I want my $10 share of the subsidy returned.

Is riding the rails so romantic that we must subsidize it long after its useful life and economic feasibility? The United States Senate thinks so:

Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced legislation yesterday that would authorize $3.2 billion a year for Amtrak over six years in exchange for greater efficiency and increased investments by states.

A similar bill was passed by the Senate in November, 93 to 6, but was not taken up by the House of Representatives. Lautenberg said prospects were much improved with Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress.

“It’s not going to be that difficult this year,” Lautenberg said yesterday at a news conference at Union Station, where he was joined by Lott and Alexander K. Kummant, Amtrak’s chief executive.

Kummant declined to specify how he would reduce operating costs, but he said that encouraging passenger growth is just as important as cutting services to achieve efficiencies.

Is it really? Danielle and I will visit New York City this weekend. We’re driving. How long do you think we considered traveling by train before deciding upon driving? Zero seconds.

No cost comparison can justify a journey on Amtrak, no matter how wonderful it would be. With tolls and gas, we’ll spend a bit shy of one hundred dollars. For Amtrak, we’d spend $220 for a roundtrip ticket. Each. And the expense of parking the car must still be considered, as well as the lack of disparity in trip length with either choice.

I don’t think I need to go on, for the case against Amtrak is obvious. Remember, too, that I’m talking about a trip in Amtrak’s only profitable service, the Northeast corridor. Amtrak makes its money in the Northeast through business and government. If you’re in one city, and going to another, it makes sense. Especially on someone else’s dime, which is how I’ve paid for it both times I’ve ridden Amtrak.

Trains have a legacy and mythology in America’s history, but that time has passed. It’s time to stop funneling taxpayer money into nostalgia. Let Amtrak sink or swim on its own. Those services that can’t be justified economically should be forced allowed to die.

More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.

For discussion: if this is how Congress treats a non-essential service in financial distress, how will it treat a financial healthcare crisis under a single-payer system when should problems arise?

We should use this opportunity to regain what’s been lost.

On Monday, I tangentially referenced statements made by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson earlier this week. In summary, he said that corporate America should boycott any firms that provide legal representation to the detainees in Guantanamo because such assistance amounts to siding with the terrorists. It was stupid and offensive to anyone who values American ideals and liberty. Everyone is entitled to express hold such opinions. Unless they work in the government, for the people of the United States, anyone may express them. For such a disgusting disregard for the Constitution of the United States, Stimson should be fired immediately. Instead, of course, the Administration has done nothing more than disavow his statements. And now, Stimson is doing the same, in the Letters to the Editor section of today’s Washington Post:

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not.

I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel. I support pro bono work, as I said in the interview. I was a criminal defense attorney in two of my three tours in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. I zealously represented unpopular clients — people charged with crimes that did not make them, or their attorneys, popular in the military. I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

And I’m sure it was really the alcohol that made Mel Gibson an anti-Semite. All that happened here is Stimson got his hand caught in the totalitarian cookie jar that he and the administration so desperately want to raid for all of its goodies. The outcry, while surprising given how indifferently much of the nation has looked the other way over the last six years, is entirely justified. We’ll accept some offensive rights violations, but this is too far. I’m saddened by where it is, but at least there’s still a line.

Despite his apology, Stimson should be shown the door. Now.

It’s a safety concern. Think of the children.

Robert Eberth appealed and won his battle against Prince William County, in Virginia, and its practice of ticketing parked cars for expired state inspection stickers. I’m slightly deflated because Fairfax County ticketed my car under this same scenario a few years back, and I paid it without a fight¹. Regardless, good for Mr. Eberth for forcing counties in Virginia to abide by the law. It’s a miraculous concept. We should all aspire to win such an appeal in our lifetimes.

Naturally, Prince William County is responding as any libertarian would expect.

In the meantime, county attorneys in Prince William are scrambling to draft legislation for the General Assembly that would authorize ticketing of parked cars with expired stickers.

The county can’t simply stop ticketing parked cars. That would decrease revenue permit potentially unsafe vehicles from being on the road. I’m sure there will also be an update of the provision that Mr. Eberth fought, which is that the county went onto the lot of his apartment complex to ticket his vehicle. Under the court’s ruling, the county can’t do that. Want to bet its proposed legislation will include such a feature? I’ll take yes, you can have no.

