Paul Gregory's inconvenient arithmetic:

"Millionaire tax filers earn $221 billion – almost a quarter of a trillion — from business and professions, partnerships, and S-corporations. This is puzzling: If Harry Reid’s figure is correct (2,361 millionaire businesses), then the average millionaire-owned business earns almost a hundred million dollars, and [they] do this without hiring anyone. These super heroes do their own typing, selling, drafting. public relations, building, and manufacturing. They do not need employees. Remarkable!"

From an article by Manhattan Institute's Lawrence Mone:

[M]ost dictionaries define a millionaire as someone with wealth (i.e., assets) of $1 million. By that definition, many New York teachers and the vast majority of police and firefighters are millionaires, because the “net present value” of their retirement benefits is well in excess of $1 million.

That is, if they had to fund their retirements from their own savings, they’d have to set aside seven figures today.

According to this post, the Michigan SEIU recieves about $6 million per year from caregivers who receive Medicaid. "For the SEIU, this makes them public employees and thus members of the union, which receives $30 out of the family's monthly Medicaid subsidy. The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU."

If one theme emerged from Tuesday's off-year mid-terms, it is that there is no obvious theme or narrative.

Let us start with ballot issues. Apparently voters have had enough of Republican efforts to make it harder to vote: Maine voters by a 60-40% margin overturned a law passed earlier this year that would have ended same day voter registration. Or apparently voters remain quite concerned about voter fraud and willing to impose modest restrictions on the ease of voting to address the issue despite protests from Democratic officials: Mississippians voted 62-38% in favor of a law requiring voter ID at the polls.

Also in Mississippi, the right to a thrashing when a pro-life amendment defining personhood as beginning at conception was crushed, 58 percent to 42 percent. But the state's voters also passed a law vastly restricting the use of eminant domain by a ridiculously lopsided 73 percent to 27 percent margin.

Meanwhile, Ohio voters swung back to the Democrats, delivering a crushing 61-39% defeat to a law, passed earlier this year by the Republican dominated legislature, trimming government employees collective bargaining rights. Or maybe they didn't -

Read More »

In a column today in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer excoriates President Obama's new style of more aggressively "scapegoating" Republicans and "the rich," and giving succor to the OWS crowd. But while Krauthammer calls it "dangerous," he concludes, "it's working."

Is it? In it's August monthly poll, Gallup showed the President leading a generic Republican by 45-39%. On September 8, the President kicked off his re-election campaign with his call for the "American Jobs Act," (the AJA) and spent the next several days pushing for it. Gallup conducted its September monthly from September 8 through the 11th. The result: Generic Republican led the President by 46% to 38%. In late September, Occupy Wall Street began to garner attention - it crowded the Brooklyn Bridge on the last weekend of the month and has been almost non-stop in the news since. But Gallup's October poll, released today, shows a generic Republican leading the President by 46-38% - exactly the same as a month before.

Amongst Independent voters, the generic Republican edge has grown from 40-35% in August to 43-30% in October (though down slightly from September).

When he gave his AJA speech in September, Obama's average approval was 43.8, per Real Clear Politics. Today it stands at 43.6, though with a slight uptick in the last week - almost entirely the result of a surprisingly strong (for the President) poll from Rasmussen, the pollster liberals love to hate. The most recent polls from other pollsters in the field since OWS briefly seized the Brooklyn Bridge, compared to their prior poll, show him down in Gallup, flat in Ipsos/Reuters, down in ABC/Washington Post, and down in Fox New.

Meanwhile, the old "right track/wrong track" numbers have reached a ridiculously (and historically) bad 17-76%. That's slightly worse than the 19-74% split at the time of his AJA speech, and down from 21-72% when OWS seized the Bridge. These small declines are probably just statistical noise, but they certainly don't show OWS or the President moving the needle.

The President's numbers against his specific possible Republican opponents, however, remain stable. In September, as in August, he was competitive, with slight leads or slightly behind, depending on the particular match-up. The latest round of such polling (by Gallup) should be out soon, and we'll see how he looks then. He'll also have a huge cash advantage over his GOP opposition, and by February if not sooner we should expect to see that money being deployed to bash Republicans.

So the President remains a formidable opponent. But that's because of his cash advantage, and the weakness of the GOP field. There's no sign - yet anyway - that his new style is moving things in his direction.

George Will provides this summation of the "message" (he dignifies it by calling it the meta-theory) of the Occupy Wall Street bunch: Washington is grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful.

Changing layouts, sharing private information, meh. Didn't get my dander up. But I'm seriously considering typing a snarky status update to register my displeasure about the following:

Facebook to start a PAC

Facebook filed paperwork Monday to form a political action committee called "FB PAC," CNN has learned.

"FB PAC will give our employees a way to make their voice heard in the political process by supporting candidates who share our goals of promoting the value of innovation to our economy while giving people the power to share and make the world more open and connected," said Andrew Noyes, manager of public policy communications at Facebook.

The move comes on the same day the social networking giant sponsored an hourlong "Facebook Live" discussion with three top Republican House members: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

Event participants asked questions through Facebook, while the congressmen discussed the struggling economy and the role of technology in government.

Don't bother clicking the link; I copied the whole story.

If you or someone you know has been personally affected by the high prices due to influence peddling among special interest lobbyists, post this to your status for one hour.

I've been saying for some time that Barack Obama is the most economically ignorant president since Zachary Taylor, but I increasingly fear I've been doing the general a disservice. It's not just erroneous economics, but sheer ignorance of markets and economics.

You see it in periodic comments of the President. Perhaps the most famous came when he said that ATMs and airport ticket kiosks lead to unemployment: “When you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you use a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.” (An interesting tidbit - do a Google search for this - you'll see the comment was more or less uncommented upon in the "mainstream media.") He's used this a couple times, here also blaming internet travel sites.

But there have been numerous others, as when he explained that auto companies had to make more electric cars in order to satisfy the market. This showed a titanic ignorance of how markets work, the President apparently of the belief that "the market" was what a central planner decided was needed, not what consumers actually wanted. He shows know concept of consumer preference, the subjective value of goods and services, or even the role of prices in providing information to firms.

Now comes this quote from Ron Suskind's book, Confidence Men:

"Both [Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Roemer and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers] were concerned by something the President had said in a morning briefing: that he thought the high unemployment was due to productivity gains in the economy. Summers and Romer were startled.

“What was driving unemployment was clearly deficient aggregate demand,” Romer said. “We wondered where this could be coming from. We both tried to convince him otherwise. He wouldn’t budge.”

So our President really does think productivity is bad for the economy. As economist Scott Sumner says, "So for 200 years rapid productivity growth didn’t cause any serious unemployment problems in America, but now, right after NGDP collapses, we are to believe it is producing mass unemployment, even though recent productivity gains have been rather low. I’m at a loss for words. We elected a Luddite as President of the United States."

For a long time, I've noted that conservatives and libertarians live happier, more active lives than liberals, and are generally more tolerant. (Yes, that anonymous friend is me). I have also long noted that in my experience, conservatives are, on the whole, more tolerant than liberals.

These observations cut heavily against the typical liberal's sense of self, but it really makes sense, if you think about it. The core of conservatism, no less than Ronald Reagan used to say, is libertarianism - the live and let live philosophy. And equally at the core of libertarianism is a tolerance for lifestyle choices. Liberals and hippies and free love types and survivialists and all kinds of crazies can move to Vermont or New Hampshire or Idaho, and the flinty natives just accept them (with the immigrants gradually changing the political culture of the two former states to match their intolerant liberalism). Modern liberalism, by definition, seeks to impose its will on individuals, largely in the belief that it can perfect society through politics. This doesn't mean that they are bad people. And perhaps we should be more intolerant. (In fact, that's the argument that my liberal friends routinely give me when I point these things out, although they don't put it in those terms - instead the argue, for example, about the evils of smoking, or paying people less than the minimum wage, or making racist comments, or the dangers of owning a gun, etc. etc.). It's modern liberalism that imposes smoking bans, and mandates speech codes, and so on. I say "and so on" because I am off on a digression.

My point was simply to note that evidence continually trickles out for the proposition that I routinely observe - liberals are less tolerant of differing beliefs than conservatives.

The latest comes from Match.com, which has been running algorithms on their members in order to better match people. One result: says Amarnath Thombre, Match.com's lead researcher, "the politics one is quite interesting. Conservatives are far more open to reaching out to someone with a different point of view than a liberal is."

I leave it to the more highly trained economists here to explain the dynamics of dating and mate choice.

In 2008, John McCain won 173 electoral college votes. It is very difficult to imagine any state that voted for McCain in 2008 not supporting the GOP candidate in 2012. So that means the GOP nominee has to swipe 97 votes from the Obama column to win in 2012. Where might they come from?

Read More »

The irony is just too good: The Davis-Bacon Act, designed to anti-Black (see here), turns out to be anti-Green (see here).

It's hard to imagine a dumber event in American politics than the Iowa Straw Poll. Or more precisely, it's hard to imagine anything dumber in American politics than the attention paid to the Iowa Straw Poll.

Read More »

Lopez: "A professional clown sneaks in and throws a pie in Rupert Murdoch's face. He'll go to jail and have a record. And he'll be immortalized among that wacky society known as comedians. Surprised no one's done it before. I abhor it, of course."

Lawson: "I just don't understand our world. Our government, complete with guns, electric chairs, and prisons, can snoop, hack, bug, and pry with impunity and NO ONE CARES. A few reporters, armed with mere pens, do it and it's apparently the moral crisis of our age?"

Lopez: "I'm reminded of George W. Bush's insistence, to unseemly lengths, in 2004 that he had the right to listen to anyone's conversations. And he got re-elected for it. Below is a paste of a Glen Greenwald piece in Salon from last month. It's got to be one of the most vivid examples of lawyers upholding the rule of law, and shows where the line is drawn for giving impunity to people acting in their official capacity. It's just drawn way too far out. The Murdoch situation shows us that.

These lawyers, evidently despite political loyalties, were keeping the President from abusing his powers. “Comey explained that, in 2004, shortly after he became Deputy AG, he reviewed the NSA eavesdropping program Bush had ordered back in 2001 and concluded it was illegal. Other top administration lawyers -- including Attorney General John Ashcroft and OLC Chief Jack Goldsmith -- agreed with Comey, and told the White House they would no longer certify the program's legality. It was then that Bush dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to Ashcroft's hospital room to try to extract an approval from the very sick Attorney General, but, from his sickbed, Ashcroft refused to overrule Comey. Bush decided to reject the legal conclusions of his top lawyers and ordered the NSA eavesdropping program to continue anyway, even though he had been told it was illegal (like Obama now, Bush pointed to the fact that his own White House counsel (Gonzales), along with Dick Cheney's top lawyer, David Addington, agreed the NSA program was legal). In response, Ashcroft, Comey, Goldsmith, and FBI Director Robert Mueller all threatened to resign en masse if Bush continued with this illegal spying, and Bush -- wanting to avoid that kind of scandal in an election year -- agreed to "re-fashion" the program into something those DOJ lawyers could approve (the "re-fashioned" program was the still-illegal NSA program revealed in 2005 by The New York Times; to date, we still do not know what Bush was doing before that that was so illegal as to prompt resignation threats from these right-wing lawyers).”

Well, another muckraking journalist attacks the Charles G. Koch (CGK) Foundation, this time for its support of FSU's economics department.**

Here are the facts of the matter stripped down to the basics:

(1) FSU wants to hire new faculty in an area in which they have built up a 20+ year international reputation with Gwartney, Benson, and Holcombe et al., but resources do not exist to do this.
(2) FSU says to CGK, "Hey if we find people we want to hire in this area, will you fund them?"
(3) CGK says to FSU, "Sure, if you find people you like who we also like, we will fund them."

Oooooooo. Yeah, sure "smells" to me. It smells about as much as when I was at Capital University and some donor gave us money for "service learning" and all of a sudden we were told we had to hire faculty in that area and approve new courses and curricular changes to accommodate this donation. Funny, I don't remember the outcry about academic freedom there.

Pay attention the next time a foundation offers a university money for (say) lung cancer research. I guarantee you won't see a story about how THAT violates academic freedom. Why not though? How dare the donor "dictate" that we study lung cancer instead of breast cancer! Nope, you won't see that story.

The ONLY reason this is a story is because the left doesn't like the ideas that Koch supports (and much of the FSU econ department supports). It is increasingly obvious to me that these tiresome stories are part of a well-planned effort on the part of the left. I guess it is easier to yell corruption than it is to actually engage the ideas.

The only test for whether a university should accept a donation is (1) if the faculty in the area support the idea and (2) if the donation supports the teaching/research mission. The CGK gift to FSU passes both tests. If some people don't like it, then that's just tough. Telling the economics department that they can't raise funds to support programs that they want? Now that would violate academic freedom!

* Title reference here.

**Full disclosure: I have been a direct and indirect recipient of CGK Foundation funding, and am a graduate of FSU's economics program.

Listen to this lecture by Alan Charles Kors, titled "Can There Be an 'After-Socialism'?"

Update: Professor Kors gave substantially the same lecture at Clemson this semester, which can be viewed here. (Thanks to Eric Daniels, of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, for pointing this out.)

I second Frank's offering of kudos to Dan Alban and IJ. This article from The Economist reports other IJ work: "All states regulate professional lobbyists: ie, paid agents who communicate directly with politicians in the hope of swaying them. Fair enough. But a new report from the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group, reveals that 36 states also impose restrictions on "grassroots lobbying' ...."

Also from this article:

The first sentence of the Massachusetts guidelines for grassroots lobbyists is but a whisker shorter than the Gettysburg address and comprehensible only to a lawyer. Small groups cannot afford lawyers. Yet a few states even threaten criminal penalties for breaking the rules. In Alabama, the maximum sentence is 20 years in jail.

The most severe punishments are seldom, if ever, applied. But they still have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech. The constitution says people have a right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Politicians hate that.

See Richard Epstein on the implictions of passing laws that are not consistently applied.

Law is not just an idealized system of rules: It also involves the public administration of those rules by a wide range of elected and appointed officials in an endless array of particular circumstances. For those who would defend a just legal order, the basic challenge is to strike a proper balance — between limiting the discretion of these officials so that they do not undermine the rule of law, while also allowing them enough leeway to perform their essential roles.

Lately in America, we have done a poor job of preserving this balance. In practice — and, increasingly, in legal theory — government officials have been given unprecedented ability to make exceptions to the law, both in enforcing it and in respecting the rights granted under it. Indeed, the past year has seen two of the most enormous pieces of legislation in U.S. history — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — make the imbalance far worse. Both laws seek to dramatically transform vast swaths of the American economy; both give enormous power to the government to bring about these transformations. And yet both laws are stunningly silent on exactly how these overhauls are to take place. The vague language of these statutes delegates much blanket authority to government officials who will, effectively, make the rules up as they go along.

The early evidence continues to support the wisdom of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and other recent court decisions striking down campaign finance regulations on First Amendment grounds, most notably SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission. I discuss the latest bits of data here.

Consider these headlines from a story in the March 8, 1911 NYT:

20,000 TROOPS AND TWO NAVAL DIVISIONS TO MOBILIZE NEAR MEXICAN BORDER

Fourth of United States Army Ordered to Concentrate in Texas and Southern California.

Cruiser Division of Atlantic Fleet to Proceed to Gulf - Pacific Fleet Held Ready.

2,000 Marines Assembling

Washington Explains it as Mobilization Test and Joint Army and Navy War Game

Here are the opening paragraphs:

The United States is making a move as to Mexico that looks like a potential interference in the affairs of that country, though it wears the official aspect of a military mobilization test. Nearly 20,000 troops, or practically one-fourth of the entire United States Army, including the forces in the insular possessions, were last night and to-day ordered to entrain for points near the Mexican boundary.

Simultaneously the Fifth Division of the Atlantic fleet, including the powerful armored cruisers Tennessee, Montana, North Carolina, and Washington, has been ordered from New York to the Texas coast of the Gulf of Mexico, while a force of 2,000 marines has been directed to assemble at Guantanamo.

Wow.

This is just from memory, but a story on the local radio news program this morning talked about how the Louisiana Federation of Teachers is against business tax cuts in the current budget. They played a clip of the head of the AFT saying that, since the tax cuts "cost the state" some tax revenue, schools "may have to lay off employees" (emphasis mine). This seems odd to me since the BLS shows the number of mass layoffs in Louisiana in 2008, 09, and 10 as greater than zero each year.

So even though many businesses in Louisiana (and the rest of the country) are struggling, laying off workers, or closing entirely, that is less significant than the possibility of schools laying off workers.

Today my heart bleeds for the dispossed refugees fleeing a brutal dictator.

At least that's what some liberals are calling Wisconsin's elected governor, Scott Walker.

Fleeing this brutal dictator (their words) are Wisconsin's 14 Democratic state senators. As is now well known, all 14 have fled the state, depriving the legislature of a quorum needed to conduct budget business.

But it's not easy being a legislator on the lamb. Check out the sad reports in this unintentionally humorous article from the Los Angeles Times.

"It's sort of like being a refugee," said runaway Senator Spencer Coggs. Indeed, and we know how hard it is to be a "refugee." "'Each day brings its own challenges,' Sen. Spencer Coggs said by telephone. 'Somebody will need an electric shaver or somebody will need provisions.'"

Oh the horrors! The Times reports that Coggs has had to purchase more underwear, socks and T-shirts. Thank heavens there are so many non-union Walmarts around. We'd hate to see Senator Coggs unshaven, let alone in day old underwear.

As so often happens in crowded refugee camps, medical care is hard to come by. Reports the Times, "Sen. Julie Lassa needed more contact lens solution."

"The senators have gone into survival mode in Illinois, doing small loads of laundry and eating 'whatever we can get our hands on,' said one senator." One can envision the senators, scrounging from garbage cans, slaughtering their dogs and horses, leaving them to pull their carts by hand. Fortunately, they are aided by "relatives and staff who trek across the border." Trek mind you. You know, that arduous jaunt down I-94 and I-39 (hey, don't laugh - ever drive I-94 at rush hour?).

Oh, the humanity!

Damn! Munger v. Google has such a nice ring to it. But it was rejected by the NC Supreme Court.

Sure, it was actually "Munger, et al. v. State of North Carolina." But it was Google that took all that cash and built a "server farm." (That's basically an insulated warehouse with some extra HVAC, btw)

Read More »

I would have thought the oppressive apparatus of the state could no longer surprise me with its never-ending creativity. But...I am surprised, by this.

The NC DOT did an engineering study of a local road widening project, and concluded that no new signals were required at two intersections. A citizen, David Cox, had the gall to disagree. He did some research, and put the research in the form of an organized argument.

The state could have responded by ignoring the request. Or the state could have pointed out the errors in the study. (I myself have no position on the merits; haven't studied it, don't know the issues).

But the state engineer instead threatened the citizen with legal action... for... being smart! They investigated charging him with "practicing engineering without a license." Yes, really. The state DOT head engineer, Kevin Lacy, did not dispute the facts, the analysis, or the conclusions of the report. All he did was try to get the report dismissed because it was "engineering quality work." Read that again: the citizen made a petition to government for redress of a grievance, and the state wants to prosecute the citizen because the quality of the analysis is too high. (If the petition, redress, etc. thing sounds familiar that's because it is a right guaranteed in the 1st Amendment).

Read More »

There were two hat-pin stories in the Feb. 1, 1911 NYT. The first from Boston:

"If I should carry a fish knife as long as this I would be arrested as a dangerous character," said Representative Newton to-day, holding up an eighteen-inch hatpin to the Legislative Committee on Legal Affairs, before which he appeared in support of a bill to limit the length of hatpins.

Mr. Newton, who is a fish peddler, advocated a fine of $20 for any person wearing a hatpin, the point of which projects more than half an inch beyond the hat, and cited an instance of a car conductor whose ear was pierced by a hatpin of a passenger.

"It does not seem to make a difference whether a girl wears a cart wheel or a little ding-dong affair on her head," said Mr. Newton,"the pins are just as long as she can get them. It is time something was done to put an end to this murderous practice.

I am not sure the "fish peddler" was intended to make people feel that Mr. Newton had more or less authority to speak about fish knives, hatpins, or anything in general. It seems a bit odd - but maybe representatives in 1911 still called themselves something other than a politician?

The second story pertains to New York:

The Aldermen voted down yesterday, by 37 to 29, the proposed city ordinance to restrict the length of women's hatpins. Alderman Alexander S. Drescher of Brownsville, who introduced the measure, made a hard fight for it, and was supported by Republican members of the board, but the Tammany opposition was too strong. The ordinance fixed a penalty of $50 for wearing a pin protruding more than half an inch from the crown of a hat.

{snip}

Alderman Dowling, the Tammany leader, led the opposition. "I would be for this ordinance," he said," if I believed that it would stop the wearing of long hatpins, but it would be a physical impossibility to enforce it. The whole police force and the National Guard and all the battleships of the country could not do it. If you want to put any ridiculous ordinance on the books this is the way to do it.

I guess the machine was good for at least one thing. Mr. Dowling continues:

"The way to get at this matter is to have the Legislature pass a bill prohibiting the sale of long hatpins. The next thing you will want to do will be to pass an ordinance to make a man wear mufflers over his ears so that he cannot hear any one asking him to have a drink. It is the most ridiculous ordinance I ever heard of.

Drat!! Here, but not here,I sarcastically suggested that going after hatpin manufacturers was exactly where this was headed. Perhaps it still will sometime in the future, but I don't peak ahead so as not to ruin the surprises of opening up last century's paper to the day.

But I digress a bit. Mr. Dowling brings it home:

"How can we regulate the dress of women? I don't believe in passing a law to prohibit a woman from keeping her hat on."

Drescher pointed to the fact that no one appeared before the Law Committee against the ordinance.

Alderman Nicoll, whose engagement was announced only a few days ago, raised a laugh by saying: "I have received most explicit instructions on this matter, and, under protest, mind you, I am compelled to vote against this ordinance.

And women never influenced politics before given the ballot - yeah, right.

I wonder why the state is involved with auto licensing. It would seem that many of the things the state wants - tax revenue, ability to track automobiles (on behalf of both the state and individuals), and so forth - could be privatized. If it could be (and perhaps it has been and I am just not aware of it) then why not? I haven't had a lot of time to think this through, but the thought was brought back to the front of my mind while reading this op-ed piece from the Jan. 31, 1911 NYT:

Under the operation of the Callan automobile law the manufacturers of motor cars are obliged to lend to purchasers for a period of fifteen days duplicate license tags bearing their numbers. The purchaser is supposed to obtain within the fortnight his own license number by a tedious process of application to the Secretary of State. Through delay, neglect, or loss, the manufacturer tags are frequently not returned. Chauffeurs, particularly, are fond of keeping and using them for "joy rides." If they come to grief, the civil and criminal liability to damages to persons and property is avoided. The "joy riders" escape, and suits are brought against the dealers who license tags were used.

The lending of tags to purchasers should be done away with. In the first place, they should have the privilege of obtaining their own numbers without [unreadable] and upon the filing of their applications, with the amount of license fee. When the Callan law went into effect the owners of motor cars were subjected to needless inconvenience through the cumbrous process of registration. Secondly, dealers ought not to be placed in a position where they would incur, even for a day, a liability that should attach to the owners and drivers of motor cars. We understand that the manufacturers have signed a petition to Secretary Lazansky, asking him to empower a deputy to issue licenses direct to purchasers at the time of purchase, upon evidence that the purchaser has complied with the requirements of the law. That is a sensible appeal. The manufacturers are confident that the things it asks for are practicable, and that they would afford relief to all concerned.

Yet another addition to the "things never change" drawer.

Mi amiga linda Carolina gives me a chance to talk about the SOTU in El Mercurio.

And she quoted me accurately, because I did say "Fue un discurso 'de postre': dulce cuando lo estás comiendo, pero después te sientes con sueño y algo lento y te preguntas qué había en él", añadió.

That is, "It was a dessert speech: sweet while you were listening, but afterwards you felt all sleepy and sluggish, and wondered what was in it."

A friend on facebook linked me to this:

"There's times when we don't break for lunch, and we don't break for dinner, we don't have bathroom breaks..." It would seem an obvious solution, rather than vote fraud, would be to stop passing so much legislation.

I'm sure there's a dissertation here. Public choice scores again.

The former Congressman talks to Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie on Austrian Economics, tax cuts, TARP, and Ronald Reagan.

