Category: Politics

“Each and every one of us” – prove it.

Originally via Liberty Papers, I share Kip’s dismay about the libertarian credentials of this Ron Paul speech from the weekend waste of time in Iowa:

In case you don’t want to watch, here’s a transcript:

…Our campaign is all about freedom, prosperity, and PEACE!

But the one thing we have to remember is that you cannot have freedom without life. We must preserve all life if we expect to protect the individual liberty of each and every one of us. And that means the unborn as well.

Let me assure you, as an OB doctor and one that has studied history and economic policy in politics for a long time, I can assure you that life begins at conception. Life begins at conception and as an OB doctor, I had the legal responsibility of taking care of that life. If I did anything wrong, I could be sued. If anybody’s in an accident, and a fetus is killed, they can be sued. If in a violent act, a fetus is killed, you can be charged with murder. There is no reason in the world that this government can’t protect life, rather than the destruction of life, like they do when they finance abortion. That has to stop. And the most important way that can be stopped is the reversal and elimination of that horrible ruling, Roe v. Wade. It must be reversed.

All of this “Go Freedom!” talk is fascinating. I’m politically inclined to agree with the surface rhetoric coming from the Paul campaign because the talking points can be dressed up as libertarian. It’s just when the details come out that I’m 180 degrees away from where I’m assumed to be because of Rep. Paul’s brand of “libertarianism”.

But since Congressman Paul brought up a useful point on freedom, I’d like to get his opinion, as an OB, on another topic of rights involving children. From conception to birth, every child presumably has the same rights in Dr. Paul’s worldview. Once born, does every child have the right to be free from medically unnecessary circumcision, or does that right belong only to females? If the latter, do boys lose that right at birth, or do girls gain that right? Why? And is he angered by the federal government’s current, unequal stance on genital integrity?

Never trust a politician with your wallet.

I understand the appeal of a Pigou tax to counter the negative effects of gasoline use/carbon output. Theoretically, it’s perfect because it puts the burden on the user creating the problem, which is where it should be. In practice, I see no reason to trust politicians to stay within the bounds of the plan and not dip a finger or shovel into the funds. For example:

President Bush spoke out Thursday against increasing the gasoline tax, an idea being discussed as a potential part of a new Congressional plan to shore up the nation’s bridges after the deadly collapse in Minneapolis.

I get the idea that those who use the road would be paying for the road. That’s fine, except why should bridges be federal expenditures? So why should a national gas tax, collected and managed by the Congress, be used in this capacity? And isn’t a gas tax supposed to offset the negative environmental outcomes of burning gasoline?

Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, suggested this week that a tax increase might be needed to finance a proposed trust fund to repair bridges in the Federal Highway System, [sic] A large percentage of the bridges have been identified as having structural problems.

The key here is that, under current Congressional “leadership”, a large percentage of bridges managed by the federal government have uncorrected structural problems. The same legislative body that allowed this situation to develop without adequate (though, not necessarily appropriate) funding is somehow competent to manage a new influx of cash. Gotcha. I certainly trust the Congress to spend increased gas taxes where they’re needed. It’ll be just like shoring up Social Security with the trust fund receipts.

**********

On an amusing side note, President Bush is certainly bold:

Asked about the gasoline proposal, which could amount to an increase of 5 cents a gallon under schemes floating around Congress, Mr. Bush said, “Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.”

More than six years in and he’s finally suggesting that Congress examine how it sets priorities. It’s not like he could’ve vetoed any excessive spending and request that it be redirected to infrastructure. (Again, I’m only conceding that the federal government is involved in infrastructure, not that it should be involved.) No, he’s solely the tool of Congress to approve what they approve.

Or he could examine how he sets priorities. If I recall correctly, and I do, several years ago President Bush was busy demanding that the Congress pass a bigoted constitutional amendment. Apparently hating gays is a higher priority than preventing bridges from falling down.

The Schizophrenia of Economic Populism

In his lede to set up a different topic, George Will utilizes this story about Sen. Barack Obama, from the campaign trail:

Sen. Barack Obama recently told some Iowa farmers that prices of their crops are not high enough, considering what grocers are charging for other stuff: “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?”

Want to bet that Sen. Obama’s plan to get the prices of crops higher will involve some form of government subversion of economics? Want to also bet that he’ll campaign against the Whole Foods merger because it leads to higher prices? How about the possibility (probability?) that he’ll promise to help working families who have trouble paying their weekly grocery bills?

No one cares to rise above.

I certainly share Andrew Sullivan’s “good riddance” sentiment regarding the imminent departure of Karl Rove from the White House. Seriously, good riddance. While I think Mr. Sullivan correctly summarizes the blown opportunity that Republicans allowed Rove to deliver, he incorrectly hypothesizes the damage Rove caused:

Rove is one of the worst political strategists in recent times. He took a chance to realign the country and to unite it in a war – and threw it away in a binge of hate-filled niche campaigning, polarization and short-term expediency. His divisive politics and elevation of corrupt mediocrities to every branch of government has turned an entire generation off the conservative label. And rightly so. It will take another generation to recover from the toxins he has injected, with the president’s eager approval, into the political culture and into the conservative soul.

