that the State has supplanted God as the bearer of ultimate responsibility. Stand by for new sex legislation that people may only shout “Oh state, oh state, oh state!!!”
The candidates from the "major" parties have organized their own private election, with just two people invited: Bev Purdue and Pat McCrory. Five debates, only two candidates will be allowed.
Here's the strange thing: It's really hard to get on the ballot in North Carolina. The Libertarians did what the state required. It wasn't easy, but we did it.
Why doesn't that translate into being included in the debate? Why do the state-sponsored parties get away with this? It's because you, the voters, are indifferent.
It's not the media; you can't blame them. Having me in the debate is MUCH more interesting, and would improve ratings. You can count on the media actually preferring that I be included.
But I'm not. Because the Dems and Repubs don't want even a whiff of competition to affect their cozy cartel.
Where's the outrage?
UPDATE: A snippet from the press release that will go out soon....
North Carolina has very restrictive ballot access laws. Simple fairness requires that every party crossing that very high threshold must be admitted to the debates. Let's be very clear: the General Assembly established a criterion for inclusion, and the Libertarians passed that test.
Yet the Libertarians have been excluded from participation, without explanation. The political elite of our state has made a decision to put its own convenience over the obvious will of the citizens.
As H.L. Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." When you watch a debate where one legally qualified party is excluded, you are watching North Carolina "democracy" in action. Is this the kind of democracy that you want to live in?
Will Wilkinson has a great post on European regulatory and redistributive institutions. Politically, people support redistribution through the regulatory system because it doesn't feel like redistribution. A choice passage:
The structure and regulation of an economy is conceptually separable from tax and transfer policy. Of course, it is really all one system, and taxes and transfers affect economic performance by affecting labor supply, etc., but this is relatively distinct from the body of law that defines the parameters and rules of the economic game. You could in principle have buck-wild laissez faire together with fairly high taxes and lavish social insurance. Nobody does do this, exactly, but it’s possible. Optimize the basic economic structure for maximizing wealth creation, not for creating a pattern of distribution, and then use the political institutions to take care of redistribution after the wealth is created. Because then there will be more wealth.
Something to think about in the current election cycle comes from the May 30, 1908 NYT:
Col. Watterson knows perfectly well that the Republican Party organs regard Mr. Bryan's possible nomination cheerfully. They would like to feel sure of having no stronger man to beat, and have been hopefully predicting his nomination.
The opposition to Bryan's nomination comes from men who have the welfare of the whole Nation at heart, rather than party triumph. They want a strong, sane opposition to the Republican Party. They want the Democratic Party to cleanse itself, hold up its head, and do its duty bravely. They know perfectly well there is no danger of Bryan's election, and so does Col. Watterson.
The May 29, 1908 NYT reports that Congress, for only the second time in the country's history, has appropriated more than $1 billion (the first time was in 1865).
The first paragraph says a lot:
When Congress packs its carpet bag this week and goes home, it will have established a record for expenditures never reached before in the United States in times of peace.
The same can be said of our current congress.
The article suggests that $1,007,086,569 will have been appropriated by the Congress (plus a little more perhaps). EH.net indicates that total GDP in 1908 was about $30.1 billion (in current dollars). Hence, Congress appropriated about 3% of total GDP. Today, it is closer to 20%.
In 1908, the U.S. Congress appropriated about $11.27 per capita, whereas today it is approximately $6,000 per capita.
In 1908, the U.S. Congress appropriated $391,474,342 for the U.S. Army and Navy (about 40% of the budget and about 1.3% of GDP) whereas today the U.S. government spends less than 5% of GDP and 20-25% of federal spending on the military (five branches rather than two).
The article does provide the totals by appropriation bill (where is such information today?):
The blatant selling-out of politicians never ceases to amaze me. What is even more amazing is that the electorate seems fairly comfortable with the entire process. The ideal of one-man-one-vote and that average schleps like me might be able to gain access to members of Congress or the executive branch seem far away from today's political antics (perhaps there never was a golden era).
Today's New York Times reports that the Democratic party is having a hard time "raising" the money for its convention in Denver this August. The term "raising" is a bit of a stretch because it doesn't seem like the party is reaching out to the individual party members but to the corporate bigwigs without even attepting to veil their selling-out:
Denver’s mayor, John W. Hickenlooper, has suggested that the Democrats’ long nominating battle has distracted potential donors. But, no matter the obstacles, the Denver host committee is aggressively packaging corporate sponsorships that promise corporate executives access to key politicians in return for writing a check to the host committee.
In addition, the Denver committee is appealing to civic pride.
Hosting a political convention isn't worth much to the local economy in terms of net new spending. As shown in this paper by Dennis Coates and myself, Houston lost approximately $19 million in taxable activity when it hosted the Republican convention in 1992. This negative net result is not refuted by this study by Baade, Baumann, and Matheson [note: incorrect abstract] which shows that hosting a political convention does nothing for employment, per-capita income, or income growth.
Thus the appeal to civic pride, the last bastion of the politician who wants to spend other peoples' money to enlarge their own reputation and stature.