Courtesy of Richard Winger's Ballot Access News, we now have the final national vote totals for the U.S. House of Representatives in the fall election. Here we go:

Read More »

From the Dec. 21, 1910 NYT:

NORTH ADAMS, Mass. - After many years in the license column, this city, at the annual election to-day, swung over into the no-license ranks by a majority of 1 vote. The result was a general surprise for the city has so long had a "yes" majority that it was looked upon as "safe," and there had been little work done to get out the voters on either side.

The vote to-day was "yes" 1,478, "no" 1479. Last year there was a majority of 258 for license, the vote being yes 1,654 and no 1,396. Charles L. Frink, Republican, was elected Mayor. The City Government remains Republican.

Just to clarify, the city voted to go "dry," I am sure to the utter shock and amazement to the good folks who were in the bar while the polls were open.

And 90 years later the Simpsons will parody this:

Kent Brockman: "The controversial bill passed by only a single vote."

Marge: "You really should have voted, Homer."

Homer: "Oh, it wouldn't have made a difference."

More on Votes Decided by One

More on rational ignorance and non-voting

Reading the paper from 100 years ago often makes me feel like I have run down a rabbit hole where sixes are sevens and some things are backwards but almost everything is sadly familiar. Take this op-ed from the Dec. 13, 1910 NYT:

As is well known, the Republicans think that the happiness and prosperity of the Nation are due to high tariff taxes, and the expenditure of an enormous surplus thus produced. The election gave signs that others than Republicans, and even many Republicans, have had enough of that kind of happiness, but the information has not yet extended to all those still exercising authority. The President's message appreciated the situation, and he sounded a note of warning against extravagance. When commenting upon this counsel of perfection we remarked that it would do well to await the action of Congress before taking it for granted that the President's counsel would be heeded. The clerks off the appropriation committees have completed their tabulations, and the figures indicate such an excess over last year's expenditures that there is talk of raising more money by new taxes.

Really? This is how far we have come in 100 years?

A report in the Dec. 9, 1910 NYT provides an interesting contrast to today's campaign financing:

That the race is not always to the rich nor the battle to the well-heeled appears in the statements filed to-day with the clerk of the House of Representatives by the Republican and Democratic Congressional Committees, showing the expenses of each during the recent campaign. It cost the Democratic committee $27,771 to gain the next House, and the Republicans $74,373 to lose it. As Camp Clark observes, the Republicans seem, comparatively speaking, not to have "got their seed back."

The Democratic Committee started out in the campaign with $13,258 on hand; the Republicans had $47,030. Under the law the committees are allowed to show contributions of sums over $100 separately from those of lesser amount. The Republicans had fifty-two contributors who gave sums larger than $100, and Congressman McKinley, Chairman of the committee, himself gave $5,000. The Democrats had thirteen contributors who gave more than $100.

The folks over at eh.net provide the following conversions to 2009 dollars:

$27,771 = $647,000
$74,373 = $1,730,000
$13,258 = $309,000
$47,030 = $1,100,000
$100 = $2,330
$5,000 = $116,000

David Nolan, a founder (arguably the founder) of the Libertarian Party passed away yesterday at age 66. The Libertarian Party was founded in Nolan's Colorado home in December, 1971. Although the Party has never made a breakthrough in American politics - it's high point probably came in 1980, when presidential candidate Ed Clark received 1.1 percent of the national vote and two Libertarians were elected to the Alaska state legislature - most libertarians have, at some point, had contact with the Party, and many have voted for or more actively supported its candidates.

Nolan's other claim to fame may be his invention of the "Nolan Chart," now, in somewhat revised form, frequently referred to as the "World's Smallest Political Quiz." Nolan developed the chart to better capture electoral/political philosophies than the traditional "left/right" paradigm used by most commentators.

One can read more on Nolan here. R.I.P.

Louisiana film tax credits aren't paying their way, researchers find

From USA Today (via the Atlantic Wire and Instapundit):

The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The news story brings to mind this recent cartoon from the Rome News-Tribune's Mike Lester:

[Note: federal results are reviewed here].

*[This post was updated on November 6.]

In addition to a very good night in federal races, including the best Republican showing in the U.S. House since the election of 1946, Republicans did very well in the states on Tuesday, picking up hundreds of state legislative seats and gaining control in numerous state legislative chambers. This will not only influence policy, but also will strengthen Republicans in redistricting, and provide a larger "farm team" of candidates down the road. The run down - including such important but under reported races such as Attorney General and Secretary of State, is below the fold. We'll have one more long post, on state ballot initiatives, later in the week.

Read More »

Well, it was a big night for political junkies. Soon enough we should worry about what it means for policy, but first, let's find out who, and what, won. In this post we'll review the federal races. A later post will cover what's happened in the states, which may be more interesting because it's harder to find! Go below the fold for more.

Read More »

On this election day, here's something to...

1. Read. My paper with Mike Hammock in which we apply some of the insights of Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter to environmental issues.

2. Watch. The Public Choice Society Symposium in Caplan's book from 2008.

3. Listen to. An EconTalk podcast with Caplan in which he discusses the book.

Glenn Reynolds's comment "that to the credentialed-instead-of-educated, the Constitution is a wish-fulfillment device rather than, you know, an authoritative text" reminded me of this recent Mike Lester cartoon in the RNT (though I think it would be more accurate to say that the left and right view different parts of the Constitution as rocks and lava lamps).

Jonathan Cohn's column in today's New Republic leads off with an assertion that I hear frequently these days, and one that I think provides a good bit of insight into the soul of modern, mainstream liberalism. Cohn writes that a Republican controlled Congress would "obviously not good news for liberals or for liberalism. The Republicans will try to slash taxes for the wealthy, shrink the federal government, and repeal major legislation starting with health care reform."

Now, I can understand why one might think that "shrink[ing] the federal government" is an obviously bad thing, though I wouldn't agree. One might feel that we need a strong, active, federal government. One might openly favor a move toward a more social-democratic state. And so on. Similarly, if one favored Obamacare, one would see its repeal as inherently bad. But why is there such a widespread view on the left that "slash[ing] taxes for the wealthy" is self-evidently bad? The idea is that high taxes on "the wealthy" (whoever they are) is an inherently good thing. I would think have thought that everybody would have agreed that in the dream world, low taxes on everybody would be a good thing.

Of course, the reality is that the world is full of tradeoffs. But the assertion that higher taxes on "the wealthy" is rarely tied to any tradeoff. Perhaps liberals view it as self-evident, and therefore implicit in the statement, that higher taxes on "the wealthy" bring in more government revenue and that revenue can be spent on valuable things. But that's not really what they say. Do they view it as self evident that higher taxes on "the wealthy" will always bring in more revenue? The evidence doesn't support that as a universal proposition, although certainly it often can lead to greater government revenue. Do they see it as a given that higher taxes on "the wealthy" will lead to a healthier economy? Sometimes that might be true, but there's certainly no evidence of that as a general proposition - if anything, the evidence seems to suggest that in most cases lower taxes on "the wealthy" will lead to greater economic growth. And it strikes me, again, that the default position for normal people of good will would be that it is always better, all other things equal, to leave people in possession of the fruits of their labor. This is not a "no taxes" position. I am merely suggesting that higher taxes, among people of good will, must always be justified.

The only way that one can really see higher taxes on "the wealthy" as an acheivement in and of itself, independent of its actual effects, is by an appeal to envy. "The wealthy" have more, and we want to take it from them. Leaving them with less is ipso facto a good thing.

It strikes me as strange - and as a very bad thing - that this view can be stated so openly and cavalierly, and with so little push back.

The President says that his critics "talk about me like a dog." I just want to be clear that I never talk about the President like I talk about my dog.

In 2008 I wrote this piece on Transantiago, in Chile.

Just did this update.

English version of update.

(Oh, and I'm afraid I have to recognize: Cards suck, Reds rule. It's killin' me, Bob)

Story here. So how is the California Senate spending its time? Debating (and ultimately rejecting) a ban on plastic bags. Of course the CA Senate might be more likely to make matters worse than better.

Last night President Obama took to the tube to congratulate himself for keeping his campaign promise to end combat in Iraq (never mind that 50,000 troops remain there and that they still carry firearms and wear body armor).

The president's crowing about keeping this promise is akin to a baseball player bragging about getting his batting average above the Mendoza line. There are lots of Obama campaign promises that have not been kept--closing Gitmo, not hiking taxes on people earning below $250k, posting bills on the internet for a few days before signing them--but I suppose he hopes we won't remember those.

Multiple ironies, sad threats.

Now, I have been to the LSS before, myself. It is way out in the country. It is held on the grounds of a very large (40 acre) plot of land. The main structures on the plot are some outbuildings, and a legally zoned bed-and-breakfast.

No one parks on the street, and nothing is visible from the street.

Now, it is true that they have amplified speeches, and amplified music on Saturday night.

But the local gubmint thugs are after them for:

1. Health concerns. So they had the food professionally catered, instead of cooking it on bbq grills as in the past.

2. Sanitation concerns. So they had port-o-potties brought in, in the proper ratio for such an activity, with that many people.

3. Ex post giant d*ckhead concerns about this being a permanent commercial activity. Hard to predict the ex post part, to the tune of a $50k fine. This is already a commercially zoned property, by the way, because of the b-n-b. And the Institute for Liberal Studies is a registered non-profit. The LSS breaks even, every year. What makes it commercial? If five of us split the cost of some chicken, and cook it, would that be commercial? This was less than 75 people, one event per year, for two nights. Sure, if it was every weekend, that might be commercial.

But this is just thuggery. The local government is doing this because they can.

The headline: Report: Too Much Money Going To State Court Races

The punchline: Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler was the first incumbent in the state in more than 40 years to lose his court seat.

Repeat after me: Campaign finance restrictions are all about, and only about, incumbent protection.

[Link]

I am always working my way through several books simultaneously - I trust I am not alone in this. One of my current reads is "Paris in the Terror" by Stanley Loomis.

I read this passage earlier tonight:

The Law of Suspects was passed during the first week of September [1793]. This bit of legislation defined in vague and allusive terms those who were to be considered suspect and therefore liable to arrest - "persons who, by their conduct or language either written or spoken, have shown themselves to be partisans of tyranny or Federalism [a knife thrust at the Girondins] and enemies of Liberty." The number of fish that might be scooped up in this net left nothing to be desired by the Revolutionary Tribunal or its energetic prosecutor, Fouquier-Tinville. Also suspect were those citizens "who could not give a satisfactory account of their means of support or their discharge of civic obligations since the preceding March 21."

The Girondins had been in "charge" for about a year before they started to lose power - eventually 21 of them would be sent to the guillotine in one day (I note that the bracketed term referring to the Girondins is Loomis, not me). The Law of Suspects was crafted by one Robespierre and seems very similar to the laws of other authoritarian systems. The "means of support" clause seems to be aimed at Danton (Robespierre's main rival for control) who, it was suspected, had been taking a little extra from the government till.

However bad the preceding "law" seems to be, it gets worse:

The third article in this list was particularly odious. It stated that persons who had not received "good citizenship certificates" from their local Section leader were also to be considered suspect.

Now, students of public choice should be able to fill in what comes next. The remainder is below the fold:

Read More »

From the politics section of the WSJ.

Senate VIP Loans Mount. Countrywide Dealt With More Lawmakers and Staffers Than Previously Known July 15, 2010

U.S. senators or Senate employees received 30 loans—far more than had previously been known—under a controversial lending program at Countrywide Financial Corp. that provided cut-rate terms to favored borrowers.

The information is contained in a letter sent to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics by Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), who has been spearheading the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation into Countrywide's so-called VIP mortgage program.

No specific loan recipients were named in the letter. But Mr. Issa's letter said borrowers on a dozen loans listed their place of employment as the office of "Senator Robert Bennett." Available public records don't indicate that Sen. Bennett, a Utah Republican and member of the Senate Banking Committee, received a Countrywide home loan.

Full story (ungated). Stay tuned...

My new Forbes piece considers the question I raised in a letter to the Birmingham News last week.

From Ronald Bailey in Reason:

The nonprofit Center for Public Integrity reported in March that an “analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows that more than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists—eight for each member of Congress—to influence health reform bills in 2009.” Lobbyists for unions opposed taxes on gold-plated health insurance plans; lobbyists for doctors opposed cuts in Medicare reimbursements; a lobbyist for Dunkin Donuts opposed a soda tax to pay for health care reform; and a Cigar Association lobbyist fought a tobacco tax.

Hope and change!!

My mother-in-law directed me to this story a few days ago: an Alabama politician has been looking into what it would take for Greene County (and the seventh Congressional district) to secede from Alabama and form its own state. The 7th district covers the University of Alabama and parts of Birmingham. I doubt those areas would go, but if the seventh district seceded, it would create a state roughly the size of New Jersey with a population larger than Wyoming's. If only the Black Belt counties seceded, they would still have a higher population than Wyoming (it would split the rest of Alabama into non-contiguous chunks, though). I sent the following letter to the Birmingham News:

"The push for the 7th Congressional District to secede from Alabama isn't as crazy as it sounds at first. To put things in perspective, there are about 4.7 million people in Alabama. In 1790, there were about four million people in the entire United States. A quick search suggests that the 7th Congressional District had about 635,000 people as of the 2000 Census, which would have made it one of the largest states in the union just a few years after the Constitution was adopted. A lot of commentators have suggested that the political order has become too large and too unwieldy to be responsive to the citizenry; see in particular the "Secession Week" entries at www.athousandnations.com that led up to Independence Day, particularly the entry about what we can learn from the formation of the Swiss Cantons. The idea that governments would function better if the states were smaller has merit and should not be dismissed out of hand.

Would secession be a wise move for the 7th District? According to the US Constitution, that's for the district itself, Congress, and the State Legislature to decide. It's certainly an idea that deserves serious consideration rather than mockery."

The Alabama Education Association is the 800-pound guerilla of Alabama politics. Long a (perhaps "the") dominant player in the state Democratic Party, the AEA is branching into this year's GOP gubernatorial race in a major way. Its objective is to try to ensure that Bradley Byrne is not the GOP nominee. Byrne's claim to fame is a fairly short tenure as head of the state's community college system, whose employees are members of AEA. Byrne was effective enough as a reformer of the community colleges that he earned the AEA's undying enmity. Now that we're in the runoff campaign, the AEA is supporting Byrne's opponent, Robert Bentley. At least, that's what appears to be happening. A series of slickly produced anti-Byrne radio ads are currently running sponsored by an outfit that calls itself the "Christian Coalition for Alabama." Their overall message is that Byrne is not conservative enough for Alabama -- which is rich, coming from the de facto teachers union. This morning I heard one that pointed out that Alabama will need to squeeze BP for big bucks, but Byrne would not be up to the job since he has been "a trial lawyer for Big Oil."

What a phrase.

Hearing the ad brought to mind one of my favorite H.L. Mencken quotes: "[T]he true charm of democracy is not for the democrat but for the spectator. That spectator, it seems to me, is favoured with a show of the first cut and calibre. Try to imagine anything more heroically absurd! What grotesque false pretenses! What a parade of obvious imbecilities! What a welter of fraud! But is fraud unamusing?"

For Elena Kagan:

Can you name a human endeavor that Congress cannot regulate on the pretense that the endeavor affects interstate commerce? If courts reflexively defer to that congressional pretense, in what sense do we have limited government?

More here (HT: Don Boudreaux). We have a couple of tomato plants. Of course, the court has already established that this is interstate commerce.

The Portland, Oregon, masseuse who attended to Al Gore in 2006 and now claims he sexually assaulted her spoke to police about the incident in January 2009. The Smoking Gun has published excerpts from the 87-page transcript. This statement struck me as especially poignant, and applicable to many, many American voters in a somewhat more elevated way:
“I was further deeply shocked and repulsed as my realization of what was happening sunk in and especially as my mind was now reeling from this absolute betrayal by someone I had inherently trusted as a good guy who cares about people including me because of his public persona.”

Don Boudreaux clears the bases with this letter to the editor on Robert Byrd's association with the KKK. Just because something is politically expedient doesn't excuse it.

I'm trying to understand the following empirical regularity: voters accept that politicians will lie, cheat, steal, and do other horrible things to get elected. Then voters are shocked--shocked!!--when politicians continue to lie, cheat, steal, and do other horrible things once in office. Why?

*--This was Mike Hammock's apt characterization. Was it rude to stick a camera in the Congressman's face? Yes, it was. Did it justify assault and battery (and yes, this was assault and battery)? I'm going to guess "no."

Republicans finally picked up a U.S. House seat Saturday in the special election in Hawaii's 1st Congressional District. Ed Djou defeats Colleen Hanabusa 40% to 31%. Djou benefitted from a split Democratic Party (Democrat Ed Case received 27%), and will have a very difficult time holding the seat in November, when presumably only one Democrat will be on the ballot.

Still, Republicans have to be happy - despite the apparent wave building for Republicans in November, Democrats had won all 6 special elections for the House since Obama took office, so this win stops that streak. Moreover, there is a bit of symbolism in that this is the seat where the President was born. Substantively, both President Obama and former Congressman Neil Abercrombie carried the district with over 70% of the vote in 2008, so the combined Hanabusa/Case vote was still down about 13 points from the Democratic percentage in 2008.

The last Republican to win this seat was Pat Saiki, in 1988. Until yesterday, Saiki, who served two terms, was the only Republican ever to win a House election in Hawaii.

Great opening and closing paragraphs from an op-ed piece in the May 19, 1910 NYT:

It is hopeless to expect unanimity regarding the merits of the income tax amendment, but there should be no disagreement upon the proposition that the action taken regarding it ought to be in accord with the opinions of those who will pay it. Taxation without representation is bad enough, but taxation contrary to representation is an indictment of representative institutions, and an issue superior to the income tax itself, whatever views are taken of its importance.

The op-ed goes on to decry the passage of a Democratic income-tax proposal in a Republican controlled state house. The piece ends with a brilliant indictment of the system (as it stood then, and perhaps even now):

Thus our voters are being taught that it is of little consequence what are the issues of the election, or what the decision upon them may be. After election the party managers decide what political strategy requires, and that is what is done. It is of no consequence what was the mandate of the electorate. Platforms are intended for campaigns, not for administrations. The representatives of the people are chosen not to execute a declared policy, but to take a line which shall keep the party in power. Who knows what were the issues of the last campaign? Who cares what may be the issues of the next campaign, since they may be dodged after election like the issues of past campaigns?

Should "Third Parties" Be Included in Debates?

I say yes, in this little op-ed.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held hearings Wednesday on the "Potty Parity Act," a bill that seeks to address the unequal number of restroom facilities for women in federal buildings.

This is a much better way for the honorables to spend their time rather than mucking around in health care or passing cap and tax. Source.

Today is the 40th anniversary of the infamous shootings at Kent State University.

Here's a commercial from the Pennsylvania Tax Amnesty (HT: Lew Rockwell). This raises a question for privacy advocates: taxation requires that people basically have no financial privacy. How are government invasions of financial privacy different from other kinds of privacy? Has the ACLU ever sued the IRS or state taxing authorities for inserting themselves into every financial transaction? Comments are open.

Jim Otteson asks about rights and duties with respect to health care. A choice line:

"What is not the test for having a right to something is that one really, really wants it."

From the perspective of economics, there's a subsidiary question: if I have a duty to provide others' health care, what, then, do I have a duty to forgo in order to provide it? How are these obligatory costs identified, and by whom? Right now, I'm blogging about rights and duties, watching Sesame Street clips with Jacob, and intermittently talking to the plumber who is fixing some of our faucets. Is this OK? What should I be doing instead? Whose blessing do I require?

The comments on Jim's post are interesting. Common apologetics for universal health coverage ("Europe does it," "we have Social Security," etc.) are canards because these are all financially unsustainable. Welfare state public finance is an exercise in (presumably well-intentioned) institutional prodigality. We could probably throw a heck of a party if we cashed in all of our assets and spent everything on booze, but the money and the liquor would run out eventually.

For more, here's Bryan Caplan's resource page from a recent debate in which he participated.

Cross-posted at the Mises Blog.

Via Mark Brady, here the IEA Blog on the late British philosopher Antony Flew (1923-2010):

Several newspapers (e.g. the Guardian and the Telegraph) have recently carried obituaries of the English philosopher Antony Flew. These obituaries have emphasized the remarkable change of mind by which Flew, for most of his life an internationally renowned atheist, became convinced at the age of 81 of deism. What this emphasis has overshadowed - and what some readers of this blog may not know - is that Flew was for several decades a heroic defender of classically liberal political philosophy and indeed by far the best known professional philosopher in Britain over that period to champion classical liberalism. His heroism lay in the fact that, in challenging the spirit of the age as sharply and as unapologetically as he did, he was, and must have known that he was, irreparably damaging his reputation among his overwhelmingly left-leaning professional peers. That reputation – sufficient for his appointment to a chair at the University of Keele at the age of 31 - rested on a prolific output of books and of papers in the most prestigious philosophical journals. His work ranged widely, and especially in the philosophy of religion and the interpretation of David Hume had a major international impact.

To me this says: Do excellent work in order to advance good ideas.

I guess pollsters have lots of empty time on their hands, because to recent polls are out that make one wonder, "who paid for that?"

Rasmussen Reports has polled on a hypothetical presidential matchup of Ron Paul vs. President Obama. Obama wins 42-41. Which probably means that if the election really were held today, Ron Paul wins - you know how undecideds break agains the incumbent!

Meanwhile, Public Policy Polling, another reputable outfit, polls Obama vs. George W. Bush, with Obama again eeking out a victory with less than 50% - in this case, 48-46% over the man whose unpopularity as President has so much to do with the Democratic victories of 2006 and 2008.

How can it be the unpopular ex-president and Ron Paul, a guy who got about 0 percent of the vote in the 2008 Republican primaries, should be neck and neck in hypothetical matchups with the sitting President? What does it mean?

First, it means that Obama has totally lost GOP moderates and dissenters (except, perhaps, for David Brooks and Christopher Buckley). In the PPP poll, 87 percent of Republicans favored Bush, quite a bit higher than his ratings with the party at the end of his term. From mid-2008 through the end of his term, Bush's approval rating among Republicans stood at roughly 60 percent; it was 18 percent among independents and 10 percent among Democrats at the end of his term,according to Pew. While a plurality of Independents still favor Obama over Bush, the margin is just 49-37, down from the 52 percent Obama won over McCain, who was much more popular with Independents than Bush.

Rasmussen's poll similarly shows that Obama has simply lost Republicans. Republicans scarcely gave Ron Paul the time of day in last year's primary. That he polls even with Obama is substantially a sign that Republicans will support any Republican over Obama - 66 percent support Paul in this poll, better than the much more traditional Republican Bush was doing a year ago. (Indeed, if you look at the Rasmussen link above, you'll see that Paul is actually quite unpopular in the GOP. That he draws more party support against Obama than Bush did a year ago suggests the degree of GOP disillusionment with the President. And in a Paul-Obama match up, independents break decisively for Ron Paul, 47 to 28 percent.

While many Democrats have been trying to convince themselves that you just can't deal with Republicans and to convince the nation that Republicans are "the party of 'no,'" the reality is that the President has squandered a remarkable opportunity to create a true realignment favoring the Democrats. A year into his presidency, Republicans have regained basically all the ground they lost from 2005 to 2008. That George Bush and Ron Paul can poll even with the President (as one with some real affection for Ron Paul - I have even represented him in my legal practice - I can still say that it would be hard to imagine two weaker Republican candidates, if the election were really held today, than Congressman Paul and President Bush) is indicative of the opportunity that Obama has lost. He hoped to create "Obama Republicans," as Reagan created "Reagan Democrats." He has failed. And he has sent independents flocking back to Republicans as well.

Obama's numbers could recover some. While he is doing great long term damage to the economy, he could look pretty good for a while. The huge influx of money from the Fed and the stimulus should have some effect, and the economy has a natural resiliency. There are some signs that recovery may be underway and that it could be strong, but also signs that it could be truly "jobless." But whatever happens with the economy, I think it unlikely that the President will have any chance to truly set off a major realignment. Republicans and Independents are returning to their pre-2006/2008 voting patterns, and indeed if any major realignment is on the horizon, it could be one that would benefit a new, can-do Republican Party epitomized by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Allan Handleman talks to John Stossel and me about "What is a Libertarian?"

Link to show.

Link to WZTK web site.

Can the states win their law suits, on Obamacare?

I have a guest op-ed in today's Durham Herald Sun, with my answer.

To summarize: No, the states cannot win.

