Case 4 the Right

Who's in favor of free ice cream?

2010-07-21T17:35:00.003-04:00

The majority of New Jersey residents are opposed to oil & gas drilling off the coast of New Jersey.

While certainly not suprising in light of the Gulf disaster, the fact is, it's an extremely rare event.

The big # that stands out to me is that 80% of those polled favor wind power for our energy production. However, we all want things we can't have.

There is absolutely no way we can even come close to meeting our energy needs. We've been trying to break our oil dependency for decades, but the fact is, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most effiicient - and pretty green compared to the alternatives (do we really want to clear cut forests to plaster the land w/ solar panels?)

If simply voting for free ice cream out of thin air could make it happen, our problems would be solved. We'd all be in favor of purchasing wind/solar energy if it came even close to making economic (and physical) sense.

NJ Voters reject school budgets

2010-04-21T08:17:00.006-04:00

In spite of recent polls that show declining support for Governor Christie & his budgets, apparently voters throughout the state agree with him that our schools have other options besides hiking taxes.

For the first time since 1976, voters in a majority of school districts turned out to reject the proposed budgets - or as the AC Press put it "angry taxpayers outnumbered concerned parents".

Notice that the believe in fiscal discipline (and understand that you can't spend more than you have) makes you "angry", but caving to union demands to continue their history of generous raises & benefits makes you "concerned". Thankfully, voters weren't bullied by the press into spending our state further into oblivion.

As homeschooling parents who take an active role in educating our children, I would think that qualifies as "concerned" regardless of how much of our earnings we believe the local school district should take from us.

The census commercials really burn me up.

2010-03-31T22:37:00.002-04:00

The purpose of the census is NOT to decide where the government should send various goods and services. The census is to determine which how many representatives each state gets (Article 1 Section 2 of the US Constitution). When the constitution was written and the census implemented, the federal government didn't provide ANY services except for defense & foreign relations.

The notion of using the census to allocate resources is how the Soviet Union ran things into the ground. The government doesn't tell grocers how much food to put on their shelves and that gets there fine. Same with cars, gasoline, clothing, etc.

In fact - the services that are provided by the government (or government backed monopolies like the Postal Service) are far less efficient in their services than the free market.

It is disgraceful that our nations leaders view themselves as the anointed to determine who gets what. That is what the census ads portray - and it goes beyond just ads. The 2010 Census web site displays the same ignorance.

Best. Law. Evar. (or "Why I want to move to Wyoming)

2010-03-13T23:55:00.002-05:00

Wyoming has become the fourth state (joining Tennessee, Utah & Montana) to nullify federal regulations on firearms manufactured, bought and used within its borders.

However, Wyoming has gone even a step farther:

According to a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

That's right. Wyoming plans to fine feds who attempt to interfere with Wyomans' (Wyomingans?) right to keep and bear arms.

Hooray for Central Falls, RI

2010-02-16T10:57:00.002-05:00

It seems that the town doesn't have the patience for poor education.

In spite of the fact that the average income for teachers in that district is more than 3 times the average of Central Falls residents ($70-78K vs $22K), apparently working an extra 25 minutes per day to tutor students in the woefully underperforming school was to much for them.

When the teacher's union rejected this burdensome demand, the town fired them all.

Lobbyists & influence

2010-02-12T14:02:00.003-05:00

It seems that everyone (I imagine with the exception of the lobbyists themselves) laments the influence of lobbyists & money in our government.

The Democrats and President Obama railed against lobbying & special interests during the 2008 campaign cycle, however, 2009 was a record year for lobbyist spending.

It should come as no surprise to those who favor a limited government that a year which saw the largest attempted power grab (control of banks & automakers, the health care debate) would also see a huge jump in lobbying activity.

The surest way to reduce the effect of money on Washington (and state governments) would be to strip just about all regulatory authority. The biggest commodity that politicians have these days is the club of government regulation. Absent that power, they would have nothing to sell, and the dreaded lobbyists would have no influence to purchase.

NOTE: I don't perceive lobbying in and of itself as particularly evil, citizens are constitutionally guaranteed the right to air their views and policy positions, however the vast majority of lobbying today seems to be requests for particular government favors for their group.

The real issue is that the government should not be in the position to grant favors to one group over another.

Stossel's new blog

2010-01-26T17:20:00.003-05:00

Apparently, the search engines haven't caught up to the fact that John Stossel is no longer with ABC, but is now with Fox Business.

Since part of the listing criteria for a given search term is based on links containing that term, I'll help him out.

Here is John Stossel's blog.

Socialist countries have greedy thieves, too

2010-01-04T10:11:00.002-05:00

Jonah Goldberg's defense of capitalism is a much needed read.

Much (actually all) of the blame for our current economic woes are laid at the feet of "capitalism" - never mind that we haven't had anything close to a completely free market in over a century.

Capitalism's detractors also neglect to notice that Europe is in the midst of economic troubles of their own - and those that are seeing improvement are doing so by embracing (however begrudgingly) capitalism.

As Goldberg points out, greed, theft, dishonesty are all human failings - not of any particular economic system.

If a company habitually cheats its customers and/or shareholders, customers & shareholders will leave in droves for their competition. When a government (which is just as human as any corporation) cheats its citizens, there is nowhere to turn from its oppression.

Top 5 Reasons the Democrats Need to Pass Health Care NOW

2009-12-17T11:03:00.004-05:00

With the Democrat's scrambling to get their health care bill passed before Christmas, you might be wondering "What's the rush?" Why not take a few months to discuss the contents of the bill before voting on it - especially when it doesn't go into effect until 2013.

Here are the top 5 reasons the Dems need to pass it NOW - in no particular order.

1) 2010 elections: Even though Democrats are smarter than everyone else, they realize that voters do not want their Health Care Utopia, so then need to make sure it gets passed soon enough that you will forget about how they voted come next November

2) Visibility: Currently the bill the Senate would be voting on hasn't even been written. If the GOP got it's way, the bill in it's final form would be posted for 72 hours for anyone to analyze before they vote. The Dem's can't afford more voters and on-the-fence Blue Dog Dem's to realize the actual contents of the bill.

3) Obama: President Obama desperately needs something to brag about come January for his State of the Union Address.

4) Taxes: Even though Washington won't start regulating in the conveniently after the next Presidential election year of 2013, the tax hikes to pay for it go into effect immediately. By stealing from you for 3-4 years before they actually have to start paying for this new Utopia, they can make their claims that the bill is deficit neutral slightly less ridiculous.

5) Getting their Way: Like anything else in Washington, the Dem's know that once the government gains control over your health care, it will NEVER be repealed. The GOP may be able to tweak it here and there, but Washington's control over your life will never relent. Any chance of real health care reform - reform that makes medical care more accessible by all, rather than crippling the best medicine in the world, will be lost forever.

Since the Democrats have pursued a strategy of bullying, bribery, weekend & holliday votes to rush through their "reform" package rather than open & honest debate, the Republicans have no choice but to employ stall tactics to force this bill into the light.

More Obstruction Please

2009-12-17T10:44:00.002-05:00

Predictably, the Democrats continue to accuse the Republicans of obstructing progress - pointing in particular too Tom Coburn's recent move requiring Bernie Sanders' single payer amendment to be read aloud prior to any debate on the subject (all 767 pages). Senate rules require unanimous consent in order to dispense with the reading.

Senator Sanders withdrew his amendment three hours into the reading.

Senator DeMint has threatened to require the same for the actual health care bill once it's 2200+ pages have been completed.

Sanders response clearly illustrates the difference between liberal opinion and the majority of US citizens:

“The best the Republicans can do is to try to bring the United States government to a halt,” he said. “It’s an outrage, a disgrace. It explains why so many people have contempt for Washington.”

Senator - the reason most in America have contempt for Washington is because politicians like you refuse to leave us alone.

Obviously there are critical issues the Senate needs to vote on (military appropriations bills, voting on judges, etc). However, there is nothing preventing Democrats from shelving health care and voting on the important stuff (that Washington is actually SUPPOSED to be doing) before moving back to debate on a bill that most in the US clearly do not want.

Let's raise a glass to more obstruction in congress - not less!!

18 Minutes to read the Table of Contents

2009-12-16T14:58:00.003-05:00

Senator Tom Coburn showed some guts in standing against a bill that voters overwhelmingly oppose.

Normally, the reading of amendments is dispensed with by a unanimous vote, but Senator Coburn objected, so the Senate Clerk is required to read the text of the entire Sanders amendment to the Senate's version of the health care bill.

It was pretty much a forgone conclusion that the Sanders amendment (creation of a single payer system) would be voted down immediately, but it's good to see that at least one member of the GOP realizes that single payer, government option, expansion of medicare etc are only a fraction of the critically damaging aspects of the Democrat's "reform". Items such as the requirement to purchase insurance, requiring all policies to cover pre-existing conditions, etc would be equally destructive to the quality of medicine available to the US.

It took 18 minutes to read the table of contents - and this is just an ammendment, not a full fledged bill. It is expected to take 12 hours to read the full 767 pages. Hopefully they can force the reading of the full 2000 pages of the actual bill (although it hasn't even been written yet). A few more stunts like this, and maybe congress will start pushing simpler legislation - but I doubt it.

Yes, our current system has its flaws, but most (if not all) are due to over-regulation of medicine and health insurance, not to little. Remember, there's a reason citizens of other nations come to the US when their nationalized health care systems cannot meet their needs.

UPDATE: I neglected to mention that Senator Coburn is a Doctor by trade.

A Nonsense Move no Matter How You Slice It

2009-12-15T08:24:00.003-05:00

So detainees from Guantanamo Bay will be coming to an Illinois penitentiary. It shouldn't be that much of a surprise since the President has been trying to find a way to appease those on the left clamoring for him to shut down Gitmo, but for the life of me, I don't see any way that this makes sense from the right, left or middle.

No matter what angle I look at this, I can't get around the following:

1) The whole agitation for shutting down Gitmo is that supposedly, we are illegally detaining these folk. I don't see how moving them stateside erases that argument (BTW, couldn't moving them from the Caribbean to Illinois be considered inhumane?)

2) The reason they are being transferred instead of released is that they were in fact captured engaging in terrorist activities. How putting them together with our own Federal inmates is a good idea is beyond me. I'm sure none of those inmates have any grudges against the US and would hence be susceptible to proselytization.

If the President actually believes that we are illegally detaining innocent folks, close the prison & send the inmates home. If they are folks captured while engaging in terrorist activities, or warfare outside the Geneva established protocols of war, then leave them where they are.

Obama is like most politicians, trying to have his cake and eat it to. He knows if he let everyone go, the right would come after him as soft on national security. If he leaves them there, the left will come after him for breaking his pledge to close the detention center (although, what's one more promise at this point).

By trying to split the difference, he's giving us the worst of both worlds. He's still detaining folks that were deprived of their Miranda rights (the left's complaint, although technically, they don't have Miranda rights), but now, instead of isolating them, he's bringing their poisonous message to our own inmates.

Big Business Hearts Big Government

2009-12-07T14:31:00.002-05:00

The only individuals who would even be remotely suprised that Comcast is endorsing the President's health care agenda are those who still cling to the notion that Big Businesses are opposed to government regulation.

Ginormous companies such as Comcast, flush with cash & a fleet of attorneys, can easily deal with regulations that will cripple small business & individuals trying to balance their budgets.

To Comcast, it's a small price to pay if it gives them a smoother road to FCC approval of their recent purchase of NBC Universal.

Most people think that more government regulation is required to reign in powerful corporations. However, the dirty secret is, those same regulations only serve to create even more powerful monopolies by weeding out their competition.

Small companies shell out a fortune just maintaining compliance with various local, state & federal regulations & tax laws - even before they pay for their routine operating expenses. Big Business will gladly play the bogey man if it dupes the government into weeding out their competition for them.

The best way to ensure protection of the consumer is to limit government power which in turn frees up individuals & small businesses to compete on a level playing field.

Want more & better choices for health care, entertainment, energy, you name it. Clear out government interference & competition will give us the best value for our dollar.

More emissions reduction folly

2009-12-05T10:07:00.003-05:00

The Patriot room lays out why the seemingly random emissions reduction numbers thrown out by our President & other prophets of environmental doom are absolutely impossible to meet.

The fact that we continue to pursue nonsensical carbon reduction policies in spite of the recent revelation that the world's leading climate research center has been falsifying their numbers in order to hide the fact that the earths temperature has actually been declining over the past decade boggles the mind.

Of course, none of this has ever actually been about protecting the environment - it's all about increased power for the government. World leaders will still live jetset lifestyles while we all become peasants.

Fixing Health Care Lasik Style

2009-12-02T15:22:00.005-05:00

Reason TV takes the time to actually analyze the problem with our health care system in order to determine the best solution.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the free market hasn't failed us in terms of health care, it hasn't even been tried since World War II when government intervention in the labor market (wage freezes) forced employers to look to other methods to attract & retain employees.

For more on my health care reform ideas see here.

Christie wins, but...

2009-11-04T12:25:00.003-05:00

apparently, New Jersey voters had no issues adding an additional $400 million to the state's existing $35 billion dollar debt...

It's hard to foresee Christie (or any elected official) saving a state who's voters have no concept of fiscal responsibility.

That's probably because most residents with any economic sense have been fleeing the state in droves over the past several years.

Great job!!

2009-10-27T09:04:00.003-04:00

Since the CDC has delivered H1N1 vaccine to every US citizen on time and under budget, we should have no trouble handing the rest of our health care over to the Feds...

Wait - there's vaccine shortages you say? The government hasn't been a model of efficiency and cost control?

Our government can't even administer one vaccine, and yet they still expect us to trust them with the rest of our health care.

First of all, let me point out that this shortage is not a particular indictment of President Obama (any more than the last time we had a flu vaccine shortage was the fault of President Bush). The fact is, government is never an effective distributor of goods and services.

Germany moves to the right

2009-09-28T10:18:00.003-04:00

Just like France & Italy before them, Germany is realizing that it's dance with Socialism was not a recipe for success.

Voters in Germany resoundingly affirmed Chancellor Angela Merkel's plans for tax reduction (including taxes for top earners).

Europe is finally coming to realize that penalizing your nation's most productive members leads to disatrous levels of unmployment and poverty. Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, our government seems intent on adopting the exact same policies that Europe has abandoned.

Everywhere in history that socialism has been tried, poverty has been the result.

The Folly of Electric Vehicles

2009-09-02T11:08:00.003-04:00

I came across this on the Freakonomics blog. The gist of the article is that even though we've been trying to produce electric vehicles that meet consumers needs for over a century, we're finally on the verge of making it this time.

