The voters have spoken, and have decided that not only would they voluntarily tax themselves further, they also rejected measures that provided a quick fix to budget problems without raising taxes - raiding special purpose funds that had been "underutilized" in the time leading up to the budget failure. The only measure that passed is a hit against legislator pay - a weak hit but still a hit.
There are those with an ideological bias against any restraint on government. That the voters actually stood up to the state is considered a travesty. Economic commentator Paul Krugman blames the whole mess on Proposition 13 which made it difficult to raise property taxes and impossible to reassess upwards without a change of house ownership, and requiring a 2/3 supermajority to raise taxes, which is considered holding the majority hostage to the minority. Since the Democrats do not have a 2/3 majority they are forced to come to terms with the permanent Republican minority in order for taxes to be raised. Paul Krugman is against any form of spending cuts.
Even with the requirement for a 2/3 majority, California is already one of the most heavily taxed states in the nation, showing how little the requirement for a supermajority hampered the ability to raise taxes. It should also be noted that for all of Krugman's claims to being an economist, he completely failed to predict the recession that started unofficially in 2007 and officially in 2008 - the biggest economic news of the decade.
So Governor Schwarzenegger is striking back. When forced to cut, he made some interesting choices. Some of them make sense, such as the park closures, but he also wants to have it so that if stolen property is recovered by the police they have no requirement to notify the owner that the stolen property is recovered. This would ultimately result in a new form of civil asset forfeiture, forfeiture by default.
He's also proposing a 5 percent pay cut for state employees.
Since Chapter 9 bankruptcy is only available to municipalities the only option the state has if bailouts fail is to default. It has been many years since a state defaulted on its debts, and doing so would lead to a domino effect of state debt.
That is probably why Governor Schwarzenegger is targeting his cuts at certain services. He’s not laying off auditors, but he is closing state parks. He has proposed cutting state salaries by 5% since that would mean he doesn’t have to fire state employees, but instead of firing state employees he’s cutting funding for medical care and school busses. Granted while the state should not be in those, the cuts seem designed to inconvenience the residents of the state as much as possible.
But these programs are also the reason many people believe the state exists. This is a dangerous move for Governor Schwarzenegger because if he follows through on his threats people may discover that they do not need the state to provide these services, and will wonder where their tax dollars are actually going. This could even result in a freer California.
No wonder Peter Schiff, in a sentiment shared by all liberty lovers, advised Obama to reject any bailout of California, advice Obama is likely to reject for the very same reason that any libertarians hope he takes it.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
The TSA
Times have been difficult for the public relations department of the TSA. A story was released on CNN describing the MMW imaging system being introduced as a new security measure. Included in the CNN story was an image as the TSA screener would see.
This image was considerably more graphic than the one the TSA has been using to assure everyone that there was nothing improper going on with the imaging system, that this was not an electronic strip search, that the images were "family safe" and could be used "on the cover of Reader's Digest."
Scanner Images - NSFW
The image on the left is the one provided by the TSA. The image on the right is the one provided by CNN. The only change to the image is to make the CNN image larger to be of comparable size to the TSA image - meaning that even when smaller the CNN image showed considerably more detail than the TSA wanted the American public to know about.
The TSA spokespeople assure the traveling public that the capability of the computers to store those images has been disabled. As any technical person knows, that the capability exists means that it can be reenabled at any time with no difficulty. The assurance that the capability is currently turned off offers no reassurance to anyone who understands how computers work. This capability is turned off as long as the public is worried, and can be turned on at any time.
Because the images were so graphic, a major concern was whether or not children will be subjected to these searches. As it turns out, Children will be screened, although any informed parent may choose to opt their child out of MMW screening to opt for a frisking instead. Any child old enough to stand unassisted with hands raised will be a possible sbject for this screening.
This makes the TSA the world's foremost child pornographer. Every single TSO who works around one of these machines could be considered a criminal for their participation in this procedure. Every TSO who is in a position of authority of them, going all the way up the chain of command to the head of the TSA (and higher) is potentially liable for conspiracy to and aiding and abetting child pornography.
The TSA is already seen as criminal by most people Apparently it was decided that the reputation of the TSA wasn't bad enough in the eyes of the public. Those who work there are already seen as criminals. Now those who work there risk being seen as sex offenders.
This image was considerably more graphic than the one the TSA has been using to assure everyone that there was nothing improper going on with the imaging system, that this was not an electronic strip search, that the images were "family safe" and could be used "on the cover of Reader's Digest."
Scanner Images - NSFW
The image on the left is the one provided by the TSA. The image on the right is the one provided by CNN. The only change to the image is to make the CNN image larger to be of comparable size to the TSA image - meaning that even when smaller the CNN image showed considerably more detail than the TSA wanted the American public to know about.
The TSA spokespeople assure the traveling public that the capability of the computers to store those images has been disabled. As any technical person knows, that the capability exists means that it can be reenabled at any time with no difficulty. The assurance that the capability is currently turned off offers no reassurance to anyone who understands how computers work. This capability is turned off as long as the public is worried, and can be turned on at any time.
Because the images were so graphic, a major concern was whether or not children will be subjected to these searches. As it turns out, Children will be screened, although any informed parent may choose to opt their child out of MMW screening to opt for a frisking instead. Any child old enough to stand unassisted with hands raised will be a possible sbject for this screening.
This makes the TSA the world's foremost child pornographer. Every single TSO who works around one of these machines could be considered a criminal for their participation in this procedure. Every TSO who is in a position of authority of them, going all the way up the chain of command to the head of the TSA (and higher) is potentially liable for conspiracy to and aiding and abetting child pornography.
The TSA is already seen as criminal by most people Apparently it was decided that the reputation of the TSA wasn't bad enough in the eyes of the public. Those who work there are already seen as criminals. Now those who work there risk being seen as sex offenders.
Friday, May 15, 2009
What Recovery?
The economic news this year was already going to be bad. Those who did foresee hard times last year also foresaw that this year would have a commercial real estate bust. Those who own strip malls still have to pay the mortgage, even if there are no stores renting space in the strip mall. The commercial real estate bust is on top of the continuing residential real estate bust. But now it appears that matters are going to get much worse.
Some people appear to think that the economy is recovering. Stocks are up somewhat and therefore everything should be better soon. This is according to officials in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, the very same officials who failed to see the recession coming in the first place.
If a bucket has a hole in the bottom, it will eventually drain of whatever is in the bucket. But if water is added to the bucket at a faster rate than the hole can drain it the water level in the bucket will, for a while, rise. Bush and Obama, through their stimulus packages, have pumped so much money into the economy that the bubble has partially re-inflated in spite of it deflating just as much as before.
What has instead happened is an increase in debt of unprecedented scale. The end result is that when this trickles through the economy prices will skyrocket. This is the leading indicator of severe inflation.
But while that would be bad news on its own, the government has decided that stricter rules are needed for credit cards to prevent the raising of rates or the lowering of available credit for those who have them.
Any act of lending is a risk, which is one of the reasons lenders charge interest. If it becomes impossible to recoup the risk of lending, such lending will cease. It’s already the case that payday loans are under heavy fire. This will shutter the other means of short term unsecured debt that people have access to. This is not to suggest that debt is a good thing, especially in the current economic environment, but responsible use of debt and short term loans will be hurt by the attacks on payday loans and credit cards.
Combine that with the proposed Employee Free Choice Act and a new mercantilist pro-America policy coming from the White House it becomes apparent that this year the United States is in for a very rough time.
It is no wonder that the administrators of the Social Security Trust Fund recently announced that they are foreseeing trouble.
Some people appear to think that the economy is recovering. Stocks are up somewhat and therefore everything should be better soon. This is according to officials in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, the very same officials who failed to see the recession coming in the first place.
If a bucket has a hole in the bottom, it will eventually drain of whatever is in the bucket. But if water is added to the bucket at a faster rate than the hole can drain it the water level in the bucket will, for a while, rise. Bush and Obama, through their stimulus packages, have pumped so much money into the economy that the bubble has partially re-inflated in spite of it deflating just as much as before.
What has instead happened is an increase in debt of unprecedented scale. The end result is that when this trickles through the economy prices will skyrocket. This is the leading indicator of severe inflation.
But while that would be bad news on its own, the government has decided that stricter rules are needed for credit cards to prevent the raising of rates or the lowering of available credit for those who have them.
Any act of lending is a risk, which is one of the reasons lenders charge interest. If it becomes impossible to recoup the risk of lending, such lending will cease. It’s already the case that payday loans are under heavy fire. This will shutter the other means of short term unsecured debt that people have access to. This is not to suggest that debt is a good thing, especially in the current economic environment, but responsible use of debt and short term loans will be hurt by the attacks on payday loans and credit cards.
Combine that with the proposed Employee Free Choice Act and a new mercantilist pro-America policy coming from the White House it becomes apparent that this year the United States is in for a very rough time.
It is no wonder that the administrators of the Social Security Trust Fund recently announced that they are foreseeing trouble.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Libertarian Accusations
Finding it relevant to the discussion at hand, a post from The Humble Libertarian was referenced in an internet discussion forum.
The response was quite unworthy of a forum alleging intellectual discussion.
It is ironic.
Libertarians say "we have no desire to take from you what is yours" and are called "greedy". Libertarians say "we have no desire to run your life for you" and are called "arrogant".
Orwell would be proud of modern political debate because it so closely mirror the doublespeak he wrote about in 1984. Libertarians are constantly accused of saying the exact opposite of what libertarians actually are saying.
How else could someone accuse a libertarian of selfisheness for saying "I have no desire to take your money or that of your descendants"? It makes no intellectual sense, but the desire to deficit spend for wealth redistrubution and continue enslaving future generations in programs such as Social Security is considered altruistic. A libertarian is willing to say "look, we'll continue funding it for you, and sacrifice our own ability to receive payment, if you will allow our own kids to not have to pay us. We have no desire to rob our own children for our own benefit, we desire to do our best for them." That is considered selfish and greedy.
What kind of doublethink does it take to respond to a libertarian saying "I can't tell you how to live your life. Nobody can tell you how you should live your life. It's up to you." by accusing that libertarian of having profound arrogance? What is more arrogant, to leave others alone or to insist that one does indeed posess the knowledge necessary to run the lives of others?
Accusations such as these are not meant to be believed. They are projections, trying to convince the credulous that the one making the accusation is not the one actually guilty of the accusation. It is useful to confuse and distract, to ensure as C. S Lewis described, people are bailing out the water furiously when the ship is on fire, but spraying water everywhere when the ship is flooding.
The response was quite unworthy of a forum alleging intellectual discussion.
"humble"???
"libertarian"????
?????????
It is ironic.
Libertarians say "we have no desire to take from you what is yours" and are called "greedy". Libertarians say "we have no desire to run your life for you" and are called "arrogant".
Orwell would be proud of modern political debate because it so closely mirror the doublespeak he wrote about in 1984. Libertarians are constantly accused of saying the exact opposite of what libertarians actually are saying.