The first two sentences are the perfect short epitaph for Rove’s tenure. But I’m not convinced that he’s turned an entire generation off the conservative label. It wasn’t too long ago that Republicans were crowing about the permanent Republican majority. Rational people could understand this for the ridiculous hyperbole it was, precisely because politics gets in the way of principles. Politicians can’t set their egos aside long enough to do what’s right. History shows almost nothing but that.

The problematic missing part is who will occupy the new political vacuum created by Rove’s mess? And that’s where the Democrats step in to demonstrate that neither side is particularly adept at statesmanship. It’s all politics, all the time. We’re not eight months into Democratic control of Congress and the surrendering to political cowardice is already rampant. Nothing will change in the likelihood that a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. The Democrats don’t have the same issues, but they are carrying their own full set of luggage. “Permanent” majority, anyone?

In the end, Rove achieved little more than the further coarsening of American political discourse. Surely he’s not the only person we can blame for this. And far too many partisans on both sides of the aisle have been perfectly complicit. The partisans will be alright, as this is all they’ve wanted anyway. It’s the newly indifferent idealist who must recover.

Popular Economics versus Valid Economics

David Weigel, reporting on YearlyKos, provides this recap of a speech by Sen. Barack Obama:

Policy-wise, lots of spending, not as much “let’s stop government waste.” On health care: “If I had to design a system from scratch I’d design a single payer system.” On Katrina reconstruction: you want money, you got it.

There are (at least) two points to make on this. First, Kip’s Law says that “every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.” I think that applies here since centrally planning health care is exactly what Sen. Obama is trying to do with his “solution”.

More importantly, though, we’re not at scratch with our health care system. We have so many intricacies built in – and many of them are good – that jamming more socialist crap into the system than the government’s already forced is hardly a fool-proof plan for success. That said, if we take him at his thought process without the complicating issue of our existing system and assume he’d design a single-payer system, I’m left to conclude that he’s not particularly bright economically. I’ve already come to that conclusion, but he shouldn’t keep trying to reinforce it.

For example, Weigel reports on a blogger Q&A at YearlyKos:

1:25: Obama on deficits: “This is the most fiscally irresponsible administration in… memory.” (Obama was 8 when LBJ left office.) Would he deficit spend in order to eventually shrink the deficit? “Yes, but the question is, are we investing in the American people instead of in wars that should have never been waged?”

When a politician starts talking about “investing” in the American people, what he means is that he’s looking to take more of the American people’s money and give it back to them in packaged, limited, inefficient choices. I’d rather my representatives focus on the legitimate tasks of government and leave me with my money to invest in myself as I prefer.

Update: I changed the original title because I didn’t like it.

Legitimate is the enemy of more revenue.

I never got around to writing about the egregious fines (multi-year fines for minor infractions to “generate revenue”) for traffic offenses that went into effect in Virginia July 1st. As expected, they’ve already been struck down as unconstitutional, although not for the reason I would’ve guessed. There’s still a long path before the fines are history, but the political nature of the discussion is fascinating in exposing exactly how uninterested politicians are in leadership.

Del. David E. Poisson (D-Loudoun), who voted for the transportation package, said he expects the fees to surface in his race against Republican challenger Lynn Chapman.

“I was never a fan of the abuser fees,” Poisson said. “I spoke against them when the session ended and continue to maintain that they’re not a reliable source of transportation revenue. But it was very, very clear to me that this was, at least in the view of the majority, an essential ingredient in the overall package. Had we opposed any element of the package, it all would have failed.”

If the majority (Republicans) supported it, I don’t understand why it would’ve failed if the minority (Democrats) had opposed it. What I see is political shenanigans on both sides. Republicans wanted to get something done without raising taxes to pay for it. Democrats wanted money to spend, period. I won’t accept “I voted for it but I really opposed it.” Principles, principles, principles. This is more conspiring than opposing forces compromising.

The Subway to Nowhere.

Have we reached the point where the Washington, DC subway system is America’s subway? A local official in Fairfax, Virginia seems to think so.

A Bush administration bias against mass transit projects might be hindering federal approval of the proposed Metro extension to Dulles International Airport, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D) charged yesterday.

The Federal Transit Administration is evaluating the project’s cost effectiveness to determine whether it qualifies for $900 million in federal money. The agency has expressed concern about the estimated price tag of the project’s 11.6-mile first phase, which has grown from $1.52 billion in December 2004 to as much as $2.7 billion.

A U.S. Transportation Department inspector general’s report expressed doubts last week about whether the first phase, running from Falls Church through Tysons Corner to Reston, most of which will be financed by Dulles Toll Road user fees and special taxes levied on property owners near the rail line, could meet cost guidelines under the federal New Starts program.

There are several aspects to this report. Chairman Connolly should explain why taxpayers not located in the Washington, DC metro area should fund local mass transit. Assuming the federal government comes to the same incorrect answer that Connolly has, the FTA is correct to evaluate the cost effectiveness. Specifically, it is correct to question whether or not local WMATA officials can meet cost guidelines. WMATA can’t manage the system it has to break-even. Adding more expenses and rail service to manage will not alter this fundamental incompetence.