There are still two main issues that will prevent EV's from becoming mainstream:

1) Charging time - if I run out of gas, it takes me 5 minutes to fill up (expect in NJ, where for no apparent reason, I'm not as qualified to pump my own gas as the part time high school junior, so I have to wait for him to attend to all the other customers before he gets to me). If my battery runs dead, it takes several hours to charge up again.

2) The biggest problem is cost - Anyone who has purchased replacement batteries for their power tools can attest that the batteries cost almost as much as buying a brand new tool. According to the chart referenced in the article, only one of the upcoming plugin vehicles costs under $40,000 - and that vehicle will likely include a battery lease so who knows what the actual cost of Nissan's Leaf will be.

If economy (in terms of how much it costs to transport me around) were my primary concern, I'd purchase a small 4 cylinder gas vehicle for at least $25,000 less (the savings would be even greater if I'm financing the vehicle, since I'd be paying less interest since I'd be borrowing less).

Suppose I only get 20 MPG in said 4 cylinder vehicle (most economy cars will get at least 25, but lets be conservative here). Even if gas went up to $5.00/gallon, if I drove 10,000 miles per year, the $25,000 I saved (not counting the interest saved) would get me 10 years worth of gas. This is even under the assumption that the electricity used to charge the vehicle were free (which it most certainly will not be).

Many will point out that government incentives and rebates will reduce the cost, as if government rebates make something economically viable. The bottom line is, government money still comes out of our pockets. The bottom line is that electric vehicles will drain our nations economic resources far more than gasoline vehicles - regardless of who pays the bill.

NOTE: This is not to say there will NEVER be an electric vehicle, but $40,000 vehicles are not the way to go. Battery prices are not going to come down as the technology has gone pretty much as far as it goes under the known laws of physics. Until someone comes up with a cheap way to store electrical energy, that can quickly be replenished AND is portable, it's not going to happen.

A Line in the Sand

2009-08-26T15:45:00.002-04:00

While the Obama administration continues to aggressively pursue CIA agents for "torturing" terrorist conspirators to obtain information necessary to protect American lives, however it appears that our president does draw a line at the heinous crime of "conspiracy to commit bribery" when it decides to invoke "torture".

Heaven forbid we cause any discomfort to those who would blow us up, but we we won't stand idly by while enemies of our nation attempt white collar crimes...

8 Ways Government Spending Hurts the Economy

2009-08-19T15:03:00.002-04:00

With nations such as France & Germany experiencing recoveries that far out pace our own (in spite of the fact that they rejected the urge to pass ginormous "stimulous" packages), we need to be reminded that government spending is not the way to economic prosperity.

GM's hottest selling vehicle

2009-08-13T13:31:00.004-04:00

Gets far less mileage than the touted triple digit mileage Volt.

The thousands of 2010 Camaro's are backordered so Government Motors can focus on vehicles we supposedly want.

UPDATE: More on why the Volt is just pie in the sky.

HT: Planet Gore

Who's the real fake?

2009-08-13T10:07:00.002-04:00

Ever since congress went on their August recess, the Democrats and their allies have been attempting to portray those showing up to protest Health Care "Reform" as somehow less than authentic.

Nevermind the fact that every liberal protest is complete with matching T-shirts, & glossy professionally printed signs, etc.

To top it off, they show up at meetings posing as doctors so they can pretend that doctors are in favor of a government plan.

About that 230 MPG

2009-08-12T12:06:00.003-04:00

Chevy's still pending Volt is being touted as getting 230 MPG. However, that's ONLY based on city driving. Depending on the situation, mileage could even drop below 50 MPG.

That's all fine, however who is going to pay an extra $9000 for the same mileage they can get in a Prius. Of course the government will fix that by giving taxpayer money in the form of rebates to Volt purchasers. Since the government now has a vested interest in making sure their auto company succeeds (not by selling cars most people want, but by selling cars the government likes), it will pump our taxpayer money into GM for the rest of eternity since GM cannot ever be competitive with the business model they've been given by the current administration.

The other question I still have regarding the mileage touted for plugin hybrids - I haven't seen any evidence that the mileage calculations take into account the electricity used to charge these vehicles when they are plugged in. Yes it's possible that KWH's are taken into acount in the figures, and it's possible that even factored in, the energy efficiency is still an improvement, but on the face, it seems that the promotors of plugin vehicles are content to believe that battery charging uses no energy while plugged in.

I would love to hear from anyone who has more information on this last point.

You don't get to keep your plan after all

2009-08-11T15:49:00.002-04:00

In spite of the Presidents repeated statements to the contrary, the actual bills being pushed through Congress & the Senate say otherwise. This article details 5 freedoms we lose under Obamacare.

Item 4:

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

More on fishy data collection.

2009-08-06T09:40:00.001-04:00

Powerline describes the serious implications of the President's request that those opposing his health care plan be reported..

Is this a "fishy" post?

2009-08-04T16:06:00.003-04:00

The President is understandably upset that many of the lowly peasants who call themselves US citizens are not falling at his feet over the Democrats attempts to subject our health to the whims of the US government.

Apparently, it's so upsetting that the White House is calling on citizens to report any "fishy" emails or web posts regarding the plan that will heal us of all our ills.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov

I just know that there would have been no outcry whatsoever had the previous administration asked individuals to report any policy criticisms to the White House.

Hat Tip: The Corner

No friend to the poor and middle class.

2009-07-31T15:10:00.004-04:00

Apparently, people are so thrilled to receive $4500 from the rest of us to purchase new cars, that we burned through a billion dollars in a week & exhausted the Cash for Clunkers fund. However, in the interest of making sure auto industry recently acquired by Washington stays afloat, it seems like we'll get to pay even more people to buy new cars.

What is even further amusing is this statement from the White House:

"The program will be in place" for anyone who had been planning to make a car purchase this weekend, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told CNN. "This program appears to be a success for car buyers, car dealers, car companies and taxpayers." (emphasis mine)

While it is no stretch that purchasers that meet the requirements are happy to get $4500 off their tab, and dealers & car companies won't complain at the brief boost it provides them, how exactly is it a "success" for taxpayers to be buying new cars for other people?

Not only are taxpayers losers in this scheme, so are carbuyers in the market for used cars. There are plenty of folks who can't afford a new car - even if they are given $4500 to do so. A 1997 Mercury Cougar in good condition could be had for $2000, but suddenly, the base price for that vehicle is $4500 - which means the poor & frugal are losers.

This is completely besides the fact that the dealer is required to crush the '97 cougar (even if it was in mint condition) as part of the "Cash for Clunkers" bill. So not only is the base price for used cars hurting the poor, since these cars are being destroyed, the supply of used vehicles has shortened which in turn drives the price up further.

In spite of their talk, liberals are no friends to the poor and working class.

The president will own you.

2009-07-25T01:02:00.003-04:00

Not only will a federal plan result in Washington determine who does and who does not get care, the President wants those decisions to be made by a body beholden only to the White House.

In a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House budget chief Peter Orszag urged Congress to delegate its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This measure is designed to circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.

If this happens, and you find yourself in need of an expensive lifesaving procedure, the president will be the one who determines if you live or die.

At this rate, we will all be indentured servants to the White House before we know it.

UPDATE: Further down the in the article even further illustrates the deadly serious nature of this health care bill:

While the House bill being pushed by the president reduces access to such cures and specialists, it ensures that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon, some cancer patients are being denied care by the state that could extend their lives and instead are afforded the benefit of physician-assisted suicide instead.

So not only will seniors be denied care - they will be actively encouraged to kill themselves...

HT: Powerline

Cost is the least of our worries - don't plan on getting sick.

2009-07-24T18:38:00.004-04:00

Much of the concern over the pending health care bill is focused on its cost. As big a concern as it is, the cost to taxpayers pales in comparison to the affect it will have on actual health care. If this legislation passes, not only will there be less health care available, what IS available will be of inferior quality than it is today.

One recent comment proposed the notion that free market principles for health care can't work because health care is a need while (to use his example) color copies are not. Unfortunately, that notion could not be further from the truth. Every single resource weather it is copier services, energy, or medical supplies are subject to the same laws of supply and demand whether we like it or not.

Whether it's MRI's, cars or said color copies, the purchaser ALWAYS wants the best available and for as little as possible. Sellers ALWAYS want to get the most in return for as little as possible.

While it would be wonderful if everyone in the medical and pharmaceutical professions were in it solely to help people and had no regard for compensation, but wishing it to be so will not change the reality that humans all want their own interests served.

If this bill passes, consumers will all want the best available care. However, doctors, equipment, pills and time are all in limited supply. Now that cost is no longer an obstacle for patients, demand for all sorts of medical care will swell drastically. In a free market, this would cause the price of care to rise and more individuals would decide to go into medicine, build MRI machines, develop new medicine because medicine would become more profitable.

However, with the government running the show, the price of care will NOT be permitted to rise. This will lead to doctors leaving practice, our best and brightest going into other professions, equipment suppliers producing less (not to mention companies that service equipment when it breaks).

Yes, free markets require individuals to make difficult choices - I might not want to pay $5000 for an MRI out of my pocket, but I also don't like paying $500+ a month to put food in my families mouths. I certainly wouldn't mind if other folks would make my mortgage payment either. The bottom line is, somebody needs to make choices about what level of health care we get. My money is on individuals to best make that decision - not the next MRI czar.

Our commenter was correct - there is a difference between necessities like medicine and color copies - but he had the consequences reversed. If Washington imposed price caps on color copies, we have less of them and they'd be of lesser quality, but if this bill passes, people will die because of it.

Random thoughts on health care

2009-07-23T20:29:00.002-04:00

Here's a random collection of my thoughts on the health care debate:

1) I've stated it before, but we are discussing the wrong issue with regards to health care in the US. The root problem we want to solve is making sure that health CARE is readily available to as many as possible, but instead, we keep trying to come up with ways to make health INSURANCE readily available to as many as possible without regard to whether that insurance will lead to accessible health care.

2) Our concept of health insurance isn't even insurance - it's just making our medical payments through a third party. How anyone thinks that any third party payment system (government or private) could ever be cheaper than patients paying directly for care is beyond me. The customer (patient) doesn't have any incentive to shop around or reduce their purchases to what is necessary and the seller has no incentive to keep prices down.

3) There are only two ways a government plan can keep costs down: A) they will ration care - so much for health care being a right (a common refrain by proponents of universal coverage) and B) they will force doctors to accept less in return for their services - unfortunately, this will lead to more individuals exercising their right to NOT become doctors and for existing doctors to exercise their right to retire - price caps ALWAYS make a given resource less available.

4) I certainly don't advocate this solution, but giving everyone an anual $2000 medical voucher to be used at any medical facility would probably be cheaper than anything being rammed through congress today. If individuals were permitted to rollover the unused portion of their voucher to the next year, they'd have an incentive to decide for themselves what care is necessary, price shop etc. Doctors would have incentive to compete on price.

5) Apparently, individuals have a right to force others to provide for their health, food, & housing, even though the US Constitution says nothing to that affect. However, individuals do NOT have the right to provide for their own self defense, even though the right to keep and bear arms is CLEARLY spelled out on the Constitution.

6) Once the government is responsible for providing for our medical well being, they own us. If we don't conform to their vision, they can just decide that our medical needs are less of a priority.

7) Socialism of any sort is not maintainable. As noted in item 3, the price caps necessary to keep expenses down will cause people to avoid medical/pharmaceutical fields altogether. The only way to continue such a vision is to FORCE people into medical practice. This is why citizens of communist countries have so little career choice. The government decides where an individuals talents are most needed and the individual does not have a choice.

8) Hopefully rather than devolving into communism, we will realize that although freedom does not mean that every individual will have all their needs met, no system does. Freedom gives every individual the CHANCE to have their needs met and meets more peoples needs than any other system in history.

Obama and baseball

2009-07-15T23:01:00.002-04:00

First off, let me state that this is a stupid discussion. I couldn't care less if Obama confused Comiskey Park with Shibe Park. It has no bearing on his abilities as a President.

However, things like this (along with the ridiculous discussion of whether it did or did not bounce) became topics of discussion after

1) the press mercilessly hounded Bush for the slightest mistep, mis-pronunciation, etc
2) Everyone went to such great lengths to cover for him (including Fox Sports) and
3) Obama himself pokes fun at Cubs fans for not being serious about baseball.

Come on - if you can't throw a baseball, bowl, or just aren't an every day Sox fan, that's fine - just don't pretend otherwise. Be who you are and let us judge you on your policies.

Sotomayor, Nunchucks and the 2nd Ammendment

2009-07-14T16:34:00.004-04:00

While it is a bit humorous listening to the the Supreme Court nominee explain to Orin Hatch how nunchucks (or numchuck sticks in "wise Latina" terms) work, more telling is her opinion that the 2nd Ammendment does not apply to the states.

It is especially perplexing to me that the 1st Ammendment specifically states "Congress shall make now law respecting an establishment of religion, or [...] abridging the freedom of speech, [...]the press; or [... peacable assmbly...]" while the 2nd Ammendment states that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " (emphasis mine)

The bill of rights doesn't prohibit a specific entity from restricting our right to keep & bear arms - it precludes ANY infringment. If either of those ammendments could textually be construed as not applying to states, it would be the first. And yet, the same folks who claim states and municipalities are well within the constitution when they restrict the arming of their citizens would clamor with righteous indignation at town displays of manger scenes, or heaven forbid, a teenager is forbidden from wearing an obscene t-shirt to school.

Note to Barbara Boxer: Senator Hatch's nameplate reads "Mr. Hatch"

We are having the wrong discussion on health care.

2009-07-08T21:32:00.004-04:00

Dull Geek has an excellent post discussing the problems with health care in the US. It shows exaclty why our problem is not that there are to many uninsured, but that there are to many insured. We don't need more insurance - public or private - we need LESS health insurance so that people purchasing health care are exposed to its costs.

The fact that a third party pays for just about every medical procedure has resulted in a situation where neither the health care providers (your Doctor) nor the customers (the patients) know the price of the good/service being purchased:

I've gone to the doctor with my child trying to get stitches for a cut. Before I went in, I asked what this was going to cost, because I was going to have to pay for it. They didn't know.

Stop for a minute and think about this. Is there *ANY* other service provider that you pay for, where they have zero idea of what the cost is going to be?

The reality is that the doctor's office didn't need to know. Their job is not to let the patient make an informed decision about the cost and benefit of the procedure/service that is being performed. Their job is to do the service and take care of the billing later.

Not only does nobody know how much anything costs, since the customer doesn't have to pay for the procedure, people have no incentive to ration. Why not have every procedure known to man if you don't have to pay for it.