How else could someone accuse a libertarian of selfisheness for saying "I have no desire to take your money or that of your descendants"? It makes no intellectual sense, but the desire to deficit spend for wealth redistrubution and continue enslaving future generations in programs such as Social Security is considered altruistic. A libertarian is willing to say "look, we'll continue funding it for you, and sacrifice our own ability to receive payment, if you will allow our own kids to not have to pay us. We have no desire to rob our own children for our own benefit, we desire to do our best for them." That is considered selfish and greedy.
What kind of doublethink does it take to respond to a libertarian saying "I can't tell you how to live your life. Nobody can tell you how you should live your life. It's up to you." by accusing that libertarian of having profound arrogance? What is more arrogant, to leave others alone or to insist that one does indeed posess the knowledge necessary to run the lives of others?
Accusations such as these are not meant to be believed. They are projections, trying to convince the credulous that the one making the accusation is not the one actually guilty of the accusation. It is useful to confuse and distract, to ensure as C. S Lewis described, people are bailing out the water furiously when the ship is on fire, but spraying water everywhere when the ship is flooding.
Friday, May 01, 2009
The Authoritarian Mindset
When encountering those who have a desire to tell others what to do, to dictate to them, one can try to classify them into different categories. C. S. Lewis did so by discussing the difference between the dictator who dictates out of greed and the one who dictates out of a desire to help others. The former, he said, was preferable because his greed could sometimes be sated.
Another way of looking at this is to compare those who desire to dictate because of a specific action they see (or fail to see) in others that they want to correct. While they consider themselves lovers of liberty they are all too willing to violate it for "just this cause" or "just that purpose." It could be the moral authoritarianism of the war against vice or it could be the socialist authoritarianism of the war against differences of ability. In neither case does the person involved see himself as anti-liberty, but they see themselves correcting a flaw in liberty.
But the worst dictators are the ones who most strongly desire to be dictated to.
Some people, a minority but they actually do exist and are the antithesis of libertarians, are actually comfortable in an authoritarian system because it frees them from the necessity of decision making. They do not need to rely on their own judgment. Experts, who have been recognized by the government as experts, are more qualified to make decisions for them.
These people hate libertarians because libertarians are willing to challenge the experts. Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize, and libertarians reply with "So what? He's still an idiot." Libertarians even say that the Supreme Court has erred on occasion, and not just when later courts overturned earlier judgments. And sometimes the libertarians who say these things are self-educated and do not have the necessary certificates to prove that they know what they actually do know.
An individual must not challenge the decision making of the proper authorities. That one could do so challenges their worldview to the core.
These people also make the most severe dictators. When given power their decisions must never be challenged because they have to be right because they have all the certificates and credentials that say they are right. Dissent is not to be tolerated.
These people make the most docile slaves and the most demented dictators.
Another way of looking at this is to compare those who desire to dictate because of a specific action they see (or fail to see) in others that they want to correct. While they consider themselves lovers of liberty they are all too willing to violate it for "just this cause" or "just that purpose." It could be the moral authoritarianism of the war against vice or it could be the socialist authoritarianism of the war against differences of ability. In neither case does the person involved see himself as anti-liberty, but they see themselves correcting a flaw in liberty.
But the worst dictators are the ones who most strongly desire to be dictated to.
Some people, a minority but they actually do exist and are the antithesis of libertarians, are actually comfortable in an authoritarian system because it frees them from the necessity of decision making. They do not need to rely on their own judgment. Experts, who have been recognized by the government as experts, are more qualified to make decisions for them.
These people hate libertarians because libertarians are willing to challenge the experts. Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize, and libertarians reply with "So what? He's still an idiot." Libertarians even say that the Supreme Court has erred on occasion, and not just when later courts overturned earlier judgments. And sometimes the libertarians who say these things are self-educated and do not have the necessary certificates to prove that they know what they actually do know.
An individual must not challenge the decision making of the proper authorities. That one could do so challenges their worldview to the core.
These people also make the most severe dictators. When given power their decisions must never be challenged because they have to be right because they have all the certificates and credentials that say they are right. Dissent is not to be tolerated.
These people make the most docile slaves and the most demented dictators.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Two faces of liberalism
Although five factions of liberalism were explored in Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism and the relationship between liberals and libertarians was explored in Liberals versus the Nolan Chart, sometimes it is useful to re-examine a subject, to look at it from a new perspective.
One way to consider the problem of liberalism and the relationship between liberals and libertarians is to consider two distinct types of liberals. These types are very difficult to distinguish because they have the same goals and the same proposals to accomplish these goals.
In Liberals versus the Nolan Chart, it was considered that liberals and libertarians have the same end goals of economic fairness and civil liberty but take exactly the opposite approach to reach these goals. Since unlike the conservative to either camp the goals are the same, this could produce sympathy between liberals and libertarians. Since the methods are so diametrically opposed this more often produces friction between the two groups.
Theoretically it should be possible to open up a dialogue to discuss which method would achieve the goal. This seldom works, and one of the reasons it doesn’t work is because of the two types of liberals.
The difference between the two types is very fine. For all intents and purposes they are indistinguishable. What separates them is that one chooses the means in order to reach the goal, while the other chooses the goal in order to reach the means. For instance, while one supports unionization in order to achieve economic fairness for workers, one supports economic fairness for workers in order to achieve unionization. For one the primary purpose is economic fairness. For the other the primary purpose is unionization.
The two types are what makes it so difficult to engage in that dialogue. When a libertarian says "Universal Health Care is not the way to ensure everyone gets health care" one type may be willing to listen. Does the libertarian perhaps have a better proposal? The other type is completely unwilling to listen because any proposal the libertarian might have conflicts with the higher goal of implementing UHC for the sake of implementing UHC.
With that type there can actually be no compromise. While too many liberals are trying socialism in an effort to achieve the same goals of libertarians, these don’t actually care at all about the shared goals of libertarians and liberals but only use the words in an effort to advance an agenda of government power.
In other words, they are conservatives using different rhetoric.
One way to consider the problem of liberalism and the relationship between liberals and libertarians is to consider two distinct types of liberals. These types are very difficult to distinguish because they have the same goals and the same proposals to accomplish these goals.
In Liberals versus the Nolan Chart, it was considered that liberals and libertarians have the same end goals of economic fairness and civil liberty but take exactly the opposite approach to reach these goals. Since unlike the conservative to either camp the goals are the same, this could produce sympathy between liberals and libertarians. Since the methods are so diametrically opposed this more often produces friction between the two groups.
Theoretically it should be possible to open up a dialogue to discuss which method would achieve the goal. This seldom works, and one of the reasons it doesn’t work is because of the two types of liberals.
The difference between the two types is very fine. For all intents and purposes they are indistinguishable. What separates them is that one chooses the means in order to reach the goal, while the other chooses the goal in order to reach the means. For instance, while one supports unionization in order to achieve economic fairness for workers, one supports economic fairness for workers in order to achieve unionization. For one the primary purpose is economic fairness. For the other the primary purpose is unionization.
The two types are what makes it so difficult to engage in that dialogue. When a libertarian says "Universal Health Care is not the way to ensure everyone gets health care" one type may be willing to listen. Does the libertarian perhaps have a better proposal? The other type is completely unwilling to listen because any proposal the libertarian might have conflicts with the higher goal of implementing UHC for the sake of implementing UHC.
With that type there can actually be no compromise. While too many liberals are trying socialism in an effort to achieve the same goals of libertarians, these don’t actually care at all about the shared goals of libertarians and liberals but only use the words in an effort to advance an agenda of government power.
In other words, they are conservatives using different rhetoric.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Who would be hurt by ending the drug war
A friend actually requested this article. The economic dislocations of ending the drug war is one reason that she cannot yet back doing so. She wanted this issue explored farther.
Momentum is growing to legalize some drugs, which is good. So what will it mean if drugs are legalized?
In terms of abuse, it is unlikely that matters will change significantly in terms of general usage. The ending of prohibition provides an object lesson in that as consumption of alcohol changed very little once prohibition was repealed. If anything the damage will be lessened the way the damage of alcohol was lessened due to the introduction of quality and price competition.
But the real area of focus is in how the economy will be impacted by the ending of drug prohibition.
Government statistics show that a significant portion of the prison population is "non-violent drug offenders." It's not the best indicator, as the best is "victimless drug offenders." A victimless drug offender only includes those involved in purchase, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and conspiracy to purchase, sell, possess, or use drugs. Non-violent drug offender can include those who steal without hurting anyone. "Victimless" also includes money launderers from the drug sales.
It's also often reported that the prisons are overcrowded. Releasing the victimless drug offenders will reduce overcrowding by a significant amount. This will bring a recession into the prison construction industry, but those in that industry can apply their talents to constructing other buildings.
This will also significantly reduce the role of any police involved in drug enforcement, from city and county level up to the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Those on the city and county level, where most laws are enforced, will be able to turn their attention to crimes that actually have victims. In an ideal world police reports about drug enforcement mean that all other crimes have been solved. In this world those reports mean that time is being taken away from all other crimes.
It is at the level of the Drug Enforcement Agency where real changes will be seen. Taking just marijuana off the enforcement list alone will reduce the need for their operations enough to cut both budget and jobs.
This could result in unemployment among drug enforcement agents. Many of them could transfer to other departments within law enforcement. Given that all of them are already tax consumers instead of wealth producers, switching them from drug enforcement to welfare recipient merely switches numbers from one column to another.
Plus it enriches everyone else because even if their welfare exactly equals their salary they cannot impoverish anyone through the activities of their job any more.
Due to a decline in crime, including violent crime, law enforcement will find they have less to do. As a result, slowly, the police may start to reduce their numbers. That is actually unlikely as government agencies exist to expand their budgets instead of achieving efficiency. More likely the police will claim that budgets need to be maintained or expanded to continue the downward trend in crime.
Cities will no longer need to pay reparations for wrong house no knock raids (sometimes ending in the death of the house occupant and always ending in death of their dogs). Lawsuits will decline as a result. The cities will be richer by the amount of those lawsuits. Those who live at the places that may be raided are not impoverished by the raids anymore. (And the dogs are all safe.)
The biggest losers of drug legalization are the criminal syndicates that currently supply illegal drugs. They will lose their market share, their standard of living will rapidly plummet – and they will not be able to wage war on their competition.
Momentum is growing to legalize some drugs, which is good. So what will it mean if drugs are legalized?
In terms of abuse, it is unlikely that matters will change significantly in terms of general usage. The ending of prohibition provides an object lesson in that as consumption of alcohol changed very little once prohibition was repealed. If anything the damage will be lessened the way the damage of alcohol was lessened due to the introduction of quality and price competition.
But the real area of focus is in how the economy will be impacted by the ending of drug prohibition.
Government statistics show that a significant portion of the prison population is "non-violent drug offenders." It's not the best indicator, as the best is "victimless drug offenders." A victimless drug offender only includes those involved in purchase, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and conspiracy to purchase, sell, possess, or use drugs. Non-violent drug offender can include those who steal without hurting anyone. "Victimless" also includes money launderers from the drug sales.
It's also often reported that the prisons are overcrowded. Releasing the victimless drug offenders will reduce overcrowding by a significant amount. This will bring a recession into the prison construction industry, but those in that industry can apply their talents to constructing other buildings.
