Category: Politics

Sen. Clinton is Rod Tidwell.

Sen. Clinton and her populist buddies are opportunists, nothing more. Consider:

“Our tax code should be valuing hard work and helping middle-class and working families get ahead,” [Senator Hillary Clinton] said in Keene, N.H., as she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination. “It offends our values as a nation when an investment manager making $50 million can pay a lower tax rate on her earned income than a teacher making $50,000 pays on her income.”

It should equally offend our values when a teacher making $50,000 pays a lower rate on her earned income than an investment manager making $50 million pays on her income. Having a tax code that is used as a tool to push agendas, pick winners and losers, demonize success, and generate fleeting economic “equality” offends our values. Set a base exemption and tax everything – and everyone – else equally, at a rate as low as possible, regardless of an individual’s economic results.

Let me ask a question or two. If there is unfair treatment here, and it seems there is, why is the explanation always that the rich aren’t paying enough? Why is the problem never that the poor are paying too much?

House Backs Meddling in Different Ways

When writing legislation to tinker with an already broken system, it’s best to understand which assumptions are flawed. First, the set up:

House Democrats pushed through legislation yesterday that would boost government-subsidized student loans and other college financial aid by $18 billion over the next five years, despite strong opposition from Republican lawmakers and a White House veto threat.

The legislation, passed in a 273 to 149 vote, would cut interest rates on federally backed student loans in half and increase Pell grants for low-income students. It would pay for the measures by slashing subsidies to lending companies by about $19 billion over five years and use about $1 billion of remaining savings to reduce the federal deficit.

Cutting subsidies is always good, but to divert the savings to grants and interest-rate cuts, as if Congress can legitimately and arbitrarily cut them to a desired rate and have the outcome be economic efficiency is folly of the highest order. This plan will no more help students go to college affordably than anything else Congress has tried since it began subsidizing higher education.

But that’s not the fun part. Consider this:

House Republicans also offered a plan yesterday to substitute increased Pell grant funding for the interest rate cuts. They said they favor that approach because more of the money would be targeted to lower-income students, whereas interest rate cuts benefit middle-income borrowers as well.

The most fundamental flaw in higher education is the silly notion that government policy should establish parents as best suited to pay for college. Nonsense. College students are adults, and should be expected to bear the burden. If their parents want to pay, fine. That’s a decision within the individual family. Government should not step in the way.

But undergraduates are almost exclusively lower-income students. They would be lower-income borrowers. If the student’s parents are middle- or high-income, but choose not to pay for college, how is that student any different than the student whose parents would pay for college if they could afford it? The outcome is exactly the same, except the student whose parents are lower-income will get free money from the government. Once again, the government is picking winners and losers based on criteria other than facts.

I wonder why?

[Rep. George] Miller said the changes were necessary to make college affordable to all Americans. “We have an obligation to make sure that students have the maximum opportunity to take advantage of a college education,” he said.

Congress does not have any such obligation. It only has a Constitutional obligation to stay out of the market for college and student loans. If having a college degree is so wonderful, and my two degrees suggest I think it is, supply and demand will sync without help from Congress.

Full disclosure: I received Pell grants all four years as an undergraduate. I also had to repay a significant portion of my student loans early because it was in my mother’s name. Government requirements wouldn’t let me borrow everything in my name, even though I received zero financial support. I repaid the loan early because it was restricting my mother’s access to credit for her needs.

One more, just because it’s worth pointing out.

From the same Sen. Obama speech:

If you’re willing to teach in a high-need subject like math or science or special education, we’ll pay you even more.

The central planner always knows best which area is a “high-need”. Should Sen. Obama become president and get this change through Congress, welcome the coming glut of math, science, and special education teachers. And they’ll all be making more money, without concern for supply and demand. Really, who needs to worry about such bothersome economic laws. Sen. Obama knows, and he’ll direct government to benevolently provide.

Who believes that government can never be the core problem?

Looking at the speech where Sen. Barack Obama discussed the idea of merit pay (from yesterday), it’s not hard to figure out that, while he may truly be interested in fighting for merit pay in schools, he’s not interested in reform if it doesn’t conform to rhetoric.

The ideal of a public education has always been at the heart of the American promise. It’s why we are committed to fixing and improving our public schools instead of abandoning them and passing out vouchers. Because in America, it’s the promise of a good education for all that makes it possible for any child to transcend the barriers of race or class or background and achieve their God-given potential.

Everything wrong with Sen. Obama’s candidacy is wrapped up in one paragraph. Vouchers – public financing without public provision – equates to nothing more than “abandoning” our schools, and presumably our children. I’ll try to contain my enthusiasm.