If we did away with medical coverage as we know it (along with all the 3rd parties with their hand in the till along the way), customers would be forced to make choices, competition would cause doctors to lower their prices - and they could since they wouldn't need a small army in their billing office filling out 800 forms in triplicate for the kid coming in for two stitches.

UPDATE: I further expanded on my views last year.

Why you need to fear cap & trade.

2009-07-08T17:13:00.003-04:00

Not only will the cap & trade bill double your utility bills (or more), it will permit the state to inspect your house for energy compliance under a variety of circumstances.

Here are a few of the circumstances under which the state EPA can come into your house & check you out for energy compliance:

- a final inspection of major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government entity Since permits are required for just about anything, repairing your leaky roof could subject you to a mandate to replace all the windows in your house.

- a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph (8) Your job requires you to move (or you want to downsize now that the kids are grown)? - Guess what - you're on the hook to insulate that 75 year old house you've been living in.

- a new lien recorded on the property for more than a set percentage of the assessed value of the property, if that lien reflects public financial assistance for energy-related improvements to that building; or Thought you'd save some money by refinancing now that rates are lower - guess again.

- a change in ownership or operation of the building for purposes of utility billing Good luck if you want to rent your place out. Your perfectly good furnace isn't so hot anymore once the EPA deems it's not efficient enough. Potentially, one could get around this by including utilities in the rent & paying for it themselves, but there goes any incentive for the tennant to conserve energy

Then there's B) Other appropriate means - so they can inspect your house for whatever the state feels like.

If I'm suspected of murder, the police need to jump through all the hoops of getting a warrant before they set foot in your door. But the state has complete jurisdiction over your thermostat setting...

Here is the relevent portion of the bill that passed the House of Representatives.

Hat tip: The Corner

Who's side is he on?

2009-07-07T21:35:00.003-04:00

When I read things like this, it makes me wonder if our President actually has set as a goal the down fall of the United States.

[President Obama] Vowed to keep the Russian leaders informed about a U.S. evaluation of whether the anti-missile shield planned for Eastern Europe will actually work.

Russia is NOT an ally of the United States. In fact, the anti-missle shield has been put in place as a defense AGAINST the threat of Russion attacks (nuclear or otherwise). Russia has been threatening neighboring Georgia for the past two years. They are in no way acting as a nation seeking to live in peace with any of their neighbors - much less the US.

Divulging tactical information such as this is an act of treason.

It's all good though. The Russians promised to make less missiles & they'd never lie to us...

While Nero fiddled...

2009-05-25T10:10:00.004-04:00

Our leaders today have no concept of priorities when it comes to the governance of a nation. The very reason government of any sort exists is to protect its citizens.

Anyway, while North Korea was busy testing Nukes, our House Speaker was in China determining how to best handle the nuclear powered dictatorship. Just kidding, she was there on the much more important business of managing the climate.

Meanwhile, the Presidents top policy is deciding what kind of cars US citizens should be permitted to buy. Don't worry though, he did "condemn" the tests - that will show them since North Korea is so concerned about what we think of him.

Costly CAFE

2009-05-22T13:49:00.002-04:00

It's been forever since we've seen any action here @ C4tR- apparently most of us have day jobs :)

Regardless, I came across this interesting rundown of President Obama's recent push to accelerate the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) requirements & what impact it will have on our economy, safety, etc. The author is Kieth Hennessey who helped President Bush formulate the last proposed CAFE increase, so he knows more than a little about the subject.

Of particular note to me is the shift in values focus. In a nut shell, the Presidents proposals provide a net zero benefit to society (see quote below) - and that's even assuming you view "greenhouse gasses" as a threat.

In a nutshell, we sacrificing highway safety, increasing the burden on auto manufacturers during a recession and increasing consumer costs for a net zero gain - again that assumes you believe reduction of greenhouse gasses will actually have any measurable impact on the climate - especially since India, China and other developing nations show no indications of slowing down.

From the article:

2. Rather than maximizing net societal benefits, this proposal raises the standard until (total societal benefits = total societal costs), meaning the net benefits to society are roughly zero. This is not an invalid framework for making a policy decision, but it is unusual. It represents a different value choice.

The NHTSA analyses look at a range of benefits to society, including economic and national security benefits from using less oil, health and environmental benefits from less pollution, and environmental benefits from fewer greeenhouse gas emissions (this is new). They also consider the costs, primarily from requiring more fuel-saving technologies to be included by manufacturers. NHTSA assumes these increased costs are passed on to consumers. More expensive cars mean that fewer cars are sold, which means that fewer auto workers are needed. NHTSA calculates economic costs to car buyers and to society as a whole, and job losses among U.S. auto workers.

A standard rule-making methodology is to look at all the costs to society, and all the benefits, and make them comparable (by converting them into dollar equivalents). You then ask, “What policy will maximize the net benefit to society as a whole, taking into account all costs and benefits?” This is the approach NHTSA used in building the yellow line.

The blue line represents a different approach. (See the TC=TB line on Table VII-6 on page 613 of the NHTSA analysis.) You take the same analysis of costs and benefits, but instead ask, “How much can we increase fuel economy before the costs to society as a whole outweigh the benefits to society as a whole?” This results (in theory) in no net benefit (and no net cost) to society, but allows you to maximize the fuel economy subject to this constraint.

The Obama Administration’s numbers are in line with this latter approach. It’s not wrong. The Obama approach is quite different. It represents a different value choice, in which a higher priority is placed on the benefits of increased fuel economy, and lower priorities are placed on increased costs to car buyers and job loss in the auto industry.

One Triiiillllion Dollars

2009-03-05T11:49:00.001-05:00

I was visuallizing Dr. Evil saying it when I typed the subject line for this post.

Anyway, to get a glimpse of how much is being spent in the recently passed stimulus, see here.

H/T The Corner.

Obama proof stocks

2009-03-03T09:55:00.003-05:00

I wouldn't exactly call it a vote of confidence in your policies when you are singled out as a reason to buy Australian companies...

The fundamental flaw in today's liberal policy is that they assume they can legislate away human nature. In reality, people will ALWAYS act in their own and their families interest.

Obama's spending will inflate the dollar, so people buy gold to protect the value of their savings. Obama's tax policies will penalize companies that generate income in the US, so people will invest in foreign companies.

The markets will certainly respond to the "stimulus" and other proposals on the Presidents agenda, but it won't be a positive response.

H/T Campaign Spot

UPDATE: Go here for more visual evidence of what the market thinks of Obama's policies.

Doing the Math

2009-02-26T13:59:00.004-05:00

The Wall Street Journal points out some incovenient numbers (H/T: Powerline) for President Obama & his promises to pay for all this outrageous new spending through new taxes on the richest 2% (increasing taxes on the highest income earners to 42% over the next couple of years).

From the article:
But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

And this is assuming that higher income taxes would in no way affect the behavior of those generating said incomes. Not only that, given our current economic climate, there will be far less earning those high incomes. And given that they'd be required to fork over ever increasing amounts of their income to Uncle Sam, how many older earners would just retire rather than watching their fruit of their labor go straight into the government coffers. Businesses will produce less (since the potential for earnings is lower). Fewer goods and services means fewer jobs.

My only critique of the Journal article is that it doesn't go far enough when it predicts that Obama will have to raised taxes on more than just the "rich". Yes additional tax hikes will become necessary, but, sooner or later, the Democrats are going to realize that the only way to pay off all this new debt is to fire up the printing presses leading to inflation.

Not only will this return us to the stagflation of the '70s, but will most certainly hurt our already tenous relationship with China - one of the chief foreign investors in the dollar. Tom at Radio Free New Jersey has more on that here.

It's starting...

2009-02-23T07:55:00.003-05:00

While President Obama falsely accused the Republicans who opposed his stimulus plan as wanting to do nothing, back in January, I actually stated the case for "doing nothing". (actually, I stated the case that doing nothing was better than what he and the Democrats were proposing at the time - and have since rammed through congress at breakneck speed - there are things that are better than nothing, but this is not it).

To this point, we have had rising unemployment, but at least, inflation was low - in fact prices were dropping - that's how the market compensates - and recovers on it's own. Prices can drop to the point that people start buying which in turn gets things going again.

Now that the government has thrown another $800 Billion out there - but for which there were no goods and services produced, this gives us a greater supply of dollars, but the same supply of goods and services. Now that dollars are in greater supply relative to the goods they would purchase, we can expect with certainty that those dollars will be worth LESS relative to the goods they would purchase. In short, this is exactly what inflation is.

To make things worse, since no extra goods and services are being produced to go along with the extra currency, this does nothing to change the rise in unemployment. So now, we not only have people continuing to lose jobs, they will now find that the money they have saved for emergencies like this will buy less food, heat, gas, clothes, etc than it did before. Doing nothing would have been far better than this abomination from the Democrats.

Well - that inflation is starting now and I fear that the "stimulus" bill may have killed any chance for any sort of speedy recovery.

Crazy times...

2009-02-16T14:33:00.002-05:00

It's been ages since anything's been posted here, I've been extremely swamped with work and home to post.

Anyway, I came across this extremely interesting video on the pace of technology and civilization.

What do you all think it means?

Did You Know? from Amybeth on Vimeo.

Bi-Partisan measure? Are they kidding?

2009-01-27T14:49:00.003-05:00

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN dist. 6) has started a worthwhile blog detailing the activities of the Democrat Majority.

This particular post debunks the notion that the stimulus package being rammed down are throats is far from the bipartisan measure it's being touted as by Speaker Pelosi. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee presented 18 ammendments to the bill, 1 was agreed to and the other 17 were rejected outright.

As Rep. Bachmann points out, the Democrats are well within their rights to ignore GOP input (they are the majority after all), but doing so while claiming to reach across the aisle is outright dishonest.

Update: Here's an excellent video detailing why the "bailout" is bad.

When the government takes over

2009-01-25T20:35:00.003-05:00

Had to post this!

Founders Friday

2009-01-23T10:36:00.003-05:00

What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed: and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
-James Madison

Cedarville University: A Controversy over Truth and Certainty?

2009-01-16T08:06:00.003-05:00

For some time now, Cedarville University has been involved in a controversy over truth and certainty: the belief that we can know that the Bible, the truth, is 100% certain versus the belief of the emergent church that the truth is unknowable, i.e., we can be relatively certain, but ultimately, no one can know the truth for sure.

Initially, I wondered at the relevance of this information to Case4theRight, but came to the conclusion that many of us may be looking for Christian colleges to which to send our children in light of the severe leftist leanings of many, if not most, of the secular colleges and universities in our nation today.

The controversy seemingly came to light after the university fired two conservative professors in the summer of 2007, only a few months after they had a signed contract. One had even achieved tenure at the university. My initial exposure to this affair was in the form of an email communication from the alumni office with a statement from the president of the university announcing the university’s unwavering stance toward the truth of the scripture and a warning of unfounded accusations made by several media outlets. I did some internet research on the situation at that time because I was saddened to hear of these developments and I wanted to be as informed as possible about this emergent church movement and about what was going on at Cedarville. There are always two sides to every story and I was concerned that I was only hearing the situation from a public relations standpoint. I was able to find quite a bit of information detailing the situation from the viewpoint of the fired professors.

I was seriously concerned about these accusations because my daughter, who is a relatively new Christian, is a student at Cedarville. I was concerned about what she was being taught in the classroom regarding the certainty of scripture. She did not seem to be familiar with too many of the facts surrounding the situation, however, I did get an opportunity to explain why we can be certain regarding the truth of the scripture and admonished her to keep an ear out in her classes for any teaching that might undermine the truth of the Bible. As that is all I could do at that point, I left it at that, and kept Cedarville in my prayers that they would not succumb to the lies of false teaching.

Earlier this week I received another communication from Cedarville citing a report that was about to be released by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), detailing an investigation performed by the AAUP into the firings of the two university professors. Cedarville stated that the report is “misleading and inaccurate”. Several other conservative faculty and staff (those identifying with the certainty of scripture) have either left or been asked to leave. I began to believe that where there is smoke, there is fire, and again I looked at all the sources of information I was able to find. A couple of points raised serious doubts in my mind as to the sincerity of the school’s position:

1) Why have no emergent professors left the institution or been asked to leave? Why is it that only those with conservative viewpoints are no longer affiliated with the university? And I suppose, first and foremost, why are there even professors with emergent leanings even employed by the university? If their position is the complete inerrancy and certainty of scripture, why are they employing individuals who do not share these views?

2) Why does Dr. Brown, the university president, include known emergent books on his reading list for the students to see without any type of disclaimer?

3) Why does the university invite known emergents to speak in chapel under the guise of exposing the students to other viewpoints? Chapel is for spiritual growth and teaching, not a learning experience for apostasy. I understand the need to teach these things, but these teachings should be done in the classroom, not in the chapel forum.

I am still at a loss of who or what to believe. I would like to believe that Cedarville is firm in their unwavering stand for the truth, especially since I am an alumnus of the university, not to mention that I am sending tens of thousands of dollars a year to the school for my daughter’s education. The only thing I am sure of at this point is that I will be watching this situation very closely from all angles and that I will be praying for them that they truly do stand for what is right and will continue to do so. There is a spiritual warfare going on in Christian circles and we need to “be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (NKJV, 1 Peter 5:8).

Some interesting links:
http://www.cedarville.edu/academics/avp/truth/
http://www.cedarvillesituation.com/
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/academicfreedom/investrep/2009/cedarville.htm

A Book Recommendation:
The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception by John MacArthur

The point of Gitmo

2009-01-15T11:16:00.005-05:00

Scott at Powerline has some good insight on an excellent post by National Review's Jay Nordlinger - Mr. Nordlinger specifically addressing the left's success at altering reality (at least the way reality is presented). Scott continues this by analyzing camparisons of Guantanamo to Nuremburg.

One Obama quote stood out to me in a way that Scott did not really address:

"It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States. But we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. Let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."

Scott goes on to show what Obama's contention was untrue, but even if it were, it misses the whole purpose of Guantanamo. Here's the money line: "the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial."

Obama is contending that it is sufficient to prosecute terrorists after they have completed their mission - a mission to take hundreds, thousands or millions of American lives. The purpose of our soon to be ex-President's anti-terror policy is to apprehend, interrogate and neutralize terrorists before they succeed in mass murder.

UPDATE: It also misses the point that the detainees are not US citizens - hence they have no rights under our constitution. Nor do they belong to any parties to the Geneva Convention.

What is a human life worth?

2009-01-14T07:30:00.003-05:00

In the Twilight Zone episode "Button, Button", a couple answers a knock at the door to find a stranger holding a small wooden box with a button on top. The stranger informs them that if they press the button, they will receive a large sum of money but someone they do not know will die. After agonizing for days over the box, the wife presses the button (over her husbands objection).