Finally, I don’t know if this just comes off poorly in print, but this quote is not a ringing endorsement for leadership oriented to considering citizens.

Corey A. Stewart (R-Occoquan), chairman of the Board of County Supervisors, said: “We thank him for pointing out this error. I’ve got to hand it to him — he’s got determination. I hope he’ll get on with his life now.”

Mr. Eberth wins a victory indicating that Prince William county steals more than $150,000 per year from its citizens, and that’s what the county chairman has to say? He pointed out the error for six years. Prince William only listened when the Appeals Court told them the same thing. And the Stewart’s last line, why not just tack on an explicit “Go eff yourself” for good measure?

¹ I might file an appeal with Fairfax County requesting a refund. I know it would be fruitless because I did not contest the ticket at the time, but it might be fun to waste their time. And any response letter would no doubt create much amusement.

Catching up on events

I’ve been busy over the last week or so, which meant that I didn’t have enough time to give blogging enough mental energy. That’s over, so it’s time to catch up on a few interesting stories before moving to new stuff. Without further delay:

Kudos to Sen. John Sununu for challenging the unhealthy, anti-consumer partnership between content owners and the FCC known as the Broadcast Flag. (Source)

Senator John Sununu (R-NH) has just announced that his office is working on legislation that would prevent the FCC from creating specific technology mandates that have to be followed by consumer electronics manufacturers. What’s his target? The broadcast flag.

Television and movie studios have wanted a broadcast flag for years. The flag is a short analog or digital signal embedded into broadcasts that specifies what users can do with the content. It would most often be used to prevent any copying of broadcast material, but there’s an obvious problem with the plan: it requires recording devices to pay attention to the flag. Because no consumers wander the aisles at Best Buy thinking, “You know, I would definitely buy this DVD recorder, but only if it supported broadcast flag technology,” the industry has asked the federal government to step in and simply require manufacturers to respect the flag.

Exactly the right analysis. The FCC should not be restricting innovation before any potentially illegal action can even occur. The onus should be on the businesses to engineer solutions that meet their needs, not regulation. That’s dinosaur thinking and should not be reward.

Next, just ponder this photograph’s implications. It’s posted in London, so there’s no concern for the United States, except there is concern. We move closer to this mentality with every newly brushed aside civil liberty. (Source)

Next, sometimes a cheap shot is easier than analysis. From Glenn Reynolds:

A CITIZEN’S ARREST BY PAUL HACKETT: A pro-gun anti-crime Democrat — I’m surprised the party didn’t get behind him.

Just like claiming that there’s a war on crime, this requires little thinking and says more about the writer than the facts. Who honestly believes that Democrats are not “anti-crime”? Not tough enough crime, we could argue. But it’s posts like these that prove Glenn Reynolds is little more than a Republican with some libertarian leanings. That’s not surprising, but this is an unflattering proof.

Next, North Korea has a hunger problem. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics understands that this has as much to do with the country’s political structure as anything. Socialism doesn’t work, and can never provide for everyone’s needs. When the failure extends to famine, this moves from oppression to murder. But the North Koreans have a solution, courtesy of a German breeder (Source):

An east German pensioner who breeds rabbits the size of dogs has been asked by North Korea to help set up a big bunny farm to alleviate food shortages in the communist country. Now journalists and rabbit gourmets from around the world are thumping at his door.

It all started when Karl Szmolinsky won a prize for breeding Germany’s largest rabbit, a friendly-looking 10.5 kilogram “German Gray Giant” called Robert, in February 2006.

Images of the chubby monster went around the world and reached the reclusive communist state of North Korea, a country of 23 million which according to the United Nations Food Programme suffers widespread food shortages and where many people “struggle to feed themselves on a diet critically deficient in protein, fats and micronutrients.”

Any reasonable analysis would point out an obvious point of why this will fail to alleviate suffering.

“I’m not increasing production and I’m not taking any more orders after this. They cost a lot to feed,” he said.

The rabbits apparently feed eight. How much food will be used to feed the rabbits until they’re ready to become that one-time meal that feeds eight? How much land that could be better used to grow crops for North Koreans will be used to grow feed for these rabbits, as well as house them while they grow? This is a central-planning solution at its ugliest.

Next, religion will continue getting a free pass for unnecessary medical procedures under a socialist health system.