Re: Intrusive government. See this pre-Patriot Act article by Charlotte Twight, "Watching You: Systematic Federal Surveillance of Ordinary Americans."

On the presumptuousness of, and the presumption of, increasingly intrusive government.

On presumptuousness: From a scary article in The Weekly Standard:

The American Community Survey wasn't around when Ronald Reagan declared that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." If it was, he'd probably agree that having a government representative knock on your door, try to threaten their way into your home, and demand that you give them very personal information is far more terrifying.
[...]
The ACS [American Community Survey} is an extension of the U.S. Census that all households receive. While the U.S. Census form contains 10 questions and is sent out every 10 years, the ACS form contains 48 questions and is sent to 250,000 households each month on a rolling basis.
[...]
What's especially problematic about the ACS are the answers it demands from citizens. The least threatening of them are just strange -- such as asking whether your home has a flush toilet and whether "there is a business (such as a store or barber shop) or a medical practice" on your property. Then there are the financial questions. The ACS asks everything from your sources of income (in dollar amounts) to how much you spend on gas, electricity, and water. The IRS just asks what you earn; the Commerce Department wants to know how you spend your money as well.

Even more invasive are the personal questions. The questionnaire asks how many people live with you and their relationship to you, along with their names, ages, gender, and race. Most creepy of all are the questions about your daily routine. The ACS wants to know where you work, what time you leave for work, how you get to work, how long it takes you to get to work, and how many people travel with you
[...]
[T]oday's government and its workers have forgotten is that government is accountable to the people, not the reverse. It is "government of the people, by the people, for the people," in Abraham Lincoln's immortal words.

On presumption: About those "immortal words," Alfred J. Nock says this:

Spencer does not discuss what he calls "the perennial faith of mankind" in State action, but contents himself with elaborating the sententious observation of Guizot, that "a belief in the sovereign power of political machinery" is nothing less than "a gross delusion." This faith is chiefly an effect of the immense prestige which the State has diligently built up for itself in the century or more since the doctrine of jure divino rulership gave way. We need not consider the various instruments that the State employs in building up its prestige; most of them are well known, and their uses well understood. There is one, however, which is in a sense peculiar to the republican State. Republicanism permits the individual to persuade himself that the State is his creation, that State action is his action, that when it expresses itself it expresses him, and when it is glorified he is glorified. The republican State encourages this persuasion with all its power, aware that it is the most efficient instrument for enhancing its own prestige. Lincoln's phrase, "of the people, by the people, for the people" was probably the most effective single stroke of propaganda ever made in behalf of republican State prestige.

Thus the individual's sense of his own importance inclines him strongly to resent the suggestion that the State is by nature anti-social. He looks on its failures and misfeasances with somewhat the eye of a parent, giving it the benefit of a special code of ethics. Moreover, he has always the expectation that the State will learn by its mistakes, and do better. Granting that its technique with social purposes is blundering, wasteful and vicious - even admitting, with the public official whom Spencer cites, that wherever the State is, there is villainy - he sees no reason why, with an increase of experience and responsibility, the State should not improve.

Source.

This Yahoo News piece caught my eye: President Barack Obama's sweeping health care legislation won precious support from a longtime liberal holdout in the House on Wednesday and from a retired Catholic bishop and nuns representing dozens of religious orders...

Shortly after Kucinich's announcement, a letter was released from 60 leaders of women's religious orders urging lawmakers to vote for the legislation...a letter released by Network, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

So I did some snooping and found Network's Voting Record of the 111th Congress, First Session. Here are some summary stats of the score received by legislators voting with Network:

House Dems
Mean 0.947
Stan Err 0.007
Median 1.000
Mode 1.000
Stan Dev 0.113
Sampl Var 0.013
Range 0.670
Minimum 0.330
Maximum 1.000

House Repub
Mean 0.169
Stan Err 0.011
Median 0.160
Mode 0.160
Stan Dev 0.143
Sampl Var 0.020
Range 0.660
Minimum 0.000
Maximum 0.660

Senate Dems
Mean 0.961
Stan Err 0.008
Median 1.000
Mode 1.000
Stan Dev 0.061
Sampl Var 0.004
Range 0.230
Minimum 0.770
Maximum 1.000

Senate Repub
Mean 0.334
Stan Err 0.022
Median 0.330
Mode 0.330
Stan Dev 0.139
Sampl Var 0.019
Range 0.550
Minimum 0.110
Maximum 0.660

It's hard to argue, as the article does, that "The endorsements reflected a division within the church," as if a group that is so partisan in its rankings of legislators could be called a legitimate unbiased voice of Catholic opinion. The words "peace and justice" are splashed all over the site, which won't help shake the image of such groups being more concerned with economic issues than life issues or fidelity to the Church. Instead of quoting one retired Bishop who supports this bill (even with the inclusion of abortion funding), the article downplays the opposition to the bill (here & here) of the US Conference of (nonretired) Catholic Bishops.

Yesterday I was back in Washington to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As these things go, it was a pretty lively event, as Jeff Patch of the Center for Competitive Politics describes below the fold.

Read More »

You've gotta love the LA Times, which has a big banner headline today, "Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right." Well, there is that Second Amendment thing...

Steve Chapman weighs in on Congress and Toyota:

When it comes to defects, the company is hardly unique. Over the past five years, The Wall Street Journal reports, the federal government got more complaints from owners of Fords than owners of Toyotas. Out of 20 carmakers, says Edmunds.com, Toyota is fourth best in the number of complaints per vehicle sold. But none of the others is being used as a piñata.

A more expansive government role is one of those answers that is neat, simple and wrong. "There are 250 million vehicles with 3,000 parts apiece," says Hurley. It's safe to assume the government couldn't police them all, even if it chose to do nothing else.

Fortunately, it doesn't have to do that in order for consumers to be protected. A carmaker's need to attract buyers is a far more powerful force for safety. As Yoshimi Inaba, head of North American operations, told Congress, "Nothing costs Toyota more than the loss of customer trust in our vehicles." Another reliable motivator is the urgent desire not to pay millions of dollars in damages, as Toyota is likely to do once the courts have had their say.

Walter Russell Mead at The American Interest has the best analysis I've seen about the death of global warming as a polticial issue. He writes from the viewpoint of one who considers climate change to be a real danger and, as such, he shows special disregard for and anger toward those who led to this political reversal. From his most recent post:

Anyway, as the [Washington] Post now belatedly acknowledges, the movement to stop climate change through a Really Big and Comprehensive Grand Global Treaty is dead because there is no political consensus in the US to go forward. It’s dead because the UN process is toppling over from its own excessive ambition and complexity. It’s dead because China and India are having second thoughts about even the smallish steps they put on the table back in Copenhagen. [. . .] A year ago [the global greens] were the last, best hope of the world, a shining band of brothers (and sisters) who were saving the planet and taming the excesses of self-destructive capitalist greed. The Force was with them and the world lay at their feet. They were going to be greeted as liberators by a grateful world desperate to be saved.

Now they are just another piece of roadkill on the heartless historical highway–an unforgiving place for people who seek to change the behavior of the world through comprehensive treaties, like the nuclear freeze proponents before them and like the advocates of the Grand Global Treaty Against War in the 1920s. (And at least the 1920s peace movement got its Grand Global Treaty: the 1929 Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed war forever, sparing all future generations from this terrible scourge.)
[. . .]
Failure to deal sternly and coldly with those who made these errors will leave the same incompetents in charge for the next stage of the movement. This will probably happen; social promotion is something liberals do very well and the blame for this mess is so widespread that few of the movement’s leaders will want any uncomfortable questions to be asked.

Frankly, I blame Al Gore. Unlike naive scientists who know little about life beyond the lab, or eco-activists whose concepts of the international political system come from writing direct-mail solicitations to true believers in rich countries, the former vice-president had decades of experience with high politics.
[. . .]
The greens claim to understand the dynamics of complex ecosystems better than the rest of humanity; the simplistic assumptions and unrealistic strategies with which they’ve approached the complex ecosystem of international politics don’t provide the dispassionate observer with much evidence in support of this claim.

The President is promoting a special, bipartisan commission to deal with deficit reduction. It is supposed to produce proposed tax hikes and spending cuts to bring the deficit down. I thought we already had such a commission: it's called Congress.

Today's offering from the Rome News-Tribune's Mike Lester:

Is this story another data point for Mancur Olson's thesis in The Rise and Decline of Nations?

I confess that I did not watch the State of the Union address, but I have seen the clip where the President calls out the Supreme Court over its 5-4 campaign finance/First Amendment decision last week -- and I have to say that that's the creepiest thing he's done to date, IMO. The standing O he got from Congressional Democrats added immeasurably to the creepiness factor. Legal Insurrection makes some very good points and links to an Instapundit post. (If Legal Insurrection is not already part of your web routine, you really should think about adding it.)

Anyone taking a gulp anytime Obama said "I" in this speech likely ended up more hungover than Keynes in the rap video.

It's getting hard to maintain the illusion that fiscal policy is done in a rational way when the solution to a recession one year is to spend $787 billion and the solution a year later is to freeze spending.

On CNN.com's homepage, there are links to "Stimulus doesn't help middle class" and "Stimulus helps real people," so I guess you can use your W2s to figure out whether you and your family earn enough income to be considered real.

Cato Unbound has an interesting discussion this month under the title "What's Living & Dead in Ayn Rand's Political and Moral Philosophy?" Of course, it's of special interest in MY household, because my wife is one of the discussants ...

A friend writes:

Politics is getting so weird.

Last month I was blessing the commies in China for killing the Copenhagen conference.

Now I’m blessing the most liberal state in the union for burying Ted Kennedy and Obama’s agenda.

Wow. “'All the cars and trucks and plants that have been in existence since the Industrial Revolution, spewing out carbon day-in and day-out, you’ll never convince me that’s a good thing for your children and the future of the planet,' [Graham] told a crowd in South Carolina,... ."

Graham thinks it would be a good thing if we had no cars and trucks, no electricity in amounts that could serve any purpose (and no serious means to construct hydroelectric plants in any case)? He thinks it would be better for us and our children if we lived as in 1800, when the average life expectancy was about 40 - if you survived childhood?

Wow.

From "Long history of vote-trading on Capitol Hill" in today's Washington Times --

Mr. Reid . . . said the trading is no different than what happens with the thousands of earmarks in the dozen annual spending bills.

He said senators should be embarrassed if they weren't able to carve out exemptions.

"There's 100 senators here, and I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them," he said. "And if they don't have something in it important to them then, it doesn't speak well of them."

-End quote-

And on that note I'd like to wish the faithful readers of DoL a Merry Christmas!

Banks with political ties got bailouts, study shows

From the NYTimes:

Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region

At least one Kennedy (as in NIMBY, Massachusetts) takes exception:

“This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist and a partner with a venture capital firm that invested in a solar developer called BrightSource Energy. In September, BrightSource canceled a large project in the monument area.

From the NYTimes:

Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.

At least one Kennedy (as in NIMBY, Massachusetts) takes exception:

“This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist and a partner with a venture capital firm that invested in a solar developer called BrightSource Energy. In September, BrightSource canceled a large project in the monument area.

Rent-seekers in action:

American catfish farmers have demanded that tougher safety rules be imposed on certain fish from Vietnam -- which are hurting their business, the industry says. But U.S. catfish farmers must first get the U.S. Department of Agriculture to say the Vietnamese fish is a catfish. That is a little awkward since just seven years ago the farmers successfully urged Congress to ban the Vietnamese fish from ever being labeled a catfish.

In Washington and elsewhere, trade, sometimes as much as science, has a way of defining a species. Something might look, taste and feed off the bottom like a catfish, but until an agency calls it a catfish, it might as well be a duck.

American catfish farmers aren't alone in trying to manipulate food names. Three years ago, the Maine lobster industry fought restaurants that offered "langostino lobster," saying that the Chilean crustacean isn't a lobster at all. They called it a crab.

When he earmarked $100,000 in taxpayer spending to go to Jamestown's library, Rep. James E. Clyburn meant for it to go to the library in Jamestown, S.C., which is in his district.

But in the bustle to write and pass the $1.1 trillion catchall spending bill, Congress ended up designating the money for Jamestown, Calif. - 2,700 miles away and a town that doesn't even have a library.

"That figures for government, doesn't it," said Chris Pipkin, who runs the one-room library in Jamestown, S.C., and earlier this year requested $50,000, not the $100,000 that Congress designated, to buy new computers and build shelves to hold the books strewn across the room.

Spend twice as much as necessary and still screw it up--that sums up the U.S. Congress pretty nicely.

Source (HT: Betsy's Page).

Oh no, I've been published in a neo-con journal!

Read More »

The public perception of conservatives (and I have to lump libertarians into this category, which I think is accurate here, and there's not really separate polling data for libertarians - see below), fostered by Hollywood and TV, many major media publications, and of course liberals, is that conservatives are uptight, unhappy, nasty people.

I have noted in this space that these perceptions are not true - polling data has consistently shown that conservatives are more likely to say they are happy with their lives; they are more active, both in terms of hobbies and sports and in terms of volunteer activities; they are more likely to be satisfied with their sex lives (and to have sex more often), than are liberals.

The latest part of the mantra from the cultural elites is that conservatives are also anti-science. Remember how Barack Obama even promised to restore science "to its rightful place."

Well, now comes an interesting survey from Pew that debunks the idea that liberals are more science oriented, too. In fact, it turns out that liberals are nearly twice as likely as conservatives to believe in astrology (30% to 16%), "spiritual energy" (35% to 18%), or reincarnation (33% to 18%). It's interesting to note that while conservatives and liberals are equally likely to believe in the "evil eye" (17% each), Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the evil eye by 19% to 12%.

Maybe all those "Reagan Democrats" of a generation ago were just fans of Nancy, who was said to have an interest in astrology. But clearly the rejection of science for superstition knows no ideological boundaries.

From an interesting report by the House of Commons on the use and abuse of language in government:

Q2 Chairman: In a sense, we know all this stuff that is floating around us, and we know what Orwell told us back in 1946, that "prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house." We have that all around us in official language, and what I really want to ask you is: Does this drivel matter or does it just irritate us?

Interesting (and sometimes painful) reading.

Okay, I couldn't come up with a clever title for this blog entry but a story in the Dec. 3, 1909 NYT drew my attention for some reason:

Orders abolishing the standing guard of one company of regular army troops about the tomb of the late President William McKinely have been received here [Canton, Ohio]. Secretary Hartzell of the McKinley National Memorial Association was notified yesterday by Lieut. Householder of the Second Infantry that Secretary of War Jacob M. Dickinson had decided to reduce the guard to two non-commissioned officers. It is believed that this guard will be ample.

I wonder what this is all about. A company of regular army troops is around 100 soldiers. Why would such a force be required to guard the tomb of the late president? Granted McKinley was assassinated and it is plausible that there might have been concern that his grave would be desecrated for some reason, but the cynic in me wonders if the company was in place as some form of "pork spending."

The not so subtle sarcasm of the last sentence is also somewhat interesting.

The situation: My 14 year old daughter and I at Moe's last night for dinner. Me casually watching President Obama on a (muted) television screen behind her. She causaully watching PTI on ESPN on a television screen behind me.

Me [grimacing]: Grrrrr.

She: What?

Me [pointing to the tv behind her]: The president.

She: What's he talking about?

Me: Oh, he's decided to kill a lot more people.

[Long pause.]

She: My tv is pretty good.

It saddens me that we both can be so accepting.

I watched the President's speech on Afghanistan last night, and I keep seeing clips of it replayed, and one question keeps gnawing at me: where the heck is this place "Pockeestan" that the President kept referencing? Is it near Pakistan? Will our allies from Scotland and France - or are they now to be called "Scootlund" and "Frhawnse?" - know where to find it?

Would the President have referred to our southern neighbor as "Mejico" in a speech? If mentioning India, would have done his best impersonation of Apu?

Me thinks his effort to show off his world knowledge sounded a bit dumb.

The two term governor of New Mexico (1995-2002) appears to be taking the early steps in a long-shot presidential bid.

As governor, Johnson set a record for most bills vetoed, and earned a reputation as the most libertarian governor in the country. A Johnson campaign would focus on runaway government spending and taxes. Could Johnson win the GOP nomination, or even become a player in the primaries?

Pluses:
- Compelling life story (started as a handyman, eventually built New Mexico's largest construction business, which he sold in 1999; has climbed Mt. Everest, completing the hike with a broken leg)
- Never part of Washington scene; executive experience; out of politics since 2002 means no Bush taint, and no controversial votes over last decade.
- Twice won landslide victories in New Mexico, a state with a Democratic tilt. Beat the incumbent Democrat by 10 points the first time out.
- My theory - after the stress of impeachment, the 2000 election, and a pair of crusading presidencies (Bush abroad, Obama at home), people will want a common sense, libertarian approach to government - effective government, no great new initiatives, getting the fiscal house back in order.

Minuses:
- No name recognition
- Unproven as a fundraiser. Johnson self-funded his first run for office and much of his second. But he's not a Mitt Romney, capable of dropping $100 million into a presidential race.
- The big killer - during his second term, Johnson came out against the war on drugs and in favor of legalization and decriminalization.

Johnson offers libertarian voters a new, improved version of Ron Paul. He's got executive experience with proven accomplishments, not a bunch of protest votes; though an "aw shucks" type of speaker, he is better spoken than Dr. Paul; he is better focused, not as likely to drift off into obscure theory or second tier issues; the political climate will be better for an anti-war Republican.

There is already a grassroots rumbling starting to build for Johnson, coming from many of the same folks who had such enthusiasm for Paul. The question is whether Johnson can do what Congressman Paul could not - build on that enthusiastic base to appeal to a broader section of the GOP electorate. That will require not scaring the middle class on the drug issue.

A few links - all of these sites are unofficial, as Johnson has not announced his candidacy:

Johnson for America
Gary Johnson 2012
Johnson for President Facebook Group
"America's Most Dangerous Politician" - a Reason Magazine profile from 2001.

A short list of the headlines on CNN.com that appear (11:24pm central time, 11/20/09) before stories about the Senate's health care reform bill being voted on tomorrow:

1) Fans mourn end of 'Oprah' show

2) Arrests in human fat ring in Peru

3) Bishops slam Obama bill

Here's betting there is more mourning for the loss of Oprah's show than for the loss of liberty if the health "reform" passes. In what other private industry can you be arrested for refusing to engage in activities you consider immoral?

Finally the bishops come out swinging, but where were they for the House bill? Only a few have expressed their disapproval on the grounds of subsidiarity subsidiarity: "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

And why did Butterbean get arrested in Peru?

"These are my sons. They don't belong to the state."

Libertarian moments in the movies:

"Why would they fight so hard against us?"

"We meddle."

"River?"

"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run. Don't walk. We're in their homes, and in their heads, and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."

My friend and colleague Dr. J writes what is rapidly becoming one of my favorite blogs, Readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore. She recently posted two interesting notes on lazy relativism and strong relativism. Here's my comment on the latter:

And have you ever wondered if, like, what I see as "red" is what you see as "red?" And are you saying that "like, whatever" isn't a defensible position?

Seriously, thanks for the detailed explanation. The man or woman on the street--someone like me--probably thinks that all relativism is of the lazy variety.

Perhaps there's another idea for a SEGA panel: what are the biggest misconceptions non-specialists have about your field? The analogue to lazy relativism in economics is the mistaken view that "economics" means "money" or that "costs and benefits" are necessarily or exclusively financial. I think of "cost" very generally as whatever we give up when we make a choice and "benefit" very generally as whatever we gain when we make a choice. Every action is an attempt to change the world and to make it a better place (however we choose to define "better," and this is the point at which I refer students to the philosophy department) than the world we leave behind. The cost of an action is the action we didn't take.

The cost of reading this blog post and writing a comment is whatever else I could have done (nap, for example, or grade homework). The benefit was that I now have a better understanding of the difference between lazy relativism and strong relativism. If we really wanted to we could evaluate these in monetary terms. By investing my time in reading the blog post I gave up the opportunity to earn income now by going around the neighborhood offering to rake leaves (like a couple of kids on the sidewalk appear to be doing now) but I gained knowledge that might increase my income in the future. This is one way to think about action, but I think it actually limits our knowledge by throwing out non-pecuniary reasons for action.

The more one digs into Tuesday’s election results, the worse they look for Democrats. This is almost certainly a good thing - the battleground this fall was generally over taxes and spending, and GOP gains indicate voter skepticism of the Democrats efforts to nationalize health care, pass cap & trade, and try to spend us out of economic difficulties. Thus the GOP gains should slow the statist Democratic Agenda in Washington. Let's start by reviewing the high-profile gubernatorial and congressional races, and then talk about down ballot races around the country that emphasize the Republican success.

Read More »

From the Hill:

Lobbyists are quitting the business at a record pace, according to a study released Monday.

Over 1,400 lobbyists "deregistered" with Congress in the second quarter of 2009, according to a study conducted jointly by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and OMB Watch.

Typically, only a few hundred lobbyists quit each quarter.

The giant spike in resignations came just after the Obama administration instituted strict new rules on lobbyist activity.

“While we can’t draw a direct link between the president’s executive order and the increased pace of terminations during the second quarter of 2009, we can say that they came at a most controversial time,” said Lee Mason, director of Nonprofit Speech Rights for OMB Watch.

But the study's authors warn that not all of the deregistered lobbyists may actually be out of business.

"At the federal level, many people working in the lobbying industry are not registered lobbyists, instead adopting titles such as 'senior adviser' or other executive monikers, thereby avoiding federal disclosure requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act," CRP and OMB Watch said in a statement.

With federal govt spending on an upsurge, I'll bet on the latter effect--lobbyists disguising themselves as advisers--rather than a reduction in lobbying activity.

We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move ...

Source and context.

HT: Tom Woods.

Update: Steve Horwitz reminds me that he is guest-blogging for PBS's Nightly Business Report. So what does PBS stand for now? Praxeology Broadcasting Station? I'm expecting Ashton Kutcher to fling my office door open and explain that I've been punk'd.

Check out Dwight Lee's column in today's Investors Business Daily, for a double shot of public choice and wry humor.

I don't think anyone can dismiss this assertion by Sawhill and Aaron.

Anyone who thinks that health-care reform alone is going to close the massive current -- and even larger projected -- U.S. budget deficit is deluded. President Obama has pledged that health-care reform will not make matters worse. But that isn't good enough. There is no way to restore this nation to fiscal health without higher taxes -- for the middle class as well as for the rich. The only question is when. Those increases should be enacted now, phased in gradually after the recovery is well established, and tied to the increased spending that health-care reform will generate. [Emphasis added.]

My only question regards timing. Why didn't this column appear last year, when Obama's platform made the conclusion inescapable?

Maybe Italy has it right, if the conclusion of this WaPo article is correct.

Besides, with Berlusconi as your prime minister, you don't have to take yourself too seriously. You don't have to trouble yourself with geopolitics or the state of the planet, or poverty and failed states. You can stay at home, remain unserious and argue about the latest legal scandal. And maybe that, too, is part of the Italian prime minister's appeal.

I disagree with one point. I would write the first two sentences this way: "Besides, with Berlusconi as your prime minister, you don't have to ... trouble yourself with geopolitics or ...." You can take yourself and things that really matter quite seriously, while marginalizing the goings-on of the state, treating it as the absurdist theater that it often is.

Given Bastiat's provisional definition of the state, "the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else," having it generate a bit of humor is probably not a bad thing.

You may insert your latest Nobel Peace Prize joke here.

To quote the fine theologian, M*A*S*H's Father Mulcahy: Jocularity, jocularity, jocularity.

The October 13, 1909 NYT has a headline you won't see today:

SENATOR FLINT WILL RETIRE.

MUST LEAVE THE SENATE, HE SAYS, TO EARN MONEY FOR HIS FAMILY.

Turns out the good Senator from California felt that there wasn't enough money in being a Senator and that he had to go out in the real world to earn some scratch:

Senator Frank P. Flint announced yesterday that when his present term expires, on March 4, 1911, he would not be a candidate for re-election.

"If I were a rich man," said Senator Flint," I would like nothing better than to remain in the Senate all my life. But I feel that I owe it to my family to get out of politics and gain a competency while I am able.

"My associations in the Senate are very congenial, indeed. I have practically no opposition for a renomination, and the sole reason for contemplated retirement is the urgent necessity of providing for my family.

It is quaint that a U.S. Senator would suggest that there wasn't enough money in national politics to make it worth his while. Perhaps there was a time when this was true. Perhaps Mr. Flint was "clean" and didn't partake of the largess his position would seem to attract.