The next day, the stranger returns and gives them a briefcase full of cash, and informs them that the button will be reprogrammed and given to somebody they don't know. (queue ominous music)

While the story above is wholly implausible, it does beg the question of the value placed on human lives. From society's perspective, is there a dollar amount that makes the loss of some unspecified individuals life acceptable? This is a tough philosophical issue to resolve - especially for someone who believes that human life is special - that our creation in God's image places human life above the life of His other creatures. However, logically, there must be some dollar amount at which the loss of a random life is tolerable.

I bring this up in light of a recent push to ban all forms of cell phone communication while driving. As it turns out, hands free communication is no safer than holding the phone to one's ear. The National Safety Council attributes "636,000 crashes, 12,000 serious injuries and 2,600 deaths each year" to cell phone use (hands free or not).

The problem is that in today's society, instant communication has become a necessity for doing business. Taking phones out of the hands of drivers would result in a large hit to our nations productivity - a negative at any time, but especially in the midst of recession. The common response is that we cannot place a value on human life.

This is certainly an understandable and completely human response - and it is good that we feel that way. However, if we actually believed that no expense was to high if it "saves lives", we would be required to:

1) Impose 10 MPH speed limits on our highways - or ban cars altogether - and planes too
2) Ban swimming pools, boating and 5 gallon buckets since between 3-4000 people drown yearly
3) Ban all forms of electricity (maybe the Amish are on to something)
4) Limit all buildings to single story

In short, we aren't able to list all the policies required if no expense was to great to "save lives" (sort of ties in with Joe's post last week). The rules would be endless and productivity would grind to a halt - but the lack of productivity would also cost human lives. Modern society has produced all sorts of things to save and extend life. State, National and World economies are complex things - no individual or group of individuals would be able to sort out all the causes and effects of a given policy. It would be impossible to calculate all the consequences of a given policy - or even track them once it has been passed since nobody can see every ripple - and those affected by those ripples don't see what started them.

One thing we do know from history - free society's tend to enjoy longer (and healthier) lives than unfree.

Open Topic Tuesday

2009-01-13T00:01:00.003-05:00

You down wit' OTT?

Time's yours.

Why is labor different?

2009-01-12T11:56:00.004-05:00

The resource that every single individual on the planet has at their disposal is Time. Every single one of us are allotted 24 hours every single day. In a free society, we each get to choose how we allocate this resource. We can use it for resting, recreation, or we can sell our time to another individual (or group of individuals) in exchange for another resource - usually (but not always) currency.

As discussed in Friday's post, labor (or the use of one's time) is economically no different than any other commodity. When the cost of labor increases, the demand for it decreases. When cost of labor goes down (if that were ever permitted to happen), demand increases. But for some reason (probably multiple reasons) we view our time differently than other things.

Most of us would never consider our time to be LESS valuable than what we are currently getting paid - and would take offense to even the suggestion of cuts in pay, benefits or anything else. On top of that, when salary disputes are out in the open, public opinion most often sides with the employees - with the possible exception of sports or entertainment industries.

Taking a look at our national (or local) economy, one would be hard pressed to find a single commodity that they would consider under priced. I rarely hear anyone (outside dairy producers) bemoaning the fact that milk is so cheap. But when it comes to labor, we expect (and often legislate) employers to spare no expense when it comes to their employees.

Unfortunately, regardless the cause - our belief that labor is different than other commodities does not change economic reality - and for an individual - and a nation - can often extend hardship in times of rising unemployment.

Here's a partial list of reasons for this mindset (I'd love to hear your additions):

1) The belief that things we own are inherently more valuable: As indicated above, dairy farmers are the only people that believe the price of milk is low. When it comes to our own labor, we are the sellers in the transaction and so we feel we are being shorted - and can sympathize with others in the same business (of selling their labor). Proverbs 20:14 sums it up nicely "'It is good for nothing', cries the buyer; But when he has gone his way, then he boasts" - This also shows when individuals are the purchasers of labor - people rarely believe that contractors are charging them to little for services.

2) The belief that our salary reflects our intrinsic value as human beings: If my employer were to approach me about a pay cut (or worse - a layoff), in my gut, it would feel as though they were attacking my personal worth. Even though this is not the case at all any more than switching landscapers makes the guy that used to mow your lawn any less valuable as a person - it still feels that way.

3) The belief that businesses exist to employ people: Employment is a side effect of business - one of many transactions that occur in the course of producing and selling goods and services. However, many - consciously or not - believe that employment is a right. Employers OWE them a job - after all, what else is a company good for.

Until we get out of this mindset and accept labor and compensation as simply a business transaction, it will be tough navigating through the coming times. In the face of layoffs, we need to do what people do when they have difficulty moving a product: consider ways to improve it while at the same time, determining the proper price point - even if that price point is below what we're used to.

Saving the Children of Tomorrow: the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

2009-01-09T18:00:00.002-05:00

It is amazing that anyone can make it out of childhood these days with hidden dangers lurking around every corner. The newest level of protection for America's children is in the form of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Under this law, starting February 10, 2009, all products intended for children 12 and under must be tested for lead. While this sounds like a good idea, and something that is important for the safety of children, law makers failed to consider one major ramification of such a law: clothing for children under the age of 12.

Retailers of such items across the nation will now be required to test them for lead and phthalates. This is an expensive process that most small children's clothing businesses will not be able to afford. Additionally, thrift stores and second hand stores will not be able to afford to test all the donated clothing and therefore will be forced to shut down.

These added government regulations designed to protect Americans are having the potential side affect of putting a large financial burden on those with lower income levels, or on those seeking to save money by purchasing used clothing. They will no longer be able to buy used clothing on ebay, goodwill, salvation army, and various other thrift stores.

These types of laws are a product of a government who thinks that the American people are too stupid to be able to function on a daily basis without their intervention. A possible reason for this perceived stupidity is most likely a product of the endless litigation instigated by individuals who failed to exercise common sense and suffered the consequences. Because many Americans do not accept blame for anything and are always looking for someone else to be at fault, they put themselves in a situation where they make themselves out to be an idiot. There are warnings on hair dryers to inform users that it is dangerous to use them while bathing. There are warnings on coffee to tell us that it is hot. There are attempted law suits against the fast food industry because people don't know that excessive consumption of fast food fare can result in accumulated fat deposits all over the body. What happened to common sense? Doesn't common sense tell us that using a hairdryer (or any electrical appliance) while bathing could result in electrocution? Doesn't common sense tell us that coffee is hot and that it will burn if spilled? Doesn't common sense tell us that obsessive quantities of eating will cause weight gain? It is no wonder that those in office (many of whom are former lawyers or have law degrees) think that the American public is too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time.

As of the posting of this article, it appears as if there will be a reprieve for used clothing and toys, thus saving the second hand sales industry. However, this reprieve does nothing for the small businesses who will now have to spend their profits on having this testing performed on the clothing they sell. This will translate into higher prices for their products, and fewer people that are able to spend the extra money to pay for the inflated price of the clothing. Additionally, the increased prices and less demand may force these small businesses to close their doors. This will have an inpact on our entire economy, because there will be fewer small businesses paying taxes, which will result in a lower income for the government. Then the employees of the small businesses will be forced to file for unemployment therefore increasing the demand for government handouts.

Do our elected officials even read the bills that pass across their desks? Do they even consider the ramifications of passing such laws? It would seem that they do not.

**A special thanks to Melodie for bringing this new law to my attention!**

Doing Nothing

2009-01-09T14:30:00.003-05:00

On the news page, I questioned why "doing something" is always considered better than nothing. That is most certainly not the case. There are plenty of policies (as in the case of the Great Depression) that would make the situation worse than doing nothing. In order to determine which actions would be appropriate, a proper assessment of the situation is required.

The main focus at this time is the rise in unemployment - currently at 7.2%. What this boils down to is that as a nation, we have a surplus of time on our hands. Time is a commodity like anything else - and when we have more of it, its inherent value is less - meaning that people (and groups of people) are willing to give up less in exchange for your time.

At the same time, we are (at least for now) experiencing deflation - meaning that the prices of goods and services are dropping.

In a nutshell while things aren't good (high unemployment isn't good by anyone's book), it's not awful, we have a situation where people are either short of cash (or afraid of being short in the near future - and thus unwilling to part with it), but at the same time, the cash they DO have will purchase more goods than it used to. If the government were to do nothing - and publicly announce that we were just going to grit our teeth and ride things out - things would over some period of time return to normal. Simply knowing what the playing field is going to look like under the next administration would allow individuals and businesses to start playing again.

Unfortunately, with trillion dollar stimuli rolling out every few months, along with continued calls to action, people are hesitant to produce and consume since the the rules could change several times a year. Eventually, we will come to the point where the federal government will no longer be able to meet is debt obligations. After all, raising taxes won't help if nobody has any income to tax. At this point, the only solution would be to crank up the printing presses.

By printing out more money, the treasury will have the cash to pay back their debts - but the price for the nation will be drastic inflation. With money in greater supply, the cash that you and I hold will be worth far less than it is today. So not only will many be without jobs, they will be without jobs, and be able to buy far less with the cash they still have.

What's worse than high unemployment? High unemployment coupled with inflation. Clearly doing nothing is better than this proposal. I'm often of the mindset echoed by Ronald Reagan in that the nine most terrifying words I can here are "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'

All that said, there are a few policies that would address our current woes:

1) Minimum wage: As stated before, unemployment is a surplus of labor. If I am having trouble selling other goods like gasoline, produce, appliances, cars, etc, I lower my asking price until people are willing to purchase them. Why is do we never consider lowering the price of labor until people are willing to purchase it?

2) Labor laws: If the gas station owners in an area were to organize, set a minimum price at which they were permitted to sell their gas and kick out any who did not agree with my terms, they would be guilty of collusion and in violation of the law. However, why is the UAW permitted to be the only organization to sell labor to Detroit? This is nothing other than collusion backed by law.

3) Tax cuts in stead of credits: One of the announcements in Obama's proposed stimulus is $300 billion in tax "cuts". However, they are actually tax credits. It may seem like semantics, but there is a difference. A tax cut reduces the amount you are required to pay. Tax credits give federal money to the taxpayer whether or not they paid any taxes to begin with. By crediting individuals who haven't paid any taxes, the government is already spending money it does not have.

Founders Friday.... finally

2009-01-09T09:10:00.003-05:00

I guess I'll break into the new year by posting my normal weekly blurb about the founding fathers. It's been quite a while since I've posted on this blog so maybe I'll make a new years resolution to start writing more. I promised my wife that I wouldn't blog from home, and I'm usually too busy chasing my nine month old son around anyway. Parenting is fun.

Enough about me, today I'd like to give a "shout out" to a little known founding father named Roger Sherman. Sherman was referred to by John Adams as "That old Puritan, honest as an angel". Besides having an unwavering testimony for Christ, Sherman is best known for his orchestration of the Connecticut Compromise. by July, 1787, the constitutional convention had deadlocked over the issue of representation. The big states, led by James Madison, had proposed that both houses of the legislature be represented by population (giving the bigger states power over both houses of the legislature). The smaller states had countered with the New Jersey plan, which was basically a throwback to the equal representation of the articles of confederation.

The delegates debated endlessly until Mr. Sherman stepped forward and suggested that one house be represented equally and the other house be represented by the population size of the state. Of course not all of the states were excited about this compromise, but it saved the constitutional convention by allowing the delegates to move on, and it balanced the representative power between the big states and the small states. Balancing power is one of the principles that made American government different from most other governments throughout history. Thank you Roger Sherman.

Root causes

2009-01-07T11:35:00.001-05:00

The notion of "root causes" has always intrigued me - specifically when and where we are supposed to look for root causes.

Starting even before 9/11, we've been lectured that the existence of terrorism is a symptom and that we must seek out the root cause of their hatred for the West. Of course we are not permitted to even entertain the notion that the root cause could lie in the heart of terrorists and terrorist organizations themselves.

The only possible place that such a root cause could exist (so we were told) is in our own policies. Whatever policy changes were trotted out (most notably our support for Israel, the gist was the same - if they hate us, the problem MUST lie in ourselves.

Contrast that with the lack of any sort of intellectual curiosity regarding root causes when it comes to our nations current economic woes. While the lions share of the blame for the financial woes of individuals, lenders, and auto manufacturers lies within themselves, there is little if any discussion in the mainstream about what sort of policies brought us to this point.

The fact that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac have been continualy pressured by their government sponsor for decades to back riskier mortgages with the intention of providing homes for low income families or that the auto industry has been forced since the 70's to sell large quantities of vehicles at a loss to meet mandated fuel efficiency standards barely gets any play.

Instead, we hear our president speak of the need to "save capitalism" and the NYT declaring that capitalism has failed without even so much as a glance in the direction of domestic policy.

One of the reasons for this disparity is the control issue: Our government has no authority or control over Islamic terrorists - human beings can't stand not being in control. This causes many to fantasize that this somehow must be about us and if we only make the right changes, they would grow to love us. Placing the root cause within the US permits the government to save the day by enacting the correct policies.

On the flip side, our own economic issues are well within the purview of our government. This allows pro-government exercise their control via more policies.

Another (an probably the biggest player in this question) is that looking for root causes in domestic policies would cast an unfavorable light on policies that had noble goals. Getting low income families into homes and reducing pollution are laudable causes, and it would highlighting the side effects of noble policies would cause people to look more critically at the noble policies of today - and there are plenty.

Foreign policy has for some time been fairly absent of nobility (as viewed by the elite), so there is little danger in prodding that ground when it comes to foreign policies proposed by the intelligentsia.

In the end, those questing for root causes have it all backwards. When it comes to foreign policy, regardless of any potential "root causes" we cannot afford to let terrorists dictate what our policies should be. Seeking to satisfy an enemy that not only has no qualms with the destruction of innocents, but actually takes delight in it would have the same effect as paying kidnappers or pirates. If peace is sought, we must reward peaceful behavior.

When it comes to domestic policy, studying "root causes" is essential for formulating future policy (or disbanding failed policy). Otherwise, we are continuously running around chasing lumps in the carpet.

Liberty vs. Security?

2009-01-06T18:33:00.006-05:00

Here's a little amateur political theory for you. This is just some general food for thought, only the frame for a debate. You're welcome to draw your own particular conclusions in your comments, if you like.

Perhaps you've heard of the old idea that, in political systems, liberty and security are inversely proportionate. In other words: as a people's liberty increases, their security must decrease, and as a people's security increases, their liberty must decrease. To put it another way, the citizens of a country may have to accept a more powerful government (= less individual liberty) to secure their collective safety. This is the concept I'd like to discuss. (If this idea is old hat to you, I apologize for this over-simplified rehash).