Not to be outdone by the mis-remembering and mis-speaking that the two party candidates seem to engage in on a daily basis, the next paragraph contains a juicy statement by the spokesman for the Denver host committee:
"This is a historic event for Denver," Mr. Lopez said. "It's the first national convention in the interior West. It gives Denver a chance to demonstrate that it can host a national convention and show that Denver has the wherewithal to raise money and be the place where you want to be."
Perhaps Mr. Lopez (no relation, I hope to our co-blogger Ed) doesn't consider the 1908 Democrat national convention in Denver to have been a national convention? Perhaps the convention took place so long ago that no-one remembers or should remember?
My guess is that CNN or Fox or some news network will hearken back to the Denver (19)08 convention to bring up WJB, the platform of the day, and how it relates to contemporary issues. At that point, will anyone remember (or better yet even care) that the spokesman for the Denver hosting committee was so incorrect?
David Boaz's article in today's Wall Street Journal on the Presidential Candidates' exhortations to "collective service" (?!) has already made the rounds on the blogosphere. Arnold Kling weighs in here. Here's Will Wilkinson on the insufficiency of "meaning" as a criterion for indulgence.
I want to add a couple of points. First, it's ironic that mutli-millionaire politicians like Obama and McCain are tut-tutting us for our alleged devotion to unrighteous mammon. Second, I borrow here a meme from co-blogger Wilson Mixon and ask whether it is better to feel good than to do good. Are the candidates interested in outcomes, or is it the sacrifice per se that is important? Comments are open until I get spammed with the first offer for porn, mortgage refinancing, or no-limit Texas Hold 'em.
From The Economist's review of "Fatal Misconception" by Michael Connelly (Harvard University Press):
All too easily arrogance slides into inhumanity. Much of the evil done in the name of slowing population growth had its roots in an uneasy coalition between feminists, humanitarians and environmentalists, who wished to help the unwillingly fecund, and the racists, eugenicists and militarists who wished to see particular patterns of reproduction, regardless of the desires of those involved. The first group knew perfectly well that economic development, education and rights for women were very effective in reducing birth rates. But the second regarded promoting these ends as too slow and expensive. And even suggesting them risked shattering the coalition: among the hardliners were many who found the tendency of educated women to have fewer children almost as problematic as that of uneducated ones to breed prolifically.
As the world population soared, the population controllers came to believe they were fighting a war, and there would be collateral damage. Millions of intra-uterine contraceptive devices were exported to poor countries although they were known to cause infections and sterility. “Perhaps the individual patient is expendable in the general scheme of things,” said a participant at a conference on the devices organised in 1962 by the Population Council, a research institute founded by John D. Rockefeller, “particularly if the infection she acquires is sterilising but not lethal.” In 1969 Robert McNamara, then president of the World Bank, said he was reluctant to finance health care “unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion.”
[...]
Mr Connelly's most devastating critique of population control is not that it destroyed lives, or was based on imperialist or eugenic ideas, but that it did not work. In country after country—even in China—birth rates were already falling when the government began implementing more coercive policies. Furthermore, statistical estimates suggest that as much as 90% of the reason that women have families of a particular size is simply because that is the number of children they want.
I disagree with the view that the most devastating critique is that population control policies didn't work, but the review is most compelling and quite well done.
On May 20, 1908, a number of state Democratic conventions were held. The majority of delegates instructed on that day were for Bryan. However, the May 21, 1908 NYT has an amazing piece of writing that is as relevant today as it was yesterday (and that is unfortunate):
Intimating that the system of party government in this country is threatened with disintegration by the progress of intelligence and free thought in themselves, and declaring that already there are signs of its demoralization by the gathering independent forces outside of the party organization, Goldwin Smith, the English scholar, has written from his home in Toronto to students at Cornell bidding them to take a careful study of present conditions, with a view of determining for themselves that party government and parties are not the best means for the welfare of the state.
The first paragraph already asks a lot of the reader. How many college students today have been asked or, better yet, thought to ask themselves if party politics is the best way? My guess is very few. As for why the parties still exist 100 years later with barely any viable competition? Perhaps one way to continue party dominance is to retard the progress of intelligence and free thought? It worked (for a while) in Soviet Russia and elsewhere.
Smith goes on to describe the forthcoming presidential campaign:
"But in a few weeks Democrats and Republicans will be organizing a political war against each other in a spirit hardly less bellicose than that of actual warfare, with arsenals full of political projectiles on both sides; while the community will be inflamed; intrigue, and perhaps not a little corruption of different kinds, will be at work, and the press on both sides will be blowing the trumpets with more regard to effect than truth.
The only difference today is that there is an Orwellian feel of "ongoing war" in today's politics, although there was a similar if less ubiquitous banter in the early 1900s.
Smith then asks the important question that many "independents" may have already answered:
Is this an institution in which a Nation can forever acquiesce? Are there not symptoms or signs of a change already in the shape of independent forces gathering outside the regular organizations and threatening to disorganize them in time? will not the progress of intelligence and free thought of themselves bring disintegrations?"
While the parties might have faced competition, Teddy Roosevelt will run a third-party campaign in the next election (1912), economic theory would predict that they would use the power of the government to protect their duopoly (joint monopoly) status, which indeed it seems they have. The parties have raised the costs of potential rivals, directly and indirectly, that the possibility of a legitimate third party competitor is unlikely.