On the other hand, perhaps this is a thinly veiled jab at the lobbyists of the day. In essence, Flint throws down the gauntlet saying "pay up or I'm outta here and I'm taking my political capital with me."

Do you wonder, as I, whether Flint really retires from public service in 1911? Oh wait, I can look that up (see below the fold for the spoiler)....

Read More »

On October 15, Memphians will choose a new mayor in a special election. I'm deep in the same moral and intellectual crisis that faces me every election: should I vote? I decided that (once again) I will farm this out to Division of Labour readers. I'll offer a prize of some kind for the best 250-500 word essay explaining why I should or should not vote, and the winning entry will be published on DOL. Entries will be accepted via email, and I'm looking for something that addresses the opportunity cost of voting.

Update: Here's Per Bylund on voting.

... a.k.a. "The Pianists".

HT: Mario Pagliero

Ht: Instapundit

From an op-ed piece in the Sept. 22, 1909 NYT:

It is true that our new President [President Taft] during the first six months of his term had the extraordinary session of Congress on his hands, called expressly to redeem the pledges of the party - pledges made on his personal initiative and strong recommendation. It was natural, and, in a sense, unavoidable, that for this important task he should hold himself peculiarly accountable, and that he should hasten to render his account to the people as soon as practicable.

So, another president, this one a Republican, also brought an active agenda to the first few months of his administration? Haven't heard anyone bring that up lately.

The op-ed continues:

But that chapter is but one of many which he plainly intends to present to the attention, we may say to the anxious and somewhat weary attention, of his fellow-citizens. Even while the tariff job was still unfinished, and at a point where the honest and decent fulfillment of the pledges of his party and himself was trembling in the balance, Mr. Taft sprung upon the country the twin projects of a tax on corporations, avowedly intended as the first step toward minute and comprehensive Federal inquisition and of corporation business, and an income tax, requiring a Constitutional amendment.

Ambitious projects indeed. Would we characterize today's uncertainty regarding public policy as drawing "anxious and weary attention?"

We continue:

Here in the very dawning of his Administration, before he had had an opportunity to address a formal regular message to Congress, we have thrown upon the country a scheme of change more far reaching, more intimately affecting the affairs of all classes of the people than any accomplished, or even proposed during the seven crowded years of Mr. Roosevelt's incumbency.

Change the names to reflect their modern analogues and the statement might apply equally (more so?) today.

But then comes the coup de grace:

It is true that the Constitutional amendment authorizing the income tax and the tax on corporate business were, in effect, if not in intent, a diversion which saved Mr. Aldrich and "his men" from a damaging defeat. It is not exactly reassuring, however, that measures of such scope and portent can be made a mere incident in the campaign of the protracted interests for control of the taxing power of the Government in the pursuit of their selfish interests.

Amen.

The Gray Lady has an excellent interactive archive of the history of health reform in the U.S. Clicking on Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 campaign platform, we see early glimpses of the eventual breadth and depth of central government control. "[O]ur aim should be," said Roosevelt, "to use the Government as an efficient agency for the practical betterment of social and economic conditions throughout this land." Praising the social plans of Bismarck, Roosevelt blames America's woes on the Republican Party (and no, notwithstanding spastic claims to the contrary, I am not an "ethics-free GOP hack") en route to declaring, "In the National Government one department should be intrusted with all the agencies relating to the public health... This department, through its special health service, would co-operate intelligently with the various State and municipal bodies established for the same end.... [T]he aim would be merely to secure under one administrative body efficient sanitary regulation in the interest of the people as a whole."

Notice the implicit assumptions of benevolence and omniscience that support the claim of government achieving an efficient outcome. There is also, but more subtly, a tension between two conceptions of liberty: the liberty of individuals that informed the American Founding versus the liberty of people as members of a noble collective that was successfully advanced by the Progressives.

Today, the faces have changed. The tag lines are new. The delivery is honed on both all sides to tip-toe around these basic tensions. But the politics and the principles are ancient. I wonder: what have we learned?

Rasmussen Reports has a poll out on political labels, and it seems that people want politicians who are "like Reagan."

Results below the fold.

Read More »

My 14 yr old daughter sent me this txt msg on Wednesday, "had to watch the effin obama speech, soooooooo stupid. very mad. please complain," which I posted on Facebook because I thought it was pretty funny. Several friends chimed in with less than flattering things to say about the Great Leader's speech.

An old and dear, and left-of-center, friend wrote me:

Are your friends ACTUALLY advocating that their chidlren NOT listen to a speech by the leader of the free world? Seriously, this is not a statement in the form of a question.

I was just wondering with a colleague why anyone would keep kids from listening to the POTUS - even if it was only to build your case for debate.

(Though why anyone would debate - work hard, keep trying, etc. is a bit...well way...beyond me.)

My reply:

As Thomas Sowell would say it's a conflict of visions. You see him as the leader of the free world. I see him as a power-hungry man who managed to win some kind of beauty contest. I owe him no fealty for this per se. In my book I owe my plumber more respect than my president. He at least provides me with something I want on an honest basis.

I felt the same about Bush and Clinton too (Reagan not so much then but my views have changed a lot since then). Most of my fb friends would have felt the same I bet. Though I have to be honest that some of them wouldn't have minded one bit if Bush had done this. Be honest, what you you have thought if Bush wanted to do this?

Btw, I could have gotten her out of it. But didn't because I figured she should hear him out. But she was genuinely unhappy with the message: "Work hard and stay in school so you can serve the almighty State?!"

Oddly we really don't talk politics much at all. Obviously, my kid has picked this attitude up from me/us, but I really don't push it on her. She's her own person.

My daughter and I had a nice conversation (thank you, Prez Obama for that much at least) this morning. I told her about Aron Ralston who quit his big fancy corporate job to become a full-time mountain climber bum (and had an unfortunate accident if you remember his story).

In Obama's view I guess Ralston is a bad person for "dropping out" and not contributing to the economy and government as much as he should. What a waste of a great college education Obama would say. But in my world view, he's following his own dream on his own terms and not those of the state or society (whatever that is) and is worthy of respect.

Best line of the night.

[Obama] said,

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.

And if we don't pass this plan, does he intend to keep the waste and inefficiency, out of spite?

HT: Elliott

Camille Paglia in Salon (emphasis added):

An example of the provincial amateurism of current White House operations was the way the president's innocuous back-to-school pep talk got sandbagged by imbecilic support materials soliciting students to write fantasy letters to "help" the president (a coercive directive quickly withdrawn under pressure). Even worse, the entire project was stupidly scheduled to conflict with the busy opening days of class this week, when harried teachers already have their hands full. Comically, some major school districts, including New York City, were not even open yet. And this is the gang who wants to revamp national healthcare?

I describe in a pair of posts at the Politico, here and here, why I don't like Obama speaking to school kids. I wouldn't mind, actually, if he were using the kids as a backdrop to make a major policy speech - what I dislike is the fact that there is no reason for this speech, really, except that the President seems to think he needs to step in and help us all parent our kids. It's really obnoxious.

But looking at the text of his message, that's pretty obnoxious, too. Some excerpts below the fold.

Read More »

On Tuesday of next week the Supreme Court will meet in special session to rehear the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, the government argued that a documentary produced by Citizens United, Hillary: The Movie, could be banned from distribution as a partisan political communication. The Court has specifically asked the parties to argue whether or not it should overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld a ban on all corporate funded political expenditures. The Court's concern was prompted by the government's argument, at oral argument in March, that under Austin it could ban even the publication of books and films containing so much as one line of political candidate advocacy.

Supporters of the ban are in a rhetorical hole, because the reality is that, if Austin is good law and means what is says, the government is right. Yet few really believe that the First Amendment allows for book banning. And while advocates of "campaign finance reform" have long advocated limiting speech, they don't really like to be seen as quite so nakedly in favor of limiting political speech.

Hence, the latest tack of the "reform" community is to claim that corporate spending on politics should be prohibited in order to protect shareholder rights. Below the fold, we slice and dice this argument.

Read More »

HT: Justin Ross.

Here's David Henderson correcting a common mistake. Corporations aren't allowed to give money to candidates directly. Tracing money in politics is wickedly difficult, but I'm struck by the disproportionate representation of labor unions in big-money politics. At the very least, this suggests that people deriding opposition to the President's health care plan as an elaborate corporation-funded-and-directed "astroturf" movement need to check their premises--particularly since Big Pharma, insurance companies, and Walmart are in bed with the administration on this issue.

When I first saw these clips, my gut reaction was "there is no way this is true; the MSNBC video has to have been doctored to make the network look bad." From what I can tell, the MSNBC video is unadulterated. It's a tale of two clips: one is an MSNBC clip in which commentators discuss racial tension and people bringing openly-carried firearms to rallies. The discussion is motivated by video footage of someone carrying an AR-15. You can't identify him from the MSNBC video, but the other clip (and a story on MSNBC.com) reveals that he is an African-American. Needless to say, right-wing groups are seizing on the apparent shenanigans and claiming outright dishonesty on the part of the Liberal Elite Media. I think some of the anti-Obama backlash is racially motivated--see the flood of "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim" emails that went around during his campaign and the Statement of Principles from the Council of Conservative Citizens, which affirms a commitment to "Cultural, national, and racial integrity"--and I don't think the presence of one African-American man toting a gun and protesting the President's plan blows this thesis out of the water. In this light, I thought I'd do a bit of political prognostificationizing. I see two possibilities:

1. MSNBC used judiciously-edited footage of an African-American man carrying an AR-15 at a health care rally to scare viewers about well-armed white racists. If this is true, then I predict that it will strengthen the right's conviction that there is a liberal media bias. Right-wing groups will have an easier time raising funds because they will have clear evidence that the Elite Liberal Media is distorting the news to further a political agenda. Further, the gentleman carrying the AR-15 will become the Right's next Joe the Plumber.

2. Newsbusters.org or a similar conservative group created a judiciously-edited clip that will backfire. Current developments and an MSNBC statement suggest that this isn't the case, but if it is true, then I predict that it will strengthen the left's conviction that the protesters are dishonest corporate flunkies. Left-wing groups will have an easier time raising funds because they will have clear evidence that the Corporate Conservative Media is lying about them to further a political agenda. Still, the gentleman carrying the AR-15 will become the Right's next Joe the Plumber.

Comments are open. HT: Natalie Danielshen, Mason Drake.

At Marketplace.org, Scott Jagow lays out some of the main issues, and he does so nicely until the takeaway:

[Cash 4 clunkers] does seem to be decent stimulus, but car sales will collapse, at least temporarily, no matter when this program ends. C4c is a drug. It even sounds like one. At some point, the car makers need to stop relying on incentives. The car-buying public is addicted to them. Not to mention, these particular incentives are being paid for by the taxpayers.

In the comments, I added:

Market prices are incentives. Government subsidies are distortions. To get correct, car makers and buyers need to stop relying on subsidies, not incentives.

Sorry for being all word police. But it’s a really, really important word. Incentives matter. The rest is commentary.

Today's cartoon from the Rome News-Tribune's Mike Lester:

UPDATE: This was in Chicago not the U.K. So I guess we need a 6th Amendment.

I have previously noted Britian's lack of a 4th Amendment but they also apparently lack a 6th Amendment.

Clifton Williams, 33, of Richton Park, is facing six months in jail for making what court documents call a yawn-like sound in Will County Judge Daniel Rozak's court last month. The yawn happened as Williams' cousin, Jason Mayfield, was being sentenced for a drug charge on July 23.Rozak found Williams in contempt of court and sentenced him to six months in jail...Six months is the maximum sentence judges can give for criminal contempt without a jury trial.

Emphasis added.

HT: Todd

"The young grass-roots army that swept Obama into office has yet to mobilize
now that the fight is about something complicated rather than a charismatic
hope-munger. No, they can’t?" [Maureen Dowd, NYT op-ed]

Prompted by Frank's wondering, I offer this prediction: If AARP does endorse a policy, it will be one that redounds to the advantage of the United Health Group.

In a dog and pony show yesterday, President Obama incorrectly claimed that the AARP was "onboard" with his health care reforms. Hmmm ... a fishy claim ... I wonder if anyone has alerted flag@whitehouse.gov.

The Heritage Foundation paper "Congressional Ethics and the Administrative State" contains the following conclusion: "The system of government that has transformed congressmen from legislators to ombudsmen has spawned the corrupt favoritism that once defined New York's Tammany Hall, but now defines Washington and its emerging scandals. The framers of the Constitution understood the inevitable corruption of the administrative state, and had sought to avoid it with their constitutional prescriptions of federalism and separated powers."

The occasion for this paper was the S & L corruption (McCain, Keating, et al.), but the the analysis applies broadly. One of my favorite applications is to ethanol. There, EPA experts argued in Congress against allowing ethanol onto the list of oxygenating fuels, which Congress was about to mandate. Congress punted by refusing to specify a list. Rather, the EPA was to construct the list. After a few contacts from the likes of Bob Dole, the EPA saw the light and added ethanol to the list. Before long, it became the only oxygenating additive on the list.

A recent column by John Stossel brought this ancient history to mind. He says, "They've given us a system that now can be saved only if bureaucrats limit coverage by second-guessing retirees' decisions. Government will decide which Medicare services have value and which do not. Retirees may have a different opinion."

Dollars to donuts that the legislation, for all of its bulk, contains little specificity. Rather, the bureaucracy that will be created will surpass the EPA as a target of lobbying efforts by members of Congress, as the details are worked out.

I strive hard to avoid what I call Youtube moments - especially when a student asks a loaded question the answer to which might be very easily taken out of context. I am not sure if this compilation is necessarily taken out of context but it would definitely seem to be a "Youtube moment":

via Drudge

In his town hall dog and pony show (transcript) held in Raleigh earlier this week, President Obama decried the use of "scare tactics" by people opposed to his health care socialism reform. Well, it's not just opponents who are rolling out scare tactics. Check out this commercial that recently came through my tele--pay particular attention about 10 seconds in to the kid on the swing.

This is from the front page at Drudge (I claim fair use):

If the stories are true (evidently they are HT: Phil Miller's facebook page), then this should put all debate over the merits of the stimulus package to bed. If the Republicans or some third party cannot come up with enough arguments to dethrone the current ruling class (not that the Republicans were/are great but would likely not pursue such policies as depicted above - though I admit that's not guaranteed) then we should all plan our exit strategy.

From my travels, the northern coast of Morocco is beautiful (I'll leave it up to the game theorists to think about whether that is an honest claim or not).

Cross posted at Heavy Lifting

From Pravda, Czar? You Mean Commissar:

There is a new silliness in the Western Anglo Media, comparing the US Emperor's Czar program to the number of Tsars that Holy Russia had. It is a good thing that the US/UK public is ignorant not only of ancient history but also of recent history, otherwise they might start to worry.

So let us go back and establish some historic references. Czar or rather Tsar, is a degradation of the Latin term Ceasar, similar to Germany's Kaiser. [...]

In order to control the vast nation and its revolutionary reshaping during a chaotic time, Lenin and later Stalin, created a system of Commissars. These were not limited to military and instilling party loyalty, but were used throughout Soviet society. A commissar and his staff had absolute authority, answering only to the dictator and by-passing the various local councils and people's senates. Two things to note here:

1. their spheres were ambiguous and often over lapped responsibilities of other commissars. This in turn caused a large volume of infighting. Sure this is very wasteful of resources and confusing, but what it does do, is allow the dictator to keep ultimate power by keeping his most powerful minions at each others throats with the dictator as the ultimate arbitrator of power.

2. The commissars were mostly young, had little achievement outside the power structure, self assured, true believers. They knew very well that outside their positions, created and granted by the dictator, they had little hope of career success. They were given responsibility much higher then their experience levels, further beholding them to their owner. It made them extremely jealous of their power, which in turn made them vengeful against anyone who stood in their way, especially other power hungry commissars.

Fast forward to modern transitional America. The American Emperor has taken the six commissars of his leftist predecessor and created at least 28 more. Yes, commissars do multiply quickly at first and many more are in the works, until the American parliament (congress) and the oblasts (states) assemblies (state senates) are powerless show pieces and all power centers (commissars) flow only to the dictator.

James Waylett, the boy who plays Crabbe in the Harry Potter movies, just got busted for possessing and growing a little mj.

On Thursday, he pleaded guilty to producing cannabis at a court hearing where it emerged that the pair were detained after Waylett took a photo of police while driving past a group of officers.

I know they don't have a 4th Amendment in England, but holy cripes? All he did was take a photo of the police? I guess in England only the police are allowed to take photos now? Sheesh.

Mark Steyn on princes and such:

As the British newspaper The Independent reported;

“Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned… And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the ‘age of convenience’ was over.” [...]

In the old days, we didn’t have these kinds of problems.

But then Mr and Mrs Peasant start remodeling the hovel, adding a rec room and indoor plumbing, replacing the emaciated old nag with a Honda Civic and driving to the mall in it, and next thing you know [...] they begin taking vacations in Florida.
[...]
[A]t this week’s G8 summit, America’s allies would commit only to the fuzziest and most meaningless of environmental goals. Europe has been hit far harder by the economic downturn. When your unemployment rate is 17 per cent (as in Spain), “unsustainable growth” is no longer your most pressing problem.

The environmental cult is itself a product of what the Prince calls the “Age of Convenience”: it’s what you worry about it when you don’t have to worry about jobs or falling house prices or collapsed retirement accounts.

The AP headline: Baaad news? Global warming now shrinking sheep

The content: local warming is reducing mortality among some wild sheep in Scotland. Wonder if the runts that now survive would count this as baaad news? Did I insert enough a's?

From Powerline:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons.

The Powerline blog entry provides links to the CEI correspondence and supporting email messages, and to the suppressed study.

I caught this on NPR's "Morning Edition:"

When last month's town council race ended in a two-way tie, Mayor Vincent Francia thought it should be settled cowboy-style: "The two candidates would assemble downtown Cave Creek at High Noon and go at it with paintballs."

Instead they turned to Arizona law, which says tied local elections may be determined by chance: rolling dice, flipping a coin or cutting cards.

Cave Creek Magistrate George Preston, dressed in his black robes, shuffled the deck of cards Monday night that would finally decide the race. About 60 people crowded council chambers, including a few lawyers who had hashed out two pages of rules for the drawing.

The candidate drawing the highest card would be declared the winner.

Which got me to (barely) thinking: if the median voter theory is true, why not just save everyone the expense and headaches of campaigning and decide elections this way? Instead of three hourlong televised debates, you could, during a commercial break, show 30 seconds of McCain and Obama rolling dice to decide the winner. It certainly seems more efficient, since the FEC seems to indicate that there were almost $1.4 billion in total contributions to candidates in the 2008 Presidential campaign. How much does a deck of cards cost?

It also reminded me of the rhetoric of elections. How often do you hear of Presidents winning "landslide" elections? The Stat Abstract shows that the biggest percentage a recent candidate has garnered was Johnson's 1964 61.1%. If you had a student with a 61.1% average, would you consider him to have a "landslide" level of knowledge?

Frank's post reminds me of the situation in Saudi Arabia in 1985. Saudi had supported the production of wheat to the extent that they were self-sufficient, at least for a while.

The rationale was to diversify so that Saudis wouldn't depend so much on oil revenue and could become trained in other endeavors. The reality was that Europeans set up and ran large wheat farms and used foreign labor. Few, if any, Saudis developed any farming skills.

To make the scheme feasible, the government sold water to the farmers at a fraction of the cost of desalination, and it set a price at about five times the world price (if my memory serves). The Economist ran an article saying that the price was high enough to make it worthwhile for smugglers to bring food-aid wheat from Ethiopia via Yemen to sell to the Saudi government.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing the scheme went belly-up when the price of oil plummeted post-1985.

But these things never go away. Witness the "end" of the farm subsidies negotiated between Newt's Republicans and President Clinton.

The first paragraph of a Barrons article on GM's chairman:

DON'T BE HARD ON GM'S NEW CHAIRMAN EDWARD WHITACRE for confessing during an interview last week that he knows nothing about cars. He simply suffered a Joe Biden moment. Texans often tumble over their tongues when taking a stab at humility. In fact, few car companies, let alone their CEOs, know how to build cars, which is why so many of them are conking out. The Obama administration, in my view, picked Whitacre to run General Motors (ticker: GM) because he has a more important talent: He knows how to play Chicago-style politics.

I just sent this letter to the New York Times:

Your June 12 story about political influence on Federal Reserve lending decisions was distressing, but predictable. When the government commits to the principle that some industries and firms are "too big to fail," identifying those firms that are "too big to fail" necessarily becomes a political decision. Adam Smith addressed this over two centuries ago:

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

HT: Alex Tabarrok.

This letter to the Economist offers a useful suggestion:

There used to be, in the world of restructurings in the London market, a practice operated in a firm but gentlemanly manner by the Bank of England called the London Approach. It sounds as if the process under way for Chrysler, and widely anticipated for General Motors, could probably be dubbed the Chicago Approach.

So Kenny Boy wasn't just W's buddy. From the first of a series of articles in the Financial Post (Canada):

The climate-change industry ... has emerged as the world’s largest industry. ... Some of the climate-change profiteers are relatively unknown corporations; others are household names with only their behind-the-scenes role in the climate-change industry unknown. ... This series begins with Enron, a pioneer in the climate-change industry.

Almost two decades before President Barack Obama made “cap-and-trade” for carbon dioxide emissions a household term, an obscure company called Enron — a natural-gas pipeline company that had become a big-time trader in energy commodities — had figured out how to make millions in a cap-and-trade program for sulphur dioxide emissions, thanks to changes in the U.S. government’s Clean Air Act. To the delight of shareholders, Enron’s stock price rose rapidly as it became the major trader in the U.S. government’s $20-billion a year emissions commodity market.

Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, keen to engineer an encore, saw his opportunity when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were inaugurated as president and vice-president in 1993. To capitalize on Al Gore’s interest in global warming, Enron immediately embarked on a massive lobbying effort to develop a trading system for carbon dioxide.... To magnify the leverage of their political lobbying, Enron also worked the environmental groups.

The intense lobbying paid off. Lay became a member of president Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development, as well as his friend and advisor. In the summer of 1997, prior to global warming meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Clinton sought Lay’s advice in White House discussions. The fruits of Enron’s efforts came soon after, with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol.

[From an internal memo, posted from Kyoto]: “Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch." [Furthermore]: “I now predict ratification within three years. I predict business opportunities within 18 months. I predict this agreement will have very significant influences on the energy sector within OECD and transitional economies and will accelerate renewable markets in developing countries. This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!”

The May 22, 1909 NYT reports on French military planning at the time:

PARIS - The Superior Council of the Navy has decided upon a programme which includes bringing the number of French battleships up to thirty-eight, a total that would insure France fourth place among the naval powers of the world. It is proposed to lay down in 1910 two 21,000 ton vessels of an enlarged Danton type.

The armament has not yet been decided upon, but the Council is in favor of twelve 12-inch guns in six turrets, those aft to be superposed. The naval artillery experts, however, have brought forward arguments in favor of sixteen 10.8-inch guns in eight turrets.

All of which will mean squat to the men in Verdun some seven years later.

When govco discovers that the masses aren't remitting as expected it turns to long-forgotten means with which to extract the resources it so desperately needs. An example comes from today's Sporting News Today:

Some Bears season ticket holders were surprised to receive a notice saying they owe a city-issued amusement tax on seat licenses purchased up to seven years ago, according to the Chicago Tribune. A Bears spokesman, who says the team was unaware of the tax or the certified letters that were mailed out, says the franchise is looking into the issue.

From today's Tribune:

The city always planned to levy amusement taxes on Chicago Bears season ticket licenses, a city Department of Revenue spokesman said Thursday.

Ed Walsh also said a 7 percent amusement tax was paid by the Bears on the initial sales of the permanent seat licenses between late 2002 and early 2003. The amusement tax was raised to 9 percent this year.

"The amusement tax is applicable when a license is sold," Walsh said. "The tax burden is on the purchaser. This includes initial sales and re-sales, as any amount paid for the right to witness a game is subject to the tax."

Who's the guy behind the tree?

In today's inbox from Fine Wine & Beer by Gus here in Auburn:

Just before 3:00pm today, the Gourmet Beer Bill was brought up by the chair and we passed the Senate by a vote of 19-9. The House concurred with the amended Senate version just before 5:00pm. The amendment attempts to restrict beer with an ABV over 6% from being sold in convenience stores.