Exhibit A:

There’s no better example of this neglect than the law that has become one of the emptiest slogans in the history of politics – No Child Left Behind.
…

But don’t come up with this law called No Child Left Behind and then leave the money behind. …

He’s right that No Child Left Behind is a flaming turd. Worse, it’s a federal flaming turd, when the federal government has no legitimate authority to insert itself into public education. But if he thinks that it’s a flaming turd only because it doesn’t have enough money backing it, even if the extra money goes to better pay¹ for quality teachers, he’s either an opportunist or a moron.

Let’s assume he becomes president and fixes the unfixable No Child Left behind by throwing more money at it, even if it’s only to offer merit pay to teachers. Is it a cheap shot, or merely pointing out the obvious, to suggest that if those children “transcend the barriers of race or class or background and achieve their God-given potential”, Sen. Obama will be more than happy to have government take a considerable portion of the fruits of that achievement? You know, to level the playing field.

When liberals progressives talk about equality, they never mean equality of opportunity. Never. It’s always equality of outcome. Sen. Obama wouldn’t be advocating single-payer health care with huge tax increases if he didn’t advocate equality of outcome.

To be fair, I’m sure he’s being honest when he says he wants children to reach their potential. (Why the need to include “God-given”, if not to appear religious?) But that leaves him, at best, as inconsistent and unprincipled. I want consistent principles in a president.

Link to Sen. Obama’s speech courtesy of Ruth Marcus’ column in today’s Washington Post.

¹ I guess the assumption isn’t that bad teachers shouldn’t make less than they currently make. They’re paid correctly. We need more money to pay the good teachers. Wouldn’t a voucher system or other privatizing plan achieve the same thing, if that’s the right problem with teacher pay? What if it’s not the right problem with teacher pay?

I might have Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Who does James Taranto think he’s fooling with this Best of Web Today?

In the sixth paragraph [ed. note: this story], the AP accurately describes the program: “President Bush authorized warrantless monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mails to or from the United States when one party is believed to be a terrorist or to have terrorist ties.” But in both the headline and the first paragraph, the wire service refers to the monitoring of international communications as “domestic spying.”

Such misreporting–and the AP is far from the only offender–is scurrilous. Moreover, it is potentially threatening to civil liberties. Remember the boy who cried wolf? If a future administration does engage in warrantless domestic wiretapping, how will the AP let us know? Who will believe it is the real thing?

Don’t complain about this illegal spying or we won’t believe you when there really is illegal spying. Nice try, but international telephone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involve a domestic point in a two-point connection. Everyone who isn’t being intentionally obtuse (or dishonest) understands this. I suspect that after six years of this sort of partisan blindness, Taranto actually believes what he’s selling. That wows me more than the unlikely possibility that his silly argument will be accepted by thinking people.

Well, hello (again)

A few stories to catch up from my unplanned absence.

First, Don Boudreaux offered a fascinating comparison of Sen. Barack Obama’s fund-raising and economic populism.

… Last quarter Sen. Obama raised, as the Times puts it, “a whopping $31 million.”

These funds, of course, are all voluntarily contributed. The fact that I, personally, do not care for much of what Sen. Obama espouses is irrelevant: lots of people like what he says. They like it enough to contribute to his campaign. The result, designed by no one, is a huge campaign chest for Sen. Obama. He will be well-financed to pursue his ambition. (In my opinion, this ambition is an especially greedy and venal one, but that’s just my opinion.)

In May, however, the very same Sen. Obama called for Senate hearings into allegedly excessive pay for CEOs of corporations.

The rest of Mr. Boudreaux’s analysis is perfect. When someone earns achieves superior results through voluntary exchange, any action to alter those results by a third party is wrong. “Too much” success notwithstanding.

As I think I’ve mentioned before, I will not be voting for Sen. Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination precisely because he is an economic populist. I did not vote Democratic in the last election to institute economic populism. Severe displeasure at the current administration and climate should not be seen as an overwhelming desire to be economically stupid.

Next, I still think public money for this is questionable, at best, but I like the approach this writer uses to explain proposed funding for circumcision as an HIV prevention.

One of the suggested health campaigns reviewed by the Global Health Program is provision of adult male circumcision to decrease individual likelihood of sexually acquiring HIV infection. Some recently published studies performed in Africa suggest circumcision may offer an impressive 60 percent margin of protection against HIV infection, which is well below consistent condom use and complete sexual abstinence, but far better than any other currently available interventions for men. Ambassador Mark Dybul, who runs the PEPFAR program, told the Council that he would provide funds for circumcision programs if the governments of the 15 countries PEPFAR works with requested such support. But strong concerns have been raised regarding the quantity and skill level of medical personnel required to perform this bloody surgical procedure. Though the procedure itself is inexpensive, adult circumcision risks exposing both healthcare workers and patients to blood-borne infections, including HIV. Diverting scarce health talent to large circumcision campaigns could impede other public health and clinical efforts.