Probably the first thing that jumps to your mind to illustrate this equation is the Patriot Act. The government gains increased ability to spy on us in order to keep us safe. According to the equation, if we limit the government's power to tap our phone lines or search our emails, we become freer, but less secure. Right now, we're not allowed to take lotion onto an airplane. Lost liberty, right? But more security. These are some simplistic examples of how the idea works.

Have you ever heard anyone say that totalitarian states are more efficiently run and are more capable of securing the safety of individual citizens than are free countries? This idea comes from the liberty vs. security proportion. My dad knew a woman who was a former citizen of Nazi Germany. Once, after hearing Hitler criticized, she protested: "at least in Hitler's Germany you could leave your bike out in the street and no one would take it!" A similar statement is that "Mussolini made the trains run on time." And the laws that Napoleon instituted, for example, have been among the longest-lasting and most stable in France's history. So, citizens of totalitarian states are more secure, but less free, right?

I could continue piling up thoughts and examples that seem to support the liberty vs. security idea, and on a certain level, the proportion is true. We do relinquish "liberties" to secure our safety. But is there another way of thinking about the relationship?

A few observations to complicate the debate:
(1) "Liberty" is a complex idea, perhaps too complex to always fit neatly into an equation. The very concept of liberty already implies law, restraint, and security. Liberty is not the same as anarchy or total licentiousness. For everyone to have liberty, each person's sphere of liberties has to stop where another person's begins. When we understand liberty this way, liberty is not opposed to security at all. I can't have liberty without the law that protects my liberty. The best liberty has just the right mixture of law and order already guaranteed within it.
(2) People need to have a certain level of liberty in the first place in order to safeguard their own security. In the totalitarian states from the examples, there may have been more stability than under a revolution, but no one, not even the toadiest rule-keeper, could be guaranteed security from the arbitrary whims of the dictator and his bureaucracy. In America, we are free under the law even to protect ourselves against factions in our own government: we have the liberty to participate in the legislative process, and even to take the government to court. Private property and the right to bear arms may fit under this second provision as well.

I guess the main thoughts I'd leave you with are these: on some level, we do have to decide what is the right balance between our "rights" and our safety. At the same time, liberty is all-important and all-consuming. Properly understood, liberty for all already contains security for all. You can't have true, dependable security without liberty. (We do have to draw a line, to decide what laws best ensure essential liberty, but I would call it "defining liberty", not "liberty vs. security". From this perspective, we give up the right to carry lotion on planes because we want to ensure liberty and security. It's more than semantics: the idea that liberty and security are somehow opposed is misleading.)

What are the practical implications of all this gobbledy-gook? Not sure. Is it possible to wage a modern-day war without infringing on our citizens' essential liberties, for instance? It should be. Are there any "rights" that we currently prize that shouldn't be protected as essential liberties because they encroach on other people's spheres of liberty and security too much? Your thoughts?

Open Topic Tuesday

2009-01-06T08:25:00.001-05:00

The floor is now open.

Waking from the Christmas slumber

2009-01-04T19:56:00.003-05:00

I hope everyone had a good break, I know I enjoyed some time with my family.

Regardless, it feels a bit lame for my first post of the new year to be a link, but I had spent quite a bit of time on my post, only to see that Tom over at Radio Free NJ discussed much of what I had planned (plus a whole lot more). Please head on over and read - I couldn't have put it together nearly as well as he does.

Intellectual Properties

2008-12-29T17:16:00.003-05:00

Masterpieces of the Imagination, brought to you by the Benefits of Liberty and the Property Rights of the Mind.

Aaand...I'm back! Sorry for my slackerly ways; I've been christmasin' around, and now I'm in NJ with my wife. Anyway, here are this week's viewing / listening / reading recommendations.

For viewing: Brick
Directed by Rian Johnson, and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, this award-winning 2005 film is a hard-boiled, noir, crime drama in the best tradition of The Maltese Falcon. After the mysterious disappearance of his ex-girlfriend, a teenage loner doggedly descends into a world of high school crime. Though battered by forces beyond his comprehension and control, he pursues the truth relentlessly. Incredible cinematography; eery, inventive soundtrack; ends with a thrilling twist.

For listening: In Loving Memory by Alter Bridge
This song is a heartfelt, lilting Rock anthem about a lost loved one. One of the more moving expressions of these sentiments I've ever heard. Alter Bridge, comprised of several former members of the band "Creed," was formed in 2004 after the break-up of Creed (due to conflicts caused by lead singer Scott Stapp). Alter Bridge's singer is Myles Kennedy. Kennedy has a powerful voice and an easy break into his falsetto (and is considerably less annoying than Stapp).

For reading: the poetry of Richard Wilbur
Wilbur (b. 1921) is former Poet Laureate of the United States and two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize. He has been compared to both Robert Frost and Wallace Stevens, in that his poetry is usually accessible and seeks positive truth in everyday experiences. Any of his anthologies will do, but check out these charming, thoughtful poems: The Writer and Matthew VIII, 28 ff, and Epistemology.

Open Topic Week...

2008-12-29T12:38:00.002-05:00

Since most of us are still taking vacation or otherwise downtime during the week between Christmas & News Years, I figured I'd try to fill in the time with another open topic.

C4tR Week in Review

2008-12-26T17:00:00.002-05:00

Gridlock and Gas
Open Topic Tuesday
Thomas Sowell - always a must read
Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-24T21:18:00.001-05:00

I don't imagine things will be to busy on here over the holidays, since most will be traveling, entertaining, etc.

But from all of us @ C4tR, Have a Merry Christmas

Thomas Sowell - always a must read

2008-12-23T07:46:00.003-05:00

I know this is a short post, but Sowell is a true genius when it comes to plain talk on just about anything - but especially in his subject area of economics.

He does an excellent job of showing the parallels between Bush-Obama & Hoover-FDR. Unfortunately, the parallels don't bode well for conservatives OR for the nation as a whole.

He points out that the unemployment levels stayed relatively low after the crash of 1929, but that in the immediate aftermath of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs - passed by congress & signed into law by President Hoover - unemployment skyrocketd. FDR further continued to intervene and the recession became the Great Depression.

As bad as the economy was for the nation, the fact that FDR was "doing something" was great for him politically.

Based on history, it appears that we are in for a rough 8 years - not just 4. The only hope for our nation is for conservatives to stay on message - and be vocal about it - at the local, state and national level. If anything, liberals are good at being vocal. We have the right message, we just need to make sure it is heard.

Open Topic Tuesday

2008-12-23T00:12:00.002-05:00

Hey, hey waddya say.

Gridlock and Gas

2008-12-22T13:21:00.002-05:00

OTT once again proved to be fertile ground for discussion - this time, discussion touched on various energy and environmental issues - particularly those surrounding driving.

Since I live and work in semi-rural area of South Jersey and don't personally encounter much in the way of traffic in my daily commute, but our favorite anonymous poster made a valid point - drivers in many metro areas experience major traffic delays to and from their jobs on a daily basis.

While we both agreed that this was an issue, we had some differences on the best way to address the problem - although we both agreed that tolls would be an effective way to address high traffic areas.

Historically, gas taxes have been used for the purposes of road maintenance, traffic reduction and subsidization of alternative means of transportation. There are a few problems with this approach:

1) Gas taxes target the wrong resource - traffic jams are the result of excess demand (and shortage of supply) of road space - not gasoline.
2) Gas taxes treat all driving the same - sitting in a traffic jam and taking a scenic trip on skyline drive have vastly different effects on the traffic levels on the Capital Beltway from 6-9AM, but place the same costs on the driver
3) As vehicles become more efficient, gas taxes will have less impact on traffic snarls- Hybrid electrics already use very little (if any) gasoline when sitting in traffic. In fact, hybrids see their biggest gains in fuel economy over gas only cars in stop & go driving. If our theoretical drivers above had hybrids, the driver using the more available of the two routes (scenic driver) is paying a greater share then the driver using the heavily demanded road. If (or when) plugin vehicles begin to take any significant share of the car market, the effect of gas taxes on traffic will be even less.

As mentioned earlier, tolls would be the most effective way to address high volume traffic - especially if the prices varied based on time of day. Tolls have the benefit of placing a price on the resource being used - and with the increased popularity of EZ-Pass and other automated methods of payment, the bottleneck effect of tolls is lessened. The other advantage for tolls over gas taxes is that it places a price on a resource that the government owns rather than charging individuals for an otherwise private transaction.

If the prices were set correctly, many drivers would choose to travel at different times of day, some who would otherwise drive on their own would carpool, and many would choose public transportation (removing the need to subsidize fares to keep mass transit solvent).

Some of the proceeds from tolls would continue to be used for road maintenance and other transportation infrastructure, beyond that, I would propose using the rest to reduce gasoline taxes. While the total elimination of gas taxes is likely not feasible (after all, placing tolls on the vast majority of county & municipal roads is just not workable), if roads (and parking spaces) were priced with profit in mind, we would gain the dual benefit of efficient management of the resource that is the road, and a tax reduction to boot!!

C4tR Week in Review

2008-12-19T17:00:00.011-05:00

Intellectual Properties
Health Care in America
Open Topic Tuesday
Is Federalism Dead?
Well-Meaning Leftist of the Week
Mutually Beneficial Arrangement
Founder's Friday

Founders Friday

2008-12-19T08:25:00.001-05:00

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
- James Madison

Mutually Beneficial Arrangement

2008-12-17T22:00:00.003-05:00

I realize this is hardly the usual C4tR fare, but I figured this would generate some discussion about marriage (even though the couple is not married), families & relationships. I came across this while browsing the Corner.

College student Melissa Beech details her current relationship in an articled titled "My Sugar Daddy".

After catching a great deal of flak, her boyfriend responded in "The Sugar Daddy Replies"

Would your opinion of the relationship change if the couple were married?

Well-Meaning Leftist of the Week

2008-12-17T12:09:00.004-05:00

This Week: George Bush

A persistent misunderstanding that has characterized American foreign policy throughout the twentieth century is the belief that every nation in the world deserves "self-determination," and a democratically-elected government. This misunderstanding has, historically, been responsible for some very serious tragedies.

Woodrow Wilson's great battle for self-determination in Europe resulted in the disintegration of one of the more stable, civil liberty-loving empires in the world, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Few historians debate that the power vacuum created by this break-up is what allowed Hitler to come to power and dominate Central European politics throughout the Thirties.

Franklin D. Roosevelt suffered under a similar Wilsonian myopia. His refusal to recognize Charles de Gaulle as a legal representative of the French resistance (because he was not democratically elected) deeply offended those French who were stalwartly resisting in metropolitan France, and caused a number of costly misunderstandings in the occupation of North Africa. Even when evidence came pouring in that de Gaulle was wildly popular in France, Roosevelt didn't acknowledge his political status, driving a deep rift between de Gaulle and the Americans that would continue in de Gaulle's postwar policies.

I make no judgment on the Iraq war here, except to say that President Bush's simplistic, Wilsonian belief that Americans need to "make the world safe for democracy" ignores the failures of Wilson and FDR and denies that democracy is itself a dangerous idea, and can only govern those who, to a certain extent, already govern themselves. People who think that throwing your shoe at a political leader is an acceptable, even laudable, way for a professional reporter to express disapproval are not ready to govern themselves. People who think that blowing up innocents is another acceptable way to express disapproval are similarly unready for democracy. As I've said before, democracy cannot work without its "liberal" (original etymology) underpinnings: when we lose an election in America, we gather up our armies, and we "generously" go on home. In this sense, democracy is only for tolerant, self-controlled, good losers.

For his near-sighted optimism in the ability of American democracy to be exported all willy-nilly, George Bush earns his place as the "Well-Meaning Leftist of the Week" (runners-up: Woodrow Wilson and FDR).

Is Federalism Dead?

2008-12-16T21:45:00.003-05:00

As I was working on my "Health Care in America" piece, it occurred to me that just about every discussion looks for action on the part of the President (who in reality has no power to enact any legislation) or Congress. I began to wonder why one rarely finds people pushing their Governors or state legislatures for resolution to the health care "crisis"?

While I probably should keep quiet on that front since it wouldn't take much prodding for New Jersey to enact a single-payer boon-doggle, I'll poke this bear anyway.

It seems like every problem (or perceived problem) we encounter becomes an issue for the US Government to solve - weather it be carbon emissions, health care, unemployment, etc.

Hoards of people flock to the polls every 4 years to vote for president - while relatively few show up in the "off" years - which is odd because your Senators & Congressmen actually have the job of representing your state's issues in DC. Even fewer still could actually name their state representatives/senators or assemblymen - who enact legislation that has more direct impact where you live.

Unless you live in a major city like New York or LA, the likelihood that you know who your mayor or town council members are.

Local politics and ordinances are more likely to impact an individuals daily living, and yet our entire focus is on Washington.

I'm interested to discover when this tendency began. Bob or Joe would know more on this front than I do, but early in our nation - probably until at least World War I, people cared far more about local politics than Washington. Our nation was founded in a manner that enabled the Colonies to band together for defense - and keep their own matters to themselves. The 10th Ammendment specifically protected the ability for states to govern themselves.

My question here is this: What triggered this shift in focus from local politics to national? Do you forsee a point in time when state governments have little or no power? What benefits (if any) does centering power in DC have? What are the detriments?

For myself, I view the centralization of power as harmful - not the least because it prevents individual states experimenting with policies. If a plan fails, we harm the entire nation. At the state level, we can copy succesful policies from one another and pass on those that fail. Without individuality among the states, this is not possible.

What do you think?

Open Topic Tuesday

2008-12-16T00:01:00.004-05:00

Ready, Set, Go!

Health Care in America

2008-12-15T10:19:00.005-05:00

Last weeks OTT triggered a discussion on the issue of Health Care (or more specifically Health Insurance). With that in mind, I would like to take this opportunity to lay out my ideas in regards to this issue.

Our current state with regard to health care is an untenable position - a significant portion of our society has health care coverage - either through the state (Medicare and its various flavors), their employers - even some on an individual basis, while another large swath of the population are not able to afford health insurance. The former group sees little to no cost to health care - which in turn artificially increases demand - which (especially when coupled with the issue of unrestrained litigation against the medical profession) drives the cost up for those in the latter group.

The major stumbling block in regards to workable health care reform is the intense focus on insurance. The reason this approach is flawed, is that lack of insurance is not the problem, but rather the fact that a specific commodity (in this case health care) is not reaching a large segment of the population. The health care issue is at its root a economic dilemma. Failure to recognize this critical piece of the puzzle automatically shuts out a multitude of potential solutions. Rather than considering the full scope of the problem, we immediately limit ourselves to the subset of possible solutions that focus on getting everyone insured.