Celebrations are certainly in order, but we're not done yet.

At this point, we need the governor to sign the bill. Governor Bob Riley has two options:

He signs the bill and it becomes law.
He doesn't sign the bill and it doesn't become law.
There's no real veto at this point, thanks to the Constitutional "pocket veto" power of the governor this late in the session. The fate of our bill is solely in Governor Riley's hands.

Because of this, we're asking everyone to call, email, and/or fax the Governor's office asking him to sign HB373, the Gourmet Beer Bill.

I just talked to our political grassroots point-man, Dan Roberts. I think he put it best: "If that nice lady that answers the phone in Riley's office doesn't get sick of us and disconnect the phone, we're not doing enough."

One of the Governor's former staffers is a supporter, and offered the following advice:

The volume of letters and phone calls that he receives on a particular issue is reported to him every morning, and he takes them seriously. ... A couple quick points: They have a pretty sophisticated constituent database, so multiple calls/mail from the same person won't accomplish much. They report to him the number of persons, not the number of communications. Any arguments that sounds like something the gambling folks would say should be avoided ("People go over state lines to do it anyway..."). You don't want to equate yourself with those guys in his mind. Arguments about personal liberty and economic development will probably have more sway. Pointing out the surrounding states that allow it will also be helpful. The fact that GA, NC, SC, and WV have passed these bills in the past couple years is persuasive.

To contact Governor Riley's office:
Phone: (334) 242-7100
Fax: (334) 353-0004

The May 11, 1909 prints a letter to the editor that attempts to distinguish among the various Socialist movements:

Materialistic Socialists, alienated from religion by such religious leaders and teachers as Mr. Haldeman, set as their goal the material well-being of the masses. This is precisely why Christian Socialists so designate themselves, and sedulously seek to be so designated. it is not because their economics are different - the difference is not in their method, but in their motive. What is the Materialistic Socialist's goal is the Christian Socialist's first milestone, for he seeks the material advancement - the industrial enfranchisement - of the working classes chiefly as the starting point for them of a life race worth running - not, as now, a mad scramble for the bread that perisheth.

In this material advancement - that is, in the industrial justice which Socialism really means, however variously it may be defined - the Christian Socialist sees the foundation on which every man (not simply the few beneficiaries of past inequality or the present holders of favored and secluded positions) may, if he choose, live the life of Christ.

Without full Socialism, the past one hundred years has led to a dramatic increase in well-being and standards of living in the developed world (and some progress might have been made in the developing and undeveloped world as well). Notwithstanding the Romanticizing of the past, today's world includes so many diversions and opportunities for leisure that it is not clear whether the majority of us would want to actually be "industrially enfranchised."

What I found interesting upon reading the letter is that writer feels the need to distinguish one brand of (low?) Socialism which seeks to use coercion and theft to provide bread alone and another brand of (higher) Socialism which seeks to use coercion and theft to provide bread and circuses. According to the letter-writer, the latter form is to be lauded more because, ostensibly, the ability to address "industrial justice" is simply a matter of organization not a matter of understanding how wealth is generated by individuals not by "the masses."

If the letter was written only to Socialists, perhaps the letter writer can get away with the assumption that Socialism will work in its broad goals; after all, preaching to the choir does not require addressing first premises. However, a letter directed toward a general (i.e., non-Socialist) audience would seem to require stronger evidence in support of the coercion and theft required to introduce and maintain any form of Socialism.

The New York Times reports that at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday night, comedian Wanda Sykes said about one of the President's prominent critics: "I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?”

Really? Wanda, I wish you hadn't said that. Try visiting a dialysis clinic and you'll see why it isn't funny. I'm hard to offend, but that offends me. I'm going to have a hard time finding you funny from here on. Kidney failure is something you shouldn't wish on anyone, even for laughs.

From an LA Times article:

The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

The May 6, 1909 NYT has an interesting letter to the editor:

The only relief in sight from existing conditions [concerning the consumption of high-alcohol drinks such as "whisky, cocktails, and various other mixed drinks"], lies, in my opinion, in the imposition of a virtually prohibitive Governmental tax on all highly alcoholic liquors, whose increased cost would have a tendency to lessen their use by the masses. This would have the effect of an increased consumption of milder beverages like beer and wine and would mitigate the evil. To abolish it is impossible.

You can prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks by law, but you cannot prevent their use, even if you make their use a crime.

On the one hand the author wishes to impose prohibitive taxation to alter behavior - looking for a substitution effect - but ignores the possible "scale" effect that individuals might drink more beer or wine in order to obtain the same level of "bliss" that the harder liquors provide.

The author then argues that prohibitions will not work - as the country will so ably prove over the next twenty odd years in the case of alcohol and is still proving today in the context of illicit drugs.

However, what is the difference between prohibitive taxation and prohibition? Granted, when facing two bad choices of taxation versus prohibition, taxation might be marginally more efficient (from society's point of view) as evading a tax is more likely to be penalized with a monetary fine whereas violating a prohibition is more likely to lead to incarceration and the associated social costs of that incarceration.

Both policies increase the expected and actual costs of consumption from the point of view of the consumer, and as such will price at least some individuals out of the market for the good - perhaps driving individuals to substitute goods. However, there is an additional cost to such policies because in both cases sime consumers, in their quest to obtain an arbitrarily expensive or banned product, face increased risk of consuming an adulterated product, the so-called "bathtub gin" problem, which might prove more dangerous than the original "sin."

When open markets are closed, whether through taxation or prohibition, many of the self-reienforcing mechanisms that consumers take for granted are likewise lost. Under-appreciated elements of the open market such as contestability (that is, the threat of entry and competition), reputation, self-imposed quality and innovation, and, ultimately, the threat of legal action for maltreatment of consumers, are all lost when either prohibitive taxation or prohibition is employed.

The letter writer makes a plea against prohibition, something that might be gaining more traction in today's world, but makes the mistake of assuming that behavior of the masses can be materially and permanently manipulated through arbitrary taxation. Unfortunately, this philosophy is alive and well in our modern world.

From the May 6, 1909 NYT:

The professed aim of the Socialists, or the one as to which most of them are, so far as we can make out, most nearly agreed, is the abolition of certain kinds of private ownership and of competition. The reason for the adoption of this aim that most of them advance is that private property, in the hands of its actual owners, is made the source of infinite wrong to the people generally; that it stimulates greed and injustice and cruelty and dishonesty; that it makes men heedless of the rights of others, and of the law which is intended to protect those rights; and that it gives rise to a system of organized plunder, under the form of law sometimes, often in violation of the law, by which the rich grow richer and the poor become poorer. They - the Socialists - insist that under the demoralizing and perverting influence of absolute ownership, the wealthy constantly evade their obligations to their fellows, and especially that they resort to every means acute and highly paid brains can devise to shift their share of the burdens of the cost of Government to the shoulders of the helpless poor. Competition the Socialists regard as a system that aids in the attainment of these ends, arming the rich, disarming the poor, reinforcing the strong, tending to make the weak helpless.

It seems that the current administration takes a similar view to competition. Whether in the area of consumer credit, student loans, home mortgages, health care, foreign profits, K-12 education, radio and print media, tax breaks for the "rich," "corporate greed," financial industry "stress tests," or any number of other issues, the continuing mantra that the private sector is fundamentally flawed and that it can only be efficiently replaced by the benevolent bureaucracy of the Federal and State governments seems to fit nicely with the characterization offered by the NYT editorial.

Free-market philosophy seems to be against the ropes at the moment; perhaps it will be for the next few years. However, when the ponzi scheme is revealed, whether through bureaucratic rationing or through massive overt and covert taxation, will the political will exist to roll back the regulations and policies that the current generation of politicians are using to purchase their continued employment?

I seem remember President Clinton referring to his early years in Hot Springs, Arkansas, as having some impact on his life. To be honest, I didn't pay that much attention.

But if true, then an event that merited four lines in the May 5, 1909 NYT might have yielded such unintended consequences:

LITTLE ROCK - The Senate, by a vote of 27 to 12, today passed the Wadley bill, permitting racing at Hot Springs. The bill will be reported to the House tomorrow.

Larry Summers's nap at a White House meeting yesterday has been circulated around ye olde internet. Here's hoping he's started a trend of nice long siestas among Washington officials at both ends of Penn. Ave. It's hard to imagine we'd be much worse off. The Congressional Effect Fund seems to bear out my thinking.

While I'm being snarky about politics ...

... here's a brickbat for Dick Morris. The title of his recent column is "Obama’s leap to socialism." Excuse me--that's no leap--it's Obama's true character as was abundantly clear during last year's campaign.

... and here's a swipe at Obama's Cuba policy. From a news report: "Obama administration lifted restrictions Monday on Cuban-Americans who want to travel and send money to their island homeland." Fantastic, but what if I--not a Cuban American--want to travel to Cuba? And isn't it unconstitutional to enact policies based on nationality and the like? Surely one couldn't pass a law saying that Cuban American must pay higher income tax rates just for being Cuban American. In fact, isn't there a cottage industry of lawyers who bring suit over policies that don't explicitly single out some group or another but supposedly have "disparate impact"? Maybe I should find one and file suit against Obama's policy on grounds that it has disparate impact on non-Cuban Americans. (Snark aside, I suspect the weasel wording that avoids the legal problems is a reference to relatives living in Cuba not to being Cuban American per se.)

The April 23, 1909 NYT published the following letter:

A man with a moderate fixed salary finds it impossible now to support his family decently with the high price of food, clothing, and rent. Those in this class, and it comprises the bulk of the country's population, read of the wild extravagance of Congress, but don't seem to realize that they are taxed for it; that if it was not for this wicked extravagance the cost of their living would be greatly reduced; that there would be no deficit in the Treasury, and that food, beef, mutton, poultry, butter, eggs, etc. would be brought into the country free of duty.

Now, on top of all of this, comes the prospect of dearer bread.

No new problems, only our problems.

An editorial from the April 23, 1909 NYT:

State Senator Timothy Sullivan is not wholly unreasonable in his contention that $1,500 per year is poor pay for Assemblymen and Senators, though he oversteps the bounds of reason when he declares that amount of wages would hardly pay a street cleaner...Some of the competent and earnest men in both houses are worth more. But on the whole the State pays a pretty high price for its annual lawmaking, considering the result. The Legislature as a body is worth no more than it is paid. Doubtless it is not worth as much as it gets. Whether or not better service could be obtained for larger salaries, under present political conditions, is an open question.

Amen.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Man V. Earth: The Wreckoning
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

I gotta get me one of those portable air conditioners on a hand truck set ups!

The April 21, 2009 NYT reports on tax policy as seen through the eyes of President Taft:

President Taft agrees with Senator Aldrich that no new form of taxation will be necessary or advisable in case the Tariff Bill, as finally enacted, will raise sufficient revenue to meet the expenses of the Government. In case additional revenue is necessary, the President is in favor of trying first an inheritance tax, and next an excise tax on corporations.

How refreshing that the President didn't want to tax for taxation's sake.

An income tax is the kind of additional revenue measure least of all favored by Mr. Taft. In fact, he is of the opinion that such an income tax is undesirable, because, in the first place, it would fly directly in the face of the Supreme Court, and, in the next place, it would be a direct incentive to perjury. Certain men would be sure to evade it by perjury, while others paid it honestly, and it would be an unequal tax.

The President does not mention, or at least it wasn't reported, the incentive to avoid, rather than the more distasteful (from the government's point of view) evade, an income tax. One wonders if Taft is taking a merely pragmatic view that the perjury would reduce the ability to collect the tax or if he is making a moral pronouncement.

In that event [that there is insufficient revenue raised by the Tariff bill] his effort would be to secure the adoption of the inheritance tax. He believes that an inheritance tax is the most certain of collection and the easiest of all forms of additional taxation suggested.

It is true that dead men tell no lies, thus the perjury concern is probably off the table in the case of an inheritance tax. However, there is still an incentive to avoid the inheritance tax or at least the incentive to reduce the impact of the tax on one's estate. Again, no mention of avoidance.

If the Federal inheritance tax is not to be tried, then the President is in favor of an excise tax on the profits of corporations. He is convinced that it would entirely constitutional, and that no great difficulty would be experienced in its collection.

As if corporations are black boxes rather than being managed by the same households about which the the President expresses perjury concerns? Excise taxes on corporate profits are simply profits on the individuals who hold the residual claims on the firm. Supposedly the corporate profits tax is a path of less resistance but a corporate profit tax is still distortionary and creates incentives to avoid the tax.

Taft then hits a theme that sounds rather similar to today:

Mr. Taft agrees with Senator Aldrich in the effort to reduce expenses and has told his callers that he would back the Senator to the limit in everything aimed at that end. He thinks that there could be great savings in the War and Navy Departments. He has been informed by navy officers that consolidation of the bureau work in the navy yards will save at least $5,000,000 a year. The President means to go at this question of reducing expenditures with the greatest possible vigor.

Perhaps there was a culture of "small g" government in the early 1900s which would give Taft's words credibility. On the other hand, generally speaking vigorously trying to reduce the expenditures of the government in one area seems to be offset by vigorous increasing expenditures in other areas.

Alas, no new problems, only our problems.

Will Wilkinson makes a forceful argument for de-stigmatizing casual marijuana use, and tops it off with "My name is Will Wilkinson. I smoke marijuana, and I like it."

Borders are nothing except lines that politicians draw on maps.

... the one in Rome didn't feature a congressman who scored a paltry 52% on the Club for Growth's RePork Card. The congressman isn't the solution--he's part of the problem (though, to be fair, he's not alone and is hardly the most egregious).

'Streetlight user fees' among the new charges as governments get creative

HT: Drudge

The headline provided by Real Clear Politics says it all: "Poor, Black School Kids Don't Pay Union Dues." The rest of this article is details, but they're telling details.

Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the Financial Services Committee, told a hometown crowd in Alabama today he believes there are several socialists in the House.

Actually, he says there are exactly 17 socialists in the House of Representatives.

Source. A more accurate count would be something around 400, perhaps including Rep. Bachus.

From the April 7, 1909 NYT:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - The State Senate to-day passed a bill placing a heavy penalty on persons drinking intoxicants on trains in the State or on station platforms. This will probably affect buffet cars, although intended only to stop rowdyism.

How's this for an Orwellian ministry acronym?

In Britain, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) reviews new medical treatments to determine whether or not a treatment's effectiveness justifies its price tag. Based on this assessment, NICE recommends whether new treatments should be covered under the country's public health care system, the National Health Service. Most of the time the NHS makes those recommendations hard-and-fast policy. As a result, NHS physicians are often prohibited from prescribing newer, more expensive treatments because NICE has determined they're not worth the cost.

Headline News just reported about a letter sent to President Obama by a couple of young girls asking why it is taking Congress so long to help people like their father, who is looking for work. The dark cloud: after piles of government make-work programs, the state might get numerous devotees and fans for life. The silver lining: maybe massive state failures will cause crises of faith among young statists.

A commenter at ryanavent.com says:

Libertarianism has much to offer our political discourse, but every belief system has its dogma, its blind spots. Libertarianism classically has two:

1. Government is the only agent of oppression.
2. Government can do nothing right.

Hmmmm....well this libertarian believes the following:

1. Only people can be agents of oppression. All people in government are agents of oppression; people engaged in market exchanges are never agents of oppression; people not in government or in markets are sometimes agents of oppression (theives) and sometimes not (friends).

2. People in government can do the right thing or the wrong thing, but either way, only by violating my freedom.

Read this headline carefully:

"Alabama House Panel votes against two bills to limit politics in judicial elections"

This letter to Edward Liddy addresses at least three questions:
1. Why do we need to give the AIG executives bonuses? After all, do they really have any alternatives?
2. Didn't they just lose a bunch of money, and now they want to be compensated for incompetence?
3. What are the identities of two of the thugs who are leading this witch hunt?

That's the title of today's superb column by George Will. Here are three paragraphs but read the whole thing:

TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories."

Another embarrassing auditor of American misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America's high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also decorously but clearly expressed sensible fears that his country's $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.

From Mexico, America is receiving needed instruction about fundamental rights and the rule of law. A leading Democrat trying to abolish the right of workers to secret ballots in unionization elections is California's Rep. George Miller who, with 15 other Democrats, in 2001 admonished Mexico: "The secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Last year, Mexico's highest court unanimously affirmed for Mexicans the right that Democrats want to strip from Americans.

I wondered why ABC News would spend 2 1/2 minutes of their Sunday night broadcast interviewing the granddaughter of Bank of America's founder, who trashed current management. No suggestion was made that she has any expertise. Then this article ("Cuomo wins ruling to name Merrill bonus recipients") made it clear. Andrew Cuomo is, of course, the brother of Chris Cuomo of ABC News.

Michael Goodwin on the recent witch hunt:

Everybody makes mistakes, and I made a beaut the other day. I was wrong to call members of Congress blow-hards and buffoons and declare them worse than useless.

I was too kind.

I should have said our representatives are gangsters in pinstripes and pearls. They are petty tyrants and the more power they grab, the more at risk we are. Homeland Security should flash Code Red any time this Congress is in session.
[...]

The House vote to use the tax code to retroactively punish bonus babies was an act of sheer madness. What started as phony outrage at AIG has crossed the line into insane policy. It is stunning that the vote was lopsided and bipartisan.

[...]
That Congress is a gang of cheap connivers is not news. Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, Charles Grassley, Barney Frank - they have been national embarrassments for years.

But now they are dangerous, emboldened by public fear and anger. They know nothing, but have power and smell opportunity for more.

Missing in action is the Barack Obama who vowed to unite the country around common values. Lately he has been the very opposite of the man he promised. Instead of hope, many have a growing fear of the arrogant government he leads.

Obama is smart, quick and charming, and, as he showed on "The Tonight Show," owner of a thousand-watt smile he can deploy at will. He silkily manages to make the ridiculous sound reasonable.

Charles Murray is back on ground that he covered in his second (and, of the ones I've read, best) book, In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government. Here's the central paragraph, plus one sentence:

For some years a metaphor has been stuck in my mind: The 20th century was the adolescence of Homo sapiens. Nineteenth-century science, from Darwin to Freud, offered a series of body blows to ways of thinking about human life that had prevailed since the dawn of civilization. Humans, just like adolescents, were deprived of some of the comforting simplicities of childhood and exposed to more complex knowledge about the world. And 20th-century intellectuals reacted precisely the way adolescents react when they think they have discovered that Mom and Dad are hopelessly out of date. It was as if they thought that if Darwin was right about evolution, then Aquinas was no longer worth reading; that if Freud was right about the unconscious mind, then the Nicomachean Ethics had nothing to teach us.

The nice thing about adolescence is that it is temporary, and when it passes, people discover that their parents were smarter than they thought.

Let's hope that the last sentence is correct.

I don't think Krauthammer hammers enough on the rank indecency of the posturing over the AIG bonuses, but he gets in some zingers. Two follow:

It is time for the president to state the obvious: This recession is not caused by excessive executive compensation in government-controlled companies. The economy has been sinking because of a lack of credit, stemming from a general lack of confidence, stemming from the lack of a plan to detoxify the major lending institutions, mainly the banks, which, to paraphrase Willie Sutton, is where the money used to be.

Free trade is the one area where the world indisputably turns to Washington for leadership. What does it see? Grandstanding, parochialism, petty payoffs to truckers and a rush to mindless populism. Over what? Over 97 Mexican trucks -- and bonus money that comes to what the Yankees are paying for CC Sabathia's left arm.

February:

Talented political performer that he is, Obama primed the audience by promising that Caterpillar would give some workers their jobs back if Congress passed the rescue plan.

"The chairman and CEO of Caterpillar said that if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan passes, his company would be able to rehire some of those employees," Obama said in a speech in Virginia yesterday.

March:

Caterpillar Inc. on Tuesday announced plans to lay off more than 2,400 employees at five plants in Illinois, Indiana and Georgia as the heavy equipment maker continues to cut costs amid the global economic downturn.

Among the affected workers are 1,726 people at plants in Illinois. They include 911 workers at a plant in East Peoria that makes track-type tractors and pipelayers and 815 at a plant in Aurora, where the company produces hydraulic excavators and wheel loaders. Caterpillar notified the employees Tuesday of the layoffs which are expected to last at least six months starting in June.

Wonder if these jobs are some of the ones that the stimulus plan was supposed to save.

The March 18, 1909 NYT reports on the development of Maxim's silencer for firearms:

Who shall be authorized to carry and use firearms equipped with Mr. Hudson Maxim's "silencer"? No private person, surely. A true sportsman would not use it, and the "pot hunter" must be forbidden to hunt silently. The burglar, the highway robber, and the Black Hand assassin are the only other persons to whom it could be of advantage...

We therefore see a reason for the passage of Assemblyman Joseph's bill making it a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years, to make or sell the instrument for duly authorized military or civic organizations, or to have or to carry it concealed upon the person.

When the silencer is outlawed, only outlaws will have silencers?

A pot hunter is defined as "one who kills anything and everything that will help to fill has bag; also, a hunter who shoots game for the table or for the market."

I wonder if the editorial suggests that the pot hunter should forbidden to hunt silently because to do so would pose a negative externality on others. When a gun is fired by the pot hunter did the report serve as a warning to others in the area that someone was blasting away? The only other reason I can see is to provide a warning to the other (non human) animals in the area.

More seriously, I always find it interesting that our problems are not new - gun control issues have evidently been with us for quite some time.

After my recent post showing North Dakota's "deficit hawk" Sen. Kent Conrad holding up a copy of the Obama budget with a big grin on his face, I was pleased to see Kim Strassel's column in today's WSJ. It's good to see a big media platform like the WSJ digging into Sen. Conrad's fiscal conservative phoney baloney; there's even a picture of the senator grinning holding up the Obama budget.

From CQ Global Researcher (Feb. 2009):

In a recent Gallup Poll [conducted in certain countries outside the US] ... more than 85 percent of [adherents to a certain religion] surveyed said they believe democracy is the best form of government. Thus, they are not interested in imposing their views on others but wish to live according to the teachings of their religion while respecting people of other religions or opinions.

How does belief in democratic selecting the government imply disinterest in imposing one's views on others? If members of a single religious group are in the majority, can't they use majority rule to elect legislators who will impose their views and their restrictions on others?

They can. This been famously emphasized by Fareed Zakaria in his warnings about the dangers of illiberal democracy.

The 1909 inauguration of William Howard Taft was not a pleasant experience, either for Democrats or for the bystanders. As reported in the March 6, 1909 NYT, "[t]he results of the exposure are to be found in the crowded conditions of the hospitals to-day, scores having been taken ill because of the weather." The story goes on to report:

Speaker Cannon agreed to-day to assist in the movement for change [of the inauguration date]. Two bills have passed the Senate in times gone, the date in each being fixed for the last Thursday in April. The speaker believes, however, that this date is not late enough, and favors the substitution of May 1.

"That would give more assurance of fair weather," he said to-day, "for April showers are proverbially uncertain. As a Representative in Congress i will lend my efforts to having the change put into effect."

If this had been accomplished, we might have had three more months of Bushco, to the dismay of Obamaco, but then we might have actually heard rather than just watched Yo Yo Ma play his cello.

Today's offering from Mike Lester of the Rome News-Tribune:

See also this bumper sticker from the Tennessee Republican Party. Wonder if they'll make one that says "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage"?

Last summer, ND Sen. Kent Conrad said, "President Bush will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history."

Well, here's Sen. Conrad yesterday holding a copy of the Obama budget calling for huge spending increases and large budget deficits. Compared to this budget, President Bush's spending looks downright miserly. So, Sen. Conrad, why the big grin?

ADDENDUM: Below is a statement from Sen. Conrad's website; it's rather hard to square this statement with his grin about the Obama budget.

Senator Conrad is particularly concerned about the soaring federal debt that is forecast for the nation's long-term budget outlook. He believes that reducing this debt burden is essential to the future strength of the nation's economy. Over time, large deficits and debt will raise interest rates, crowd out private sector investment, and slow long-term economic growth.

ADDENDUM2: A better title for this post would have been "A Deficit Chicken Hawk."

Don Boudreaux comments on one aspect of this NYTimes story. Here's another:

The New York Times reported yesterday that the softness sought in toilet paper by Americans is wiping out forests. After all, paper doesn't grow on trees. Oh wait, it does. and that's the problem. [...] Swooping in to save the day are Wallypop toilet wipes, a reusable cloth product. The sales pitch: They're comfy and environmentally friendly. You can use them wet, and they won't fall apart.