This will also significantly reduce the role of any police involved in drug enforcement, from city and county level up to the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Those on the city and county level, where most laws are enforced, will be able to turn their attention to crimes that actually have victims. In an ideal world police reports about drug enforcement mean that all other crimes have been solved. In this world those reports mean that time is being taken away from all other crimes.
It is at the level of the Drug Enforcement Agency where real changes will be seen. Taking just marijuana off the enforcement list alone will reduce the need for their operations enough to cut both budget and jobs.
This could result in unemployment among drug enforcement agents. Many of them could transfer to other departments within law enforcement. Given that all of them are already tax consumers instead of wealth producers, switching them from drug enforcement to welfare recipient merely switches numbers from one column to another.
Plus it enriches everyone else because even if their welfare exactly equals their salary they cannot impoverish anyone through the activities of their job any more.
Due to a decline in crime, including violent crime, law enforcement will find they have less to do. As a result, slowly, the police may start to reduce their numbers. That is actually unlikely as government agencies exist to expand their budgets instead of achieving efficiency. More likely the police will claim that budgets need to be maintained or expanded to continue the downward trend in crime.
Cities will no longer need to pay reparations for wrong house no knock raids (sometimes ending in the death of the house occupant and always ending in death of their dogs). Lawsuits will decline as a result. The cities will be richer by the amount of those lawsuits. Those who live at the places that may be raided are not impoverished by the raids anymore. (And the dogs are all safe.)
The biggest losers of drug legalization are the criminal syndicates that currently supply illegal drugs. They will lose their market share, their standard of living will rapidly plummet – and they will not be able to wage war on their competition.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
The war on home-based businesses
In the entry Home Business Opportunities, various endeavors one could invest in with low startup costs were investigated, endeavors that could operate out of the home. These could function as home based businesses as well as sidelines to primary employment.
Many potential businesses are already forbidden to entrants without extensive resources due to prohibitive licensing requirements, a subject much examined by the Institute for Justice as they try to remedy the various laws that prohibit people from working their way out of poverty.
But it is impossible to license every single field. It is impossible to prohibit home businesses. While certain fields can be forbidden or strictly regulated, the realm of human endeavor is too broad for piece-meal laws to restrict.
In order to inhibit home based businesses it is necessary for there to be very broad laws to catch any endeavor not already covered by existing licensure laws.
Two such bills have recently been in the congress. One has been signed into law and one is in committee.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is one of those laws.
Anyone who makes any home crafts, from furniture to clothing, has to spend exorbitant sums of money to test the product and ensure that the amount of lead in it is safely under the legal limit, even if there was no lead involved at any stage of manufacture. Buying yarn, knitting a scarf, and selling that scarf is now restricted unless the scarf is tested – even though the yarn has theoretically been tested.
An exception to that rule is that it may be theoretically possible to say that the product is not primarily intended for children, requiring extensive market research to determine if that is the case, extensive market research that (like the testing) is something large corporations can afford but home based enterprises cannot.
The other is the Food Safety Modernization Act which will do for the family farm what the CPSIA did to the family firm.
It is officially target at organic farms, requiring them to use commercial fertilizers and pesticides that organic farmers currently do not use. But that is not the full scope of the law. Anyone who sells any excess produce (as family farms often do) are subject to this law as those family farms are now commercial farms. This bill also includes standard for feed of livestock
Also this creates a Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services that tracks the DNA of food products, which would be of great benefit to the primary lobbyist in favor of the bill, Monsanto. Given how bees are spreading genetically modified crop pollen to organic farms and family farms, Monsanto feels entitled to payment whenever a farmer has contaminated seed.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified crops, billing innocent farmers is a dirty tactic. Pushing a bill through congress to make it easier is even dirtier. That this will ultimately undermine the family farm when excess produce is produced is a terrible idea in the middle of a recession or at the beginning of a depression.
Two very broad sweeping bills, they essentially cover any product you can sell that is edible (FSMA) or inedible (CPISA). A home based business either sells products or services, and these bills restrict products. Since most services are either licensed or are illegal, these bills finish the destruction of the home business.
Many potential businesses are already forbidden to entrants without extensive resources due to prohibitive licensing requirements, a subject much examined by the Institute for Justice as they try to remedy the various laws that prohibit people from working their way out of poverty.
But it is impossible to license every single field. It is impossible to prohibit home businesses. While certain fields can be forbidden or strictly regulated, the realm of human endeavor is too broad for piece-meal laws to restrict.
In order to inhibit home based businesses it is necessary for there to be very broad laws to catch any endeavor not already covered by existing licensure laws.
Two such bills have recently been in the congress. One has been signed into law and one is in committee.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is one of those laws.
Anyone who makes any home crafts, from furniture to clothing, has to spend exorbitant sums of money to test the product and ensure that the amount of lead in it is safely under the legal limit, even if there was no lead involved at any stage of manufacture. Buying yarn, knitting a scarf, and selling that scarf is now restricted unless the scarf is tested – even though the yarn has theoretically been tested.
An exception to that rule is that it may be theoretically possible to say that the product is not primarily intended for children, requiring extensive market research to determine if that is the case, extensive market research that (like the testing) is something large corporations can afford but home based enterprises cannot.
The other is the Food Safety Modernization Act which will do for the family farm what the CPSIA did to the family firm.
It is officially target at organic farms, requiring them to use commercial fertilizers and pesticides that organic farmers currently do not use. But that is not the full scope of the law. Anyone who sells any excess produce (as family farms often do) are subject to this law as those family farms are now commercial farms. This bill also includes standard for feed of livestock
Also this creates a Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services that tracks the DNA of food products, which would be of great benefit to the primary lobbyist in favor of the bill, Monsanto. Given how bees are spreading genetically modified crop pollen to organic farms and family farms, Monsanto feels entitled to payment whenever a farmer has contaminated seed.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified crops, billing innocent farmers is a dirty tactic. Pushing a bill through congress to make it easier is even dirtier. That this will ultimately undermine the family farm when excess produce is produced is a terrible idea in the middle of a recession or at the beginning of a depression.
Two very broad sweeping bills, they essentially cover any product you can sell that is edible (FSMA) or inedible (CPISA). A home based business either sells products or services, and these bills restrict products. Since most services are either licensed or are illegal, these bills finish the destruction of the home business.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Analysis of the California Ballot Propositions for May 2009
Generally analysis of ballot propositions is quite simple. Any ballot proposition that advances liberty is supported, any that diminishes it is opposed, and any lateral movement is abstained. But sometimes special circumstances around a ballot proposition can force one to think tactically instead of strategically and take a position outside the normal rule. Some of the ballot propositions are clearly anti-liberty, some have the potential to be mixed, and some of them are lateral movements. Only one of them is good.
Proposition 1A is the worst that will be on the May ballot. If it is approved there will be a budget cap, but there will also be two additional years of higher taxes. The budget cap contains loopholes so that voter approved initiatives could divert money from the “rainy day fund” and any tax increase raises the budget limit. The arguments against were carefully chosen from friendly sources to ensure that they do not mention the extended taxes. If Proposition 1A fails the voters get two years of higher taxes. If Proposition 1A passes the voters get four years of higher taxes. This measure must be opposed.
Proposition 1B is simply additional spending. In the best of times libertarians oppose additional spending, and these are not the best of times. It diverts money from the rainy day fund and gives it to the schools. The catch is that Proposition 1B only passes if Proposition 1A passes, making this a bribe to the teachers to not oppose Proposition 1A. Normally the teacher’s union would oppose even a phony budget cap as offered by Proposition 1A, but if they oppose Proposition 1A they lose proposition 1B. This measure also must be opposed.
Proposition 1C allows the state to sell the proceeds from future lottery earnings. Essentially this allows the state to go into debt by borrowing against the lottery. It is by going into debt that California got into the current mess it is in. It would be simpler to just divert money from the lottery. In some respects this is a lateral move that would simply be ignored, and in some respects this is more debt that should be opposed, but if it is treated as a lateral move this is one of those exceptions about ignoring lateral moves. If this is considered lateral, it should be opposed for the tactical reason of solving the budget crisis on the backs of the taxpayers. This would nullify part of the horrendous budget deal and force the legislators back to work. Whether considered as a diminishing of liberty or a lateral movement, this measure should be opposed.
Propositions 1D and 1E are both clearly lateral movements. They divert money from special funds that libertarians opposed in the first place. Proposition 1D allows the state to divert money from a special children and families fund created in 1998 by raising taxes on cigarettes. Proposition 1E allows the state to divert money from a special mental health fund created in 2004 by raising taxes on millionares. Both of these take special fund monies and put them in the general fund. There may be a libertarian argument in favor of doing that, but because approval of these propositions would facilitate the horrible budget deal they should be opposed.
Proposition 1F is the only good measure on the ballot. It prohibits pay raises for the legislature and they governor if the budget has not passed. This one should be supported.
Source
Proposition 1A is the worst that will be on the May ballot. If it is approved there will be a budget cap, but there will also be two additional years of higher taxes. The budget cap contains loopholes so that voter approved initiatives could divert money from the “rainy day fund” and any tax increase raises the budget limit. The arguments against were carefully chosen from friendly sources to ensure that they do not mention the extended taxes. If Proposition 1A fails the voters get two years of higher taxes. If Proposition 1A passes the voters get four years of higher taxes. This measure must be opposed.
Proposition 1B is simply additional spending. In the best of times libertarians oppose additional spending, and these are not the best of times. It diverts money from the rainy day fund and gives it to the schools. The catch is that Proposition 1B only passes if Proposition 1A passes, making this a bribe to the teachers to not oppose Proposition 1A. Normally the teacher’s union would oppose even a phony budget cap as offered by Proposition 1A, but if they oppose Proposition 1A they lose proposition 1B. This measure also must be opposed.
Proposition 1C allows the state to sell the proceeds from future lottery earnings. Essentially this allows the state to go into debt by borrowing against the lottery. It is by going into debt that California got into the current mess it is in. It would be simpler to just divert money from the lottery. In some respects this is a lateral move that would simply be ignored, and in some respects this is more debt that should be opposed, but if it is treated as a lateral move this is one of those exceptions about ignoring lateral moves. If this is considered lateral, it should be opposed for the tactical reason of solving the budget crisis on the backs of the taxpayers. This would nullify part of the horrendous budget deal and force the legislators back to work. Whether considered as a diminishing of liberty or a lateral movement, this measure should be opposed.
Propositions 1D and 1E are both clearly lateral movements. They divert money from special funds that libertarians opposed in the first place. Proposition 1D allows the state to divert money from a special children and families fund created in 1998 by raising taxes on cigarettes. Proposition 1E allows the state to divert money from a special mental health fund created in 2004 by raising taxes on millionares. Both of these take special fund monies and put them in the general fund. There may be a libertarian argument in favor of doing that, but because approval of these propositions would facilitate the horrible budget deal they should be opposed.
Proposition 1F is the only good measure on the ballot. It prohibits pay raises for the legislature and they governor if the budget has not passed. This one should be supported.