Smith finishes by providing a bit of U.S. history concerning parties:
"It is needless to say that nothing like this was contemplated by the framers of your [U.S.] Constitution. Washington sought, by putting Hamilton and Jefferson together in his Administration, to stifle partyism in its birth. The present intensity of party perhaps hardly antedates the Jacksonian era.
"You see to what party has come in England. What is called the Liberal Party is made up of motley and discordant elements - Liberals, Radicals, Laborites, Socialists, and Irish Home Rulers - combined to hold possession of the Government and tampering with vital interests for that purpose."
Indeed, how many "motley and discordant elements" comprise every party today? However, the interesting point Smith offers is that parties necessarily cobble together a coalition but each member has to sacrifice "vital interests" to do so. In cartel theory, economists propose that a cartel member might voluntarily sacrifice some sovereignty for a chance at higher profits. Without sufficient monitoring of behavior and enforcement against cheating against the cartel, solidarity is hard to maintain.
Political parties would seem to have a similar problem. It is difficult to monitor certain behaviors, such as voting in secret ballots. However, one thing the party has over the private cartel is the ability to tax and bribe those "discordant elements" to maintain solidarity.
Just so that we know that delegate allocation has been a problem in the past, the May 20, 1908 NYT reports on possible shenanigans in Pennsylvania:
The Democratic State Convention, which meets here to-morrow, promises to be one of the warmest in the recent history of that party. The fight, which has divided the Democracy of the State, is on the question of whether the convention shall send the four delegates at large to the National Convention under binding instructions to vote for William J. Bryan or whether they shall go to Denver unfettered.
Col. James M. Guffey of Pittsburg, State leader and the National committeeman, to-night was positive that the convention will not instruct the delegates. He said that he and his followers would control the convention two to one. The Bryanites assert that they will have a safe majority and that the delegates will go to Denver under instructions. The Executive Committee to-day formally ratified Col. Guffey's choice for temporary chairman. The fight will be precipitated over the selection of the permanent Chairman.
This is amazing.
Democrats go to Denver in 1908 and 2008. Delegate dilemmas abound in 1908 and 2008. However, if these dilemmas were truly problematic in picking a candidate, the party would have revamped the way it chooses delegates. However, because the same dilemmas persist 100 years later, it must be that someone benefits from the confusion and wiggle-room. I'd presume it's the party insiders.
The headline of the 1908 NYT story reads:
"Both Bryanites and Their Foes Claim Victory in To-day's Convention."
"Headlines" from the May 20, 2008 Drudge Report:
DECLARE, IF YOU DARE... [Hillary referring to Obama]
Obama seeks delegate majority in Ore., Ky. primaries...
HILLARY CLAIMS POPULAR VOTE LEAD...
Count...
At least they could try to be original in their disputes, but alas...
Interesting enough, May 19, 1908, was the day the Kentucky state Democratic "decided" to go for William Jennings Bryan for the 1908 Presidential election. From the May 20, 1908 NYT:
Kentucky's Democratic Central Committee met here [Frankfort, KY] today and decided to hold the state convention at Lexington on June 11. A resolution indorsing [sic] William Jennings Bryan for the Presidential nomination was adopted.
One hundred years later, which of the contending Democratic candidates is most like WJB? Comments open for a day or two.
Subsidies for Millionaires; Tax Hikes if You Make $100k
1. President Bush wants to limit farm subsidies to farmers earning $200k or less; Democrats want millionaire farmers to continue to be eligible for subsidies. (Source here; scroll down to #1.)
2. While wanting to continue to subsidize millionaire farmers, Democrats want to increase taxes on people earning as little as $102k (e.g., Obama thinks the taxable earnings cap on the payroll tax should be eliminated; Obama also favors eliminating the Bush tax cuts).
In a new editorial, Jacob Sullum at Reason writes of New York City's little-noticed marijuana crackdown.
While marijuana arrests have risen between two- and three-fold nationwide since 1990, the increase in New York has been much more dramatic. "From 1997 to 2006," sociologist Harry Levine and drug policy activist Deborah Small note in the NYCLU report, "the New York City Police Department arrested and jailed more than 353,000 people simply for possessing small amounts of marijuana. This was eleven times more marijuana arrests than in the previous decade."
Based on their analysis of arrest data and their interviews with police, arrestees, and public defenders, Levine and Small conclude that the pot busts are largely a byproduct of the NYPD's aggressive "stop and frisk" tactics. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police may briefly detain people they suspect of involvement in criminal activity and, as a precautionary measure, pat them down for weapons. Taking advantage of this Fourth Amendment loophole, New York City police stopped and frisked people more than half a million times in 2006.
...
Levine and Small note that busting pot smokers is a relatively safe and easy way to pad arrest figures, which creates the illusion of productivity, and generate overtime pay, a practice known as "collars for dollars."
From the collars' perspective, getting arrested for a trivial, victimless offense, which saddles them with criminal records that can impair their ability to obtain an education and make a living, is humiliating and embittering. It is especially rankling because police seem to be targeting poor black and Hispanic men for treatment that would not be tolerated if it were aimed at affluent white New Yorkers.