The column concludes:

The company admits there's "a certain ick factor involved." Indeed. If you try this at home, let us know how everything comes out.

Maybe we should bring back corncobs. The increased demand for corn might provide political cover for a reduction in the ethanol subsidy.

Oops. I should have seen Frank's entry before posting this.

Is there any sense of irony in the Federal Government?

Programs, agencies, OMB, and the new, $84 million Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board (see p. 175 of the bill) are all required to report on the progress of spending, often on different timetables. In fact, according to new OMB guidance, there are eight levels of reporting that are now required, with the first report from agencies due March 3.

For real? The RAAT Board? Of course, it would have to be pronounced "the rat board"?

More here

An AP story on how Washington State provides 250,000 food stamp recipients improved access to the federal pipeline.

If you're up to looking at the sausage's ingredients, this site might be useful.

The strength stocks have shown lately vanished on Tuesday as the government unveiled a new bank-rescue plan and congressional action neared on a fresh round of fiscal stimulus for the wheezing U.S. economy.

Investors bid up stocks last week in anticipation of the plan's unveiling and were quick to unload them after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner revealed details of the package in a late-morning speech and the Senate passed the stimulus measure.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was recently off about 345 points, or 4.2%, at 7927. Bank of America was its weakest stock, dropping 18%, and Citigroup was off more than 12%. But all 30 of the blue-chip average's components were in the red. The S&P 500 tumbled 4.4% to trade near 832. All its sectors fell, led by an 8.4% slide in financials. The Nasdaq Composite Index slid 3.5% to 1535.

Source. Can we get a hippocratic oath for politicians?

Doug Bandow's take on the Phelps incident:

Michael Phelps ... has violated the law. ... [H]e admitted the crime. The same crime for which the better part of a million people were arrested last year.

Shouldn’t Phelps be charged? Along with President Obama and his two predecessors, all of whom, it seems, used illegal drugs? If not, perhaps it is time to have a serious debate about the drug laws.

[...]

[H]undreds of thousands of Americans ended up in jail for doing precisely what Michael Phelps did: lighting up. Roughly three-quarters of those arrested for marijuana offenses were, like Phelps, under 30. With most of their lives ahead of them, they face the greatest harm from prosecution under the drug laws.

So why shouldn’t Phelps go to jail?

To ask the question is to answer it. While smoking pot may be a stupid thing to do for many reasons—risking adverse health effects, endangering endorsements, undermining Phelps’s status as a celebrity role model—he hurt no one but himself. He could have been photographed while drunk and stumbling out of a party, and it would have been no different. Bad press and angry sponsors would have forced an abject apology, and everyone would have moved on. Just like with his marijuana hit.

The Feb. 5, 1909 NYT provides a draw from the "Because I want it so" drawer:

A reduction of 2 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity in Brooklyn is provided for in a bill introduced to-day by Senator Cullen. The bill reduces the price from 12 to 10 cents, making it uniform in the Boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn. The measure was referred to the Cities Committee, notwithstanding the protest of the introducer, who desired that it be referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Corporations.

The "Committee of Miscellaneous Corporations"? Such a committee actually existed and was given that name?!? I understand that mandating lower prices for Brooklyn might have been seen as a "populist" stance, but how could Mr. Cullen have known what the optimal price for electricity was at the time? What would Mr. Cullen have done if such a law killed the infant electricity industry in its crib? I am sure he would have been outraged that the good "hard working" citizens of Brooklyn were being unfairly denied access to the life-improving, indeed in cases life-saving, service of electricity.

Today's s national average cost per kilowatt hour? 11.96 cents (not adjusted for inflation).

There was a time when K Street was just another street in Washington, DC. There was a time when it was less need to send "representatives" to Washington to lobby for and against legislation, there was less need to have "a man in Washington" to watch your six. There was a time when the Legislature wasn't used to tell others what to do with their private property.

Then along came "Populism" and the perception those with "too much" private property would use this property to harm others, to steal from others, to deny others their basic necessities. The cure was to use the Legislature to tell others what to do with their private property. This, in turn, created an incentive for those being attacked to "defend themselves" from the Legislature. It is reasonable for private property owners to respond in this manner, although I might be confusing cause and effect in certain instances.

Unfortunately, once the fixed costs of protecting property rights from the Legislature were borne, the marginal cost of shifting form the "defensive" to the "offensive" in Washintong. That is, using lobbyists, political contributions, graft, and other (perhaps even more objectionable) means to use the Legislature to protect or create profit potential, to erect entry barriers and increase the costs of potential and actual competitors, to finalize the creation of the "mixed economy."

The Feb. 5, 1909 NYT reports on the birth of such an "organization" in the wall paper industry:

Thirty manufacturers of wall paper, representing the largest wall paper mills in the country, met yesterday in the Hotel Victoria and organized the Wall Paper Manufacturers' Association of the United States. A call for the meeting had been sent to practically all the heads of wall paper manufacturing companies in the country, and nearly all responded...

A chief object of the association, outside of its social features, will be to keep the manufacturers posted on legislation and other matters likely to affect the trade. Committees are to be appointed to investigate conditions and, if possible, to prevent injurious or unwise legislation.

When the Congressional Committee was hearing arguments on the tariff, for instance, the wall paper manufacturers were deeply concerned, but, owing to the lack of organization, only a few individual manufacturers went to Washington to present their cases before the committee. Had the association of wall paper manufacturers been in existence then, its organizers say, a committee of much authority would have been sent to argue on behalf of a membership representing practically all of the wall paper plants in the country.

And so it began in the wall paper industry and a similar story was told in any number of other industries. One hundred years later not much seems to have changed.

The Democrats always rail against tax cheats, and complain that the rich don't pay their share of taxes, etc. etc. Now it appears from the President's cabinet nominees that every third Democrat doesn't pay his or her taxes. And why is it that they all seem to have nannies, drivers, and seven figure family incomes?

Meanwhile, Republicans are the party of public morals and opposition to free love and gay sex. Just ask Senator Craig and Representative Foley. Yet they get all the juicy sex scandals.

I'm sure there is some hidden message here. Your homework is to write a 500 word essay on the topic.

Not 1 but 2--Daschle and Nancy Killefer who apparently is yet Obama appointee with tax problems. It seems that Mark Perry's cartoon of the day is spot on.

Sorry, Bob. It's not a Cinemax title. Launched officially today, it's the cool new wiki that lets you search, evaluate, and "vote" for individual line items proposed for the the stimulus package. Brought to you by our friends Jerry Brito and Eileen Norcross. With details here.

By John Hasnas, posted on his website. What does it feel like to be a libertarian these days?

I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with a level of frustration that is nearly beyond human endurance. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events.

[...]

I remember attending a lecture at Georgetown in the mid-1990s given by a member of the libertarian Cato Institute in which he predicted that, unless changed, government policy would trigger an economic crisis by 2006. That prediction was obviously ideologically-motivated alarmism. After all, the crisis did not occur until 2008.

Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

ATSRTWT. Don't be fooled by John's brevity. There is much packed into few words here. Well worth the read. And well worth saving these ideas!

Tom Daschle, President Barack Obama's choice for secretary of Health and Human Services, paid about $140,000 in back taxes and interest after questions surfaced during the vetting of his nomination, according to documents being prepared by the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Daschle made the payments to cover a luxury car and driver provided to him by an investment firm where he was an adviser after leaving the U.S. Senate in 2005, but which he didn't report as income, people familiar with the report said. The payments also covered unreported consulting income and unwarranted charitable deductions. The tax period covered 2005 through 2007.

Source.

Here are two great quotes from Ludwig von Mises's Bureaucracy, originally written in 1944:

"The outstanding fact of intellectual history of the last hundred years is the struggle against economics." p. 89

"He who is unfit to serve his fellow citizens wants to rule them." p. 100

to be shocked, that is. Lobbyists won't be marginalized after all, according to this AP release.

President Barack Obama's ban on earmarks in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill doesn't mean interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't be able to funnel money to pet projects.

They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.

[...]

"'No earmarks' isn't a game-ender," said Peter Buffa, former mayor of Costa Mesa, Calif. "It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there."

It won't be in legislative language that overtly sets aside money for them. That's the infamous practice known as earmarking, which Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to nix for the massive stimulus package, expected to come up for a House vote this week.

Instead, the money will be doled out according to arcane formulas spelled out in the bill and in some cases based on the decisions of Obama administration officials, governors and state and local agencies that will choose the projects.

I felt left out when I didn't make the list of ethics free Republican hacks like Ed and some other folks I know. So try, try again.

In his inauguaral address, President Obama called for a "new era of responsibility." This from the president who wants an $800B "stimulus package" (The Real Voodoo Economics) and plans for deficit spending in excess of $1 trillion.

There was also some blather about ""our collective failure to make hard choices." This is offensive. For example, my wife and I have bought two houses, making a large downpayment on both. We've been aggressively saving for retirement (only to see our savings nearly halved by the Fed and the pols). The fact that many other citizens and our spendthrift pols have not similarly lived within their means does not make me complicit in their failure. Alas, genuinely responsible chumps people are likely the ones who will bear the cost of Obama's grandiose schemes.

This, on the inauguration of The One who will, inter alia, reverse the trend toward global warming:

The carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration could exceed 575 million pounds of CO2. According to the Institute for Liberty, it would take the average U.S. household nearly 60,000 years of naughty ecological behavior to produce a carbon footprint equal to the largest self-congratulatory event in the history of humankind.

The Jan 9, 1909 NYT reports on a very different approach to announcing the incoming cabinet than the current "Office of the President-elect":

The Taft-Knox Cabinet conference is over and the Pennsylvania Senator is to-night on his way back to Washington. Neither the President-elect nor his adviser will discuss the result, and it is strongly hinted by Mr. Taft to-night that his Cabinet will be made known for the first time when he sends the names of the men who are to compose it to the Senate for confirmation after March 4.

There is more to the story, primarily discussing the Taft will attend a barbecue in South Carolina and that Governor-elect Joe Brown of Georgia had visited with Taft.

Perhaps it is better to release the names of the proposed cabinet members earlier than later so that the public and those with axes to grind in Congress can have time to amass their arguments against any proposed cabinet member. Moreover, there might be Richardson-like outcomes of a nomination that any president-elect would rather have occur before the actual nomination hearings or votes occur.

Nevertheless, given the extended announcements and bromide-filled press conferences held by the new species "Office of the President-elect" over the past two months, Taft's approach might have been preferred.

The January 9, 1909 NYT reports:

The Post Office Department is now engaged in an effort to collect $16 from Senator Tillman in postage on a typewriter, which he franked from his home in South Carolina to Washington recently.

Yesterday the department had a letter from him refusing to pay, and saying that the department could burn up the machine or do what it liked with it, as it was Government property and he would not pay postage on it.

From the Jan 5, 1909 NYT:

ASHEVILLE, N.C. - County school teachers here have not received their pay because the Biltmore estate failed to pay its $24,000 county taxes as expected. The county authorities have cabled Mr. Vanderbilt direct at Paris.

In the past Mr. Vanderbilt has paid half his taxes in December and half in January, and the estate office promised to make such payment this year. The taxes on an assessment of two and a half millions on Biltmore village and the estate proper were due in October.

I do not know what the operating budget of Buncombe County was in 1909, but I would wager it was considerably more than $24,000 per year. To blame the failure to pay teachers on a single tax payer is pathetic but, I suppose, rather Progressive.

Google search of blogs shows Greg Mankiw has picked this up, but I didn't find it elsewhere, so here goes. By email forward from Veronique de Rugy:

Subject: WANTED: STIMULUS SPENDING SKEPTICS

OBAMA AIDES SAY “ONLY ONE OUTSIDE ECONOMIST” HAS EXPRESSED SKEPTICISM ABOUT MASSIVE STIMULUS SPENDING PLAN

An AP story this morning (Kuhnhenn, Jim; “Obama Considers $1 Trillion Plan to Jolt Economy,” Associated Press, 18 Dec 08) indicates President-elect Obama and his advisors are contemplating an economic “stimulus” spending bill with a price tag as large as $1 trillion, with the vast majority of that number going to new spending on government programs and projects. The article quotes Obama transition officials as saying “[o]nly one outside economist contacted by Obama aides. . .voiced skepticism” about the President-elect’s emerging spending plans.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is compiling a list of credentialed American economists who would like to add their voices to the list of stimulus spending skeptics. If you know of an economist who would like to be added to this list, please visit http://gopleader.gov/jobs. The page includes a contact form that allows readers to sign up and submit comments. Please be aware that information submitted through the webpage can, and most likely will, be shared publicly.

Bill Greene
Republican Leader’s Office
202-225-4000

Here is Tyler Cowen "driving home the point" that there is no evidence to support the putative economic benefits of stimulus spending.

A valuable database

You might want see how your neighbors are making out. In my home county, four members of one family accounted for about one-third of the USDA subsidies.

... if the media will stop drooling over Caroline Kennedy long enough to point out that she has less experience than the (somewhat deservedly) maligned Sarah Palin. I'm not sure experience is a good thing, but if it's a fair charge to raise against Palin then it should be a fair charge to raise against Kennedy.

... if we'll hear anything about Bernie Madoff (and other Madoffs who I assume are related to him) making political contributions to Democrats (including Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer) in the same way we heard about George Bush's ties to "Kenny Boy" Lay in the wake of Enron's collapse.

This from page D08 of the WaPo:

Most Americans continue to oppose a government-backed rescue plan for Detroit's Big Three automakers as majorities blame the industry for its own problems and are unconvinced failure would hurt the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Maybe they think G. W. Bailout will not read that deeply into the paper. Maybe they're right.

Congratulations to Jeff Daiell, who won the Essay Contest I sponsored earlier this month. Jeff won a copy of Buchanan and Tullock's The Calculus of Consent, and I learned a lot. Thanks for all the entries (a few dozen or so). And for people who are interested, I did vote (and then chose a winner after the fact). Jeff's winning essay is below the fold.

Read More »

I had just read this in a thoughtful column by Kevin Hassett:

The U.S. has always distinguished itself relative to its major trading partners by having a higher faith in free markets and a greater respect for the limits of big government. Sure, the U.S. passed a stimulus package now and then, but it also let failure run its course and refused to resort to excessive big- government intrusions into the private sector.

The risk is that we will forget this lesson. First we bailed out the financial companies; now President-elect Barack Obama is asking for $50 billion to bail out the auto companies, an effort backed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Next we will see a tax credit for people who buy General Motors Corp. cars at stores of bankrupt retailer Circuit City, provided they use the car to go to a Detroit Lions game.

A look at economic history suggests that the crazy policy intrusions have to stop.

Failure can be a good thing, and recessions force economic stragglers to make tough decisions. Those tough decisions set the stage for the recovery.

Then I read this in a puzzling column by Bill Kristol: "I don’t pretend to know just what has to be done. But I suspect that free-marketers need to be less doctrinaire and less simple-mindedly utility-maximizing, and that they should depend less on abstract econometric models."

Finally, a note posted below Kristol's article cleared it up: "Paul Krugman is off today." Nice of Kristol to fill in for him.

Not that it's likely to matter any time soon, but here's an excellent summary of at least one part of the ANWR debate.

The proponents of ANWR development have also distorted the picture by themselves making false arguments. First, it should be acknowledged that ANWR oil production will not in itself come close to achieving energy independence for the United States. Second, ANWR production alone will not affect oil prices significantly. Even the large reserves that ANWR possesses are not large enough, relative to the total world oil market, to have much effect on future world prices.

The real issue in ANWR is the proper use of the fiscal assets of the U.S. government. The oil there is worth, minimally, $500 billion in gross value and, potentially, $1 trillion dollars or more - depending obviously on the future world price of oil.

Steve Chapman is insightful, as usual:

Obama, as it happens, won by offering voters the same thing Reagan promised: tax cuts. Most of those who supported him did so on the assumption that they would not fall in the class of people who will have to cough up more to the IRS.

Not only that, but many voted against McCain partly because Obama successfully branded his health-care program as a tax increase. Americans are willing to embrace a bigger and more expensive federal government on one condition: that it doesn't cost them anything.

In this respect, the president-elect promises a continuation of the last eight years. With the exception of the recession brought on by the financial crisis, the biggest challenge is a vast array of commitments that have outgrown our willingness to pay for them. Living within our means is not a change Americans can quite believe in. Like Bush, Obama may hope to escape two terms without taking action on that front.

With all the precincts in Missouri reporting, unofficial totals as of this morning have McCain carrying the state by only 5,868 votes over Obama. In percentage terms, the outcome was 49.4% to 49.2%. You could say that Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, with 11,355 votes (0.4%) , held the “balance of power” or was a “spoiler”. But then you’d have to say the same about Ralph Nader, who drew 17,769 votes (0.6%).

Meanwhile, Barr is reportedly calling himself a spoiler in North Carolina, which is still too close to call at last report, where

Democrat Barack Oama has a 12,000-vote lead over Republican John McCain, and Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, has 25,181 votes, or 1 percent.

Mike made a pretty decent showing in the NC governor's race: 120,000 votes, 2.9% of the total.

I'm going to post a few thoughts as the evening progresses. Comments are open.

First up--CNN has "The Diff" in its election results.

Looks like Obama has it won; Fox has called PA and OH for him. FL, IN, NC, and VA are not yet called so Obama might take several moderate to large states from McCain.

Decent news on the gridlock front--GOP senators in GA and KY have held on and it looks like Trent Lott's seat in MS will stay GOP and there's some chance of taking a Dem seat from LA. Maybe the filibuster will still be an option.

UPDATE (9:30)--Bryan Caplan raises an issue I've been wondering about--would McCain have fared better if he had voted against the bailout? I think so.

UPDATE (9:40)--The Raleigh NC News and Observer reports co-blogger Mike Munger has 3% of the vote with 24 NC counties reporting complete results and 49 others reporting partial results.

UPDATE (10:00)--Much has been made of Starbucks giving out free coffee today (to the benefit of two of my favorite students), but Instapundit points to a shop giving out sex toys to folks who vote.

UPDATE (10:45)--Obama repeatedly charged that McCain supported tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas. What specifically was he refering to? Surely there is no tax credit or other break specifically for transferring a job from the US to overseas.

Last update of the night--Obama's large margin (13) in PA leaves me wondering why McCain spent so much time there over the past 10 days. Not that it mattered since Obama is rolling to about 375 electoral votes. Senate is Dems plus 5 with OR, MN, and AK to go.

On this election day, we do well to consider the opening of Frederic Bastiat's "The Law:"

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perveted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

He does so here.

I received quite a few emails about my decision to not vote. One issue was the question of whether I thought my vote matters. On this point it is important to note that my switch to non-voting status has nothing to do with whether I think my vote matters. I've always understood that my vote doesn't matter and yet I still voted previously.

The "logic" of my decision has to do with a change in my premise about the nature of voting. If your premise is that democracy is how we make decisions collectively, then there's nothing per se wrong with voting. I see nothing wrong, for example, with a group of people taking a vote to determine which restaurant to go to so long as individuals are then free to go with the group or not.

But my evolving premise is that democracy is closer to rape--that is, it is about some people forcing other people to go along with their will. Given that premise, which I consider immoral, I choose not to participate.

To be sure (1) I think someone who votes because he thinks his vote will matter is wrong as a matter of fact, but the main issue is that (2) I think someone who votes because she thinks voting is some sort of uplifting civic good needs to "check her premises" as Ayn Rand used to say.

From the Nov. 3, 1908 NYT (election day 1908):

NATIONAL ELECTION DAY

Oh, say,
To-day
The great Bald-Headed Eagle
Roosts on the peaks remote
And screemless folds his wings and tail
To watch the People vote.
The Bird
Hasn't a word
To say
Either way.
The Declaration's thunder tones,
Which erstwhile sent a thrill
Through tyrants' hearts
And other parts,
To-day is hushed and still.
The Glorious Fourth, our natal day,
This day, has been deposed;
Its fierce uproar
Is heard no more
Until the polls are closed.
The Starry Banner of the Free
Floats silent in the sky;
And that is all -
It has no call
Except to wave on high.
The Constitution holds its breath
And dodges out of sight
Until WE say,
By vote to-day,
What is or is not right.
The Ship of State is shaking now
From mizzenmast to keel,
And all her crew are wond'ring who
Will take her by the wheel.
The Nation's glories and her gods
To-day are merely dross,
And common stuff
To make a bluff -
VOX POPULI is BOSS.

W.J. Lampton

After voting in every presidential election since 1988 and almost every other election and special election since, I have decided to cut my losses. I have not registered to vote in my new state of Alabama and will not vote tomorrow or perhaps ever again.

My working metaphor for politics is gang rape. If 9 rapists and a woman are in a room and hold a vote, it's 9-1 in favor of raping the woman. If the woman doesn't vote, it's 9-0. Same result. But at least the victim doesn't have to sanctify the process that violates her rights. I am no longer going to go to the polls to give legitimacy to these criminal politicians.

Though I appreciate and agree with Brad's point that Obama is a serious threat to liberty--far more than McCain in fact. This is a case where I simply can not vote for the lesser of two evils.

I read a saying somewhere recently (where? anyone know?) that says "when faced with a choice between two evils, it is important to pick neither." Words to live by. [UPDATE: possible source: Charles Spurgeon. HT: Craig]

I sent this email replying to an email I received earlier today.

Dear X:

I care a lot more about losing our liberties than I do about our bulging waistlines. Americans should be free to eat 8000 calorie burgers and ogle all the naughty nurses they wish, and busybodies like you have no right to tell them otherwise.

Please do not solicit me again with such nonsense.

Bob Lawson

>>>
Date: 10/29/2008 4:01 PM
Subject: Controversial Restaurant Opening Near Campus

I've just been told that a restaurant called the Heart Attack Grill is going to be opening near campus. Their slogan is "Taste Worth Dying For!"
Anyone who finishes the Triple Bypass Burger gets pushed out to their car in a wheelchair by the Naughty Nurse waitresses.
I read an article saying that the Quadruple Bypass Burger has 8,000 calories. Isn't America fat enough already?? Hopefully someone on the faculty can help keep this idiocy away from our campus.

Much has been made of the respective ages of the two candidates for U.S. President in 2008. One is thought by many to be too young and one is thought by many to be too old. Is it possible to be a vigorous President at 72? Is it possible to be a wise leader at 47? We will find out the answer to one of these questions next week, but the Oct. 29, 1908 NYT reports on the ages of the prevailing "world leaders" at the time:

Theodore Roosevelt, President, United States, 50 years old.

Francis Joseph, Emperor, Austria-Hungary, 79 years old.

Porfirio Diaz, President, Mexico, 79 years old.

Leopold II, King, Belgium, 74 years old.

Armand Fallieres, President, French Republic, 67 years old.

Edward VII, King, England, 67 years old.

Frederick VIII, King, Denmark, 65 years old.

Abdul Hamid II, Sultan, Ottoman Empire, 57 years old.

Mutsuhito, Mikado, Japan, 56 years old.

Gustavus V., King, Sweden, 51 years old.

William II, Emperor, Germany, 49 years old.

Nicholas II, Czar, Russia, 40 years old.

Victor Emmanueal, King, Italy, 39 years old.

Alfonso XIII, King, Spain, 22 years old.

Manuel II, King, Portugal, 19 years old.

Posted by Craig Depken at 11:46 AM in Politics

Prediction markets c. 1908

The Oct. 29, 1908 NYT reports more wagering on the upcoming 1908 elections:

A number of small wagers were made in the financial district yesterday at even money on Hughes and Chanler. Bets on Taft were few and far between, but a few were placed with odds on Taft, ranging from 4 1/2 to 3 to 1.

The largest bet heard of was one made early in the day by a Hughes man, who placed $5,000 on Hughes against $4,500 on Chanler. Later several bets of $1,000 were made on the State contest.

The largest bet on the Presidential outcome was reported from the Cotton Exchange, where it was said that $3,000 Taft money had been placed against $1,000 on Bryan. One Broadway Stock Exchange house placed $1,000 on Taft against $300 of Bryan money.

Those who have followed betting in Wall Street are agreed that there has never been a Presidential contest for a generation in which the wagering has been so light. Taft money seems to be plentiful, but the odds demanded by those with cash to bet on Bryan are considered prohibitive.

Taft wins (52% to 43%), as does Hughes (49% to 45%).

Posted by Craig Depken at 11:24 AM in Politics

Division of Labour Contest: Rock the Vote or Mock the Vote?