Source
Friday, March 27, 2009
AIG – too big to succeed
The phrase "too big to fail" is too often used to describe why various companies should receive bailouts from the federal government. Some financial companies are allegedly too big to fail because if they do fail it would create a series of failures as those who do business with the failing companies would be hurt by the failure of the initial company. Some automobile companies are allegedly too big to fail because if they do fail then parts suppliers and dealerships would all fail as well.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a new phrase into the national lexicon, "to big to succeed." A company is too big to succeed if it grows so big that it cannot make a profit anymore, and as a result it must fail.
What about the domino effect of dependent companies. They are part of the "to big to succeed" model, because their success is entirely dependent on a failed company. If someone is betting that a company that is bleeding money will succeed, that someone should lose the bet.
There is no way to turn a failed model into a successful model without changing the model. There is no way to turn a failed company into a successful company without liquidating the losses. Making the company bigger only makes the failure bigger.
A bigger failure needs more bailouts to keep from liquidating, but those bailouts do not change the model – they do the reverse. They save those in charge of the failure from having to adjust their behavior.
Let AIG fail, because it is too big to succeed. Then go on to bigger failures, such as the State of California, and eventually to the United States Government itself.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a new phrase into the national lexicon, "to big to succeed." A company is too big to succeed if it grows so big that it cannot make a profit anymore, and as a result it must fail.
What about the domino effect of dependent companies. They are part of the "to big to succeed" model, because their success is entirely dependent on a failed company. If someone is betting that a company that is bleeding money will succeed, that someone should lose the bet.
There is no way to turn a failed model into a successful model without changing the model. There is no way to turn a failed company into a successful company without liquidating the losses. Making the company bigger only makes the failure bigger.
A bigger failure needs more bailouts to keep from liquidating, but those bailouts do not change the model – they do the reverse. They save those in charge of the failure from having to adjust their behavior.
Let AIG fail, because it is too big to succeed. Then go on to bigger failures, such as the State of California, and eventually to the United States Government itself.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Healthcare in the United States
A friend of mine works in medicine, and I told her that if she were to write up commentary on the state of healthcare in the United States I would print it for her. I expected an essay, but instead she forwarded to me two emails she had sent to another organization, the second as an addendum to the first.
To: Department of Health and Human Services
Re: Action plan to to prevent healthcare-associated infections
I am responding as an individual, not representing any organization.
Myself, BS, BSN, MPH, formerly CIC
I currently work as an Infection Preventionist (name recently changed from Infection Control Nurse) in a 500+ bed community hospital. I cover all the intensive care units in the facility, so I am aware of the problems faced on the front line of infection prevention.
1. Basics: Make sure government agencies at all levels do not impede best practice.
Research has shown that alcohol-based hand hygiene products can improve compliance in intensive care units. (Maury et. al, Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 162, pp 324-327). The hospital I work in has had alcohol based hand sanitizer available for over 8 years. We spent time and effort in selecting a product that was acceptable to all involved. The Georgia State Insurance Commissioner is currently investigating removal of foam sanitizers under pressure for a theoretical fire risk. The last time we were forced to remove our current product from the hallways, our cross transmission of MRSA skyrocketed. Replacing the hallway dispensers stopped the outbreak.
2. Partnership of all involved groups: The patient also needs to be seen as a partner in reducing healthcare associated infections.
Transmission of flora within the hospital does cause healthcare-associated infections, but for SSI (surgical site infection), the patient's own flora can be the source. Aside from complying with preoperative showers for elective surgery, patients need to prepare themselves for the surgery by stopping smoking and controlling blood glucose levels. Smoking has been shown to increase SSI. Post-operative glucose control is important in prevention of SSI, but patients who know they are going to have surgery should prepare themselves.
Patients also need to understand that requiring their physicians to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics also contributes to infection with CD (C diff).
Physicians also need to be involved in getting patients ready for elective surgery. The following is a true story. My mother and the brother of a friend of mine both had knee replacements on the same day. It took a long time to get my mother ready for surgery because her surgeon insisted that she see her primary care physician and her dentist for clearance.. She had to be screened for infection--UTI. Our hospital does nasal screening for MRSA and MSSA on all orthopedic implant surgeries. The brother did not have to do any of this. Within three weeks of surgery, my friend told me that her brother had an infection. My mother is now over one year out from her surgery and doing fine. We switched surgeons early in the course of getting her knee replaced because the first surgeon we went to wanted to basically go from his office to the OR without the preparation the second one required.
3. Focus on MRSA: I find this short sighted.
The worst infections in our facility are caused by Gram negative rods (GNR) for which there are no antibiotic treatments. It is much easier to track MRSA and may be easier to put in interventions. However, GNR are a much worse and growing problem.
4. Futility of Care and End of Life issues: something nobody want to discuss as part of the solution. Strong guidelines on futility of care, and decreased payments for care after such a determination is made need to be in place now.
The last three infections I identified (2 BSI and 1 VAP) were all in patients in whom it had been acknowledged that there was no hope of recovery and all medical interventions were futile. DNR discussions had been ongoing with the families for as long as three weeks prior to the infections. All three patients died of their underlying conditions within three weeks of the onset date of the infection. The infection was not the immediate cause of death, even if it might have hastened the inevitable. Physicians discuss the problem openly during our intensive care rounds. The family will be around after the patient's death and might bring a law suit if their wishes (the family's) are not carried out. The wishes are usually expressed as "Do everything for Mama" even if they have been told that everything will not work and that Mama is going to die anyway. We have discussed the reason for families not to withdraw care. Sometimes it is just too soon. It because apparent today that the patient was beyond hope. Sometimes it is the level of education and sophistication of the family. When you talk to them, they are very nice but they just don't seem to understand the issues. Guilt can play a part also. Having neglected Mama for the past year (nursing home patient, living with a friend, not family), the family wants to make amends. We see cultural differences. African American families seem less able to withdraw care. Sometimes we find out that there is a financial reason.. Mama's Social Security check is going into a family member's bank account.
What ever the reasons are, physicians are not comfortable withdrawing care and instituting palliative care measures if the family still states they want everything done, even if it prolongs death and does not lead to life.
5. Payment issues: The assumption appears to be that hospitals control doctors. I wont' even go there.
We ask, we coax, we nag. We already use a Foley catheter reminder sticker for physicians. It is usually ignored, even though it is part of the chart. Some physicians sign the reminder without indicating why the Foley is to continue and without giving an order for its removal. Physicians have not reason to listen. I recommend that payment for physicians whose patients develop a healthcare-associated infection (HAI) also be reduced, just as payments for hospitals are. The payments are reduced to the extent that hospitals used to get reimbursed for care of infections. Yes, hospitals need good systems to ensure timely care, but physicians have to do their part by responding in a timely fashion.
In my introduction, I noted that I was formerly CIC. One of the most important things that you can do is make sure that all front line workers are adequately prepared. I dropped CIC for three major reasons: my current employer does not pay for the test and it is expensive, I do not get any pay differential for it, and CIC ensure entry level competence. I have been in infection control for over 20 years now. I will have to pass the new requirements for getting my NHSN certificate so I can continue to use the CDC computer-based reporting system. Hospitals should be supported in efforts to make sure that employees are qualified.
Addendum.
1. Best practice. The Office of Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner has denied the request of the hospital that I work in to keep the foam hand santizing product. The reason that is stated is that the "State is bound by contract to meet the requirements of CMS 211, which supersede those of the State of Georgia..." This ruling was given by the Regional Director for CMS.
If CMS will not pay for HAI then CMS must allow the use of the best products to prevent infection. Changing hand hygiene products is not as simple as it sounds. Not only do the products have to work, but the employees must use them. The products must not cause redness, skin breakdown, stickiness or other problems. The hospital did evaluate gels the last time it looked at hand hygiene products. The end users preferred the foam.
2. Please add to your reserach list: the best way to wean a patient from the ventilator. We have six Intensivists. Each has a way to do this. Each tells us the other ways won't work. ATC trials should not be done more than once a day. ATC does not work at all. Do ATC trials three to four times a day before considering extubation. PLEASE HELP. Meanwhile, we are having a difficult time decreasing our ventilator days and getting patients off the ventilator is the best way to prevent VAP.
3. Patient as partner: All patients should know that it is not a good idea to keep drinking patterns a secret. It can be a major problem when a patient comes in for elective surgery and goes into DTs three days post-op. The patient may wind up on the ventilator with central lines and then is at risk for hospital associated infections. DTs prolong stay no matter what.
To: Department of Health and Human Services
Re: Action plan to to prevent healthcare-associated infections
I am responding as an individual, not representing any organization.
Myself, BS, BSN, MPH, formerly CIC
I currently work as an Infection Preventionist (name recently changed from Infection Control Nurse) in a 500+ bed community hospital. I cover all the intensive care units in the facility, so I am aware of the problems faced on the front line of infection prevention.
1. Basics: Make sure government agencies at all levels do not impede best practice.
Research has shown that alcohol-based hand hygiene products can improve compliance in intensive care units. (Maury et. al, Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 162, pp 324-327). The hospital I work in has had alcohol based hand sanitizer available for over 8 years. We spent time and effort in selecting a product that was acceptable to all involved. The Georgia State Insurance Commissioner is currently investigating removal of foam sanitizers under pressure for a theoretical fire risk. The last time we were forced to remove our current product from the hallways, our cross transmission of MRSA skyrocketed. Replacing the hallway dispensers stopped the outbreak.
2. Partnership of all involved groups: The patient also needs to be seen as a partner in reducing healthcare associated infections.
Transmission of flora within the hospital does cause healthcare-associated infections, but for SSI (surgical site infection), the patient's own flora can be the source. Aside from complying with preoperative showers for elective surgery, patients need to prepare themselves for the surgery by stopping smoking and controlling blood glucose levels. Smoking has been shown to increase SSI. Post-operative glucose control is important in prevention of SSI, but patients who know they are going to have surgery should prepare themselves.
Patients also need to understand that requiring their physicians to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics also contributes to infection with CD (C diff).
Physicians also need to be involved in getting patients ready for elective surgery. The following is a true story. My mother and the brother of a friend of mine both had knee replacements on the same day. It took a long time to get my mother ready for surgery because her surgeon insisted that she see her primary care physician and her dentist for clearance.. She had to be screened for infection--UTI. Our hospital does nasal screening for MRSA and MSSA on all orthopedic implant surgeries. The brother did not have to do any of this. Within three weeks of surgery, my friend told me that her brother had an infection. My mother is now over one year out from her surgery and doing fine. We switched surgeons early in the course of getting her knee replaced because the first surgeon we went to wanted to basically go from his office to the OR without the preparation the second one required.
3. Focus on MRSA: I find this short sighted.
The worst infections in our facility are caused by Gram negative rods (GNR) for which there are no antibiotic treatments. It is much easier to track MRSA and may be easier to put in interventions. However, GNR are a much worse and growing problem.
4. Futility of Care and End of Life issues: something nobody want to discuss as part of the solution. Strong guidelines on futility of care, and decreased payments for care after such a determination is made need to be in place now.