In that context, my only concern is the public financing. The writer mentioned all the key aspects of circumcision as an HIV prevention technique. It should be up to the adult male, it’s effectiveness is significantly outpaced by non-invasive methods, and there are considerable risks to be addressed before applying it to African countries facing a severe epidemic. Radical solutions should be tied to real-world facts, considerations, and consequences.

Speaking of radical solutions needing to be tied to real-world facts, I haven’t seen Sicko yet. I don’t make it a priority to pay for propaganda. Anyway, I’m fairly certain what my opinion will be when I get around to it. I imagine it’ll be something like Kurt Loder’s opinion. (Someone else deserves credit here, but I can’t remember where I saw this link.) The entire piece is worth reading, but I like this best:

Moore’s most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks’ vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who’s reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he’s finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave — and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can’t have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity?

I guess we’re supposed to fall back on the argument that it’s somehow free. No need to trouble ourselves with economic laws or evidence that demonstrates those laws or even the nuances of any argument that millions of Americans don’t have health insurance. The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant. Right?

I will see Sicko at some point, if only to understand what stupid people are believing. I don’t really want to give Moore any money, but I’m thinking back to how people paid for a different movie and saw Fahrenheit 9/11 instead. It’s tempting as a “gotcha”, but I wouldn’t do it. Unlike Moore, I consider honesty an asset. Whatever small price he’ll get from my (matinée) viewing is surely worth remaining above his level.

The law is for you, not for me.

I guess I’m not surprised that the editors of the Wall Street Journal believe that partisan attacks are a one-directional mess aimed at the Bush Administration, but to somehow turn the commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence into a profile in non-courage by President Bush is really beyond all intellectual credibility. Reading through the short essay, I shook my head wondering how the editors can consider themselves “conservatives”, as a conservative surely wouldn’t sully the rule of law with excuses, blame-shifting, and a fair dose of language abuse. For instance:

As Mr. Fitzgerald’s obsessive exercise ground forward, Mr. Libby got caught in a perjury net that we continue to believe trapped an innocent man who lost track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom.

An truthful man needn’t worry about losing track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom. The truth is the truth. If you tell it exclusively, the story never changes. If your story changes, you’ve lied. It’s possible to argue that Mr. Libby did not lie to the grand jury, I suppose. The jury disagreed. The judge disagreed. I’m convinced. He lied.

And President Bush is a small-minded partisan at a time when he claims we need leadership.

Can we expect a retraction?

Finally, someone at the New York Times figured out that Nina Planck’s irrational diatribe is one-sided and full of mis-leading information, which I discussed here. From the Public Editor at the Times:

Her Exhibit A was a trial in Atlanta in which a vegan couple were convicted of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty in the death of their 6-week-old son, who was fed mainly soy milk and apple juice and weighed only 3.5 pounds. The column set off a torrent of reader e-mail that is still coming in – much of it from vegans who send photos of their healthy children or complain bitterly of being harassed by friends and relatives using Planck’s column as proof that their diet is dangerous.

If there was another side, a legitimate argument that veganism isn’t harmful, Planck didn’t tell you – not her obligation, [editor of the editorial page Andrew] Rosenthal and [head of the op-ed page David] Shipley say. But unlike the Middle East, The Times has not presented another view, or anything, on veganism on its op-ed pages for 16 years. There has been scant news coverage in the past five years.

There is another side.

Bingo. I agree that the op-ed page does not need to be balanced on presenting information. Sometimes, a bias is appropriate. (Obviously.) But it’s good to see someone at the New York Times stand up for truth in this case because Planck provided misinformation. She lied as a result of her bias. That is different than analyzing facts and declaring one stance correct.

The editorial provides further explanation as to why Planck’s article was flawed. I challenged in my original entry most of what the Public Editor now challenges about Planck’s claims. Still, the entire editorial is worth reading to fully demonstrate how ridiculous Planck’s essay was, given the facts she misrepresented and omitted.

Enjoy Ms. Planck’s reply to the furor. Obviously, I disagree with her and find much of her reply laughable. However, I don’t feel like rebutting any of her claims today. Read it and judge for yourself.

Freedom for $1.05 or drugs for $2?

The words leading to the coordinating conjunction in this story’s lede sentence gives the reader more than enough information to know how this will affect drug enforcement policy.