The NHS should provide more faith-based care for Muslims, an expert says.

Muslims are about twice as likely to report poor health and disability than the general population, says Edinburgh University’s Professor Aziz Sheikh.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, he called for male circumcision on the NHS and more details over alcohol derived drugs.

Leaving aside the obvious questions of whether or not routine/ritual circumcision of children should be allowed, it’s an unnecessary medical procedure that drains resources. As an ethically-questionable procedure, it’s also unacceptable to force taxpayers to fund such surgeries. This is why current U.S. funding under our relatively free market system is objectionable. This call from Britain just seeks to double the mistake. It’s absurd.

Because the system isn’t bureaucratic and dysfunctional enough already, Democrats want to allow unionization by TSA employees. That won’t end well.

Despicability is no excuse for revenge and savagery.

Better late than never? Charles Krauthammer’s column from last week on the execution of Saddam Hussein is an example:

Of the 6 billion people on this Earth, not one killed more people than Saddam Hussein. And not just killed but tortured and mutilated — doing so often with his own hands and for pleasure. It is quite a distinction to be the preeminent monster on the planet. If the death penalty was ever deserved, no one was more richly deserving than Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Krauthammer makes excellent points about all of it, the execution, the Iraqi government, and our mistakes. But this is not the meat of his essay for me. This is:

True, Hussein’s hanging was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next hanging might not be. Breaking precedent completely undermines the death penalty provision, opening the way to future revenge and otherwise lawless hangings.

Let me rewrite that in terms that, unless he’s changed his tune, I doubt Mr. Krauthammer would agree with. Consider:

True, the enemy combatant’s torture was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next torture might not be. Breaking precedent completely undermines the Geneva Conventions, opening the way to future revenge and otherwise lawless torture.

How is Mr. Krauthammer’s statement logical and mine illogical? They’re the same because justice and the rule of law should be supreme. Whether or not someone deserves a specific punishment is sometimes open for debate. But breaking precedent is a terrible idea, given the clear line of increasing abuses that result. History has taught us this, which is why we’ve fought hard to eliminate these from our system of justice, both civil and military. We must not surrender the moral ground we’ve recovered from the foul grip of convenience.

The decision to hastily execute, or to torture, is wrong, regardless of who is being executed or tortured.

We haven’t prohibited crime enough.

I know it’s the New York Daily News, but is nothing safe from hyperbole?

The city’s all-out push to boost the number of cops patrolling the streets has been crippled by the NYPD’s appallingly low starting salary for recruits.

Instead of adding 800 cops to the war on crime, as Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had hoped, the department failed to increase its numbers by a single officer over the past year, the Daily News has learned.

There’s a perfectly good free-market, libertarian argument in there, although it’s low-hanging fruit. The problem here is that this is being framed as “the war on crime.” Shouldn’t that be capitalized? Sloppy journalism, sloppy talking points, or both?

Via Fark.

Who negotiated these prices?

I love Whole Foods. Every weekend, Danielle and I buy groceries at our (not-so) local store. The prices are comparable to other supermarkets for the products we buy. Add better quality produce and an enjoyable shopping experience, and Whole Foods is the perfect grocery store. Yet, I understand that no company can be perfect. Witness this found on the shelf for a can of soup:

I’d probably keep that one a secret if I managed Whole Foods. I’m left wondering who printed that out and failed to notice a negative savings. As a software developer, I cringe at code so dumb that it lets that slip through the evaluation process. I did laugh at the absurdity, and we weren’t going to Target this week, so -20&#162 savings soup it was. But now we know, buy soup at Target.

I know who’s carrying the oil can.

We knew this was coming, so only minor credit is warranted:

On its second day under Democratic management, the House yesterday overwhelmingly approved new rules aimed at reining in deficit spending and shedding more light on the murky world of special-interest projects known as earmarks.

Under the new provisions, the House will for the first time in years be required to pay for any proposal to cut taxes or increase spending on the most expensive federal programs by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. And lawmakers will be required to disclose the sponsors of earmarks, which are attached in virtual secrecy to legislation to direct money to favored interests or home-district projects.

Admirable, although I don’t trust anyone in Congress to pick spending cuts in the equation. Balanced budgets are better than deficits, but barely under the principle-free government that’s emerged out of abandoned understanding of the Constitution. The only safeguard we have right now is the veto pen, and we know how well that isn’t working under the current administration.