The last three infections I identified (2 BSI and 1 VAP) were all in patients in whom it had been acknowledged that there was no hope of recovery and all medical interventions were futile. DNR discussions had been ongoing with the families for as long as three weeks prior to the infections. All three patients died of their underlying conditions within three weeks of the onset date of the infection. The infection was not the immediate cause of death, even if it might have hastened the inevitable. Physicians discuss the problem openly during our intensive care rounds. The family will be around after the patient's death and might bring a law suit if their wishes (the family's) are not carried out. The wishes are usually expressed as "Do everything for Mama" even if they have been told that everything will not work and that Mama is going to die anyway. We have discussed the reason for families not to withdraw care. Sometimes it is just too soon. It because apparent today that the patient was beyond hope. Sometimes it is the level of education and sophistication of the family. When you talk to them, they are very nice but they just don't seem to understand the issues. Guilt can play a part also. Having neglected Mama for the past year (nursing home patient, living with a friend, not family), the family wants to make amends. We see cultural differences. African American families seem less able to withdraw care. Sometimes we find out that there is a financial reason.. Mama's Social Security check is going into a family member's bank account.
What ever the reasons are, physicians are not comfortable withdrawing care and instituting palliative care measures if the family still states they want everything done, even if it prolongs death and does not lead to life.
5. Payment issues: The assumption appears to be that hospitals control doctors. I wont' even go there.
We ask, we coax, we nag. We already use a Foley catheter reminder sticker for physicians. It is usually ignored, even though it is part of the chart. Some physicians sign the reminder without indicating why the Foley is to continue and without giving an order for its removal. Physicians have not reason to listen. I recommend that payment for physicians whose patients develop a healthcare-associated infection (HAI) also be reduced, just as payments for hospitals are. The payments are reduced to the extent that hospitals used to get reimbursed for care of infections. Yes, hospitals need good systems to ensure timely care, but physicians have to do their part by responding in a timely fashion.
In my introduction, I noted that I was formerly CIC. One of the most important things that you can do is make sure that all front line workers are adequately prepared. I dropped CIC for three major reasons: my current employer does not pay for the test and it is expensive, I do not get any pay differential for it, and CIC ensure entry level competence. I have been in infection control for over 20 years now. I will have to pass the new requirements for getting my NHSN certificate so I can continue to use the CDC computer-based reporting system. Hospitals should be supported in efforts to make sure that employees are qualified.
Addendum.
1. Best practice. The Office of Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner has denied the request of the hospital that I work in to keep the foam hand santizing product. The reason that is stated is that the "State is bound by contract to meet the requirements of CMS 211, which supersede those of the State of Georgia..." This ruling was given by the Regional Director for CMS.
If CMS will not pay for HAI then CMS must allow the use of the best products to prevent infection. Changing hand hygiene products is not as simple as it sounds. Not only do the products have to work, but the employees must use them. The products must not cause redness, skin breakdown, stickiness or other problems. The hospital did evaluate gels the last time it looked at hand hygiene products. The end users preferred the foam.
2. Please add to your reserach list: the best way to wean a patient from the ventilator. We have six Intensivists. Each has a way to do this. Each tells us the other ways won't work. ATC trials should not be done more than once a day. ATC does not work at all. Do ATC trials three to four times a day before considering extubation. PLEASE HELP. Meanwhile, we are having a difficult time decreasing our ventilator days and getting patients off the ventilator is the best way to prevent VAP.
3. Patient as partner: All patients should know that it is not a good idea to keep drinking patterns a secret. It can be a major problem when a patient comes in for elective surgery and goes into DTs three days post-op. The patient may wind up on the ventilator with central lines and then is at risk for hospital associated infections. DTs prolong stay no matter what.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Accurate Predictions
Senator Bernie Sanders wants a congressional investigation of what caused the economic meltdown. His investigation, even if it happens, will not uncover what caused the meltdown due to the intrinsic conflict of interest in a politician investigation the political causes of the meltdown.
The popping of the housing bubble, the devaluation of the mortgage backed securities, the defaults and foreclosures of the mortgages, were all predicted accurately. Given that those were predicted accurately it is fair to say that the cause of each of those is already known.
It is important to say "predicted accurately" because simply saying "predicted" will get the response of "if you predict doom and gloom often enough, eventually you will be right." The meltdown was predicted accurately on the pages of Lew Rockwell and other libertarian websites. The details were all laid out for those willing to read what would happen.
Back in 2004, it was noted that there was a housing bubble and that the bubble would pop and prices would fall dramatically. People responded with "oh no, this is a normal market condition." Later, when it was obvious that the rise in prices was unusual, people responded with "oh no, this is a new economy." Then people said "maybe the rise in prices will slow down but prices will continue to rise." Then people said "prices will level off, but they won't fall." Then they said "they'll only fall a little, not a lot." Then the prices fell, a lot.
Fancy subprime loans were identified as a problem. Not to worry, since prices will always rise, and of course the banks know what they are doing. Prices dropped and the fancy mortgages went into default. These fed into accurately predicting that mortgage backed securities would be a problem as the banks would lack sufficient assets to maintain their value. It was considered "doom and gloom" and nobody would listen.
The underlying cause, the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve, were identified as an ultimate culprit. People proclaimed Greenspan a genius for bringing permanent prosperity. Greenspan was wise enough to leave office before the consequences of his policies caught upwith him.
At every stage, and for every factor of the recession, people saw it coming. So the causes of this are known. Those who saw it coming weren't believe then and they aren't credited now, even though the proof is available in the archives of several libertarian websites. That's why it is important to say "predicted accurately" because that accurately describes what happened.
Those who foresaw this accurately know what caused the meltdown, therefore there is no need for an official investigation. Those who wish to know what happened only need to ask those who were proven right.
So why an official investigation from a Senator? Several possible reasons present themselves.
First, the government is responsible for this, so the investigation is meant to clear the government of responsibility for its actions.
Second, very few people in government know anything about Austrian Economics, and those who actually are seeking answers are completely ignorant of how to find them.
Third, there is a strong desire for an external scapegoat, with more concern for finding someone to blame than to find someone to accurately blame. This is the most dangerous because people are already blaming the free market for actions caused by an absense of the free market.
It is very unlikely that the investigation will find those actually responsible, since very few congressmen enjoy investigating themselves
The popping of the housing bubble, the devaluation of the mortgage backed securities, the defaults and foreclosures of the mortgages, were all predicted accurately. Given that those were predicted accurately it is fair to say that the cause of each of those is already known.
It is important to say "predicted accurately" because simply saying "predicted" will get the response of "if you predict doom and gloom often enough, eventually you will be right." The meltdown was predicted accurately on the pages of Lew Rockwell and other libertarian websites. The details were all laid out for those willing to read what would happen.
Back in 2004, it was noted that there was a housing bubble and that the bubble would pop and prices would fall dramatically. People responded with "oh no, this is a normal market condition." Later, when it was obvious that the rise in prices was unusual, people responded with "oh no, this is a new economy." Then people said "maybe the rise in prices will slow down but prices will continue to rise." Then people said "prices will level off, but they won't fall." Then they said "they'll only fall a little, not a lot." Then the prices fell, a lot.
Fancy subprime loans were identified as a problem. Not to worry, since prices will always rise, and of course the banks know what they are doing. Prices dropped and the fancy mortgages went into default. These fed into accurately predicting that mortgage backed securities would be a problem as the banks would lack sufficient assets to maintain their value. It was considered "doom and gloom" and nobody would listen.
The underlying cause, the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve, were identified as an ultimate culprit. People proclaimed Greenspan a genius for bringing permanent prosperity. Greenspan was wise enough to leave office before the consequences of his policies caught upwith him.
At every stage, and for every factor of the recession, people saw it coming. So the causes of this are known. Those who saw it coming weren't believe then and they aren't credited now, even though the proof is available in the archives of several libertarian websites. That's why it is important to say "predicted accurately" because that accurately describes what happened.
Those who foresaw this accurately know what caused the meltdown, therefore there is no need for an official investigation. Those who wish to know what happened only need to ask those who were proven right.
So why an official investigation from a Senator? Several possible reasons present themselves.
First, the government is responsible for this, so the investigation is meant to clear the government of responsibility for its actions.
Second, very few people in government know anything about Austrian Economics, and those who actually are seeking answers are completely ignorant of how to find them.
Third, there is a strong desire for an external scapegoat, with more concern for finding someone to blame than to find someone to accurately blame. This is the most dangerous because people are already blaming the free market for actions caused by an absense of the free market.
It is very unlikely that the investigation will find those actually responsible, since very few congressmen enjoy investigating themselves
Friday, March 06, 2009
The California Crisis
The California government, faced with a budget deficit of unprecedented proportions, chose the only option that a politician thinks is available. The legislators voted to raise taxes instead of learning to live within their means.
Because all tax increases in California need a 2/3 majority to pass, this required that three Assembly Republicans and three Senate Repubilcans join with the Democrat majority and vote to raise taxes.
While it may be tempting to consider those six Republican legislators to be rogues who betrayed their party, that is not the case.
Radio Personalities John and Ken of KFI 640 AM have through their investigative journalism discovered that these six were not acting in opposition to their fellow legislators. Instead they were picked at caucus meetings to be the ones to take the fall because they were (most of them) on their final term and could not be re-elected anyway. Their fellow Republican legislators knew that they were going to vote to raise taxes long before they actually did, and supported them in it.
This arrangement was made so that those who did not vote to raise taxes could say to their constituents that they did not break their promise to not raise taxes. While it is true that they did not cast the votes themselves, they are guilty of "aiding and abetting" the raising of taxes.
If the person who drives a get-away car after a bank robbery is considered to be guilty in part of the robbery, these Republican legislators are guilty in part of raising taxes. They could have at any time stood up to their caucus and opposed the tax increases. They did not. They went along with the deal, and in some cases asked favors from those who were the selected fall guys to get pet projects into the budget.
Now the budget deal has been put on the ballot for the voters. There is no option to vote against this deal as a whole. Proposition 1A has two options - a "no" vote raises taxes, while a "yes" vote raises taxes for two more years but gives a phony budget cap.
Those who are aware that the budget cap is fake and that by voting for 1A tax increases are extended are against 1A. The problem is that not everyone knows that because the ballot arguments - for and against - both fail to mention that. They were selected in a corrupt deal so as to prevent the voter from knowing the facts of this deal.
Fortunately the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association is filing suit. While a referendum on the budget is not possible, it is reported they are working on a ballot proposition to overturn teh budget deal. The State of California is in a death-spiral. The best option is for the state to go bankrupt and have a judge cancel contracts so the state can balance its budget.
Because all tax increases in California need a 2/3 majority to pass, this required that three Assembly Republicans and three Senate Repubilcans join with the Democrat majority and vote to raise taxes.
While it may be tempting to consider those six Republican legislators to be rogues who betrayed their party, that is not the case.
Radio Personalities John and Ken of KFI 640 AM have through their investigative journalism discovered that these six were not acting in opposition to their fellow legislators. Instead they were picked at caucus meetings to be the ones to take the fall because they were (most of them) on their final term and could not be re-elected anyway. Their fellow Republican legislators knew that they were going to vote to raise taxes long before they actually did, and supported them in it.