Survey data indicate that among 18-to-25-year-olds, the age group where the pot busts are concentrated, whites are more likely than blacks or Hispanics to smoke marijuana. Yet Levine and Small found that in New York blacks and Hispanics are, respectively, five and three times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.
Calling his effort "Operation Chaos," Rush Limbaugh has been urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary. There are competing claims about how successful his effort has been (here and here), so I decided to exploit variation in the Indiana and NC primary rules to see how much influence Limbaugh had on yesterday's results.
Here's the key idea--Indiana has an open primary but NC does not permit Republicans to vote in the Democrat primary (unaffiliated voters can). Moreover, NC had a contested primary for the GOP nomination for governor that would serve to keep NC Republicans in their own election.
So I estimated a regression model for the percent of the vote received by Hillary in NC and IN counties. RHS variables include the black percent of the population, the percent of the population between ages 16 & 24, the percent of the population over 65, the percent of the population that is male, and per capita income. The model also includes a dummy variable taking a value of 1 for IN counties--this variable should pick up any support for Hillary that is not explained by the other variables thereby making it a crude measure of the Rush effect.
So what do the results find? The Indiana dummy has a coefficient of 0.53 meaning that on average Hillary got a about one-half percentage point larger share in Indiana than would be explained by the control variables. The point estimate is not statistically significant (t = 0.43). The regressors perform as one would expect, except the percent male has no effect (either in magnitude or significance).
My student worker Katie compiled data for me and is compiling more as I type. Look for updates later.
BTW, Limbaugh has just come on. He is claiming credit for tilting IN to Hillary and playing audio to that effect from John Kerry. My results suggest otherwise.
As there are bad policies today concerning food, there were bad policies yesterday. From the May 6, 1908 NYT:
ST. PETERSBURG [Russia] - The Russian sugar industry centering at Kiev is passing through a serious crisis. it already has resulted in the suspension of payments by two of the great manufacturing and refining firms...The trouble in the sugar industry is due in large measure to restriction of exports; the production is far in excess of the Russian market.
Taxation can take a number of forms, but the most insidious are those that are non-monetary in nature. A good example comes from the May 6, 1908 NYT:
George H. Fearons, General Attorney for the Western Union Telegraph Company, addressed the House Committee on Inter-State and Foreign Commerce to-day in opposition to the bill introduced by Mr. Carey of Wisconsin to require telegraph companies to transmit with telegrams the time of filing messages and the time of putting them on the wire.
Mr. Fearons said that 60 per cent. of the telegraph business of the country was the transmission of information for Exchanges, Boards of Trade, and similar commercial bodies, 20 per cent. was newspaper matter, 15 per cent. railroad intelligence, and less than 3 per cent. "private and social telegrams."
He said that on the basis of 74,805,000 telegrams transmitted annually, the additional number of words imposed by the bill upon the Western union Company for transmission would be equal to 17,454,000 ten word-messages.
The extra messages would represent an in-kind tax because the marginal cost of an additional message was not zero - there were congestion problems, no doubt. Assuming the attorney was telling the truth, the 17+ million requred additional messages would represet a 23% increase in the number of messages sent. Western Union would likely have respond by sending fewer non-required messages.
I wonder what political interest group Rep. Carey was trying to appease: were there claims that Western Union sat on certain messages and gave preference to other messages, sort of a 1908-version of net neutrality? My hunch is that Rep. Carey was responding to a complaint from one or more "private and social" consumers.
If the Boards and Exchanges were anxious about timely delivery of information, given their market share of telegrams sent they would have been able to exert some pressure on Western Union to improve service. The same woudl have gone for the newspapers and the railroads.
I wonder if this bill, like many bills, was submitted to "protect the rights" of small-time consumers and in the process tax the heck out of the firm that provided a valuable service. This sounds a lot like many of the bad policies proffered today.
However, history shows that Western Union already faced competition: the postal service, the telephone, the wireless, and eventually the fax, and the Internet. It took a while but roughly 100 years later Western Union sent its last telegram.
There are 2.3 million people behind bars. China, with four times as many people, has 1.6 million in prison.
In terms of population, the United States has 751 people in prison for every 100,000, while the closest competitor in this regard is Russia with 627. I'm struck by this figure: 531 in Cuba. The median global rate is 125.
What's amazing is that most of this imprisoning trend is recent, dating really from the 1980s, and most of the change is due to drug laws. From 1925 to 1975, the rate of imprisonment was stable at 110, lower than the international average, which is what you might expect in a country that purports to value freedom. But then it suddenly shot up in the 1980s. There were 30,000 people in jail for drugs in 1980, while today there are half a million.
Have you seen ANY challenge to the notion that McCain is benefitting from the protracted Clinton-Obama primary? Some things to consider.
1. As a general rule, doesn't head-to-head competition make for better competitors? Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire a decade ago. Or even hopped-up Ben Johnson made Carl Lewis a better sprinter two decades ago. Athletes are one thing. Would the same hold for politicians?
2. The standard story for why the primary benefits McCain is somethign like this. The two Ds have to go hard left in the primary, and the harder left Obama and Clinton have to go to beat each other, the harder it'll be for them to come back to center in the general. A counter argument is that the primary and general election dimensions are sufficiently different (there are D issues and then there are R issues) that it doesn't much matter. An additional counter argument is that by beating each other up, Clinton and Obama work out all the kinks and hone their messages and leave very little for McCain to go negative with.
