Category: Politics

Chant it with me: 1/20/2013! 1/20/2013! (1/20/2017?!?)

This story is from earlier this week, and the Bush Administration refuted the underlying claim. However, that it could be true illustrates a fundamental flaw in politics.

The struggling auto industry was thrust into the middle of a political standoff between the White House and Democrats on Monday as President-elect Barack Obama urged President Bush in a meeting at the White House to support immediate emergency aid.

Mr. Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia, a measure for which Mr. Bush has long fought, people familiar with the discussion said.

If this is true and it ends this way, Americans will lose free trade with Detroit to gain free trade with Colombia (among others).

I hate politicians.

———-

An amusing paragraph in the article:

Mr. Bush has drawn his line at the automakers’ doors, having already been forced to shelve the free-market principles of his Republican Party to bail out the financial industry over the past two months. But Republicans say he would acquiesce in aid to automakers in return for Congress’s ratification of the Colombia pact and pending trade agreements with Panama and South Korea.

President Bush was not forced to shelve the free-market principles not possessed by the Republican Party.

Low Nutritional Value Politics

Last week I saw both of these Tom Toles editorial cartoons, but never together.

Toles_11052008.gif

And:

Toles_11072008.gif

The second cartoon, from Friday, is much more effective because it’s correct. The first cartoon, from Tuesday, is full of sentimentality but devoid of truth. (To be fair, we moved closer to truth, although not as much as everyone believes.) The success of California’s Proposition 8 demonstrated that “All men are created equal” isn’t fully realized yet. Maybe it will never be. And there are many issues where our society falls short of the ideal. Denying those because we want some warm, fuzzy feelings for a day is unproductive.

I endorse skepticism.

I’m a huge fan of Penn Jillette. He’s consistently libertarian, as evidenced by his Showtime! series, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Also, his Vegas show with Teller is entertaining. So I read with interest this recent interview he did with reason about the presidential election.

reason: You were critical of the old newsletters that were revealed during the primaries, but on balance was Ron Paul good for libertarians?

Jillette: The basic underlying premise of that question I disagree with. I believe in individual rights so much that I don’t like any sort of “what’s good for the cause”-type question. A little while ago I was at skeptics, atheists conference and a question like that came up. How do we best win people over? As soon as we ask that question, we’re pigs. We have to leave open possibility that other side is right. Even as we call them assholes!

A lot of people listened to Ron Paul and a lot rang true to them. A lot of what he said, I agreed with. But my job professionally, my job as human, my job as an American citizen is not to do what I can to further the libertarian cause. If Obama came out and said “when I’m elected I’d make government as small as I can” I’d really get behind him. I’m not trying to get Libertarians elected. I’m even uncomfortable telling people who to vote for.

I heard Jillette say good things about Ron Paul on the Howard Stern Show too long after Paul’s past racist associations became clear, which I felt was unfortunate. But, yeah, it’s about the ideas. It always will be. I’m interested in liberty first, process second. That comes through here, and it’s the takeaway point.

For example, does this arugment make sense under any skepticism?

And here we see a fundamental difference between the progressive worldview and the conservative worldview. Progressives believe in a robust safety net for everyone. It’s very possible, as we’re seeing, that you’ll experience financial hard times for reasons that have nothing to do with you. A lot of the people doing unskilled service work in the Lehman Brothers office may lose their jobs as a result of this unwinding even though they didn’t do anything wrong. And that sort of thing happens all the time — people get laid off because adverse things happen to the companies they work for. Or people are struck by other kinds of misfortune — they get hit by buses, hurricanes destroy their houses, all kinds of stuff. Misfortune strikes ordinary people, and not just billionaires. And in the case of ordinary people, just as in the case of billionaires, you can offer improve social welfare by helping people out when they wind up in trouble.

But conservatives don’t believe in that kind of safety net for regular people — just for the billionaires. Guaranteed health care? Forget it. Guaranteed retirement income? No way. Just let the market work, and when it stops working the executives will be okay and the rest of us will, oh, something or other.

This is a bit out of date (mid-September), but the flaw is timeless. First, an overwhelming number of Democrats voted for the bailout plan. Do they not count as progressives? Does the claimed need to Do Something outweigh the obvious welfare for the billionaires?

But note how this kind of statement is a nasty simplification that could be rebutted if the accuser – in this case, Matt Yglesias – replaced his assumption with a question directed at the target of his attacks. I’m including myself in his definition of conservative, even though I identify as a libertarian. The comparison is close enough because what he’s attacking is the idea that government shouldn’t be providing X service (i.e. safety net). That’s not what he’s saying, of course. Instead, it’s a veiled “you hate poor/unlucky people because you don’t support my solution”. Any worldview condensed to such inanity is a sad commentary on the believer.