This arrangement was made so that those who did not vote to raise taxes could say to their constituents that they did not break their promise to not raise taxes. While it is true that they did not cast the votes themselves, they are guilty of "aiding and abetting" the raising of taxes.
If the person who drives a get-away car after a bank robbery is considered to be guilty in part of the robbery, these Republican legislators are guilty in part of raising taxes. They could have at any time stood up to their caucus and opposed the tax increases. They did not. They went along with the deal, and in some cases asked favors from those who were the selected fall guys to get pet projects into the budget.
Now the budget deal has been put on the ballot for the voters. There is no option to vote against this deal as a whole. Proposition 1A has two options - a "no" vote raises taxes, while a "yes" vote raises taxes for two more years but gives a phony budget cap.
Those who are aware that the budget cap is fake and that by voting for 1A tax increases are extended are against 1A. The problem is that not everyone knows that because the ballot arguments - for and against - both fail to mention that. They were selected in a corrupt deal so as to prevent the voter from knowing the facts of this deal.
Fortunately the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association is filing suit. While a referendum on the budget is not possible, it is reported they are working on a ballot proposition to overturn teh budget deal. The State of California is in a death-spiral. The best option is for the state to go bankrupt and have a judge cancel contracts so the state can balance its budget.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Yet another Obama "reversal"
Obama has filled his cabinet with people who have positions in alignment with Obama's voting record but at variance with his campaign rhetoric and the wishes of his true believers. One example is that "peace candidate" Obama has appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. It is no secret that she was one of the most hawkish members of the Senate.
Also Obama supposedly is not as bad on gun liberty as most Democrats are, based on one speech he gave where he expressed some support for the second amendment. This stands in contrast to his record, but with Obama the image has been shown to be more important than the reality time and again. Then, like the appointment of Hillary which reflects questionable positions on war, he appointed Eric Holder who has never met a restriction on gun rights that he did not like to the position of Attorney General.
When confronted by the dissonance between the position and the appointment, Obama supporters are quick to assure people that these subordinates will take their cues from Obama, that they will not press their own agenda. A more interesting question to ask, and one avoided by Obama supporters, is whether or not these appointments reflect Obama's actual positions and therefore there is no need for Obama to rein in his underlings.
According to Attorney General Holder, Obama has recently come out in favor of renewing the "assault" weapon ban.
The "assault" weapon ban was one of the worst pieces of firearm legislation ever passed, and its renewal should be opposed by both who believe in the liberty of self defense and those who oppose the liberty of self defense.
There is no actual definition of "assault weapon." Firearms are classified by operation. Primary classifications are fully automatic, semi-automatic, and those that are not automatic at all. Secondary classifications include muzzle velocity and caliber.
The "assault" weapon ban did not impact a single fully automatic weapon. Not only did none of them fit into the bill's definition, fully automatics were already generally forbidden to the public before the "assault" weapon ban passed.
Every firearm banned by the "assault" weapon ban was a semi-automatic, but it did not ban all semi-automatics. Nor did it ban semi-automatics according to classifications such as muzzle velocity or caliber. It banned some due to cosmetic effects, and failed to ban others that were functionally equivalent in every way.
It was a horrible bill, one that deserved to expire. Only someone with absolutely no regard for any form of common sense with regards to gun control could possibly support it. Eric Holder supports it, and according to Holder, Obama also supports it.
Also Obama supposedly is not as bad on gun liberty as most Democrats are, based on one speech he gave where he expressed some support for the second amendment. This stands in contrast to his record, but with Obama the image has been shown to be more important than the reality time and again. Then, like the appointment of Hillary which reflects questionable positions on war, he appointed Eric Holder who has never met a restriction on gun rights that he did not like to the position of Attorney General.
When confronted by the dissonance between the position and the appointment, Obama supporters are quick to assure people that these subordinates will take their cues from Obama, that they will not press their own agenda. A more interesting question to ask, and one avoided by Obama supporters, is whether or not these appointments reflect Obama's actual positions and therefore there is no need for Obama to rein in his underlings.
According to Attorney General Holder, Obama has recently come out in favor of renewing the "assault" weapon ban.
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
The "assault" weapon ban was one of the worst pieces of firearm legislation ever passed, and its renewal should be opposed by both who believe in the liberty of self defense and those who oppose the liberty of self defense.
There is no actual definition of "assault weapon." Firearms are classified by operation. Primary classifications are fully automatic, semi-automatic, and those that are not automatic at all. Secondary classifications include muzzle velocity and caliber.
The "assault" weapon ban did not impact a single fully automatic weapon. Not only did none of them fit into the bill's definition, fully automatics were already generally forbidden to the public before the "assault" weapon ban passed.
Every firearm banned by the "assault" weapon ban was a semi-automatic, but it did not ban all semi-automatics. Nor did it ban semi-automatics according to classifications such as muzzle velocity or caliber. It banned some due to cosmetic effects, and failed to ban others that were functionally equivalent in every way.
It was a horrible bill, one that deserved to expire. Only someone with absolutely no regard for any form of common sense with regards to gun control could possibly support it. Eric Holder supports it, and according to Holder, Obama also supports it.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Libertarian responses to Darwin
Thursday, February 12, 2009, was the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Many years later he codified the theory of evolution, and more than a century afterwards it is still a subject of debate.
Unfortunately it is still a subject of debate among libertarians. Gary North, Bill Sardi, and especially Fred Reed all took time away from the useful task of promoting libertarian ideas to criticize the fact that Darwin made a major contribution to understanding the science of biology.
The most common accusation against evolution is that, somehow, it leads to the idea of Social Darwinism. The problem is that Darwin never advocated anything of the sort as he tried to understand the source and diversity of life. Evil people will find whatever excuse they want to justify their actions, including religious texts of all sorts as well as misinterpretation and misapplication of scientific theories.
Honest, Informed or Creationist. You can at most have two. You can have less than two. You cannot have all three.
Gary North commits guilt by association by pointing out the similar timelines of Lincoln and Darwin in the advancement of their careers and how they both managed to change the world at about the same time. But not all changes are equal and guilt by association is not an honest rhetorical tactic.
Bill Sardi goes farther with guilt by association by attributing to Darwin's theory many things not included in the theory, such as militant atheism, purposelessness, and Social Darwinism. The last in particular is used to say that because some people looking for justification for misbehavior have latched onto something that isn't even in the theory, the theory must be wrong. Social Darwinism is not part of biological evolution, and Darwin's theory was about biological evolution.
Sardi goes further to show a basic misunderstanding of science. Yes, evolution doesn't answer "who am I" but then no other science does either. It's a question of philosophy, which means it is in the wrong field. Evolution no more answers that then it explains why falling objects accelerate to the earth at 9.8 meters per seconds squared. That latter bit is physics, and physics fails to account for the diversity of life. He also commits many of the basic errors of those who dislike this scientific theory by committing the 2nd law of thermodynamics error and mentions the frauds but never mentions the fossils that have been found. Creationists always mention Piltdown, they never mention Homo Erectus. It is true that at one time that there was little evidence, but it is no longer 1860.
Fred Reed goes the farthest in his criticisms. He also commits guilt by association by creating from scratch an association with cultural Marxists, as well as arguing that the subject of evolution versus creation is somehow inexplicably related to the court battles over nativity scenes. His refers to those who support science as "Knights Templar" in order to make them appear as if they are on a holy crusade. He also makes knowledge errors such as ignoring the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. He says the mechanism is mutation, when the mechanism is both mutation and natural selection. For some reason creationists never talk about both mutation and natural selection at the same time, perhaps because either one of those alone would actually be insufficient. But they are not alone. He makes assertions about what evolution would predict that are not reflected by the theory of evolution itself. And the reason that people who understand the subject agree with the theory is ... they are marching in lockstep and dare not deviate from each other.
In truth, the Theory of Evolution doesn't even contradict Christianity or the Bible in the first place. All it does contradict is one particular heretical view of the Bible. Creationism is not a Christian doctrine.
The only intersection between evolution and libertarianism is that since we have government schools people are not free to choose a school that teaches religion in the science classroom. The only subject allowed in the science classroom in a government school is science.
But trying to argue that there is a libertarian issue in creationism versus evolution itself is frankly embarrassing to other libertarians. Every attempt to convince people one doesn't have to be saddled with the baggage of the religious right in order to prefer small government and free markets is undermined by scientific ignorance and dishonest debate.
Unfortunately it is still a subject of debate among libertarians. Gary North, Bill Sardi, and especially Fred Reed all took time away from the useful task of promoting libertarian ideas to criticize the fact that Darwin made a major contribution to understanding the science of biology.
The most common accusation against evolution is that, somehow, it leads to the idea of Social Darwinism. The problem is that Darwin never advocated anything of the sort as he tried to understand the source and diversity of life. Evil people will find whatever excuse they want to justify their actions, including religious texts of all sorts as well as misinterpretation and misapplication of scientific theories.
Honest, Informed or Creationist. You can at most have two. You can have less than two. You cannot have all three.
Gary North commits guilt by association by pointing out the similar timelines of Lincoln and Darwin in the advancement of their careers and how they both managed to change the world at about the same time. But not all changes are equal and guilt by association is not an honest rhetorical tactic.
Bill Sardi goes farther with guilt by association by attributing to Darwin's theory many things not included in the theory, such as militant atheism, purposelessness, and Social Darwinism. The last in particular is used to say that because some people looking for justification for misbehavior have latched onto something that isn't even in the theory, the theory must be wrong. Social Darwinism is not part of biological evolution, and Darwin's theory was about biological evolution.
Sardi goes further to show a basic misunderstanding of science. Yes, evolution doesn't answer "who am I" but then no other science does either. It's a question of philosophy, which means it is in the wrong field. Evolution no more answers that then it explains why falling objects accelerate to the earth at 9.8 meters per seconds squared. That latter bit is physics, and physics fails to account for the diversity of life. He also commits many of the basic errors of those who dislike this scientific theory by committing the 2nd law of thermodynamics error and mentions the frauds but never mentions the fossils that have been found. Creationists always mention Piltdown, they never mention Homo Erectus. It is true that at one time that there was little evidence, but it is no longer 1860.
Fred Reed goes the farthest in his criticisms. He also commits guilt by association by creating from scratch an association with cultural Marxists, as well as arguing that the subject of evolution versus creation is somehow inexplicably related to the court battles over nativity scenes. His refers to those who support science as "Knights Templar" in order to make them appear as if they are on a holy crusade. He also makes knowledge errors such as ignoring the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. He says the mechanism is mutation, when the mechanism is both mutation and natural selection. For some reason creationists never talk about both mutation and natural selection at the same time, perhaps because either one of those alone would actually be insufficient. But they are not alone. He makes assertions about what evolution would predict that are not reflected by the theory of evolution itself. And the reason that people who understand the subject agree with the theory is ... they are marching in lockstep and dare not deviate from each other.
In truth, the Theory of Evolution doesn't even contradict Christianity or the Bible in the first place. All it does contradict is one particular heretical view of the Bible. Creationism is not a Christian doctrine.