3. Generic ballot tests. When pollsters pit a generic Democrat with an unnamed Republica, the Democrat easily wins. Does the attention and exposure of the Democratic primary strengthen or weaken that?
4. The lack of a known opponent has to be hurting McCain's campaign finance. According to the FEC, he's raised just over $80 million so far this election cycle. He'll need to raise another $300 million in the next 9 months to match W's total for the 2004 cycle. So far Obama's raised $240 mil.
It just seems to me that to say this benefits McCain is to say that political competition is ruinous. Maybe so. But maybe not, too.
Farewell the age of reason, welcome the idiocracy. Only George Orwell could have invented - and named - the [UK] government's Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) that came into operation yesterday. It is the latest in a long line of measures intended to ease the conscience of the rich while keeping the poor miserable, in this case spectacularly so.
I’m on the way back from the APEE meetings, where a lot of DOLers have been for the past few days. There were a ton of really good papers on the program, and the plenary talks were outstanding. My favorite was yesterday when David Henderson gave a talk, “Is the ‘Net, on net, good for freedom?” In short, David’s answer is ‘yes,’ although he acknowledges that governments use advanced technologies to track individuals and censors uses of these same technologies. I think it's very difficult to say whether the Internet itself is good for freedom, because it depends on how limited government is in the first place, and that varies across societies. Clearly in closed societies, socialist governments have a strong interest in limiting communication of any sort. Alvaro Vargas Llosa writes about the dramatic story of the failed attempt by Raul Castro's government to censor the Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who writes about daily life in under the degenerate regime. The film, Lives of Others, highlights various forms of information being banned under East Germany, from books and newspapers to even government statistics on suicide rates. Before Vietnam's doi moi reforms in the late 1980's people there had virtually no contact with the outside world but now there are something like 15 million Internet users. As societies become more open in general, their peoples become less tolerant of government controlling anything, including the Internet. Even private organizations, such as Google, are scrutinized for storing data on individuals [story on EU here]. I am largely ignorant of the details of this debate but I do think David is right. Still, I think it's important to say that the Internet's benefit to freedom isn't certain; it depends on people's vigilance against censorship and privacy invasion in general.
The April 3, 1908 NYT has a report that you would NEVER see today:
President Roosevelt has been the recipient of gifts of almost every conceivable description...Yesterday a monster sea turtle weighing 350 pounds, a product of Nicaraguan waters, was presented to the President...
The President spent nearly an hour contemplating his new pet and debating as to what disposition to make of it. Finally the splendid specimen of sea food was turned over to the White House chef. Mr. Roosevelt has asked several luncheon guests for the next several days.
BERLIN - An authentic report is in circulation here that a bill will soon be introduced in the Prussian Diet raising the civil list of the Emperor. This list now amounts to $3,900,000 a year, which is paid the Emperor as King of Prussia and not as German Emperor; the latter position carries no salary.
The explanation offered for raising the list is the increased cost of living, which bears particularly heavy on the royal house because of the large number of children and other persons dependent upon the purse of the monarch.
MILWAUKEE, Wis. -- Fear of a Social Democrat victory at the election next Tuesday is said to be the reason that there was not a single bid received from any banking house for the $325,000 bond issue, which was to have been allotted today. The Social Democrats have been gaining in strength here for several years past, and polled 12,000 votes out of a total of about 60,000.
Like many country-first, party-second military officers who began second careers in Washington, Mr. McCain is often mischaracterized as a politician without any identifiable ideology. But all of his actions can be seen as an attempt to use the federal government to restore your faith in ... the federal government. Once we all put our shoulder on the same wheel, there’s nothing this country can’t do.
[...] I, for one, would welcome President McCain’s unilateral wars on pork-barrel spending and waterboarding — but it’s treacherous territory for those of us who consider “the pursuit of happiness” as something best defined by individuals, not crusading presidents-to-be.
Former senator (D-Alaska) a gadfly Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel announced yesterday that he is joining the Libertarian Party and will be seeking its 2008 nomination for president. Fox News reports:
In an e-mail to supporters, Gravel, 77, wrote, “I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.”
The same report also notes, however:
Last month, Gravel endorsed Green Party presidential nominee Jesse Johnson. [According to a spokesman,] Gravel didn’t see any reason “why not” to offer his backing since “voting party line is not smart” and he agrees with Johnson’s message as well as the Green Party’s approach of “direct democracy, mobilizing at a grassroots level, working with people one-on-one and enabling citizen democracy.”
The LP national convention will be held in May. 14 announced candidates are already in contention for the nomination. Apart from Gravel, the only candidate I've heard of is ... wait, I haven't heard of any of them.
In the U.S., third parties and anti-establishment folks groan about the two-party dominance that is American politics. Today's Iranian elections provide a little perspective. Reuters has the full story here. A few key excerpts.
By Zahra Hosseinian and Parisa Hafezi
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranians voted on Friday in a low-key election likely to keep parliament in the grip of conservatives after unelected state bodies barred many reformist foes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from the race.
[...]
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has effectively endorsed Ahmadinejad and his government, cast his ballot early and urged others to do the same.