With all this in mind - and keeping in mind the economic principles presented here and here - we can begin to look at potential solutions.

Here are a few of my favorites in no particular order:

--------------------------------
1) Disband Health Insurance as we know it - As of now, the majority of consumers "purchasing" health care have no exposure to it's cost. Obviously the providers of health care (as with any good or service) do not have an interest in keeping the price down. In this situation, the only entity interested at all in keeping the price down receives no benefit from the transaction.

In order for this idea to remain at all palatable, this would have to occur gradually- with various elements of health care being phased out over time. This exposure to costs (whether for prescription drugs or routine procedures) would cause individuals to opt out of procedures they did not deem necessary. This would provide incentives for patients to discuss cheaper alternatives with their doctors.

In my view the end result would have health insurance look more like life insurance. Catastrophic policies that pay out a set amount should an individual get cancer or develop some major illness, etc. This would allow individuals to protect themselves in the event of disaster while at the same time providing the exposure to cost that is necessary to induce patients to seek savings on their own.

2) Tort Reform - Death and injury are risks in just about every occupation, however, the very nature of health care increases the likelihood that some customers will suffer injury or death while in the care of the provider.

There are many instances where such occurrences are the result of gross negligence and individuals must have access to civil courts to settle such matters. However, our society has a general tendency for litigation whenever any is hurt - regardless of fault. This tendency has exceptional impact on an industry that deals with death and injury on a daily basis.

To lessen the impact of litigation on the medical profession, hard caps should be imposed on awards for Pain and Suffering or Punitive damages. This would allow providers of malpractice insurance to accurately assess the risk they are taking on when insuring doctors.

Individuals (medical community or not) must also have a means of redress for dealing with frivolous claims. As it stands now, there is no risk to an individual filing a claim - attorneys don't charge them anything unless they win - and should the suit fail, the defendant still has his attorney fees to deal with. I would propose that individuals filing suit be responsible for the defendents legal fees should the case be dismissed.

3) Promote alternative care - I'm not talking accupuncture or holistic medicine, I'm talking about places like the Minute Clinic at CVS. $60 every couple of months for their Health Screening Package sounds like a reasonably affordable way to take preventive care into your own hands.

4) Provide incentives for Health Savings Plans - Think 401k for your health - or something along the lines of a College Savings Plan. All contributions to the plan would be tax deductible - and withdrawals for health care would be free from any capital gains or income tax.

This would encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own health care - which is where the responsibility actually belongs. It would also be prudent to permit individuals (once they reach a certain age) to begin withdrawing form the account without any penalties in excess of ordinary income taxes. This would again provide incentive to be selective when making health care choices.
--------------------------------

The bottom line, is that we need to place health care back in the hands of providers and patients. In order for health care (or any commodity) to become readily available, the individuals making the transaction need to be the ones making the decisions - otherwise we will be stuck with shortages and high prices.

Intellectual Properties

2008-12-14T15:25:00.006-05:00

Masterpieces of the Imagination, brought to you by the Benefits of Liberty and the Property Rights of the Mind.

Time again for my weekly viewing / listening / reading recommendations. (For those of you that have been waiting with bated breath, sorry for the delay. It's been a crazy week.) Enjoy.

For viewing: The Apostle
This 1997 film stars Robert Duvall as a severely flawed Pentecostal preacher searching for redemption. Duvall's genuine and sensitive portrayal of "Sonny's" character challenges the viewer to confront his own soul's gray areas and blind spots. Also written by Duvall.

For listening: If I Could Fly by Joe Satriani
Speaking of "intellectual property," electric guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani is suing Coldplay for copying this song's chorus in their Grammy-nominated "Viva la Vida" (you know, the one from the itunes commercial). Same chords, nearly identical melody--what do you think? At any rate, Satriani is one of the most talented guitarists working today, and this piece is by no means one of his best. After you're finished evaluating the whole plagiarism thing, check out these other numbers simply for their incredible musical prowess: Always with Me, Always with You (yea, I know the video is uber-cheesy); and The Extremist.

For reading: East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Steinbeck can spin a story like no other, his characters are real, and his observations perceptive. This sprawling epic (part biography, part retelling of the Book of Genesis) is also a moving critique of determinism and a defense of the possibility of voluntary moral action.

Amazon.com Widgets

C4tR Week in Review

2008-12-12T17:00:00.010-05:00

Dear New Jersey Residents: Let the Wealth Sharing Begin

Intellectual Properties

The Utility Of Shame

American Family Values

Open Topic Tuesday

The Secular-Progressive Ten Commandments
Founder's Friday
How to Build an Efficient Economy - Part II

How to build an efficient economy - Part II

2008-12-12T11:00:00.002-05:00

Part I in this series laid out 5 basic premises that a given economic policy must take into account if it hopes to succesfully generate a healthy economy (ie - an economy that efficiently distributes resources). These premises (just like the laws of physics) will come into play whether or not policy makers acknowledge them or not. However, failure to do so will invite disaster just as readily as failure to take gravity into account will bring harm to someone jumping from a building.

One of the issues policy makers need to address is that of "Private Property" - which ultimately boils down to the question of who controls a nations resources. Those resources can be in the form of raw materials or an individuals labor and ideas - most often they are a combination of the two.

In some economies (notably in many African states), there are no safeguards to private property. Individuals have control over their property until someone stronger comes along and takes it by force.

In communist and socialist states, resources (in varying degrees) belong to the state. Even if the state does not officially own the resources, they exert significant control over how individuals (or corporations - really just a large group of individuals) may use the resources they own - even to the point of dictating the use of one's own career choices.

In a free society, private property is protected - individuals have the final say over the use of the resources within their possession. The owner of a piece of real-estate decides whether he is to farm the piece, build a home on it or sell it to someone else. An individual decides what career is best for them. Owners of a resource - whether it be their own labor, ideas or physical goods - determine what they are willing to accept in exchange for giving up that resource.

Respect for private property is critical for a number of reasons:

1) From a conservative standpoint, it is important to always err on the side of liberty. Absent knowledge of the impacts of any given decision, it is best to defer to an individuals rights to their own possesions.
2) Even the Bible acknowledges property rights - the 8th commandment prohibits stealing and the 10th commandment prohibits lusting after the possesions of others. From a secular standpoint, you would be hard pressed to find even the irreligious to favor stealing.
3) Finally, property rights are critical to economic growth. Many resources are difficult to acquire. Medications to combat disease come after years of expensive research. Fuels for energy require difficult (and often dangerous) digging, drilling and exploration - as do metals used in construction of (among many other things) batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles. Even clean energy is built upon research and discovery that is most certainly not free.

Without protection of ones intellectual or physical property, there would be little or no incentive to explore or recover resources and there would be no incentive to spend money and time in research.

Likewise, from a consumer standpoint, without property protection, the incentive to purchase is lessened. If an individual is not permitted to use his property as he sees fit, the value of that property is lessened.

Founders Friday

2008-12-12T09:34:00.004-05:00

If a sparrow cannot fall without God's notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
-Benjamin Franklin

The Secular Progressive Ten Commandments

2008-12-10T08:50:00.002-05:00

The following is a list of Bill O'reilly's secular progressive ten commandments. Despite what you may think of O'reilly himself, is this an accurate summary of the far left agenda?
What do you think?

Thou Shalt Not Make Any Judgment Regarding Most Private Personal Behavior. Man/Woman Is the Master/Mistress of the Universe and His/Her Gratification Is Paramount.
Thou Shalt Not Worship or Acknowledge God in the Public Square, for Such an Exposition Could Be Offensive to Humankind.
Thou Shalt Take from the Rich and Give to the Poor. No Private Property Is Sacrosanct.
Thou Shalt Circumvent Mother and Father in Personal Issues Such as Abortion and Sex Education in Public Schools.
Thou Shalt Kill if Necessary to Promote Individual Rights in Cases of Abortion and Euthanasia.
Thou Shalt Be Allowed to Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor if That Person Stands Against Secular Humanism.
Thou Shalt Not Wage Preemptive War in Any Circumstance.
Thou Shalt Not Impede the Free Movement of Any Human Being on Earth. All Countries Should Be Welcoming Places Without Borders.
Thou Shalt Not Prohibit Narcotics or Impede Personal Gratification in This Area.
Thou Shalt Not Limit the Power of Government in Order to Provide "Prosperity" to All.

Since "Open Topic Tuesday" didn't spark a whole lot of discussion, maybe this will.

Open Topic Tuesday

2008-12-09T13:59:00.005-05:00

Sorry guys - I forgot.

Anyway, here's your weekly chance to comment on whatever you want.

American Family Values

2008-12-09T08:01:00.007-05:00

Family Values. You hear a lot about them, but what are these values? Many people (including the authors of this blog) will complain that America has lost the family values of the past. Other Americans are trying very hard to radically redefine the concept of what a family is and what its function is in society. To most Americans, I think, the family unit is still viewed as the foundational basis for society. TV shows like John and Kate Plus Eight, Little People Big World, and Super Nanny display the fascination that America still has with a loving, caring, family (or what happens when parents don’t raise their progeny right). Family Sitcoms, even reruns, are still primetime hits. Family memories, good or bad, dominate the psyche of every man and woman. Clearly, issues that face the American family in general are issues that concern most, if not all Americans, no matter what their ideal family looks like.

It is my strongly held opinion that almost all of the ills that plague our society today can be traced back to problems within the individual family units of America. Nations and cultures throughout history have always relied on the family unit as the base for their society. In studying history, one has only to look at the status of the average family as a thermometer for the status of the rest of the nation, empire, tribe, kingdom, or what have you. History shows us that when families crumble, nations are not far behind.

For an example, let us take what is probably the most famous civilization in the whole of Western history; the Roman Empire. The Romans had many problems in their society. During the age of the republic, the main crisis was class discrimination. Later on the Romans had to deal with an apathetic populace, sadistic rulers, a total disregard for the sanctity of human life, and barbarian hordes (to only name a few problems). But there is no denying that the ancient Romans had something going, after all, they established a civilization that ruled the Western world for hundreds of years and contributed countless cultural achievements to civilization.

What was it that made the Romans so great? I believe that it was the respect that their society initially placed on the family unit. The Roman family unit was given a large degree of autonomy in the early republic. The Father or “Pater” was given complete authority over what went on in his home and in most cases, the state could not interfere. Children were taught to be loyal, respectful and obedient members of the family who were not expected to be served by their parents, but to be contributors to the family and eventually society. Children learned to better themselves by contributing to something that was larger than they were. This tradition of loyalty, respect and obedience carried generations of Romans into cultural and political dominance for hundreds of years, but what about the later years of the empire? As the Roman Empire fell into decline, the symptoms of a decaying society were everywhere. The Roman political scene was rife with corruption, all standards of sexual decency were done away with, thousands were unemployed and relying on the state to provide bread, and innocent people were being thrown to the wild beasts in the coliseum. At this time in Roman history, the Romans were not too keen on the traditional family values. Every “respectable” Roman man was expected to have a mistress or two, “Religious” festivals were celebrated with wild sexual abandon, and many other deviations from the traditional family format were common.

And so, Rome fell. Not because its armies could not stand up against the barbarian hordes that it had been crushing under foot throughout its history, but because it had been weakened by internal corruption to the point where society’s institutions could no longer stand. This corruption began with the destruction of family values.

Now that this little historical allusion is over, let me just say that the Roman family, even in the early days, was not ideal. There were problems even from the beginning. For instance, the father held the power of life and death over his children, in no way is this in keeping with my own Biblical ideal. But, the Romans did realize the natural truth that’s says: Strong families = strong countries (or empires, in this case). They certainly did not believe that “it takes a village to raise a child”, they left family business up to the family and kept the culture intact. Unfortunately for the Romans, they did not have a Biblical worldview that told them that truth does not change over time, and family values should not change either.

So what in the heck does this have to do with us today? Hopefully you’ve been able to draw some application by now, but allow me to explain this concept as it parallels our own culture. Today, our families are being torn apart by a variety of things. Divorce comes readily to mind as perhaps the number one culprit. The American culture of divorce is steadily hammering the proverbial nails into the coffin that belongs to the American family. Divorce tears kids up inside. It takes the foundation right out from under them. It removes authority from the parents and places it into the hands of either the child, or the state. I’ve seen this phenomenon firsthand in today’s school system, and I’ve studied it in my psychology classes. Divorce isolates many members of the next generation – in boys, being raised in a broken home will often lead to anger, resentment, and insecurity. With girls, it often causes a feeling of distrust around men; this continues into adulthood and affects the marriages of the next generation. Yet divorce is still seen as a way out of a problem when in reality it creates more problems. Instead of sticking around and learning to cooperate with a fellow human being whom you’ve made a commitment to, it’s a lot easier to run from the initial marital problems through the escape route called divorce.

There are a great many other things that are attacking our families today. I have only scratched the surface with the divorce topic. When Parents don’t take responsibility for their children, thousands of kids are left to state control. Is this what we really want for America’s children? Let us learn from history and open our eyes to the moral decay of our civilization. Moral traditionalists may be looked down upon by many of the elites in our society, but I firmly believe that we are trying to save our families, our culture, and our nation.

The Utility of Shame

2008-12-08T05:30:00.007-05:00

Janet's post last Friday got me thinking about the connection between social and fiscal conservatism - something I touched on a bit here.

While we normally view economics as dealing with money, there are all sorts of costs and incentives that come into play when people make decisions. Shame is a very real cost that has been part of society since the origin of the human race. Most of our personal inhibitions come from a fear of shame or embarrasment.

For most of our nation's history, pre-marital sex carried a heavy social stigma. Becoming pregnant or fathering a child out of wedlock was something to be ashamed of. Families would quietly address the matter, but it was certainly not something to celebrate.

As time has passed, the the only unacceptable behavior today is to pass judgment on the behavior of others. We are told that the utmost harm we can do is to cause any bit of shame to come to others.

Please understand, I am not suggesting that pointing and laughing in derision at a pregnant unwed mother is correct - or even remotely helpful. What I am suggesting that without the fear of shame from society, there is little cost to a teenager considering sex. Teenagers place far more value on the here and now than the notion of losing their future. The fear of embarrassment is a cost that is especially weighed by young and old alike.

Just about everyone (including athiests) believe in some moral code. Much of that code is placed into our nations (and state) laws - despite the notion that you can't legislate morality. Most of the laws are directed at improprieties that harm others such as theft, assault, murder, etc.

However, we can't reasonably legislate against private behavior, so society is left to other means to deter self-destructive activities. Oddly enough, smoking seems to carry a greater social stigma these days than premarital sex. Smoking carries a stigma because most of us are now aware of its harmful effects - while nobody notices the plight of children raised to single mothers who have little income or the fathers who have skipped out on them. Children in single-parent homes are 4 times more likely to live in poverty than children of married parents.