The only intersection between evolution and libertarianism is that since we have government schools people are not free to choose a school that teaches religion in the science classroom. The only subject allowed in the science classroom in a government school is science.
But trying to argue that there is a libertarian issue in creationism versus evolution itself is frankly embarrassing to other libertarians. Every attempt to convince people one doesn't have to be saddled with the baggage of the religious right in order to prefer small government and free markets is undermined by scientific ignorance and dishonest debate.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Partial Reneg of the National Debt
Although debt repudiation is slowly becoming a topic outside of libertarian circles, one could make the counter-argument that people are responsible for the debt because the government that accrued it is the government elected by the people.
One could counter argue that the politicians in power weren't the one supported, and therefore the person who voted against the politician in power isn't liable. There are two different, and contradictory, counterarguments used against that. First, by voting at all, the person agrees to the outcome. Second, by not voting, the person agrees to the outcome. It is the deadly double-bind of democratic statism used to ensnare all who dare dissent by showing that they agree.
In truth the debt is owed by the politicians, past and present, who voted for it. But as they not only will never be held accountable, and they cannot afford it, they also insist the rest of us owe the debt, let us examine taking them at their word.
For some of the following calculations, both of those are going to be assumed to be true, in spite of the fact that they contradict each other. It is a common practice to say that the debt, divided by the population, gives us the share of debt owed by each person in this country. Given that debt, the following figures are the result.
Those figures are crooked. They hold people liable for debt accrued before people could vote, or before people were even born. Whether by voting or by not voting a person gives consent, it is impossible to give or withhold consent when a person is not able to vote, whether by virtue of age or not yet existing.
A more honest figure would include the debt accrued only during that term, and dividing it up among the population in various ways. Using term debt (debt accumulated during the term of the president) instead of national debt (debt accumulated by all previous presidents) and dividing it up among the population in various ways different results emerge.
Using the assumption that both the contradictory arguments are true, that all eligible voters are responsible, then dividing up the debt of each term by the eligible voters of each term yeilds the following results.
Thus someone who only able to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $7,360.68 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was able to vote for the first time in 1992 is to be held liable for $24,052.37 of the debt. Those who are not able to vote are not liable for any of it, which should come as a relief to anyone under the age of eighteen.
If that is too broad, and only those who actually registered to vote are counted a different outcome is the result.
Thus someone who was only registered to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $9,316.94 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $31,959.29 of the debt.
Finally if you only count those who voted, there is yet another outcome.
Thus someone who first voted in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $13,316.99 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $45234.88 of the debt.
These all operate on the principle that there can be no taxation without representation.
While the these calculations do increase the debt per person on older voters all fo them hold younger voters to be not responsible for taxes levied without their representation. Assuming an average age of 40, enabling a person to cast their first vote in the race between Dukakis and Bush, that gives an of age debt of $32,052.48, a registered debt of $43,529.53, and a voted debt of $61,199.16.
But they also leave one third of the debt unaccountable. One third of the debt is owed by absolutely nobody.
Even further and more advanced calculation would also reveal that a good share of the older debts are not owed by anybody, because some who voted for older presidents have died and therefore so has their share. So the 232.52, 368.72, or 368.72 owed by each person who could be held accountable in the election of Kennedy isn't shifted from those who have died to those who haven't, but is instead to be written off as the debtor is deceased.
This does make an excellent argument for not voting and not registering to vote when the system itself is corrupt. It is also very sad that two thirds of the national debt occured within most peoples lifetimes, and that is true in both regular and constant dollars.
Of course the best argument is that the debt actually belongs to those who accrued it, the Senators and Representatives who voted for it and the Presidents who signed for it. Let the debt be divided up amongst the gang of 540.
One could counter argue that the politicians in power weren't the one supported, and therefore the person who voted against the politician in power isn't liable. There are two different, and contradictory, counterarguments used against that. First, by voting at all, the person agrees to the outcome. Second, by not voting, the person agrees to the outcome. It is the deadly double-bind of democratic statism used to ensnare all who dare dissent by showing that they agree.
In truth the debt is owed by the politicians, past and present, who voted for it. But as they not only will never be held accountable, and they cannot afford it, they also insist the rest of us owe the debt, let us examine taking them at their word.
For some of the following calculations, both of those are going to be assumed to be true, in spite of the fact that they contradict each other. It is a common practice to say that the debt, divided by the population, gives us the share of debt owed by each person in this country. Given that debt, the following figures are the result.
| President | Debt | Population | Share |
| Kennedy / Johnson | 311,712,899,257.30 | 180,671,158 | 1,725.31 |
| Johnson | 347,578,406,425.88 | 191,888,791 | 1,811.35 |
| Nixon | 427,260,460,940.50 | 200,706,052 | 2,128.79 |
| Nixon / Ford | 620,433,000,000.00 | 209,896,021 | 2,955.91 |
| Carter | 907,701,000,000.00 | 218,035,164 | 4,163.09 |
| Reagan Term 1 | 1,572,266,000,000.00 | 227,224,681 | 6,919.43 |
| Reagan Term 2 | 2,602,377,701,041.16 | 235,824,902 | 11,035.21 |
| Bush Sr | 4,064,620,655,521.66 | 244,498,982 | 6,624.28 |
| Clinton Term 1 | 5,224,810,939,135.73 | 254,994,517 | 20,489.90 |
| Clinton Term 2 | 5,674,178,209,886.86 | 265,189,794 | 21,396.67 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | 7,379,052,696,330.32 | 281,421,906 | 26,220.61 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | 9,007,653,372,262.48 | 293,655,404 | 30,674.23 |
Those figures are crooked. They hold people liable for debt accrued before people could vote, or before people were even born. Whether by voting or by not voting a person gives consent, it is impossible to give or withhold consent when a person is not able to vote, whether by virtue of age or not yet existing.
A more honest figure would include the debt accrued only during that term, and dividing it up among the population in various ways. Using term debt (debt accumulated during the term of the president) instead of national debt (debt accumulated by all previous presidents) and dividing it up among the population in various ways different results emerge.
Using the assumption that both the contradictory arguments are true, that all eligible voters are responsible, then dividing up the debt of each term by the eligible voters of each term yeilds the following results.
| President | Term Debt | Share by Voting Age |
| Kennedy / Johnson | 25,382,138,408.93 | 232.52 |
| Johnson | 35,865,507,168.58 | 314.36 |
| Nixon | 79,682,054,514.62 | 662.21 |
| Nixon / Ford | 193,172,539,059.50 | 1,372.20 |
| Carter | 287,268,000,000.00 | 1,886.08 |
| Reagan Term 1 | 664,565,000,000.00 | 4,037.53 |
| Reagan Term 2 | 1,030,111,701,041.16 | 5,904.37 |
| Bush Sr | 1,462,242,954,480.50 | 8,000.10 |
| Clinton Term 1 | 1,160,190,283,614.07 | 6,121.44 |
| Clinton Term 2 | 449,367,270,751.13 | 2,286.73 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | 1,704,874,486,443.46 | 8,283.53 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | 1,628,600,675,932.16 | 7,360.68 |
Thus someone who only able to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $7,360.68 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was able to vote for the first time in 1992 is to be held liable for $24,052.37 of the debt. Those who are not able to vote are not liable for any of it, which should come as a relief to anyone under the age of eighteen.
If that is too broad, and only those who actually registered to vote are counted a different outcome is the result.
| President | Term Debt | By Registered |
| Kennedy / Johnson | 25,382,138,408.93 | 391.50 |
| Johnson | 35,865,507,168.58 | 486.54 |
| Nixon | 79,682,054,514.62 | 975.80 |
| Nixon / Ford | 193,172,539,059.50 | 1,984.75 |
| Carter | 287,268,000,000.00 | 2,734.90 |
| Reagan Term 1 | 664,565,000,000.00 | 5,878.83 |
| Reagan Term 2 | 1,030,111,701,041.16 | 8,297.27 |
| Bush Sr | 1,462,242,954,480.50 | 11,570.24 |
| Clinton Term 1 | 1,160,190,283,614.07 | 8,669.71 |
| Clinton Term 2 | 449,367,270,751.13 | 3,073.40 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | 1,704,874,486,443.46 | 10,899.25 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | 1,628,600,675,932.16 | 9,316.94 |
Thus someone who was only registered to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $9,316.94 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $31,959.29 of the debt.
Finally if you only count those who voted, there is yet another outcome.
| President | Term Debt | By Voted |
| Kennedy / Johnson | 25,382,138,408.93 | 368.72 |
| Johnson | 35,865,507,168.58 | 507.69 |
| Nixon | 79,682,054,514.62 | 1,088.38 |
| Nixon / Ford | 193,172,539,059.50 | 2,485.54 |
| Carter | 287,268,000,000.00 | 3,522.35 |
| Reagan Term 1 | 664,565,000,000.00 | 7,681.48 |
| Reagan Term 2 | 1,030,111,701,041.16 | 11,117.99 |
| Bush Sr | 1,462,242,954,480.50 | 15,964.28 |
| Clinton Term 1 | 1,160,190,283,614.07 | 11,112.39 |
| Clinton Term 2 | 449,367,270,751.13 | 4,658.76 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | 1,704,874,486,443.46 | 16,146.74 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | 1,628,600,675,932.16 | 13,316.99 |
Thus someone who first voted in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $13,316.99 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $45234.88 of the debt.
These all operate on the principle that there can be no taxation without representation.
While the these calculations do increase the debt per person on older voters all fo them hold younger voters to be not responsible for taxes levied without their representation. Assuming an average age of 40, enabling a person to cast their first vote in the race between Dukakis and Bush, that gives an of age debt of $32,052.48, a registered debt of $43,529.53, and a voted debt of $61,199.16.
But they also leave one third of the debt unaccountable. One third of the debt is owed by absolutely nobody.
Even further and more advanced calculation would also reveal that a good share of the older debts are not owed by anybody, because some who voted for older presidents have died and therefore so has their share. So the 232.52, 368.72, or 368.72 owed by each person who could be held accountable in the election of Kennedy isn't shifted from those who have died to those who haven't, but is instead to be written off as the debtor is deceased.
This does make an excellent argument for not voting and not registering to vote when the system itself is corrupt. It is also very sad that two thirds of the national debt occured within most peoples lifetimes, and that is true in both regular and constant dollars.
Of course the best argument is that the debt actually belongs to those who accrued it, the Senators and Representatives who voted for it and the Presidents who signed for it. Let the debt be divided up amongst the gang of 540.
Friday, February 06, 2009
The State of the State of California
California is in a dire financial condition. The state has a budget deficit of $40 billion, and the state is not supposed to have an unbalanced budget. The only reason taxes haven't gone up to pay for this is due to the work of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association. Propositions sponsored by the HJTA have made it difficult to raise taxes. Any measure that increases taxes must pass with at least 2/3 of the vote. While the Democrats have a permanent majority in the State Assembly and State Senate they are short of the 2/3 necessary to pass tax increases.
The Republicans have, until now, actually stood firm against tax increases. California is already one of the most taxed states in the United States.
At one point the legislature tried to pass a tax increase by simple majority, in defiance of the law. Governor Schwarzenegger appeared as if he was going to sign it until a lawsuit made him back down.