Several months ago, Russell Roberts asked his readers whether he should vote or not. I can't find Russ's original post, but I would like to try something similar because I'll be thinking about this a lot over the next couple of days at a Liberty Fund conference on Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter and Guido Pincione and Fernando R. Teson's Rational Choice and Democratic Deliberation: A Theory of Discourse Failure.

Thus, I'm announcing The First Semi-Annual Division of Labour Purple Mountains Majesty Amber Waves of Grain Essay Contest, with the winner receiving a copy of James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock's The Calculus of Consent. Here's the prompt:

A common argument in favor of voting is that it allows the voter to let his or her voice be heard in the political process, but others have argued that silence can be deafening. Take a position: should I vote or not? In 500 words or less, persuade me to do one or the other.

Entries are limited to 500 words and must be submitted by email to cardena@rhodes.edu by 6:00 AM Central Time on Tuesday, November 4. Depending on the number of entries, I reserve the right to read only the entries I have time to read. Happy writing.

Update, 3:18 PM: the entries are rolling in, and they're pretty good so far. Keep 'em coming!

Posted by Art Carden at 10:05 AM in Politics

October 28, 2008

A good bet? c. 1908

The October 28, 1908 NYT reports on an interesting investment opportunity:

Speyer & Co. and the National City Bank, having charge in this country of the subscription lists for the new thirty-five year 4 1/2 per cent. sinking fund gold bonds of the Institution for Encouragement of Irrigation Works and Development of Agriculture in Mexico, announced yesterday that these lists would be closed to-day. They report a large number of subscriptions having been received from all parts of the country.

I wonder how the Institute "encouraged" irrigation in Mexico and whether the Institute actually paid off on their bonds - after all, a lot is going to happen in the next 35 years.

Posted by Craig Depken at 01:54 PM in Politics

On presidential favor c. 1908

The October 28, 1908 NYT reports a surprising fact concerning President Roosevelt's eldest son:

The announcement from Hartford, Conn. that Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., has been promoted to the worsted room of the Hartford Carpet Company, but that his promotion carries no increase of wages, is supplemented by the statement of a close personal friend here that the weekly pay envelope of the President's eldest son contains exactly $4.50 [$104.60 in CPI adjusted 2007 dollars].

From the same source it is learned that Theodore, Jr., is likely to be advanced to $5 per week during the coming month.

The story is based on an unnamed source, which today would be (somewhat) frowned upon. However, if the story is true, the President's eldest son earned approximately $235 per year? EH.net suggests that nominal per-capita income in 1908 was about $340, which would mean that the President's namesake was paid less than the average citizen?

I am not sure I am buying this unless a) Theo, Jr. was simply a terrible worker, b) Theo, Jr. was intentionally taking a lower salary in order to "learn how the other half lives," or c) Both (a) and (b). On the other hand, perhaps Theo, Jr., was being paid considerably more than the average worker and this story is simply a viral means of deflecting from the state of privilege enjoyed by the children of politicos - especially "populist Republican" politicos as opposed to "populist Democrats" of today - about a week away from a Presidential election.

Posted by Craig Depken at 01:48 PM in Politics

Who knew Ron Paul had a blimp?

Go here for Secretary: Part 1.

Posted by Robert Lawson at 11:24 AM in Politics

October 24, 2008

A Second Helping

Andrew Biggs in today's WSJ:

Imagine this: Barack Obama proposes a Social Security payroll tax cut for low earners. Workers earning up to $8,000 per year would receive back the full 6.2% employee share of the 12.4% total payroll tax, up to $500 per year. Workers earning over $8,000 would receive $500 each, with this credit phasing out for individuals earning between $75,000 and $85,000.

Hold on a minute--I thought the 1993 Clinton EITC expansion already offset the payroll taxes for low income workers. Indeed, this snip from The American Prospect (a lefty mag) confirms my memory:

The EITC dates to 1975. The original idea was to offset the bite of payroll taxes on low-wage workers in low-income families. Since then, the credit has been expanded considerably. There are now three different schedules: a small credit for single-person households and childless couples, a much larger credit for families with one child, and a still larger credit for families with two or more kids. And since eligibility is keyed to family income, the subsidy is quite finely targeted (rich kids with after-school jobs need not apply). As family income rises, EITC benefits initially grow, then level off, and then begin to phase out. A working parent with two children gets 40 cents in tax credit for each dollar earned up to an income level of $9,720. (These figures are for the year 2000.) The maximum annual benefit is thus $3,888. Then, starting at $12,690 in annual income for this type of family, the tax credit declines by 21 cents for each dollar earned, phasing out altogether at an annual income of $31,152. For a family with one child, the peak benefit is $2,353, and for a single person, it's $353.

Drop the payroll tax pretense--the EITC is already more than double the payroll tax (including the employer part) that low income workers pay--and call Obama's scheme the confiscation that it is.

Posted by E. Frank Stephenson at 10:51 PM in Politics

October 22, 2008

On bold predictions c. 1908

The Oct. 22, 1908 NYT reports on a firebrand speech given by Eugene W. Chafin, who was the Prohibition candidate for president in 1908. He was giving his first speech at the Cooper Union. Some choice nuggets were reported:

"The Democratic platform is so long that it takes two newspapers to print it. It is like an old fashioned Mother Hubbard - is (sic) covers everything and touches nothing. The only difference between that and the Republican platform is that the latter looks like it was made for a child of four."

And he had this bold prediction:

This is a peculiar campaign. The people haven't yet made up their minds. Such a thing hasn't happened in forty years...Why haven't they made up their minds? they are thinking. They are not satisfied. This is the last battle of the Republican and Democratic Parties, anyway. In fact, there is no Democratic or Republican Party. It is either a Bryan or a Roosevelt party, each doing the master's bidding.

Posted by Craig Depken at 02:56 PM in Politics

A billion here, a billion there...

...and pretty soon we're talking about real money.

Turns out, the famous Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) may never have coined the phrase that is so widely attributed to him. At least that's what the Dirksen Congressional Center concludes. However, the late Senator, for whom this building is named, had a penchant for pithy tales. Here is a good one:

"One time in the House of Representatives [a colleague] told me a story about a proposition that a teacher put to a boy. He said, ‘Johnny, a cat fell in a well 100 feet deep. Suppose that cat climbed up 1 foot and then fell back 2 feet. How long would it take the cat to get out of the well?'

"Johnny worked assiduously with his slate and slate pencil for quite a while, and then when the teacher came down and said, ‘How are you getting along?' Johnny said, ‘Teacher, if you give me another slate and a couple of slate pencils, I am pretty sure that in the next 30 minutes I can land that cat in hell.'

"If some people get any cheer out of a $328 billion debt ceiling, I do not find much to cheer about concerning it." [Congressional Record, June 16, 1965, p. 13884].

$328 billion. Quaint, no?

Posted by Edward J. Lopez at 11:03 AM in Politics

October 17, 2008

The essence of Obama and McCain

As distilled by Will Wilkinson, live-blogging from the 2nd debate.

The financial crisis

Obama:

We’ve got an antique regulatory structure. Need to put back early 20th Century laws!

McCain:

Got to do something about home values. We have to make sure that markets prices don’t adjust. Government should buy tons of houses …

[Will the economy get worse before it gets better?] Not if we give people free houses!

Healthcare

Obama:

I’m gonna reform health care, which won’t cost anything.

When we’re this wealthy, the idea that sick people should have to not spend other people’s money is an outrage. Mandate won’t hurt that much. It’s for your own good. McCain doesn’t give a crap for kids because giving a crap for anything means voting to give them things.

McCain:

Online records, improve efficiencies. Obama is all like “government this government that.” Obama will fine you if you don’t get insurance. I’ll give you tax credit you can take anywhere.

Energy and the environment

Obama:

People other than us benefit from higher oil prices, which is outrageous. … Let’s think harder about how we use energy. Holy god there is nothing more important than not trading with foreigners for energy.

We can centrally plan green economy into prosperity.

McCain:

If only we had nuclear power Indians would not weep. The French do it! America’s the best! We can do anything!

Fiscal policy

Obama:

If people make more than you, its not fair for you to have to tighten your belt.

I will cut taxes for everyone other than the despicable wealthy.

McCain:

Freeze spending, except defense, VA, entitlements, and buying every house in America.

Foreign policy

Obama:

Basically, I have no principle. I leave it at the discretion of my evolved moral intuition.

Iran can’t get nukes. But let’s talk about it.

McCain:

America is greatest force for good in history of universe forever. We shed our blood everywhere. The question of when to kill people needs to be left [to] soldiers like me. Our wars are awesome because we’re a nation of good.

We should do whatever we can to help whenever we can. I have no principle for intervention either.

Posted by Lawrence H. White at 04:58 PM in Politics

Political Quickies

An update on my RICO & ACORN post--apparently the FBI is investigating ACORN.

I'm guessing Joe the Plumber will be getting an IRS audit next year if we have an Obama victory. On a related note, Joe the Plumber is featured in Mike Lester's cartoon in today's RNT.

Folks who doubt gridlock is good might want to check out this article (scroll down to the box) in today's WSJ. The Repubs ability to filibuster the Senate has stopped much mischief. Here's hoping the GOP, for all its flaws, can keep at least 43 Senate seats.

As most DOL readers are likely aware, tonight brings a new John Stossel special, the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics." That's must see tv at my house. 10:00 Eastern.

Posted by E. Frank Stephenson at 03:17 PM in Politics

October 15, 2008

No Wonder Protectionism is on the Rise

I'm not normally one to whine about how Americans take so little interest in the affairs of other nations. But I couldn't help noticing this morning that my daily paper, the Columbus Dispatch, did not include any mention of yesterday's parliamentary elections in Canada.

This is one of the 30 or so largest daily papers in the U.S., in the capital city of a state which shares an extensive (albeit lake) border with Canada, the United States' largest trading partner. Trade between Ohio and Canada amounts to about $30 billion annually, about six times the trade between Ohio and any other foreign nation. It has been estimated that over 200,000 Ohio jobs are dependent on trade with Canada.

I found not a word about the Canadian elections in either the print or on-line editions of the Dispatch.

By the way, for those interested, the ruling party, the free-trading Conservatives, returned an increased plurality, but still fell short of a majority. They are expected to form another minority government. At the same time, the anti-NAFTA, anti-trade New Democratic Party and Green Party both gained seats in parliament.

Posted by Brad Smith at 11:12 AM in Politics

Oh to Have a "None of the Above" Choice

Here's Mike Lester's offering from today's RNT:

Here's a video that summarizes McCain's new economic plan and his campaign in general:

Posted by E. Frank Stephenson at 08:51 AM in Politics

October 13, 2008

New world order c. 1908

The October 13, 1908 NYT reports on the pending new world order (I suppose we are still waiting):

The Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, D.D. of the International Reform Bureau, who spoke at the Warren Avenue Baptist Church last night, declared in his address that within a few years Theodore Roosevelet would be "President of the World."

Dr. Crafts said that his bureau's work would result in an international government at The Hague with legislative and executive departments. At the head would be Mr. Roosevelt bearing the title above mentioned.

Posted by Craig Depken at 12:12 PM in Politics

October 09, 2008

The guns of October? c. 1908

The Oct. 9, 1908 NYT reports on the response in Serbia of the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina:

Belgrade, Servia: Great crowds surrounded the palace to-night shouting for war and calling for the King to appear. Finally King Peter, accompanied by the Crown Prince, came to the balcony, and implored the people not to cause disturbances. He said:

"Trust me and my government: both will do their duty."

The crowd cheered the King but continued to shout "war with Austria."

In about six years, the cheering crowd would have their way - and 9-10 million men under arms and 9-10 million civilians would die.

Posted by Craig Depken at 03:45 PM in Politics

October 08, 2008

Li'l Help?

Please go here, and vote for Mike Munger.

He needs you.

(Second debate is tonight, on WUNC-TV, at 8 PM. On *T* *V*, so it must be important...)

Posted by Michael Munger at 12:08 PM in Politics

October 07, 2008

Tony Romo, Las Vegas Voter

This is why it's important to understand ACORN:

Nevada authorities have raided the Las Vegas office of the community-organizing group ACORN seeking evidence of voter fraud.

Investigators seized records and computers from ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The office was unstaffed at the time.

Secretary of State Ross Miller said fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.

"Tony Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada, and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4," Miller said, according to the Associated Press. He said others used false names or information, or had duplicated information on multiple forms.

Posted by E. Frank Stephenson at 07:32 PM in Politics

October 06, 2008

Battleground states c. 1908

Think the "battleground state" is a new development? The October 6, 1908 NYT reports:

New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana - these are the determining States. In both National committees this is fully recognized. From now until election day these are the States in which both the Republican and Democratic managers will centre their efforts. Into these states will go both Mr. Taft and Mr. Bryan. Bryan will reserve New York for the last.

The story goes on to show that candidates have ceded states to their opponents for quite some time:

Norman E. Mack, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, came here to-day and told the newspaper men that he left for the Republican in the East only Pennsylvania and two or three of the New England States, but some of his colleagues at the headquarters, when they learned that he had not put Pennsylvania into the debatable column, protested that he was altogether conservative.

Posted by Craig Depken at 12:19 PM in Politics

October 05, 2008

Don't Know Much About History

Contrary to Joe Biden's claim that FDR took to the tele in 1929 to calm the nation after the stock market crash, the first televised White House address by a president was Harry Truman's address 61 years ago today.

Posted by E. Frank Stephenson at 10:16 PM in Politics

October 01, 2008

Nothing New Under the Sun

I've told people before that my Plan for World Domination is to someday hire a group of fourth graders to follow me around singing "I Believe the Children Are Our Future," in which case I would be able to get whatever I want. If this video is legit, it looks like some of Barack Obama's supporters have beaten me to the punch:

Posted by Art Carden at 09:24 PM in Politics

Re:The Arsonists are Running the Fire Station...

Apparently John--I don't do earmarks--McCain intends to vote for the bill. To be fair, the wooden arrow provision isn't technically an earmark; it's a narrowly defined tax exemption not a specifically targeted federal expenditure. But that baby sure walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Posted by E. Frank Stephenson at 09:04 PM in Politics

How Washington Works

... is to take a dubious proposition--the $700B bailout package--and make it worse:

Senate leaders scheduled a Wednesday vote on a $700 billion financial bailout package after accepting tax breaks and a higher limit for insured bank deposits in a bid to win House approval and send legislation to President Bush by the end of the week.

Top lawmakers said the Senate proposal, worked out after a day of behind the scenes maneuvering, would include tax breaks for businesses and alternative energy and higher government insurance for bank deposits.

In related news, George W. Bailout is up to his old tricks:

President George W. Bush on Tuesday signed into law a mammoth spending bill to keep the government running until early March 2009 that includes a $25 billion loan package for troubled automakers.

The $25 billion loan package, the biggest federal subsidy for the auto industry since the 1980 bailout of Chrysler, cleared Congress last weekend when the focus was on the debate over the $700 billion financial rescue package.

Posted by E. Frank Stephenson at 08:27 AM in Politics

September 26, 2008

Debate Chat Transcript

Below the fold: the transcript of the live chat that occurred at www.commercialappeal.com earlier this evening (posted for my econ 101 students, who have a homework assignment based on the debate due on Tuesday). UPDATE: Apparently, I was only able to copy and paste the first 40 minutes of the chat. The rest is available here: http://www.commercialappeal.com/debatechat/.

Read More »

7:43
Commercial Appeal: Hi all. Welcome to The Commercial Appeal's live online chat! We're going to be watching the Presidential debate in Oxford and discussing.

7:45
[Comment From Nrogara]
Hi all
7:45
[Comment From Babs]
Hey
7:45
[Comment From Guest]
Vote Nader! There’s something fishy when both candidates exclude third parties from the debate. It’s as if the Dems and Republicans have rigged a system in which they alternate as President every 8 years.
7:45
[Comment From Andre]
Good evening
7:45
Commercial Appeal: Welcome

7:46
Commercial Appeal: Good question, guest. Not sure. But that's a question for another day, I think.
7:47
[Comment From Guest]
Why is Ralph Nader excluded from the debates? He’s the only candidate against this communist move to send 700,000,000,000 tax payer dollars to corporate fat cats who are destroying the economy. What is going on? Are these debates rigged or something? Nader’s at 5% in the national polls. That’s impressive considering he’s been ignored by the wall street owned media.
7:47
[Comment From Guest]
Hello, Michael here
7:47
[Comment From Stop]
Chat should never have sound
7:47
[Comment From Michael]
Hello,
7:47
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
Good evening everyone
7:48
Commercial Appeal: hi michael, hi kesha.
7:48
Commercial Appeal: 11 minutes on the countdown
7:48
[Comment From Stop]
Ralph Nader is a joke.
7:48
Commercial Appeal: let's leave ralph nader for another discussion.
7:48
[Comment From Kareem]
Hello everybody
7:49
Commercial Appeal: any early predictions on who will do well?
7:49
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
I say put in Prince Mongo... LOL
7:49
[Comment From Michael]
I didn't know that Nader was polling at 5% nationally. Where did you read this?
7:49
[Comment From LaTasha]
Hello everyone!
7:50
[Comment From Michael]
Obama will do much better than McCain with all but die hard McCain fans.
7:50
[Comment From Wayne]
Evening all...
7:50
[Comment From Nrogara]
Obama has an early advantage cause He can call out McCain on what he did just 48 hrs ago
7:50
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
I think both will do well. If Obama doesn't studder and McCain keeps his cool.
7:51
Commercial Appeal: what's everyone watching on? i have msnbc on

7:51
[Comment From Babs]
We all know that Obama has a talent for public speaking.
7:51
[Comment From Kareem]
CNN
7:52
[Comment From Babs]
WJCL
7:52
[Comment From B-Rob]
CNN here
7:52
[Comment From Wayne]
I am viewing on Channel 5
7:52
[Comment From Michael]
McCain is not to good under the gun. He did better than Obama at Ric Warren's event because o0f the nature of the questions and the lack of follow up questions.
7:52
[Comment From LaTasha]
channel 5 here
7:52
[Comment From Nader for The People]
Nader is polling at 5-7% in several natl polls
7:52
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
NBC
7:53
[Comment From Babs]
I think they both agreed on a freestyle debate tonight, right?
7:53
[Comment From Michael]
I'm watching on channel 5
7:53
Commercial Appeal: jim lehrer will be in charge, as usual. we'll see what style it takes. been an interesting couple of days leading up to this.
7:53
[Comment From Nader for The People]
the questions are prechosen
7:54
[Comment From doc1]
let's get ready to rumble
7:54
Commercial Appeal: LOL at doc1. we should have michael buffer announce.
7:54
[Comment From vera]
good evening!
7:54
Commercial Appeal: hi vera
7:55
[Comment From LaTasha]
is there some lag on here?
7:55
Commercial Appeal: i have to approve the comments, but i'll be setting it up for the folks i've been working with so that stops. shouldn't be a problem
7:55
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
yes there is
7:55
[Comment From doc1]
it will be an interesting evening, lets be civilized and have a good debate
7:55
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Good evening, everyone. Gary Robinson, are you here?
7:56
Commercial Appeal: hi Michael Huggins. i am
7:56
[Comment From Babs]
The lag's probably from them screening us.
7:56
[Comment From LaTasha]
oh, i see... i thought it was my system!
7:56
[Comment From Guest]
Cnn
7:56
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Am I logged in correctly to do what I need to do?
7:56
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
Everyone remember the golden rule, pls
7:56
Commercial Appeal: Michael, you're just fine.
7:56
[Comment From Art Carden]
Greetings, everyone. In addition to the debate between McCain and Obama, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr will be responding to debate questions at http://www.mogulus.com/reason, and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney will be responding at www.bloggingthedebates.com. Does anyone know if Nader or any of the other candidates are responding in real time anywhere?
7:56
[Comment From doc1]
Gary, will you be involved in the debate or would u be just moderating
7:56
[Comment From Sarah]
how does this work
7:57
Commercial Appeal: Doc, most of my time will be just keeping up.

7:57
[Comment From vera]
I hope that this is a group for tangible and realistic discussion and not attacks! Are there ground rules Gary?
7:57
Commercial Appeal: Sarah, you just type your thoughts.
7:57
[Comment From Nrogara]
Sarah this works kinda like a chat room
7:57
Commercial Appeal: exactly, vera, thanks!!
7:57
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Out of curiosity, is anyone else logged in to MySpace.com/MyDebates to watch this online?
7:57
[Comment From Stop]
who is the moderator?
7:58
Commercial Appeal: Stop, i am the moderator. i'm Gary Robinson, online news editor at the CA.

7:58
[Comment From doc1]
we all r
7:58
[Comment From Michael]
Ladies and gentlemen, standing 6' 3'' tall, weighing 200 lbs, wearing the dark suit and red tie, from Chicago, Barrrrrrrack OOOOOOObamaaaa
7:58
[Comment From Aaron]
I'll try and keep up here, but am working over on Twitter during the debate
7:58
[Comment From doc1]
it is time fasten your seat belts ya'll, it will be a ride to remember
7:59
Commercial Appeal: OK folks, like vera says, let's have a great, sane, decent discussion about what comes up during the debate.
7:59
[Comment From Patricia]
Hello everyone!
7:59
[Comment From Michael]
And his opponnent.....
7:59
[Comment From Nrogara]
I'm watching this on cnn.com live and they're gettin ready
7:59
[Comment From 6burkes]
hello
7:59
[Comment From LaTasha]
let's do this man!
7:59
[Comment From Sarah]
talking about Memphis on CNN
7:59
[Comment From Nader for The People]
Nader has many people blogging, and will be on Bill Maher after the debate and will release online answers to all the q's right after the debate
7:59
[Comment From Shelton]
hello
8:00
[Comment From Frank]
Hello Everyone.
8:00
[Comment From Michael]
Sane and decent? Remember we're talking about politics!
8:00
[Comment From Aaron]
Who is playing the Debate shot game? Take a shot if McCain says "My Friends", Obama says "Change", Lehrer says "Senator, Two Minutes". HAVE FUN!!!
8:00
[Comment From Dawn S.]
Hi everyone
8:00
[Comment From Guest]
Hello from Corinth. MS
8:00
[Comment From GObama!]
Hey all
8:00
[Comment From TLH728]
Hi
8:00
Commercial Appeal: the debate shot game? LOL oh terrific.