I assume this is because the examples we DO see are actors, athletes and other well off folks whose wealth makes them relatively immune to the negative consequences both to themselves and their children. We see mothers doting on their children and since they seem fine - who are we to judge their behavior.

Once we remove the taboo from the behavior, we should not be surprised when more people partake - many of whom cannot afford the consequences.

Intellectual Properties

2008-12-06T13:33:00.007-05:00

Masterpieces of the Imagination, brought to you by the Benefits of Liberty and the Property Rights of the Mind.

Time for my weekly viewing / listening / reading recommendations! Oh boy, right? As always, the "masterpieces" may or may not be directly related to the Right--but you can help me keep this column relevant to the Blog's theme by remembering that freedom (freedom to do what you want with your dollar; freedom to do what you want with your conscience; freedom to do what you want with your typewriter, etc.) is what makes innovation and creativity possible.

For Viewing: The Sting
Last week I recommended a more recent film, so now I offer this classic. If you've never seen this greatest of all heist movies (makes the "Ocean" movies look like a bad joke), then there's no time like the present. Starring the late, great Paul Newman, and Robert Redford. Remember: Stealing? not cool. Stealing from gangsters? very cool.

For Listening: Morton Lauridsen's "O Magnum Mysterium"
Maybe I'll do more Christmas-themed recommendations as the holiday draws nearer, but let's kick off the season with this incredibly rich choral setting of an old Matin text. The words basically just say--what a great mystery it is that animals should be the ones to welcome the newly born King. I apologize if you're not really into a capella choral music, but give this one a shot. Here's a decent version by the Robert Shaw Chamber Singers. Listen for the creative harmonies, and especially for the subtle climax at 3:36.

For Reading: "Aeropagitica," by John Milton
Milton's time-honored pamphlet defending the freedom of the press and attacking censorship. Obviously, this selection does pertain to the overall theme of the blog. In my opinion, it is one of the greatest documents in the canon of "freedom literature." Read the entire text here. Please fight through the Puritan-Pamphleteer style; I'd particularly like to know what you think of this one.

Amazon.com Widgets

Dear New Jersey Resident: Let the Wealth Sharing Begin!!!

2008-12-05T22:56:00.006-05:00

In May, our beloved governor Corzine signed into law Family Leave Insurance. It seems as if the Family Medical Leave Act is not enough because it only allows for unpaid time off without the threat of losing one's job. Many lower income individuals are unable to take family leave because they cannot afford to. It is especially difficult in instances of child birth when the mother has to return to work shortly after giving birth.

As a result of this insurance law, starting January 1, 2009, employers that do not have an eligible paid leave program must deduct .09% from employees paychecks. This will increase to .12% in 2010. The supposed beauty of this insurance plan is that it is 100% employee funded. Sounds good in theory, but this is where the concept of sharing the wealth comes into play. Those who contribute to this mandatory plan (employees who do not work for companies that offer paid family leave as a benefit) are able to receive 2/3 of their income up to a maximum of $524 a week for up to six weeks. Chances are that individuals who make more than $40k a year will not utilize this plan. For example, someone that makes $100K or roughly $2000 a week would probably not be able to afford to stop working for 6 weeks and receive a lowly $524 a week, especially in a single income family. So the net is, those with higher incomes are being forced to contribute a percentage of their income to an insurance plan that they most likely will never utilize. Someone making $100K will contribute $90 a year, while someone making $20K will contribute a whopping $18. If every employee that contributed to this insurance plan took advantage of it, the available funds for the plan would be depleted rather quickly and there most definitely would not be enough money to go around.

So how is this exactly helping all New Jersians? This law is specifically targeted to low income individuals and families. While I do feel compassion for those who find themselves in situations where this benefit would be helpful, it is hard to wrap my mind around giving my hard earned money to those who continue to perpetuate their situations. People do not have to take responsibility for their actions anymore, especially young men and women who are sexually active at young ages, have children, and are stuck working minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives.

I know of a girl who is my age (34), who started having children in her teens and now has 5 children with 4 different fathers. She is currently single, and is a waitress who does not make enough money to support her family. She lives off the kindness of her mother who houses, feeds, and clothes her and her children. Yet, she has never tried to better her situation and the plight of her children. She continues to live off the largesse of the state and her mother. Where is the incentive to dig ones self out of the mire of their mistakes? I have made plenty of them in my lifetime, and I am far from free of them, but (thankfully) I have learned from them and I am better because of them. Our society of self-esteem, and no fault has yielded an entire generation of young people who believe that they are entitled to everything and anything they want. And this new law will continue to perpetuate the entitlements and not allow for young people to learn from their mistakes or to become more responsible adults. If the government bails individuals out every time they screw up, where is the lesson? The only thing that is taught is that there are no consequences for poor choices, which leads to a lifetime of irresponsibility.

How to build an efficient economy - Part I

2008-12-05T12:00:00.004-05:00

Whether or not you believe a free market is the best means of benefitting the most people, a proper understanding of a free market is critical to economic understanding. Last month, I laid out where I'm coming from in my approach to economic theory. Below is a list of the basic assumptions we need to start with before we can determine effective policy:

1) The resources we have at our disposal are scarce - nothing that we have (as individuals or worldwide) is in infinite supply.

2) Humans are flawed (both individually and as a race). They want (and occasionally need) more of a given resource than is available to them.
3) Individuals (and individual states) place different values on a given resource. People (and states) are unique. They have different goals, desires and needs. It follows that they will value things differently.

4) An economy simply provides a means of allocating resources. The health of an economy is simply a measure of its efficiency in directing resources to those who most value them.
5) No economy is going to operate with perfect efficiency. There is no humanly possible way to allocate resources to those who need them most with 100% precision.

The above list states the reality of our condition on earth. We cannot change these rules by legislation any more than we can change legislate away gravity. Most often, the attempt is to change (or ignore) rule #2, but we cannot change human nature. Number 5 seems to be cast aside frequently - especially when it comes to necessities like energy or medicine.

It is my hope to put some flesh on these bones, to at least create an understanding of free market principles. Economics may seem cold and uncaring - that's because it is. Physics doesn't care about anyone, but we can use it to our benfit - provided we understand its laws. Biology doesn't care about anything, but when we understand it, we can use it for healing.

Likewise, Economics doesn't care who needs what, but by understanding the rules, we can build an economy that provides health and wealth for as many people as possible.

Founders Friday

2008-12-05T08:05:00.004-05:00

"Be Thou present, O God of Wisdom, and direct the counsel of this Honorable Assembly; enable them to settle all things on the best and surest foundation; that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that Order, Harmony, and Peace may be effectually restored, and that Truth and Justice, Religion and Piety, prevail and flourish among the people. preserve the health of their bodies and the vigor of their minds, shower down on them, and the millions they represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ Thy son and our Saviour. Amen"

The prayer of Reverend Jacob Duche's at the outset of the 1st continental Congress, 1774.

Well-Meaning Leftist of the Week

2008-12-04T20:17:00.005-05:00

This Week: Heather Smith, Executive Director, Rock the Vote

Rock the Vote, like a number of other "get out the vote" non-profits, is a grassroots political action group whose existence is premised on the assumption that higher voter turnout in an election is always better than lower voter turnout. For a catalogue of their "efforts," this last go-around, see here. Adherents of all political ideologies in America have somehow got the cool idea that "every vote counts," or that it's just really important to "participate in democracy."

Now, I'm not saying People of the Right should advocate disenfranchising anyone (not sure that would go so well); but I am saying that the shallow, easily-marketable idea that every single person should vote, and should even be morally compelled to vote is one of the near-sighted leftist misunderstandings that this column is all about. As Aristotle said all those years ago, one of the problems with a democracy is that the votes are counted, not weighed as they should be. Experience, knowledge, character, and wisdom play no role. To cast a vote, the only requirement is a certain biological age. In democracies, as Alfred Focke says, "defenseless illiterates are dragged to the voting urns."

All people's judgments are not equal. When we look for a doctor, we understand this fact of inequality, for some reason. Why would we think it's an unqualified better thing when just a whole bunch of uninformed people have their say in what our government looks like? Yay for the bandwagon!

Why is he on the one dollar bill again?

2008-12-03T14:21:00.005-05:00

Yesterday, in response to my own post, I made it clear that we here at case4theright do not in any way believe that the founding fathers were infallible or inspired by God or anything like that. These were men that made mistakes and had inconsistencies in their lives just like every other human being on this earth. We do believe, however, that both the lives of these men, and the ideas that they came up with, were great. By “great” I don’t mean a casual, everyday expression “great”, I mean that in a monumental and historical sense, these men lived lives that should be studied by all Americans and developed ideas that should be memorized by all Americans.

Unfortunately, many Americans today have very little knowledge of people like John Adams, James Madison, Jon Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton (I thought they’d like being next to each other in the list), Henry Knox, and yes, even George Washington. As a high school history teacher in a school where kids are supposed to be a little more learned than most, (It is a college prep school after all) I have witnessed this ignorance firsthand. To most, people like George Washington are mere symbols of their country. Like the bald eagle or the Statue of Liberty. But who was George Washington really? And why is he considered a great man? Is it merely because he was first?

George Washington demonstrated many qualities of greatness throughout his life, but he was certainly not a man without a mistake on his record. Early on in his military career, Washington learned some lessons the hard way. As a twenty-two year old Lieutenant Colonel in the British army, he was ordered by Virginia Governor Dinwiddie (What a name!) to clear The French from the Ohio River valley in the spring of 1754. He led his men into a fiasco that ended with him surrendering to the French at the hastily assembled “Fort Necessity”, and signing a document that basically put all the blame for the occasion on the British. The British government quickly repudiated Washington’s note and the French and Indian War began. Later in the war, Washington tried to influence the pompous general Braddock with what he had learned while fighting the French in the woods, but Braddock refused to listen and was killed in an ambush. I believe this experience contributed to Washington’s resolute nature by allowing to him to learn from his mistakes as well as the mistakes of others. When Washington went to war nearly twenty years later against several equally prideful British generals, he knew the mentality that he was up against, and the type of attitude he should avoid as a leader.

Washington continued to exemplify excellent leadership qualities and character throughout the rest of his life. Whether it was fixing the latrine situation in the continental army camps, putting down the whiskey rebellion, neutralizing the troublesome Citizen Genet, overseeing the constitutional convention, or even learning to control his temper, Washington became a figurehead in American society for a variety of reasons. But Washington did not let his eventual success go to his head. The greatest thing about our first citizen was not his accomplishments, (though they were great) but the fact that performed those accomplishments with a great sense of duty and humility. Unlike many other revolutionary leaders throughout history, Washington did not sink his claws into the power that was all too willingly given to him by his people. Washington did something that stands out as a shocker throughout the annals of political history. He stepped down after one term. Washington was not interested in creating a cult to himself, he was interested in continuing the dream that he had helped to start. In doing this, Washington demonstrated the attitude that has been hallmark of American heroism throughout the ages. Men returning from World War I, World War II, The War on Terror, and many other wars throughout our history, have been called heroes, But so many of these true heroes have exhibited the same attitude that our founding father did – an attitude of humility, duty, responsibility and servanthood. Not a sense of entitlement or a thirst for personal gain. Most of these public servants have denied the fact that they are heroes and insisted (and continue to insist) that they were simply doing their job for God and country. It is this spirit of humility, duty, and honor that has made America everything good that has been throughout its short history and everything good that it is today.

2.5 Million new jobs

2008-12-02T12:47:00.005-05:00

One of President-Elect Obama's promises is to "create or save 2.5 million new jobs." He plans to create jobs for purposes of repairing bridges and roads and various "green" energy programs.

While the US government certainly could legislate jobs - most notably New Deal Era programs such as the CWA, WPA, and CCC - the problem is they do nothing for growing the economy or increasing the production of wealth.

From an economic perspective, a "job" is simply a transaction in which an individual exchanges his time and labor for compensation. Currently, the demand for labor is dropping while the supply has more or less remained constant. There are various causes for the drop in labor demand (or decrease in employment supply from the other perspective). Some employers are out of business, tight budgets cause individuals to hold off on home improvement projects (or go DIY), and a miriad of other externalities cause individuals to value cash on hand more than time right now.

All of this presents a few problems to government "make work" programs:

1) Who pays for the jobs? After all, aside from being fired for incompetence or misconduct, people lose jobs because the cost of employing the individual is greater than the return. PE Obama is suggesting that we now pay for a service which we would not normally pay for. After all, those 2.5 million individuals aren't going to work for free. In "creating" these jobs, the government is merely moving money from one group of individuals to another - with next to nothing produced for it.
2) Administrative overhead. On top of wages, the federal dollars will be filtered down through various burocracies. If the goal (as it must be from item 1) is to "spread wealth", it would be more efficient to simply cut checks to a random 2.5 million unemployed.
3) In coercing individuals and businesses to pay for workers for nothing in return, money must necessarily be removed from the private sector. This is money that would be used in purchasing goods and services that individuals actually place value on. This is money that could be used to expand business (or keep it alive as the case may be). The tax burden necessary to "create" these jobs would result in at least as many losses on the private side of the ledger. There is no free lunch.
4) This takes the process of deciding what activities are productive out of the hands of the millions of US citizens and placing it in the hands of the government, we simply set ourselves up for failure. What Obama is asking, is for a handful of government officials to decide what activities are the most beneficial to the economy at large. Central planning has a remarkable history of failure to make good on its promises.

While certainly the individuals being fitted for these brand new jobs will find it beneficial to them in the short term, the long term affects on the economy will be a drastic slowdown in productivity. Based on Obama's statements, we will have a surpluss off newly paved roads (whether they need it or not), but at a time when the economy is struggling, we will end up with a shortage of goods and services that individuals need. Shortages that in turn result in higher prices.

What good is a policy that promises "living wage" jobs, but at the same time drives up the cost of living?

Open Topic Tuesday

2008-12-02T00:00:00.001-05:00

What's on your mind?

Separation of Church and State?

2008-12-01T14:32:00.007-05:00

The separation of church and state is a concept that has seen growing popularization as of late. Many of the proposition 8 protesters have cited separation of church and state as legal justification for their cause. The ACLU continually harps on the legal wedge between the sacred and the secular and seeks to widen the gap at every opportunity (When it deals with the Christian religion anyway). The Supreme Court has made many moves toward secularism in the latter part of the twentieth century. Secularization seems to be a growing fad just about everywhere these days, and many secularists have gone as far as to try and limit religious freedoms in a country that was founded on the basis of religious freedom.