Now negotiations are going on to try to sell a tax increase to Assembly and Senate Republicans, with the promise of a spending cap and a rollback of some environmental regulations.
The unions are furious about the spending cap, and the environmentalists are furious about the regulation rollback. Meanwhile the average Republican is against any further increase in taxes. Constituents from both parties are against this deal for different reasons.
The spending cap is an interesting proposal. It's interesting in that it is indicative of a false deal that Republicans fall for so often it is cause to wonder if they are actually fooled or merely pretend to be so in an effort to appease constituents.
At the federal level, budget balancing deals usually go like this:
The interaction is so regular and so routine it gives serious cause to wonder if the Republicans are actually fooled, or if they hope that by pretending to be fooled they can fool those who vote for them.
A better deal, if the Republicans actually support a balanced budget would be "spending cuts now, and if that's not enough tax hikes later". An even cannier move would be to conveniently forget about the tax hikes when "later" arrives.
The spending cap is just such a proposal. It will be overturned as soon as it is met unless stringent controls are put in place. These controls would need to be stronger than the 2/3 majority needed to raise taxes. It should require at least 75%, and preferably 90%, to overturn the spending cap in the face of an emergency.
Offering that sort of a spending cap will reveal just how genuine the Democrats are in their efforts to balance the budget by more than just raising taxes.
The Republicans have, until now, actually stood firm against tax increases. California is already one of the most taxed states in the United States.
At one point the legislature tried to pass a tax increase by simple majority, in defiance of the law. Governor Schwarzenegger appeared as if he was going to sign it until a lawsuit made him back down.
Now negotiations are going on to try to sell a tax increase to Assembly and Senate Republicans, with the promise of a spending cap and a rollback of some environmental regulations.
The unions are furious about the spending cap, and the environmentalists are furious about the regulation rollback. Meanwhile the average Republican is against any further increase in taxes. Constituents from both parties are against this deal for different reasons.
The spending cap is an interesting proposal. It's interesting in that it is indicative of a false deal that Republicans fall for so often it is cause to wonder if they are actually fooled or merely pretend to be so in an effort to appease constituents.
At the federal level, budget balancing deals usually go like this:
The Democrats propose to increase taxes now and in two years will implement spending cuts. The Republicans agree.
Two years later the Democrats have conveniently forgotten about the promised spending cuts, and any efforts by Republicans to remind them are met with "everything's different now."
The interaction is so regular and so routine it gives serious cause to wonder if the Republicans are actually fooled, or if they hope that by pretending to be fooled they can fool those who vote for them.
A better deal, if the Republicans actually support a balanced budget would be "spending cuts now, and if that's not enough tax hikes later". An even cannier move would be to conveniently forget about the tax hikes when "later" arrives.
The spending cap is just such a proposal. It will be overturned as soon as it is met unless stringent controls are put in place. These controls would need to be stronger than the 2/3 majority needed to raise taxes. It should require at least 75%, and preferably 90%, to overturn the spending cap in the face of an emergency.
Offering that sort of a spending cap will reveal just how genuine the Democrats are in their efforts to balance the budget by more than just raising taxes.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Pragmatic Politics
There are many people who resist labeling their political beliefs by insisting that they are merely pragmatic while everyone else is idealistic. They suppose that gives them an edge in political debates because unlike the ideologue they are simply being practical when they expound their own ideology.
It is a rhetorical tool used to sway the emotions, an attempt to make the opposition appear to be not grounded in reality. In most cases it amounts to little more than a trick. Sometimes those saying that their politics are simply pragmatism actually believe what they say, and that is when the discussion gets difficult.
Someone who actually has no ideology has nothing to say about politics. Someone without ideology is not only not liberal, conservative, or libertarian, that person is not moderate or middle of the road. Someone who actually has no ideology actually doesn't care one way or the other about the outcome of any political contest.
When confronted with that, most who try to avoid claiming no ideology say that is a mischaracterization and that they actually only care about what works.
The problem is how to define what works. What is it they want to accomplish? That will define what works. If the goal is to ensure inflation, increasing the money supply works. If the goal is to ensure greater unemployment, supporting the Employee Free Choice Act works.
What works depends on what goal. As Ayn Rand wrote, "practical" depends on what you want to practice.
What goal is ideology. Nobody who is pragmatic and practical lacks an ideology; everyone who claims to be pragmatic and practical is pragmatic and practical towards some particular goal. Someone with no ideology doesn't participate at all.
When others offer solutions for the recession that involve bailouts, and decry opposition to those solutions as "partisanship" or "ideology", throw the accusation back in their face. Their own ideology is what causes the pro-government solutions, not the lack of an ideology.
It is a rhetorical tool used to sway the emotions, an attempt to make the opposition appear to be not grounded in reality. In most cases it amounts to little more than a trick. Sometimes those saying that their politics are simply pragmatism actually believe what they say, and that is when the discussion gets difficult.
Someone who actually has no ideology has nothing to say about politics. Someone without ideology is not only not liberal, conservative, or libertarian, that person is not moderate or middle of the road. Someone who actually has no ideology actually doesn't care one way or the other about the outcome of any political contest.
When confronted with that, most who try to avoid claiming no ideology say that is a mischaracterization and that they actually only care about what works.
The problem is how to define what works. What is it they want to accomplish? That will define what works. If the goal is to ensure inflation, increasing the money supply works. If the goal is to ensure greater unemployment, supporting the Employee Free Choice Act works.
What works depends on what goal. As Ayn Rand wrote, "practical" depends on what you want to practice.
What goal is ideology. Nobody who is pragmatic and practical lacks an ideology; everyone who claims to be pragmatic and practical is pragmatic and practical towards some particular goal. Someone with no ideology doesn't participate at all.
When others offer solutions for the recession that involve bailouts, and decry opposition to those solutions as "partisanship" or "ideology", throw the accusation back in their face. Their own ideology is what causes the pro-government solutions, not the lack of an ideology.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Employee "Free" Choice Act
Organized labor leaders supported Obama. They did not do so selflessly, but out of a desire to have a certain law passed that would greatly increase the strength and wealth of organized labor. They look forward to the passage of the Orwellian named "Employee Free Choice Act."
That act does not give employees free choice; it gives union organizers free choice over the employees.
Currently, if there is a drive to form a union, it is a two step process. First employee signature cards are collected to show sufficient interest, and then a secret ballot election is held to determine whether or not a majority of employees actually want a union. The biggest complaint of the union organizers is that employees who sign the check cards that leads to the election then vote against forming a union on their secret ballots.
The EFCA will eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot election. The employee check cards will be considered sufficient to form a union.
Allegedly this is done to prevent employer intimidation. The theory is that during the time interval between the collection of the signature cards and the balloting, a sufficient number of pro-union employees would be fired to ensure the election goes the way the employer wants, presumably anti-union. This flies in the face of currently existing employment laws which protect union organizers from being treated in this manner.
Also allegedly somehow employers would know how employees voted in the secret ballot and therefore punish those employees who support the union. The truth is that union organizers are disgruntled that they do not know how employees voted and therefore can not punish those employees who oppose the union. Some organizers even make the Orwellian suggestion that in the interest of fairness the ballot should not be secret.
Instead of being a protection for the employee, this EFCA is actually a way for unions to abuse employees. Signing the union card is a public act, analogous to registering to vote. Peer pressure can move people to act in ways that they wouldn’t act if granted privacy. The Employee Free Choice Act allows Guido and Nunzio to walk up to an employee and say "Youze gonna sign the union card? You don't want no 'accidents' to happen so youze gonna sign it."
For the sake of the employee, the EFCA should not pass.
That act does not give employees free choice; it gives union organizers free choice over the employees.
Currently, if there is a drive to form a union, it is a two step process. First employee signature cards are collected to show sufficient interest, and then a secret ballot election is held to determine whether or not a majority of employees actually want a union. The biggest complaint of the union organizers is that employees who sign the check cards that leads to the election then vote against forming a union on their secret ballots.
The EFCA will eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot election. The employee check cards will be considered sufficient to form a union.
Allegedly this is done to prevent employer intimidation. The theory is that during the time interval between the collection of the signature cards and the balloting, a sufficient number of pro-union employees would be fired to ensure the election goes the way the employer wants, presumably anti-union. This flies in the face of currently existing employment laws which protect union organizers from being treated in this manner.
Also allegedly somehow employers would know how employees voted in the secret ballot and therefore punish those employees who support the union. The truth is that union organizers are disgruntled that they do not know how employees voted and therefore can not punish those employees who oppose the union. Some organizers even make the Orwellian suggestion that in the interest of fairness the ballot should not be secret.
Instead of being a protection for the employee, this EFCA is actually a way for unions to abuse employees. Signing the union card is a public act, analogous to registering to vote. Peer pressure can move people to act in ways that they wouldn’t act if granted privacy. The Employee Free Choice Act allows Guido and Nunzio to walk up to an employee and say "Youze gonna sign the union card? You don't want no 'accidents' to happen so youze gonna sign it."
For the sake of the employee, the EFCA should not pass.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The need for police to police each other
Those who distrust government often extend that distrust to the police themselves. That leads to the criticism that police have a very difficult job and do not need the opprobrium that is often heaped on them by those who dislike their enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Attention should only be paid to those who are actually bad, and good police should not be judged by the bad seeds in their company.
The law enforcement structure, consisting of both the police and the district attorneys, may very well be full of well meaning people. That cannot be denied. While it is obvious some of those in the structure entered it because of a desire for power over others, others entered it out of a genuine desire to serve or protect the public.
Unfortunately they do not police themselves enough. Every police officer who does not arrest a bad seed is in himself a bad seed because he did not do so. Every district attorney who does not file charges against a bad seed is in himself a bad seed because he did not do so.
That’s what it comes down to. People talk about “the thin blue line”, a phrase meant to indicate that police will protect other police when one of them is accused. Police will not take action against other police unless public outcry is so great (as in the case of the BART subway shooting) that they cannot afford to do otherwise.
Although solutions have been proposed, until and unless they are acted upon the only way the law enforcement structure can earn the respect that was once their due is to break the blue wall of silence.
Until that happens the bad opinion people have of the police in general, as a result of the "bad seeds", is entirely justified.
The law enforcement structure, consisting of both the police and the district attorneys, may very well be full of well meaning people. That cannot be denied. While it is obvious some of those in the structure entered it because of a desire for power over others, others entered it out of a genuine desire to serve or protect the public.
Unfortunately they do not police themselves enough. Every police officer who does not arrest a bad seed is in himself a bad seed because he did not do so. Every district attorney who does not file charges against a bad seed is in himself a bad seed because he did not do so.
That’s what it comes down to. People talk about “the thin blue line”, a phrase meant to indicate that police will protect other police when one of them is accused. Police will not take action against other police unless public outcry is so great (as in the case of the BART subway shooting) that they cannot afford to do otherwise.
Although solutions have been proposed, until and unless they are acted upon the only way the law enforcement structure can earn the respect that was once their due is to break the blue wall of silence.
Until that happens the bad opinion people have of the police in general, as a result of the "bad seeds", is entirely justified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)