I support a reasonable safety net for the truly incompetent. I’m even willing to consider temporary safety nets for such cases as layoffs, hurricanes¹, or whatever. However, those are questions of how to effectively resolve the problems with minimal interference (i.e. taxation, regulations). I don’t think widespread government-provided safety nets are the universal solution. We can agree that not having mass numbers of people living in the streets is worth achieving. It does not flow from there to the implication that those who disagree on how to achieve the goal are selfish degenerates who want babies to die in the streets.

Stretched back to the context of Penn Jillette’s statement above, I can vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, but I’m not saying I think the Libertarian Party is the only, or best, way to achieve liberty. Like he said, if Obama stands up tomorrow and proposes a policy that enhances liberty, I will support it. It’s the principle, not the policy. All of politics is the same idea.

¹ It’s not too much to expect, in return, for the government to stop incentivizing stupid, risky behavior. This applies more to building homes in flood plains, I suppose, but it’s applicability to hurricanes is almost the same. Also, financial risks. Don’t encourage bad luck and then expect me to pay those who embraced it.

I voted (on Saturday).

Since I commute a reasonable distance to/from work, I took advantage of early voting on Saturday. I waited in line approximately 75 minutes, which was very close to my limit, given the choices before me. It helped that the sun filled the evening sky and the temperature hadn’t dropped. I had one point of indecision going in, although I had a strong inclination how I planned to vote. Without further buildup:

President: Bob Barr (Libertarian)

Senate: William Redpath (Libertarian)

House: Myself (libertarian)

I realized several years ago that I could never vote for Sen. McCain. I voted for him in the 2000 Republican primary, a vote I stand behind because I think President John McCain circa 2000 would’ve been better than President George W. Bush. I even advocated for a Kerry/McCain ticket in 2004. (I no longer stand behind that opinion.) But I’ve lost all respect for John McCain because I’ve finally seen the politician rather than the marketing campaign. Acknowledging his military career and sacrifice does not require me to assume those equal competent civilian leadership skills. So, he was never under consideration.

I considered Sen. Obama after initially rejecting any possibility of that. I might’ve been able to cast a vote for him if he hadn’t shifted from bad economics to insane economics as he sought to wrap up the nomination. Maybe he’ll cast that idiocy aside. I’m not confident of that.

In recent months I considered voting for Sen. Obama as a vote against the probable Supreme Court nominations from a President McCain. With the choice of Gov. Palin as his running mate, McCain forfeited any benefit of the doubt about his calm, reasoned approach to judicial nominations. As the polls suggested the race was still close, I thought I might have to vote Obama against my preference.

In finally deciding, I disregarded any consideration of polls, although I’m aware of them. Sen. Obama’s recent pandering on all matters of the economy made a vote for him impossible. I fear he actually believes the insanity he’s spewing. Civil liberties matter, but economic liberties matter, too. I can’t endorse a race from one brink to another.

My vote for Barr does not imply that I support him. Okay, so it does imply that. I considered that and decided the benefit offset that problem.

I do not think Barr is a libertarian. After reading this reason interview with Barr, I’m convinced he’s learned the language. I perceived his answers to be forced. He knows what to say and when, but he doesn’t necessarily believe them. Maybe that his personality interfering. Maybe he is a libertarian. It doesn’t matter because he won’t win. I voted to signal “libertarian” and to encourage continued ballot access. (The matching funds, I could do without.)

For Senate I couldn’t endorse former Gov. Jim Gilmore. He’s a rabid social conservative. Also, as evidenced by his nonsensical “abolition” of property taxes on automobiles, he has no sense of responsible or limited government. If I care about reducing taxation, I’m not fooled that you shift taxation from counties to the state.

I couldn’t vote for former Gov. Mark Warner, either. Either he’s pandering in matching Democratic nonsense on economics or he really believes his policy proposals. I find the latter hard to believe since he built a large business. Regardless, I don’t want to find out. And I’m not voting to increase the Democratic majority in the Senate.

When I began researching this year’s election, I realized Virginia had a Libertarian running for the Senate. I expected to be disappointed and perhaps embarrassed. (Think Michael Badnarik.) Then I read through William Redpath’s campaign site. Anyone who repeatedly references the Cato Institute probably has the right idea. Redpath has no chance of winning, of course, so it’s a no-risk vote in that sense. But anyone willing to push for the Flat Tax and not wrap it around social conservatism (i.e. Steve Forbes) receives the benefit of the doubt. I made this choice readily.