In recent months, with revelations that lawmakers had earmarked funds for projects with little public benefit, earmarks had became a political embarrassment and a symbol of fiscal profligacy.

Revelations? Who didn’t know this was going on? That’s a bizarre way for a journalist to phrase the recent attention to the long-standing problem of reckless spending. But, in case anyone feels we need new evidence that Congress (i.e. Democrats) will botch the implementation of Pay-as-You-Go, consider:

So far, fiscal restraint appears to be gaining the upper hand. As he left the House chamber yesterday, [House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B.] Rangel said he is scouring the tax code for tax breaks that benefit special interests. If the beneficiaries “don’t put their hands up, it’s out,” he said, suggesting that the money saved could go toward paying for the repeal of the alternative minimum tax.

Good grief. The squeaky wheel gets the oil is not wise fiscal policy. All Rep. Rangel is saying here is that he’s seeking political contributions for his re-election campaign. If you have a tax loophole that you’re fond of, it’s available for a price. The more things change…

Economic Thought of the Day

George Will gets it right today on the coming push to increase the federal minimum wage:

But the minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities’ prices.

That’s spot on. The essay is not perfect, as Kip at A Stitch in Haste points out with a useful economics lesson, but the conclusion is the same. The correct minimum wage is $0. If the uninitiated come away with the wrong justification but the correct conclusion, we can work on the reasoning. Short-term isolated problem versus long-term widespread damage. Easy choice if those are my alternatives.

Of special note, I love this line that Kip wrote to explain Will’s loose semantics:

…sloppily knocking a foul ball down the right-wing line…

His entire post is worth reading, and shows why he should be widely read, but that phrase by itself is excellent. I wish I’d written it.

Who should we blame for dereliction of duty?

A dozen years of Republican power, yet if the Democrats perform even the fiscal cleanup reform necessary, they’ll be to blame for any of the pain involved. Consider:

So will the Democratic Congress be any better than the Republican Congress was? A look at half a dozen likely policy proposals makes clear the answer will probably be no:

  • Tax Increases…
  • Spending Increases…
  • Alternative Minimum Tax. A 1969 tax increase that was enacted to soak the rich is suddenly going to seriously soak the middle class. Some 3.5 million taxpayers paid the AMT this year. But unlike the regular tax, the AMT is not indexed to inflation, which means the number of taxpayers the AMT hits is expected to balloon–by some estimates to as many as 23 million in 2007. Less than 5% of families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 are now paying the AMT, but more than 80% may pay it in 2008. Almost no families with incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 pays the AMT today; but as many as 35% of such families will in 2008.

    To eliminate these very unpopular AMT increases would cost about $750 billion over the next 10 years. What taxes the new Congress will raise to solve this dilemma is unclear, but either AMT or other taxes will have to rise.

  • Protectionism…
  • Energy…
  • Social Security. Just 10 years from now Social Security benefits paid out will exceed taxes paid in, so something will have to be done to fix the system. Individually owned Social Security accounts would help by allowing workers to enjoy bigger returns. But Democrats are dead opposed to the idea of turning millions of Americans into owners of stocks and bonds, which will lead to the liberal solution of raising Social Security taxes and reducing benefits. The forthcoming plan will likely be to raise the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes ($97,500 in 2007). That would raise taxes on everyone earning more than this amount, especially the most productive wage earners. If the cap went up to $150,000, for example, it would mean a tax increase of $6,510 on a worker earning that amount.

The Alternative Minimum Tax and Social Security are absolutely problems that must be addressed. The longer we wait, the worse the pain will be. Obviously someone will take the blame. But it’s shameless to acknowledge that the Democrats will have to address the crisis and then blame the unpleasant reality on them.

I don’t seek to absolve the Democrats of any guilt, for they surely must share. Still, I have to come back to the reality that the allegedly fiscally conservative Republicans had six years of complete control over the two branches of government necessary to implement reform on these issues. They did nothing. When the weeds got thick, the party punted in favor of attacking gays and Janet Jackson’s breast.

Both parties are to blame for creating the problem, and I’m certain the Democrats will come up with stupid non-solutions to both. But I know who to blame for letting the problem get this severe.