This concept of separation between church and state is severely misunderstood by most Americans today. The truth is that neither the constitution, nor any other founding document mentions anything about the separation of church and state. The Bill of rights does say: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” But does this constitute separation of church and state? In a way it does. The early Americans had fled oppression from governments that were politically intertwined with a state church that dominated all religious activity. These state churches had become more interested in political power and vain tradition than the practice of true religion. It was for this reason that many sincere believers left their state-sponsored churches and established a new life in a new world. The makers of the constitution wanted to preserve this heritage in writing by striking out any possibility of a state sponsored church that would violate the freedom of citizens to act according to their own religious convictions.

This form of separation of church and state is nothing like the modern concept that is being propagated by secular and moral progressives. According to some, any time a person acts out their religious convictions in a voting booth they are violating the separation principle. Nothing could be further from the truth; our nation is steeped in the tradition of citizens and leaders acting out their religious beliefs in office, or with a ballot. Any true scholar of American history can see that this country been shaped by the Judeo-Christian ethic. This Christian foundation would have been impossible if the majority of Americans had a problem with church principles interacting with the government. Here are some examples that display the mindset that shaped our country:

“On my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention” - Alexis de Tocqueville

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other” - Jon Adams

“Of all the disposition and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports" - George Washington

"This is a religious nation… We are a Christian people.” - United States Supreme Court(The Church of The Holy Trinity Vs. The United States)

If there are people that are discontent to live in a country that has been largely shaped by Christian principles, and in which religious principles have often dominated the public square, then they are free to move to a society that has been founded solely on secularism. Russia comes to mind readily. Send me a postcard from the Kremlin, Comrade!

P.S. This only scratches the surface of the information available on Religion in American History. More to come on Founder's Friday!

Intellectual Properties

2008-11-28T12:22:00.008-05:00

I don't quite know how to say this, so I'll just come out with it. The title of this column is a pun, and not a very good one. Allow me to slaughter it further by explaining the double-meaning: "intellectual property," of course, refers to the classic capitalistic notion that innovative ideas are encouraged when the innovator's rights of property are protected. We recognize that everything from Walt Disney's "Mickey Mouse" to Aaron Copland's "Rodeo" belongs, just like a material good, to their respective creators. This right is one of the cornerstones of our civilization. I am also, in the title, using "Intellectual Properties" to denote the intellectual qualities of a given creation. I envision this column as a place where I weekly recommend something for viewing, something for listening, and something for reading. The selections may not always be directly related to a conservative worldview, but we will always keep in mind the fact that these artistic innovations would not be possible without the property rights of the mind. So, considering both possible meanings of "intellectual property," I subtitle the column: Heroes of the imagination brought to you by the benefits of liberty.

For viewing: The Lives of Others

Oscar-winning German-language film about a playwright under Stasi surveillance in Communist East Germany. This film does happen to be very relevant to the deeper meaning of this column. The playwright is the last of his artist friends still sponsored by the state, and has to decide how to use his art. A moving portrayal of the "bad kind of individualism" brought about by a totalitarian state (withdrawal from the community). Incredible performance by actual former victim of East German repression. Very fine soundtrack, as well.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/thelivesofothers/

For Listening: the Bach: Violin Concertos, Chaconne
from Bach's Partita No. 2 in D Minor for violin. Brahms says of the chaconne: "one of the most wonderful and most incomprehensible pieces of music." A lengthy display of inconceivable virtuosity, full of profound feelings; a whole universe of pain and triumph. Bach, of course, wrote "for the glory of God alone," but his compositions were made possible by the appreciative patronage of Prince Leopold of Cothen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vfMADWKFsM

For Reading: Capital
by Karl Marx. One of the greatest systematic philosophers of all time (and it's actually a pretty good read, for philosophy). It's important, for one thing, to truly understand where the social goals of Marxism originate. Also, we don't want to throw around terms we don't understand, or "straw man" our opponents. It's ironic (and significant for the purposes of this column) that Marx copyrighted his monumental work, and was supported in his research and leisure by the patronage of Friedrich Engels.

Founder's Friday

2008-11-28T06:00:00.002-05:00

The dilemma is this:

The founding fathers alluded to a supreme authority that should be recognized and given proper credence; yet also acknowledged clear freedoms to force no man to adhere to that authority. So when we look to define the line between church and state; Where does it fall?

Well-Meaning Leftist of the Week, or, "An Inconvenient Stain"

2008-11-26T01:57:00.008-05:00

Featured: Animal Rights Activist who "Pelted" Lindsay Lohan's fur coat with flour bomb

Last week, Lindsay Lohan was attacked by a "flour bomb"-wielding animal rights activist in Paris, as retribution for Lohan's fur-wearing ways. See the Kodak moment here. For those of you who were wondering, a flour bomb, according to Wikipedia, consists of "flour in a fragile container, thrown at a person or object to produce an inconvenient stain." (Why is it, by the way, that Wikipedia is the only dictionary with a serious, reliable definition of "flour bomb"? Yea, definitely the second-best website ever...)

In the past, animal rights activists have also doused prominent fur-wearers with paint. Here's the punchline: in either case, the destruction of a celebrity's animal fur only means that one or several more animals will have to be killed to replace the ruined fur (unless, of course, in the unlikely event that the assault converts the celebrity into a caring defender of the natural rights of animals).

Perhaps PETA would argue that the public exposure for their cause is worth the martyrdom of a few of the innocent creatures they are sworn to protect. Interesting ethical quandary. They should make like a movie about it or something: morally ambiguous heroes are the bee's knees right now. They could even have a scene where, once the animals understand what the activists are trying to accomplish in the long run, they sacrifice their lives voluntarily--and with stoic resolve--to replace Lindsay Lohan's fur coat. Man, that would be poetry on celluloid.

Open Topic Tuesday

2008-11-25T00:00:00.002-05:00

You know the drill - keep it clean & the floor is yours.

Employee "Forced" Choice Act

2008-11-24T15:32:00.008-05:00

Janet's article over on C4tR News regarding the "Fairness" Doctrine got me to thinking about the other misleadinly named legislation that will likely be pushed through congress shortly after January 22.

Dubiously dubbed the "Employee Free Choice Act", the bill will remove secret ballot elections from the process of unionization at a workplace.

A brief rundown can be found here.

The EFCA would replace the secret ballot (which was apparently good enough for the Democrats when deciding Joe Lieberman's fate) with the collection of signatures. As soon as the Union collected signatures from over 50% of the employees, all employees would be forced to join the union.

And we all know that the labor unions would never pressre anyone into signing...

Be careful what you wish for.

2008-11-24T07:44:00.005-05:00

Whether in December or early next year, the likelihood that the US auto makers will receive $25 billion is a near certainty. What happens next from the perspective of Detroit? When it all plays out, will the net be a positive result from the auto industries perspective?

Lets take a quick peak at what we have:

Last week I touched on some of the reasons why the bailout would not help Detroit, but the more things move along, the bailout is more likely to hurt Detroit in the long run. In fact, they have put themselves in an even worse financial position just by asking for federal money.

1) As a general rule, the last thing you want to do when you are under a load of crushing debt is to take another loan.

2) One of the claims made is that they need the Federal loan since the credit crisis prevents them from obtaining private money. The problem is not the credit crisis, the problem is that no private lenders believe that Detroit will be able to repay the loan. Apparently, the markets do not either. In spite of the near guarantee that they will be getting the loan they are requesting, investors don't view GM as a good buy.

3) When an individual applies for any type of loan (car loan, mortgate, credit card, etc), their credit score gets dinged just a bit. Applying for 2 or three loans in succession they will see a significant decrease in their score. Continue down this path and the individual risks damaging his credit for a long time. The reason? Lenders begin to see the individual as desperate for cash. Most people in this situation are at the point where they cannot meet their financial obligations and are merely seeking to keep the lights on a bit longer.

By going straight to the feds, and announcing that they cannot obtain private financing, Detroit has pretty much sealed its fate. They are acting like the desperate individual described above and their stock prices show this. While bankruptcy certainly is a black mark on one's credit score, it is still easier to obtain credit with a bankruptcy and modest debt that is well within one's means than it is to be in the desperate situation described above.
4) When Detroit receives the bailout, it will certainly come with strings attached (and understandably so), but unfortunately, the strings will be of the "Well Meaning Leftist" type - such as requirements to develop green vehicles (as if CAFE already doesn't do that) and restrictions on CEO pay.

CAFE standards forced Detroit for years to sell vehicles that lost money. To recover and earn a profit, they had to rely on the SUV & light truck market. Additional requirements to sell unprofitable vehicles is certainly a greater recipe for failure.

While certainly the current CEO's have done a poor job for their pay - and certainly nobody would fault the boards if they voted them out, capping the pay for the top executive position would prevent the best and brightest from even attempting to tackle the daunting task ahead. What incentive would they have for taking the job in the first place when they can make more money elsewhere? Applying a salary cap places another handicap on the companies already far behind their foreign competitors.

Duped by the Irishman?

2008-11-24T07:32:00.003-05:00

I know there have been several sites out there making light of how O’bama may have hoodwinked the American public during his campaign. I have true questions as to the validity of these claims. Obama has clearly promised many things that will not come to pass. Did he dupe a nation, or are all presidential campaigns as misleading as his?

New addition

2008-11-23T13:12:00.001-05:00

While probably not the best kept secret, my wife and I wish to announce that we are expecting our third child this coming May.

Mom is doing well & things (so far) have been progressing normally.

While not specifically related to conservatism or politics, we just wanted to share the joy :)

"Just Be Good for Goodness' Sake!"

2008-11-22T16:48:00.003-05:00

By now most of you have probably heard of the ad campaign sponsored by the American Humanist Association this month. Says the ad, featured on a number of D.C. metrobuses, "Why believe in God? Just be good for goodness' sake!" Fred Edwards, director of communications for the AHA, claims "All of us can have moral values....Each of us knows what it means, generally, to be ethical."

Where to begin? I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony, to borrow Dinesh D'Souza's quip. First off, no matter what ideology you espouse, hopefully you understand that what is "good," is not always self-evident, and hardly ever natural. But moralists and philosophers have long tried to establish some natural, "rational" basis for morality--some universal principle that will be obvious to everyone, even without recourse to anything transcendent or divine. Again, there are a lot of points one could make about this so-called "natural" morality, and I look to you all for your thoughts.

One kind of thinking about natural morality is that an "enlightened self-interest" will make you treat others kindly, both to get good things in return and to live a reasonably civil life, full of low expectations and small happinesses. Conincidentally enough, I just attended a special lecture at the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism on Alexis de Tocqueville and his critique of the American morality of rational self-interest. The speaker was Harvey Mansfield, Harvard historian and political theorist, and translator of Machiavelli and Tocqueville.

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French liberal aristocrat who travelled through America for nine months in 1831. His Democracy in America is, according to Professor Mansfield, the best book ever on democracy, and the best book ever on America. Tocqueville criticizes the American idea, even back then, that the reason to be "good," the reason to support and obey a democratic government is a rational long-view self-interest that wants to play by the rules in order to achieve a happy life later. (Of course, none of this takes into account the people that wouldn't be able to succeed playing by the rules). Tocqueville points out that, if you don't believe in an afterlife, then old age is no less fleeting than young age--there's no real reason to choose to play by the rules in favor of a finite happiness later, and against a finite happiness now. Both are equally passing. And so topples one attempt to establish a logical morality without religion. Tocqueville concludes that men need religion, or they will eventually realize that the ethical life makes no sense.

All this doesn't even touch the fact that, without some kind of transcendent standard, we can't even determine what is right anyway. Nature is not moral; it's dog-eat-dog. Certain tribes of the Auca Indians in Ecuador will, if their baby cries too much, bury it alive. That's "natural." The only reason modern, secular Americans have "generally" similar ethical standards is that, to paraphrase one political theorist, we are all sniffing fumes out of the same empty bottle (Christianity); and philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, too, has observed that the ethics of most nonbelievers are evidence of the former sacredness of our civilization.

Your thoughts?

"The Tedious Confines of One's Own Skin"

2008-11-21T10:36:00.005-05:00

Once again a post has become so long as to raise a number of peripherally related topics, and to mitigate against trying to pierce to the heart of any one issue (See "Open Topic Tuesday" and following thread). I wanted to lay down a few musings especially concerning "not the other anon's" observations. And I fancy that my comments may spark enough subsequent debate to warrant starting a new thread. As always, I stand ready to be corrected.

Not the other anon: The attempt to interpret our personal experiences is one of the most meaningful things we do as humans. There's nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence--in fact, it's possible to argue that all evidence (even "research" that we personally engage in) is subjective-anecdotal. Your experiences are instructive, certainly for yourself, and, I think, for all of us.

The fact that you feel more acceptance among your gay friends is a real phenomenon, and one that probably has a number of explanations. The first is connected with your thoughtful critique of American "Christian" pseudo-manliness. I think all guys, somewhere in the depths of their beings, desire significant friendships with other guys--friendships in which communication about real thoughts and struggles occurs. Think of David and Jonathan, or the countless examples from antiquity: considering the way these people communicated and felt about each other, it's safe to say they would be laughed to scorn by most American "men." I think if genuine, meaningful man-to-man friendships were not so derided, a lot of people who think they'd like to dabble in homosexuality would realize that's not what they're looking for. (Hat tip to Zach Franzen for suggesting the need for a return to manly friendship).

After cleaning our own house, though, I have to observe that another reason for the easy communication is that homosexuality is a species of narcissism. I do not say this is homosexuality's only appeal, but, as Erich von Kuehnelt-Leddihn writes, "Homosexuality has an aspect of sameness to it along with the refusal to establish the sometimes difficult bridge--intellectual, spiritual, and psychological--to the other sex. In this respect, homosexuality is a form of narcissism, of immaturity." K-L goes on to paraphrase Dr. Marcel Eck to the effect that the "hell of homosexuality lies precisely in that it avoids genuine dialogue; homosexual love is not a quest for another but merely seeks the self." Heterosexual love constantly reminds us of the near impossibility of transcending ourselves, and yet we push and stretch against that veil. Homosexual love, at the risk of over-generalization, may feel accepting at first, but that's because it's actually self-love, and this comes out in the wash.

You want to really mix things up? Try something really radical? Just go crazy? Find a guy who can be a "soul-mate" (I'm not kidding), but then try to really get to know a woman. She'll blow your mind. I promise.

Your thoughts?

Founder's Friday

2008-11-21T00:00:00.001-05:00

We'll give this one more shot. Last week's attempt failed to generate any discussion. Hopefully we have better luck this time.

I'm going to go w/ the Declaration of Independence again, but I'll give you more than the first paragraph to work with this time. What can we glean about the Founder's views from this document?