For the House (Virginia’s 11th District) the same logic applies for the Democrat (Gerry Connolly) and Republican (Keith Fimian), although the only third party candidate represented the Independent Green party. No thanks to that. Here I almost voted Republican to push for an offset of Democratic gains. But Mr. Fimian’s campaign site offered only the vaguest rhetoric, with no actual governing principles. Since even a useless blowhard like outgoing Rep. Tom Davis could hold the 11th District for more than a decade, I decided against a vote for any future incumbent¹. So I voted for myself as a write-in candidate. Keep your fingers crossed on my chances.

There are no ballot initiatives or bonds to vote on this year, so that’s it. I would’ve voted “no” to any bonds or taxes, “no” to any further theft of rights, and “yes” to any further protection or expansion of rights.

Further election thoughts at A Stitch in Haste, Postive Liberty, no third solution, and Freespace.

¹ If I should win the 11th District, this logic does not apply to future incumbents. Naturally.

Stealing from another is not compassionate to the robbed.

I didn’t watch the debate on Wed. night, so I have little background to understand the context of Senator McCain’s discussion of abortion beyond what I read from various people who live-blogged the debate. That is admittedly incomplete. From what I can piece together, this blog entry at Flotsam (link via Dooce) is an excellent rebuttal to McCain’s attitude. But I wish to point out one flaw in the entry:

McCain states that he would deal with the issue of abortion with “courage and compassion.” I quote: “the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby.” As if terminating my pregnancy would be the easy way out, the way not requiring his precious “courage.” As if dictating my medical care based upon his religious beliefs is compassionate. And I find it interesting to note that his “compassion” for this newborn does not extend to guaranteeing it health insurance.

First, McCain is pandering on abortion. I do not believe he cares. He’s trying to secure the Republican base with a few well-rehearsed lies. That makes him a scumbag, but for his pandering, not his position.

More importantly, the issue at stake is the right to control one’s own body, an issue I care deeply about. As much as I personally do not like abortion, I recognize that this is the issue involved. That matters as a principle of individual liberty. I believe it’s incomplete as an absolute when considering abortion, but not in a self-evident, attack-proof manner. It’s a complicated issue that will never be clear enough for a definitive policy. Therefore, we must err on the side of the individual with the clearer claim. Restrictions based on science are not abhorrent, but abortion should be legal, generally.

I do not get how that right to control one’s own body creates a right to have someone else provide material support (i.e. money for medical insurance) to care for the child. If a woman and her partner make the choice to have a child, it’s their obligation to support the child. In not guaranteeing health insurance, McCain is correct. His stated position is more logically consistent in that he’s saying people choosing to have children are responsible for everything involved, from start to finish, which is different from this blogger’s apparent belief that individual’s are responsible for the good (children, yay!), while society is responsible for at least some of the bad (health care expenses, boo!). No. This is a cheap straw man.

McCain is wrong on abortion. Attack that. He is cruel because he uses air quotes where compassion and understanding are necessary. Attack that. But he is not cruel because he won’t offer “free” health insurance.

Which Atlas Shrugged character is he?

I’ve been wrapped up in playoff baseball for the majority of the last three weeks. Much of the world is passing through my filter with scant attention. But Senator Obama managed to poke through that filter with a loooooong commercial about taxes. I sat dumbfounded through the second minute because I couldn’t believe he’d use such an obvious pander. From the ad:

…

On taxes, John McCain and I have very different ideas. Instead of giving hundreds of billions in new tax breaks to big corporations and oil companies, I’ll cut taxes for small and startup businesses that are the backbone of our economy.

Instead of more tax breaks for corporations that outsource American jobs, I’ll give them to companies who create jobs here. Instead of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest — I’ll focus on you.
…

If he is speaking to all Americans, as he clearly wants us to believe, who are the non-“you” taxpayers he is speaking about rather than to? Has there ever been a clumsier example of creating a “Them” for “Us” to despise?

Senator Obama may think he can pass off his class warfare bribe as an enlightened, good-for-society measure. Given the unthinking, partisan nature of much of America, he’ll probably pull it off with his half of the electorate. That does not change the undeniable fact that there is a group – consisting of “all men are created equal” Americans – he thinks he can harm because a) they have something he wants and b) they’re a minority of the population to be demagogued into submission. How very progressive.

Seeking help from the Benevolent Giver of Rescue

I sent a letter to my Congressman today.

Congressman Davis:

I write to you with a heart and mind burdened by disillusionment with capitalism. I’ve plodded along for years, just being a good American. I pay my bills on time. I go to work every day. I own a home. I vote. I do my part.