As with every government sleight of hand, why are Dulles Toll Road users and local property owners expected to pay for this? If it’s a valuable service, shouldn’t rider fees suffice? If not, why is it being built? Tax local drivers and you’ll create subway riders who are no longer paying for the service they now use. Tax property owners and you discourage people from living in the area. That would make the rail line less necessary. Revenue goes down, but fixed costs remain. How will this succeed?

Analysis is irrelevant if you live in Connolly’s head where President Bush is to blame.

“Like a lot of this administration, we have an EPA that doesn’t really believe in the environmental mission. We have an FTA that isn’t quite comfortable with its transit mission,” Connolly said. “They would love, I suppose, to look at other options other than providing $900 million to this project.”

The EPA doesn’t care about protecting the environment because it wants to verify that this solution is the best alternative rather than just an alternative. Any politician who thinks this way should clearly not be in office where they’re free to make decisions for the common good. But that implicates them all, doesn’t it?

Republicans support the heterosexual troops.

This point didn’t fit in my first post on yesterday’s House vote, but it’s worth making:

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said passage would threaten the safety of the troops rather than protect them because the measure would arbitrarily leave units at home that had specialized skills needed in the war.

Arbitrarily? Is it arbitrary to oust gay service members from the military without any misconduct on their part? What if they have “specialized skills needed in the war”? Like Arabic language skills, for example. If we can’t translate gathered intelligence because it’s in Arabic and the persons who can tell us what it says are at home, does that threaten the safety of the troops? Should I expect Rep. Hunter to sponsor legislation to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell? If not, why is marginalizing gay and lesbian service members more important than protecting the troops?

Democrats want to bring the troops home if doing so hurts Republicans.

I’m interested in yesterday’s House vote guaranteeing time at home for troops returning from Iraq for personal reasons. As I’ve written before, I have two brothers in the military. My 19-year-old brother is in the Marines. He just left for Iraq for the first time. This concerns me, even though he’s beyond excited about going. He’s in for a shock, of course. But this bill isn’t geared¹ to him.

My brother in the Navy left for Iraq on Monday. This is obviously an occupational hazard, so as much as he is realistic and uninterested in returning, he must follow orders. Within the context of the House’s bill, my brother is returning to Iraq six weeks after returning home from his first tour. He will probably not be in Iraq more than a few months, but he barely settled in and unpacked. How long do the president and the Congress think this can continue if most service members think like my brother in the Navy rather than my brother in the Marines?

¹ I understand that the bill is directed at one man only, President Bush. It’s a cowardly political move aimed at shaming Republicans rather than having Democrats lead. Democrats must stop believing the president’s rhetoric about presidential power for war-making.

Witnessing Violence Against the Constitution

Here’s a reminder that politicians are the same, regardless of party affiliation. Politics is about power, to the exclusion of ethical statecraft.

The long-awaited Rockefeller TV-violence bill will be introduced before the August recess, says Steven Broderick, press secretary to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). The bill would give the FCC the power to regulate violence on cable and satellite, as well as on broadcast.

It will also likely require the FCC to define indecent violent content, a call the FCC punted to Congress in a report it issued several months ago.
…

He also is buoyed by the change in congressional leadership. A similar bill that Rockefeller introduced in 2005 did not go anywhere.

“Last time, Congress was under different management,” says Broderick. “Times have changed, and programming on TV has changed.”

Broadcast restrictions on cable and satellite will never hold up to court scrutiny, so it’s not worth discussing. It is useful as a reminder that politicians consider the Constitution a mere suggestion for legislating.

I’ll also be quite amused if the FCC can come up with rules for indecent violent content. It’s perpetually ignored such demands for verbal and sexual indecency, preferring the power option that allows it to threaten with unwritten rules. Also, it shouldn’t be the FCC’s job to set the rules. If Congress feels it should make such laws in the face of “Congress shall make no laws”, it should at least determine the specifics of its disregard. Eventually, that must fall to court review, as well.

With that out of the way, let’s look at broadcast schedules (remember, cable and satellite are irrelevant here) to examine Mr. Broderick’s statement that “programming on TV has changed.” The Fall 2005 broadcast television schedule:

  • 24
  • Prison Break
  • CSI
  • Law & Order
  • Bones
  • Ghost Whisperer
  • Criminal Minds
  • Lost
  • Alias

The Fall 2007 broadcast television schedule:

  • 24
  • Prison Break
  • CSI
  • Law & Order
  • Bones
  • Ghost Whisperer
  • Criminal Minds
  • Lost
  • Heroes
  • Jericho

If I’m reading that correctly, the only difference in the two schedules is the subtraction of Alias (boo!) and the addition of Heroes and Jericho. Comparing Alias and Heroes strikes me as an even trade on the violence scale, so Mr. Broderick is essentially saying that the addition of Jericho now justifies government regulation of television content. Does Sen. Rockefeller really want to hang this bill on that argument?

Link via Hit & Run