A cheap, highly addictive drug known as “cheese heroin” has killed 21 teenagers in the Dallas area over the past two years, and authorities say they are hoping they can stop the fad before it spreads across the nation.

“Cheese heroin” is a blend of so-called black tar Mexican heroin and crushed over-the-counter medications that contain the antihistamine diphenhydramine, found in products such as Tylenol PM, police say. The sedative effects of the heroin and the nighttime sleep aids make for a deadly brew.

We’re going to get fear to justify more brutal attempts to enforce prohibition. It’s stupid, but typical. And being so obvious, it’s not what warrants the most attention. Better to start here:

“Cheese” is not only dangerous. It’s cheap. About $2 for a single hit and as little as $10 per gram. The drug can be snorted with a straw or through a ballpoint pen, authorities say. It causes drowsiness and lethargy, as well as euphoria, excessive thirst and disorientation. That is, if the user survives.

I expected a multimedia presentation with the requisite pause and ominous drumbeat after that last sentence.

It makes no sense to pretend that something like “cheese heroin” is bad. I’m sure it is. But what evidence do we get to excuse “if the user survives”? After all, we’re told that 21 teens have died in 24 months. That’s an awful statistic, but outside of some other context, it doesn’t tell us anything meaningful.

Authorities say the number of arrests involving possession of “cheese” in the Dallas area this school year was 146, up from about 90 the year before. School is out for the summer, and authorities fear that the students, with more time on their hands, could turn to the drug.

The first statistic we get is an approximation that 236 people were arrested for possessing this drug in the two years in which 21 students have died. I’m left wondering whether these arrests involved teens or not since the article doesn’t say. It does use the academic calendar to measure arrests. That’s a quaint device.

But looking at the numbers, are we to assume that almost 10% of users die? Highly unlikely, for no rational person would believe that Dallas police have arrested every possessor of “cheese”. (I’m sure they’ve tried, mightily.) I’m still left trying to triangulate a rational context for this hyper-fear.

Drug treatment centers in Dallas say teen “cheese” addicts are now as common as those seeking help for a marijuana addiction. “It is the first drug to have even come close in my experience here,” says Michelle Hemm, director of Phoenix House in Dallas.

Without hard numbers¹ it’s difficult to draw concrete conclusions, but I’m guessing the number of marijuana users addicts is high enough that a comparison implying a 10% death rate among “cheese” users is flawed. So the death rate is lower, as a percentage. What percentage are we looking at? Is the level of fear and panic implied in this story justified?

I don’t have the answer, unfortunately. Again, I’m sure “cheese heroin” is nasty, dangerous stuff. But I’m left wondering if there isn’t a message in this story about prohibition?

[Dallas police detective Monty] Moncibais then asked how many students knew a “cheese” user. Just about everyone in the auditorium raised a hand. At one point, when he mentioned that the United States has the highest rate of drug users in the world, the middle schoolers cheered.²

“You know, I know being No. 1 is important, but being the No. 1 dopeheads in the world, I don’t know whether [that] bears applause,” Moncibais shot back.

Decades of prohibition and we’re the best at having people use drugs. A sane policy would not continue pursuing prohibition at all costs. It would acknowledge that people will use drugs, despite a general consensus among fans of prohibition that drug use is bad. Reasonable officials would seek to minimize the damage from that drug use instead of trying to win an unwinnable “war”, even if it meant decriminalization.

But that doesn’t win elections or justify larger budgets. Fear does that.

¹ The next paragraph in the article:

From September 2005 to September 2006, Phoenix House received 69 “cheese” referral calls from parents. Hemm says that in the last eight months alone, that number has nearly doubled to 136. The message from the parents is always, “My kid is using ‘cheese,’ ” she says.

That provides more numbers, but I don’t think they help or hurt my argument.

² At this point in the story, CNN has a video link titled “Watch middle schoolers raise hands, admit they know drug users”. I laughed at the stupid absurdity.

Hear the wind blowing through his ears.

I’m not ashamed to have voted against Bush for Kerry-Edwards in 2004, but it gets harder every day.

Responding to a question at a bookstore here, John Edwards said he has never heard of PETA, the animal rights group.

“I can honestly say I have never heard of PETA,” said Edwards. “They don’t want people to eat meat? Well I am not in favor of that.”

Can he possibly be that moronic? If he is so unaware of the news to not know who PETA is, he’s clearly not capable of ever being fully informed about our world. We have a president like that now, we don’t need another.

On a more fundamental note, is he really be such a dunce that he thinks somehow meat-eating versus vegetarian/veganism is going to become a campaign issue requiring a public stance? Alright, now I’m a little ashamed.

Link via Elaine Vigneault.