Khamenei usually stays above the political fray, but he was quoted as saying in newspapers on Thursday that Iranians should consider "voting for those who can pave the way for the current government which is active and willing to serve".
His support for Ahmadinejad was relayed by anonymous text messages to mobile phone users on Friday.
Shrugging off reformists' complaints that the system was stacked against them, Ahmadinejad said after voting: "Our revolution means the presence of people ... Parliament belongs to people and it should be a reflection of what they want."
[...]
The president can rely on loyalists like Hassan Siavashi, 45. "It is my religious duty to vote. I pray God will help Ahmadinejad's group to win," he said before voting in Tehran.
Bibi Zahra, an elderly woman in a black chador, said she had put her trust in her son's choice. "I don't know who I was voting for, he filled in the form for me," she added.
.
When this much makes it into the press, you know it's only the tip of the iceberg. Without meaningful political competition, democracy collapses toward autocracy.
... for getting to participate in the North Carolina gubernatorial debate in October (he's the Libertarian candidate). The debate will be held in Charlotte--maybe Craig can live blog it for us.
Looking for some supreme swag--then donate to Mike's campaign. Logo t-shirts, collector's quality coffee mugs, and more--all for a modest donation. It's the best $50 I've spent today ...
My trolling of Catholic blogs brought up two stories I'm guessing are of interest to DoL readers (who are probably Friedman fans, himself a staunch supporter of more choices in education). First, Jimmy Akin directs to this story about a California state appelate court case on the credentials of home-schooling parents:
"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court.
The inevitable question is whether it is in the best interest of the child to be insulated from beliefs, ideas and values outside of what his parents allow. To say it more accurately, should the state stand by and allow children to be raised in accordance with their parents‘ biases and prejudices? Or does the state, in accordance with its own right to preserve itself, have the right to intervene, even to the point of infringing on parental authority, in order to provide the child with a more holistic view of the world and humanity?
Call me a conspiracy nut, but is it that hard to believe that, perhaps, parents who hold dissenting views on human-caused global warming, the benefits of redistribution programs, political correctness, or heck, even the logic of Social Security, might be deemed unfit to teach their children outside of state supervision? I take a medium-size tinfoil hat, please.
Interesting article, especially given the author's identity. Its title is "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal,'" but Gary Roseman says I must use the word Statist.
I wrote a play about politics, ... [a]nd as part of the "writing process," as I believe it's called, I started thinking about politics, ... which is to say, about the polemic between persons of two opposing views. The argument in my play is between a president who is self-interested, corrupt, suborned, and realistic, and his leftish, lesbian, utopian-socialist speechwriter.
The play, ... a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view. The conservative president in the piece holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention.
I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind. ...
As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart. This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.
But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part. ...
I'd observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.
So, taking the tragic view, the question was not "Is everything perfect?" but "How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?" Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.
What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.
But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out? I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to.
Do I speak as a member of the "privileged class"? If you will—but classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view. That is: Immigrants came and continue to come here penniless and can (and do) become rich; the nerd makes a trillion dollars; the single mother, penniless and ignorant of English, sends her two sons to college (my grandmother). ...
And I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace.
"Aha," you will say, and you are right. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.
Malcolm Forbes is supposed to have said, "Nepotism's OK as long as it's kept in the family." In that vein, NPR's "Steve Inskeep talks to [Scott] Simon, host of [NPR's] Weekend Edition Saturday, about his book, about growing up in Chicago and about the simultaneously selfless — and self-absorbed — enterprise of politics."
On the last point, Simon approvingly quotes his principal character: "Of course, the system isn't fair. It favors the rich, and the beautiful, and the shameless. But everyone gets a chance in the end."
That bit of praise sounds like a succinct statement the condemnation that statists use when calling for "regulation" of markets. Doesn't it occur to them that, given the levers available in both the market and the political system, the rich, the beautiful, and shameless are even more likely to prosper than if "regulation" were absent?
William F. Buckley died today. This is a sad day for me. He was my first introduction to conservative/libertarian thought thanks to a friend's willingness to let me read his National Review magazine back in high school.* Already a budding anti-communist, Buckley opened my eyes to the importance of economic liberalism as part of the the American tradition. Buckley was a great uniter among libertarians and conservatives in the 1970s and 80s.
Yes, I know Buckley was no Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist, and my own views have traveled far from those high school days. I didn't always agree with him then and found my views moving farther away from Buckley's over time. Still I will allow myself a moment to honor the man who helped me get where I am today.
Sadly, Buckley's passing is symbolic also of the death of the libertarianism in the American conservative movement. I'm afraid there aren't too many conservatives left who would sail out to international waters to try some pot (or rather few who'd admit to it).
*Reading The Freeman, at the instigation of a high school teacher, was my first intro to real libertarian thought.
Addendum: I also read and enjoyed most of his spy novels. Not high literature by any standard, but good for the genre.
Holman Jenkins in today's Opinion Journal [link here, thanks to Richard Reinsch for the pointer]:
Any debate about a housing bailout can be put aside -- the bailout is underway... No, the perverse effect won't be a replay of the '30s, or even Japan's decade of stagnation in the '90s, but the latter is your model, with a little inflation thrown in. The goal: avoid foreclosures and slow the fall of home prices to market-clearing levels.