Recently, I decided to improve my life just a little bit, adding a simple pleasure to my leisure time. I purchased a new computer (stimulating the economy!) with a Blu-ray drive. I now have better picture quality when watching movies. God bless America and her bounty.

But, and this is a surprise to me because I expected everyone else who shares this country to have the same understanding that each person’s actions affect the common good, but they don’t. The evil CEO at Netflix is being so very greedy, it’s disgusting. As I’m sure you know, Netflix raised its monthly membership fee by $1 for users who want Blu-ray rentals. They are picking my pocket. I want Blu-ray on my membership, but it should be free. I know you agree.

I have not budgeted for an extra dollar in my membership fee. When I signed up, I said to myself, “Self, $14.99 is the limit. And you will have Blu-ray access.” Now imagine my displeasure to learn that I can’t have what I want for the price I deserve. I know you share my displeasure. How much deprivation do they think is appropriate? I say none! I need to be rescued so that I don’t have to cancel my membership. So, I ask: what will you do for me?

Direct deposit would be nice, but I’ll accept a check each month. Just think, it’ll help the post office, so I can see the logic. I’m willing to accept that little extra inconvenience for myself if it’ll benefit the greater good. The obscene $1 hike doesn’t happen until November, so there is just enough time to pass legislation in the Congress so that my $1 arrives in a timely manner.

Also, I know there are millions of other people affected by this price-gouging. Just think, if there are 1 million people who must now pay an extra dollar each month, that is $1,000,000 of windfall profits for a service that should be free. Each month. That’s $12,000,000 per year. And I bet the number is higher. That can’t stand. We need a tax on windfall DVD rental profits!

Thank you for your serious consideration. Please do not let the DVD rental market seize up. I await your reply.

Tony

I urge you to do the same on this matter of national urgency.

The only time I’ll (mockingly) use Sarah Palin’s folksy fraud.

This is old, but I still want to write about it. In the lead up to the bailout bill, executive compensation caught fire as an issue. It’s something shiny because the numbers can be large. It’s also convenient because it enables partisans to avoid the complex discussion of causes and factors that might implicate them as part of the problem. From Ezra Klein (via Andrew Sullivan.):

One quick point on the bailout negotiations: The Democrats are making a big deal over limits on executive compensation. Such limits are nice, but in the context of this crisis, utterly meaningless. If Democrats extract concessions such that CEOs can be paid a lot of money rather than an obscene sum of money, but are unable to add provisions protecting homeowners, they will have lost, and lost badly.. Limits to executive compensation are a feel-good provision with little real world relevance or impact, and while it would be nice to have them in the bill, no one should be fooled into thinking them a high-level priority, nor believing that a compromise where compensation limits feature as a key Democratic boast suggests anything other than a total collapse in the negotiations.

This is why I’m not a partisan. I can’t (correctly) dismiss a provision as little more than a quest for happy feelings and then suggest that the provision should be in the legislation anyway because I want those happy feelings. There are real principles and, more importantly, real people involved.

In Mr. Klein’s defense, that isn’t quite enough evidence to support my argument, nor am I implicating him beyond that sentiment. Rather, nonsensical rhetoric from Senator Obama on the proposals then under consideration is a perfect example. (Mr. Klein sourced this without a link, which I tracked down.)

First, the plan must include protections to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to further reward the bad behavior of irresponsible CEOs on Wall Street. There has been talk that some CEOs may refuse to cooperate with this plan if they have to forgo multi-million-dollar salaries. I cannot imagine a position more selfish and greedy at a time of national crisis. And I would like to speak directly to those CEOs right now: Do not make that mistake. You are stewards for workers and communities all across our country who have put their trust in you. With the enormous rewards you have reaped come responsibilities, and we expect and demand that you to live up to them. This plan cannot be a welfare program for Wall Street executives.

This is collectivist crap. Executives are stewards for the shareholders. Their responsibility is to run the business according to the goals of the owners, which is presumably to earn profit. Sometimes this goes badly. The owners should learn to write better compensation contracts for the future if they dislike their current results.

The political side is irrelevant, but Congress doesn’t think so. Where contracts exist, including for excessive subjective adjective compensation, government has a responsibility to honor the binding nature for all parties (i.e. not the politicians). Where politicians don’t like the contracts they’re buying, they should not buy the contracts. (They shouldn’t buy them, regardless. I’m sticking with the bailout line of reasoning.) Bitching that J. Dom Pérignon should suffer to make Joe Six-Pack feel better is obscene. If you need your schadenfreude, don’t bail J. Dom Pérignon out of his mess.

I’d question why we can’t agree on this, but I realize that punishing J. Dom Pérignon is more about implementing more regulation. The happy feelings are the bonus.