8:01
[Comment From doc1]
everybody remember we r here to have a discussion so please be civilized and bring up good points lets c if we can solve our problems right here!!!
8:01
[Comment From TLH728]
I am ready!
8:01
[Comment From Dawn S.]
Here we go!
8:01
[Comment From vera]
Michael, even in politics there are exceptions:)
8:01
[Comment From doc1]
Gary r u ready?
8:01
Commercial Appeal: i sure hope so, doc!
8:01
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Jim Lehrer just said "You all." Being in the South must be getting to him!
8:01
[Comment From Nrogara]
Doc u ready??
8:01
[Comment From Jabril]
Well it's that time. Stand up Oxford.
8:01
[Comment From LaTasha]
Aaron that sounds very dangerous. You may risk alcohol poisoning.
8:01
[Comment From marcina1127]
hello everyone
8:02
[Comment From doc1]
cnn has a great set up
8:02
[Comment From JYoungest1]
woo how many people are in here
8:02
[Comment From Aaron]
Watching on CSPAN2, so no talking heads, just the debate
8:02
[Comment From doc1]
they have score cards for each candidates
8:02
[Comment From Dawn S.]
yeah, i'm on cnn too.
8:02
[Comment From LaTasha]
what's up with cnn's scorecard?
8:02
Commercial Appeal: a lot of folks here already

8:02
[Comment From doc1]
it will be fun to c the scores
8:02
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Direct exchanges between the candidates are permitted. This should be interesting.
8:02
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
whew! I am tired already.
8:03
[Comment From TLH728]
Because this is a very important debate
8:03
[Comment From Aaron]
Lehrer is DA MAN!
8:03
[Comment From JYoungest1]
Is CNN the only one broadcasting this
8:03
[Comment From LaTasha]
applause!
8:03
[Comment From Nrogara]
no
8:03
[Comment From JYoungest1]
online at least
8:03
[Comment From Kareem]
CNN has perception meters to from a group of registered ohio voters at the bottom that are holding little devices that they use to rate what the candidates are saying realtime
8:03
[Comment From doc1]
all channels are
8:03
[Comment From 6burkes]
not only cnn, its all over the tv
8:03
[Comment From Guest]
MSNBC is too
8:04
[Comment From JYoungest1]
i mean online wise
8:04
[Comment From doc1]
stright to economy
8:04
[Comment From Jabril]
Good Question
8:04
[Comment From Sarah]
stop thanking , start talking
8:04
[Comment From Nrogara]
I believe thanks is in order
8:04
[Comment From Michael]
Don't waste too much time with thanks
8:04
[Comment From LaTasha]
someone mentioned myspace
8:04
[Comment From TLH728]
I hope Obama does not give a speech
8:04
[Comment From 6burkes]
answer the question already
8:04
[Comment From Diane]
Hi everyone - good luck to each candidate!
8:04
[Comment From doc1]
he is right we r struggling
8:04
[Comment From Nrogara]
look how Obama is looking right at the camera as if he is talking to the people
8:04
[Comment From Jabril]
You greet your audience first. Comparative talking one on one.
8:04
[Comment From Michael]
Good relate it to the individuals
8:05
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
He's taking too much time "setting the stage," for an allocation of only 2 minutes.
8:05
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
New comers go back and read the house rules
8:05
[Comment From vera]
keep i
8:05
[Comment From TLH728]
I am glad he is giving a plan
8:05
[Comment From vera]
keep
8:05
[Comment From Stewart]
Isn't two mns. up yet?!
8:05
[Comment From Dawn S.]
i like how he's numerating his remarks
8:05
[Comment From Aaron]
He is going point by point
8:05
[Comment From doc1]
yey for te tax prayers
8:05
[Comment From Sarah]
nope..
8:05
[Comment From Diane]
Who's for McCain in here who's for Obama?
8:05
[Comment From Sarah]
that man is my hero
8:05
[Comment From 6burkes]
those are thery points, what is he going to actually do
8:05
[Comment From Stewart]
mccain
8:05
[Comment From Nader for The People]
there are more choices
8:05
[Comment From TLH728]
shot number 1
8:06
[Comment From JYoungest1]
wow Diane what a crazy question
8:06
[Comment From vera]
keep in mind Obama is a constitutional lawyer and accustomed to make presentations, not suggesting that McCain cannot. He did well at Saddlecreek, in my opinion.
8:06
[Comment From doc1]
good last [unch with bringin bush oin
8:06
[Comment From TLH728]
I am for Obama
8:06
[Comment From Dawn S.]
it's a lot to consider...this bailout thing. hard for anyone to really 'get it'
8:06
[Comment From Michael]
I for the truth. End the lies and the rest will take care of itself!
8:06
[Comment From Nrogara]
Oh my name it is nothin and my age means les
8:06
[Comment From TLH728]
oh gosh
8:06
[Comment From Jabril]
Shouldn't matter who you are for right now. Learn their policies and views
8:06
[Comment From Kareem]
there are only two realistic choices, otherwise i would vote for Barr or Ron Paul
8:06
[Comment From Aaron]
Good opening for Obama
8:06
[Comment From doc1]
can he talk any faster
8:06
[Comment From LaTasha]
mccain is wasting time...
8:06
[Comment From vera]
I think that we should be bi-partisan on this blog and discuss the tangible aspect of the debate and not whose bandwagon we're on, don't you agree!
8:06
[Comment From Sarah]
awww.. hes fewing a wittle better tonight
8:06
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain's mention of Kennedy is gracious, but he sounds sad and tired. Obama, by contrast, sounds determined and energetic.
8:06
[Comment From Frank]
I'm pro-Obama; but I'm hoping that he will stick with the issues and not attack McCain as he just did. Taking a strong position on the issues will suffice given the gravity of the issues.
8:07
[Comment From 6burkes]
they both are wasting time
8:07
[Comment From Nrogara]
McCain is looking at Leher and the people at the building notice the change between the two already
8:07
[Comment From Sarah]
McCain is exhausted
8:07
[Comment From Rob]
Their answers sound so prepared
8:07
[Comment From Stewart]
I disagree, Jabril.... most Americans are decided... and the debates do nothing but solidify their decisions.
8:07
[Comment From TLH728]
Yea Mccain you have been around a while
8:07
[Comment From Sarah]
poor old man.
8:07
[Comment From doc1]
mccain hasn't used "my friends" once yet
8:07
[Comment From Patricia]
With each candidate presentation means a lot, Certainly Obama leads in that category
8:07
[Comment From vera]
It's easy to watch on TV and become critical. If we were in their shoes things would be different.
8:07
[Comment From LaTasha]
i agree frank
8:07
[Comment From Nader for The People]
please stop saying we have to fix it and tell us how you will
8:07
[Comment From Dawn S.]
mccain seems faltering a little
8:08
[Comment From JYoungest1]
Since main stream media all the debates have been fake as the canidates
8:08
[Comment From matt]
There is no transparency or oversight in Paulson's package. What's McCain talking about?
8:08
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain is doing well in that he sounds like your wise and experienced uncle who has been around the block a few times. Obama, by contrast, sounded a little "theoretical," as someone noted earlier.
8:08
[Comment From 6burkes]
anyone truly undecided at this point is just not that interested
8:08
[Comment From Diane]
Jabril, I've already learned their policies and views haven't you? Just wanted to know who's for who already. I agree with Sarah.
8:08
[Comment From julie cee]
sorry I am late...major tech diffs
8:08
[Comment From Kareem]
my friends is irritating
8:08
[Comment From Jabril]
If anyone is decided before they even know what will happen before the election, they are not savvy voters
8:08
[Comment From Patricia]
Telling the truth is not really attacking another candidate it is the truth
8:08
[Comment From Stewart]
All Obama is, is theoretical.
8:08
[Comment From waqe]
I suspect even if mccain does well tonight, the vice-pres debate will reverse any gains made here.
8:08
[Comment From julie cee]
Neither Senator looks more tired than the other....focus on what matters, please
8:08
[Comment From Todd]
NOW he's for oversight...lol
8:08
[Comment From vera]
what does oil have to do with the recovery plan mentioned by mccain
8:08
[Comment From Lin]
Hi all
8:08
[Comment From Michael]
McCain meander too much and sounded weak.
8:08
[Comment From doc1]
hoe did oil from forgin came about about the plan
8:09
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain sounds as though he has been up all night, with his sleeves rolled up, working on this crisis. That buys sympathy. Obama needs to achieve a decisive tone that convinces hearers that he is the one to solve the problem.
8:09
[Comment From TLH728]
Oh gosh mccain start talking about what your plan is
8:09
[Comment From Art Carden]
Style points: Obama looks better than McCain after the first question. Here's an interesting question: what were the changes in incentives that produced the crisis?
8:09
[Comment From Frank]
I'm glad Lehrer didn't let them "off the hook."
8:09
[Comment From Sarah]
I agree. I'm very excited about seeing Palin fail.
8:09
[Comment From TLH728]
what is the plan
8:09
[Comment From Patricia]
I agree with that wage
8:09
[Comment From 6burkes]
obama asks himself a question instead of answering the one given
8:09
[Comment From doc1]
good call vera
8:09
[Comment From TLH728]
i agree doc1
8:09
[Comment From julie cee]
Obama is an empty suit as far as I am personally concerned, but our goal/role here is to be objective as possible.
8:09
[Comment From Jabril]
I will vote for the party that will best help America get out of the mess it is in
8:09
[Comment From Nader for The People]
It's not main stream media making the debates fake, it is the cpd taking control of the debates from the league of women voters - the cpd is run by the dem and repub parties
8:09
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
please can someone tell me how I can get my money right
8:09
[Comment From LaTasha]
obama was up all night too huh>
8:09
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
Pls go and read the house rules
8:10
[Comment From julie cee]
AMEN jabril...
8:10
[Comment From Diane]
uh...haven't things gone on for the last year +? Things have _already_ happened. This last couple weeks before the election is the rest of it.
8:10
[Comment From Patricia]
Remember McCain is old, probably up past his bed time
8:10
[Comment From LaTasha]
Good point Keesha
8:10
[Comment From bporlando]
I tought this debte was about foreign poicy
8:10
[Comment From TLH728]
jeez
8:10
[Comment From doc1]
look we all know people are going to vote party line but the undecided are important
8:10
[Comment From LaTasha]
Jim is a tough cookie.
8:10
[Comment From TLH728]
mccain
8:10
[Comment From Aaron]
Stop clearing your throat John
8:10
[Comment From Stewart]
Jabril.... after all of the policitics over the last year, you haven't figured out which party you think you will vote for? Come on... get real.
8:10
[Comment From Rob]
Where are the other candidates?
8:10
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
oh.. here we go another war story!!
8:10
[Comment From Sarah]
this is a bad night for him
8:10
[Comment From doc1]
i am falling sleep mccain
8:10
[Comment From TLH728]
i do not know anything about eisenhower answer the question
8:10
[Comment From Diane]
lol Patricia
8:11
[Comment From TLH728]
and i have heard this analogy 3 times
8:11
[Comment From Dawn S.]
where is mccain going with this? stay on topic dude!
8:11
[Comment From JYoungest1]
Nader for the People, all the candidates are fake now, they are made of so much plastic its ridiculous. No one needs the money they waste on their campaigns and if you like nader you know
8:11
[Comment From Aaron]
Answer the question!!
8:11
[Comment From Patricia]
Why vote party, instead of voting for the best candidate
8:11
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
how yourself accountable, McCain
8:11
[Comment From Michael]
Stories work good under some circumstances, but McCain looks like he is waisting time.
8:11
[Comment From Sarah]
I got excited for this?
8:11
[Comment From Diane]
Anyway Jabril, your views about this are only _one person's_ views and not the views of the whole. So thanks for your opinion - but no thanks.
8:11
[Comment From doc1]
somebody stab me with this story
8:11
[Comment From Sarah]
This is the first presidential debate I've ever watched
8:11
[Comment From julie cee]
TLH--google it for a history lesson--he preceded all of us!
8:11
[Comment From jake]
so far sooo boring
8:11
[Comment From Rob]
Yea how come Nader isn't here anyway?
8:11
[Comment From Stop]
he can't answer the question
8:11
[Comment From N.S]
They can't answer the question because they don't know what the plan is.
8:11
[Comment From matt]
Chairman of SEC will retire at end of Bush admin. That's an empty threat
8:11
[Comment From Jabril]
Look in the last few days a candidate wanted to suspend his campaign, this shows that neither the candidates are made up on what to do
8:12
[Comment From Dawn S.]
he's not saying anything concrete
8:12
[Comment From Kesha Williams]
tah dah!
8:12
[Comment From 6burkes]
they both are lame so far
8:12
[Comment From LaTasha]
i agree that we should hold the 'fat cats' accountable but hasn't this been going on? Where was he before now?
8:12
[Comment From TLH728]
i know julie cee...
8:12
[Comment From Michael]
Good verbal judo, but then a stumble.
8:12
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
The Chairman of the SEC wasn't chiefly responsible for this. McCain, again, has the right tone--the wise and experienced elder statesman who feels all this in his heart--but he and Obama both need to say specfically what they believe needs to be done.
8:12
[Comment From Nrogara]
McCain seems bored at this on CBS
8:12
[Comment From julie cee]
OBAMA's been smoking too much....he's anorexic...bless his heart
8:12
[Comment From Art Carden]
McCain on Greed: greed is a constant. Did the underlying level of greed change, or was it a change in incentives?
8:12
[Comment From tink]
yep
8:12
[Comment From doc1]
mccain knows about president eisenhwer b/c he was there with him writing the letter
8:12
[Comment From Frank]
They are afraid to answer the question. They both know that they are going to vote for the "bailout" plan. They are uncertain, though, about how the public feels about this payout. So they are deliberately posturing to be tentative.
8:12
[Comment From TLH728]
i dont need to know about eisenhower 3 times already
8:12
[Comment From Sarah]
lol...what's funny?..why are they laughing
8:12
[Comment From Nrogara]
good one doc
8:12
[Comment From Michael]
Nice body shot by Obama on fundementals
8:12
[Comment From Dawn S.]
good point frank.
8:13
[Comment From Art Carden]
"Wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down..." comparisons of medians, particularly for households, can be very misleading. In addition, benefits as a percentage of total compensation has increased.
8:13
[Comment From 6burkes]
Obama has not said anything all night
8:13
[Comment From doc1]
good call obama
8:13
[Comment From TLH728]
there is that key word...main street
8:13
[Comment From Michael]
Leher is tough on McCain
8:13
doc1: both senators had time to fix this mess in the senate in the past few years
8:13
[Comment From N.S]
MCcain suspended his campaign and still does not know the details of the plan
8:13
[Comment From Aaron]
Lehrer wants a fight!
8:13
[Comment From matt]
That's right. I need to know that my account (at Wachovia, which is searching for a buyer) will be worth tomorrow what its worth today!
8:13
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Obama is not being sufficiently aggressive as a debater. He needed to have turned to McCain and said, "Senator, what did you mean when you said the fundamentals of the economy were sound?" And then fold his arms and wait for an answer.
8:13
[Comment From marcina1127]
i don't think mccain has an answer to the first question. he went from "i hope i will support the plan" to "i will support the plan". he should know if he is or is not by now.
8:13
[Comment From Nader for The People]
Again, Nader and other candidates, McKinney, Baldwin, etc are not here bc the CPD is party controlled. Read the League of women voters statement on the '88 takeover of the cpd
8:14
[Comment From tink]
if i hear main street wall street one more time I"m gonna hurl
8:14
[Comment From vera]
try to be bipartisan if possible
8:14
[Comment From Rob]
here watch this it's more exciting a. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5WiE6MnmCM
8:14
[Comment From LaTasha]
good point NS
8:14
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Yes, Lehrer is being tougher on McCain than Obama is.
8:14
doc1: i was out for a while
8:14
[Comment From TLH728]
are we main street? or are american citizens
8:14
[Comment From Todd in Boise]
then pay them more, McCain
8:14
[Comment From Nrogara]
yea McCain quit Letterman pointed that out 2 nights ago
8:14
[Comment From Stop]
we need a commercial break
8:14
[Comment From Lin]
I thought McCain had a solid idea to help with bailout solution.
8:14
[Comment From vera]
lehr wants dynamics which is great for a debate, not a dialogue
8:14
[Comment From 6burkes]
there are no other candidates tonight, so go away
8:14
Kesha Williams: so true. Even though Obabma voted present at least he was there to know what was going on.. McCain wasn't there. he had to get the notes like he was in college.
8:14
[Comment From Nader for The People]
ALL ballot qualified candidates should be here - no one is harmed by hearing more views
8:14
[Comment From Michael]
Like two little senators can do something about a train about to wreck.
8:14
[Comment From LaTasha]
Nader for the People - can we discuss the candidates on the screen?
8:14
[Comment From julie cee]
i want to hear details, but it may be an unrealistic desire.
8:14
[Comment From Patricia]
McCain suspended his campaign because he was Grantstanding
8:14
[Comment From TLH728]
earmarks..pork belly spending
8:14
Commercial Appeal: Obama vs. McCain is our discussion tonight, please
8:15
[Comment From Stewart]
Yes... spending, spending, spending.... it is out of control and Obama wants even more!!!
8:15
[Comment From Jabril]
If people cannot look at this as a dress rehersal for the white house, then why have a debate. these debates are suppose to be for voters to find out what candidates really know and what they will do. why have them if everyones mind is made up. just go straight to the election.
8:15
[Comment From JYoungest1]
Not big on Mccain but he said that last one well
8:15
[Comment From julie cee]
Nader is not here...can we focus on what we're tasked with, please?
8:15
Kesha Williams: so did it take 8 yrs to find out that the spending was wrong?
8:15
[Comment From Michael]
What about earmarks in Alaska?
8:15
[Comment From matt]
he's used that joke before. kill it
8:15
[Comment From Sarah]
he's got a pen!!!!
8:15
[Comment From TLH728]
they both want to spend more
8:15
[Comment From TLH728]
famous?
8:15
[Comment From N.S]
We heard all of this before.
8:15
[Comment From Nader for The People]
we're tasked with the future of our country, no?
8:16
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
McCain's obsession with earmarks is shortsighted. He rightly notes the incredible expansion of government spending, but the biggest single increase was in fighting the Iraq War. The earmarks he is so fond of denouncing account for only about $80 billion a year.
8:16
[Comment From matt]
Ask him about Palin's earmark requests
8:16
[Comment From Bobbieee]
not just any pen an old one
8:16
[Comment From Art Carden]
McCain is right that we have to get spending under control, but we've heard this before from politicians from both parties for decades. He isn't very clear on the specifics.
8:16
[Comment From Mem]
It didn't take 8 years . They didn't care
8:16
[Comment From doc1]
why did u vote for all the spending in the first place to now veto it
8:16
[Comment From julie cee]
ok...we getting specific amounts.....now--are they accurate?
8:16
[Comment From Michael]
Good Point Michael Huggins Iraq War
8:16
[Comment From Stewart]
Because, Jabril, it is educating the voters.
8:16
[Comment From Frank]
McCain says that he will veto every spending bill that comes across his desk. I wonder, though, if he would veto the "bailout" plan?
8:16
[Comment From Mem]
McCain is a lair.
8:17
[Comment From Stewart]
Question for the group... Have you decided who you are voting for? Just a quick Yes / No
8:17
[Comment From Jabril]
No president will be able to turn this mess we are in, without bi-partisanship. Americans have to work with whoever is elected President
8:17
[Comment From Sarah]
I can't vote!
8:17
[Comment From Dawn S.]
yes
8:17
[Comment From doc1]
good call obama
8:17
[Comment From marcina1127]
hes saying that he is going to stop excessive spending but he is supporting the bailout and at least 8 more years in iraq...
8:17
[Comment From Frank]
Yes.
8:17
[Comment From Guest]
yes
8:17
[Comment From LaTasha]
yes
8:17
[Comment From N.S]
Obama is making a very good point with nice figures.
8:17
[Comment From Patricia]
Frank do you need askm McClain will vote the bailout plan
8:17
[Comment From waqe]
mem, yes, seemingly considerably more than obama.
8:17
[Comment From julie cee]
can anyone validate the 18 million e-marks for 2007?
8:17
[Comment From matt]
I really don't care how much Obama (or anyone) raises taxes for the rich. I'm all for it. Tax the rich, feed the poor.
8:17
[Comment From Patricia]
dittop DOC1
8:17
[Comment From Mem]
Obama
8:17
Kesha Williams: can't have anything stable without a strong foundation or roots
8:17
[Comment From doc1]
sounds good to me lets tax people who make more
8:17
[Comment From Stewart]
yes
8:17
[Comment From Dawn S.]
realistically tho..can we expect a tax cut if we have to pay for this bailout?
8:18
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
Obama still sounds too much like an economics professor discussing pros and cons in front of a class, and less like a warrior for his cause, seeking to defeat an opponent.
8:18
Kesha Williams: from the bottom up
8:18
[Comment From Frank]
Patricia, both of them will vote for the plan.
8:18
[Comment From conventional1]
These are both Senators talking like they are on the outside looking in when they comment on the financial crisis--suggesting they have to be President in order to monitor the greedy execs on Wall street
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
You
8:18
[Comment From TLH728]
oh gosh
8:18
[Comment From Donna]
If McCain uses the word "fundamental" again, I'm going to scream!
8:18
[Comment From Patricia]
mATT you can't really believe that
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
You
8:18
[Comment From matt]
I think a tax cut for most and a raise for the top 2% - 5% is reasonable
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
need
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
ome
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
one
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
who
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
can
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
hink
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
to
8:18
[Comment From Michael]
McCain is making a mistake
8:18
[Comment From Guest]
are yall watching the debate on cnn... they have the audience reaction gauge
8:18
[Comment From Art Carden]
Obama on "growing the economy from the bottom up:" how will tax cuts work without spending cuts?
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
run
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
the
8:18
Kesha Williams: uh oh sheriff= maverick
8:18
[Comment From Stewart]
I didn't see any NO's... sounds like eveyrone her has decided already... and so have most Americans.
8:18
[Comment From 6burkes]
once 51% learn they can screw the other 49% the whole country is doomed
8:18
[Comment From Mem]
country
8:19
[Comment From Mem]
not
8:19
[Comment From Mem]
a
8:19
[Comment From conventional1]
Neither one have any specifics--uh, we have to have reform
8:19
[Comment From matt]
Donna, you'll be hoarse by tomorrow morning
8:19
[Comment From TLH728]
keating 5
8:19
[Comment From Dawn S.]
a republican talking about corruption? thats laughable!
8:19
[Comment From Jabril]
The next president is going to have to reel in the federal reserve, many people don't know that it is a private entity
8:19
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
The "Reaction Gauge" is pretty confusing.
8:19
[Comment From Michael Huggins]
If McCain was called "The Sherriff," he needed to have exercised some of that spirit when dealing with Charles Keating.
8:19
[Comment From marcina1127]
from "maverick" to sherrif"... :-)
8:19
[Comment From N.S]
What is McCain reading from.
8:19
[Comment From Sarah]
that's neat.. audience meter
8:19
[Comment From Michael]
McCain is making a big mistake defending tax cut for wealth
8:19
[Comment From Aaron]
On snap, here we go!
8:19
[Comment From Guest]
hey dont make fun of my reaction gauge. ha, but yes all the colors just blur together.
8:19
[Comment From LaTasha]
that scared me!
8:20
[Comment From sarah]
took him long enough
8:20
[Comment From Donna]
The Kennedy comment McCain made was for sympathy only.
8:20
[Comment From Frank]
Obama JUST became impressive.
8:20
[Comment From Frank]
Obama JUST became impressive.
8:20
[Comment From Art Carden]
We can analyze Obama's health care program using basic supply and demand (giant hint, students). If the price of health care is zero, what happens to quantity demanded and quantity supplied?
8:20
[Comment From sarah]
eye contact!
8:20
[Comment From tink]
go Barak...interrupt and make your point....get tough....he needs to get a bit heated
8:20
Kesha Williams: abra cadabra
8:20
[Comment From Lin]
McCain is using scare tactics to capture voters
8:20
[Comment From Sarah]
what are earmarks? It might be more interesting if I understood what they were talking about.
8:20
[Comment From Aaron]
Obama is going after him. Here we go.
8:20
[Comment From waqe]
let's hear his comments on taxes.. i hope he not say he cutting taxes for everyone.
8:20
[Comment From TLH728]
the health plan will not happen
8:20
[Comment From 6burkes]
productive parts of society do not need the government unlawfully redistributing their work efforts
8:20
[Comment From B-Rob]
This "respond directly to the opponent" nonsense seems more like couples counseling than a debate
8:20
[Comment From Patricia]
McClain looks a little up set
8:21
[Comment From sarah w.]
what ever happened to caring about actual people...
8:21
[Comment From vera]
earmarks are pork (excess spending or special interest spending)
8:21
Kesha Williams: let's hope that his temper doesn't flare...it will turn into one of his tv ads.
8:21
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
Ireland? What happened to China or Taiwan? =D
8:21
[Comment From waqe]
he has twisted the comments on personal taxes, and replying about corporate taxes.
8:21
[Comment From doc1]
here we go again, we r talking about ireland
8:21
[Comment From Patricia]
A Health plan needs to happen
8:21
[Comment From Stop]
Obama needs to snap on McCain about his choice of running mate and her earmarks
8:21
[Comment From Donna]
My thought is that McCain came into the debate behind, (tried to get out of it) so it's all downhill from there for him.
8:21
[Comment From Dawn S.]
mccain i don't want a story...tell me what these business tax cuts are really going to do to stimulate the economy
8:22
[Comment From LaTasha]
I recall mccain mocking obama for taxing corporations... am i alone in that?
8:22
[Comment From conventional1]
dumb comment from McCain on low taxes in Ireland--there aren't plentiful jobs in Ireland or a thriving economy there except for maybe tourism
8:22
6burkes: how can the government pay for your health when only the individual bears responsibility for being unhealthy
8:22
[Comment From Frank]
McCain can help himself, here, by speaking to the issue of the "hurting people."
8:22
[Comment From Aaron]
McCain is already repeating himself.
8:22
[Comment From Samuel (S)]
I want people to have free money, but thats not gonna happen now is it McCain?
8:22
[Comment From TLH728]
the road to nowhere
8:22
[Comment From Art Carden]
We can learn a lot from Ireland. It has been called the "Celtic Tiger" because of its robust economic growth in the last couple of decades, largely as a result of sound economic policies.
8:22
[Comment From Sarah]
I didn't hear anything about Ireland......oh my goodness
8:22
[Comment From doc1]
where does the 5000 will come when u r gining 700bil to corporations
8:22