As for the "little inflation thrown in," SJSU's Barstool Economists have this:
Warren Gibson queries:
According to the BLS wizards at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm the housing component has been rising at a annual rate of about 3%, though not quite that fast in the last couple months. Can anyone tell me why, with house prices declining, the housing component of CPI continues to rise? What am I missing here? I know they assume homeowners are renting to themselves, and maybe BLS isn't "marking to market" existing houses.
Not since 1982 has the CPI included house prices, nor is there any logical reason that it should. It is after all, a "consumer" price index, and the purchase of a house is primarily an investment. About 40 percent of the CPI comes from housing costs, which includes actual and imputed rents (30 percent), fuel and other utilities (5 percent), and household furnishings and operations (5 percent). Do you know any tenant who has seen a decrease in rents over the last year? I certainly don't. Rents are imputed for owner-occupied housing from the actual market rents of similar propertis, so you are right, they are not marked to the market value of the house, in either the CPI or the National Income and Product Accounts. Imputed rents should only noticeably fall with a decline in house prices if they noticeably rose (faster than other goods and services) with an increase in house prices.
Back to Jenkins and the policy question:
Making the hole even harder to climb out of in tough-love fashion, government policy itself played a big role in creating the bubble, on the bipartisan theory that homeownership begets "social stability."
[...]
So much for subsidizing our way to greater "social stability" by luring marginal borrowers into debt to own a home. The truth today is that politicians are rushing to prop up house prices not to rescue the poor from the ignominy of renting, but to get past the next election without affluent voters having to confront a realistic decline in the market value of their main assets.
It is interesting to read about the prohibition movement and its success in the South during the mid nineteen-aughts. Of course, within a decade the rest of the country will jump on the prohibition wagon (as it were). An important lesson from that episode is the amazing amount of patience and persistence the prohibitionists displayed. Today, there are similar groups with patience and persistence and the empirical question is whether their policies would be any better than those of the past.
The Feb. 25, 1908 NYT has the following information:
Representative E. F. Acheson now proposes to give Congress an opportunity to put itself on record on the question of National Prohibition. Many of the members of Congress, including several from Pennsylvania, have declared that they are in favor of National prohibition, but are opposed to State and local option, as it cannot be enforced.
Mr. Acheson introduced a resolution to-day for an amendment to the Federal Constitution providing that the sale, importation, and manufacture of intoxicating liquors, including beer, ale, wine, and of opium, cocaine, or other narcotic drugs, except for medicinal and mechanical purposes shall be prohibited in the United States and all the Territories.
Whether Acheson was the first or not, such suggestions ultimately led to this:
Amendment XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.
Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Recently, the Mrs. and I caught a snippet of Barack Obama calling for "a leader who can end the division in Washington." One of us asked the other didn't Bush run to be a uniter not a divider or some such pablum? Indeed he did (maybe Hillary should try to sniff out some plagiarism). Actually, I'm with Kevin "Gridlock is Good" Grier--bipartisanship is vastly overrated (think stimulus package).
The "9/11 Truthers" contend that the attacks of that day were an "inside job" designed to "lead the U.S. to war." The Feb. 18, 1908 NYT reports on the "Maine Truthers" (from Spain):
The Diario Espanol, the organof the ultra-Spanish element, in a leading article to-day referring to the special celebration by Americans of the tenth anniversary of the blowing up of the battleship maine, says:
"This commemorates the blackest blot on American history, the world, including honest Americans, believing that the ship was blown up by direct orders from the War Department for the purpose of justification in the plan to despoil Spain of Cuba."
The paper adduces as "convincing proof" that the officers of the Maine attended the funeral of the victims in full dress uniform, which showed that they must have sent their uniforms ashore "in anticipation of the explosion," and alleges that the reason the wreck has not been raised is that it would conclusively demonstrate that the explosion was in the magazine.
From the Feb. 11, 1908 NYT concerning the rebuilding of Chinatown after the April 1906 San Francisco earthquake:
The rebuilt Chinatown of San Francisco contains substantial new buildings as picturesque as those destroyed by the fire and earthquake, but more convenient and sanitary...
The Oriental aspect of the Chinese quarter is carefully preserved for good business reasons...
Fully 15,000 Chinese have returned to San Francisco from Oakland and other places of refuge. they have not yet reestablished their temples, as they feared the gods would not be contented at the scene of the great disaster. But this year the cornerstones of new temples are to be laid, and many more Chinese will return, taking their gods with them.
I am admittedly not well versed in the history of Chinatown(s) - my suspicion is that they are/were a form of segregation. However, what is striking is the rebuilding is ostensibly completed in less than two years and without a hint of government assistance mentioned in the story.
One wants to make comparisons with another disaster area in this country, even if to do so is not completely honest.
For our friends in the Northeast (and elsewhere) who face dramatic increases in road and bridge tolls in the near future, a letter to the editor from the Feb. 9, 1908 NYT:
Now that the Thaw trial is over, please turn your attention to a free Brooklyn Bridge topic and let me know why I should pay 10 cents [$2.26 in 2006 dollars] to drive across the [Brooklyn] bridge, who gets the money, and such other information as will explain why, after I have crossed the bridge, I can drive free over several hundred miles of paved, cleaned, and lighted thoroughfares, that cost many millions of dollars to build and cost ten times as much to maintain as both bridges?
An article in the Feb. 7, 1908 NYT puts our current primary antics in some perspective:
ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla. - The wildest scenes of disorder characterized the proceedings of the Republican Convention here to-day, which elected two complete delegations to the National Convention, one in favor of Taft and the other uninstructed.
For several weeks there had been a threatened departure from the expressed wishes of the Administration forces, who had been laying plans for the indorsement of the Administration and the sending to the National Convention of a delegation favoring Taft.
The eagle which has perched upon the top of the historic mace at the right hand of the Speaker of the House of Representatives these sixty-seven years, since John Tyler was President, is sick.
For all these years the eagle has withstood the onslaughts of eloquence. It sat there calmly through the thunders of war statesmen. The slavery question was debated in its presence, and after the war it heard Conkling, Blaine, Lamar, Sunset Cox, and a long line of orators, even down to the present time of John Wesley Gaines, all without a quiver. But this week has been too much for it.
The spread-eagle speeches which have shaken the rafters not only of the Capitol, but of the country, have at last aroused the emulation of the silver eagle, and it decided to stretch its mighty pinions for a flight. But, alas! like so many other flights of the week, it fell flat.
I received this note from an economist friend in Nairobi, Kenya whose home is close to one of the areas of the unrest:
I am unable to sleep, I have called all the police numbers, called intelligence agents, newsrooms-nobody is rescuing the poor souls. I am watching from my window, impotent and enraged.
For his safety, I will not reveal his name. He is now trying to move his family and staff to safer digs. Donations (501c3 deductible thanks to his American friends) are being accepted. Contact me directly for details if you're interested/able to help.
[No, this is not a scam. I know the guy and this is real.]
George Will on biofuels. The Riady story needs to be repeated as often as possible.
The political importance of corn-growing, ethanol-making Iowa is one reason that biofuel mandates flow from Washington the way oil would flow from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if it had nominating caucuses.
ANWR's 10.4 billion barrels of oil have become hostage to the planet's saviors (e.g., John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama), who block drilling in even a tiny patch of ANWR. You could fit Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware into ANWR's frozen desolation; the "footprint" of the drilling operation would be one sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport.
Americans can still drill for … water. Water rights (T. Boone Pickens has bought 400,000 acres of them in the Texas Panhandle) are becoming more valuable as ethanol production, which is extremely water-intensive, puts pressure on supplies.
To avoid drilling for oil in ANWR's moonscape, the planet savers evidently prefer destroying forests, even though they absorb greenhouse gases. ... The destruction of forests is one reason European governments are rethinking their biofuel enthusiasm. The European Union has awakened to the fact that growing crops (which requires diesel fuel for tractors, and nitrogen fertilizer made with natural gas) and turning them into biofuel (transporting them to energy-devouring manufacturing plants) takes a toll on the environment
If the argument for ethanol is that domestically produced energy should be increased, there are better ways of doing that. On the outer continental shelf there is a 50-year supply of clean-burning natural gas . . . that the government . . . will not allow to be extracted. But, then, consider what was done in 1996 by the dominant half of today's Clinton tandem presidential candidacy.
Bill Clinton, by executive edict, declared 1.7 million acres of Utah to be a national monument. Under those acres are the largest known deposit—more than 60 billion tons—of low-sulfur, clean-burning coal. The second largest deposit, the value of which rose because of Clinton's action locking up an alternative supply, is in Indonesia and is owned by a member of the Indonesian Riady family, of fragrant memory, which was generous to Clinton's 1992 campaign.
Steve Chapman on Obama's stance(s) regarding marijuana:
Recently, he had told a New Hampshire newspaper, "I'm not in favor of decriminalization."
This episode reveals that as a candidate, Obama is more fond of bold rhetoric than bold policies. But it also proves the impossibility of talking sense on the subject of illicit drugs during a political campaign. That course of action would mean admitting the inadmissible: that the prohibition of cannabis has been cruel, wasteful and fraudulent.
Cruel because it leads to the arrest of nearly 700,000 people a year for mere possession of a substance that is comparatively benign. Wasteful because it expends billions of dollars in police, court and correctional resources that could be deployed against dangerous predators. Fraudulent because it hasn't solved anything: According to the federal government, nearly 100 million Americans have tried the stuff.
. . .
Had we enforced our statutes more vigorously, of course, Bush, Clinton and the others would never have been elected anything, because they would be ex-convicts. Yet Bush, Clinton and the others were happy to put people behind bars for crimes they themselves committed.
With the unanimous consent in the [New York] Senate to-night, Senator McCall of the Sixteenth District introduced a bill authorizing the Park Board of New York to spend an additional sum of $1,500,000 for the development of parks and driveways.
"Fourteen years ago," he said, "a law was enacted permitting this expenditure for the benefit of the unemployed. The need for such relief is greater now than it was fourteen years ago. It is estimated that 130,000 skilled mechanics and 15,000 men without trades, are without employment in New York today."
Unmentioned is that such an expenditure "for the benefit of the unemployed" came
