In the Interest of Full Disclosure

In yesterday’s post about Robert Rubin’s suggested tax increase, I forgot to mention that I voted for Clinton in ’92 (and ’96, for what it’s worth) and supported the tax increases. My acceptance of tax increases as the viable solution was naive, based in economic ignorance, but my basic fiscal philosophy was still there. The budget should be balanced. In surplus, actually, since we need to pay the debt, as well. But my understanding of what the government should be spending has changed, based on knowledge and reading the Constitution.

All of this is a prime reason why economics education should be mandatory in school. Before I’d taken any economics classes, political marketing influenced my economics understanding. Today, economics influences my political understanding. I’ve always been a libertarian, for my commitment to liberty has always been my fundamental philosophy. In the past I naively ignored how crucial economic liberty is to individual liberty.

If I’d been aware in ’92, I doubt I would’ve voted for Clinton in that election. I doubt I would’ve voted for Bush, although history has been kind to my recollection of his presidency. But I wouldn’t vote Democrat. Yes, I’ve voted Democrat in the last two elections, but I’ve been trying to find the best way to defeat the nonsense of the last five years or so. I desperately want to vote for a libertarian candidate, but Virginia politics isn’t keen on nominating libertarians. As such, it’s highly unlikely that a Democrat will get my vote in the near future because I don’t think they’ll change. If I have to vote for myself, I will. I’ll even be eligible for president in ’08.

In other words, cut spending to fix our fiscal crisis. Increased redistribution through taxes on “the rich” reduces liberty for all, which will not work in the long-term for a nation that strives for prosperity.

“It’s simply beyond words. It’s incalculable.”¹

I love “name the team” contests. This time, the Phillies were involved, as their AAA team is moving from Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Pa. to Allentown, Pa. in 2008. The new team name, when it begins play? The Lehigh Valley IronPigs.

It’s being roundly booed throughout the Phillies phlogosphere, which is not so surprising. The name IS a little stupid. But, and this is coming from someone who proudly owns a Batavia Muckdogs t-shirt, I absolutely cannot wait until I can buy an IronPigs t-shirt. I’m positively giddy at the prospect. I know that marketing to nimrods like me is a primary reason for these “name the team” contests, but I don’t care.

Say it with me: Go IronPigs!

¹ I mentioned Scranton, so what would this post be without a quote from The Office.

The Central Planner’s Recipe Book

I’ve generally liked his shows in the past, but Jamie Oliver should stick to cooking:

The Essex, England-born chef started cooking at age 8 at his parents’ hotel before his first book and television series, “The Naked Chef,” made him famous at the age of 21 in several countries and spurred more books and shows.

Oliver said U.S. politicians should “stop being so subservient” to “junk food companies” and that the country should cut down on junk and fatty foods, which would help reduce future health costs.
…

Oliver said clearer government guidelines were needed, such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s recent proposal for a near ban on artificial trans fat in restaurant food.

“The junk food companies have got more resources than the government and more money to spend on poxy lawyers so I completely admire and condone the mayor for doing it,” he said.

I’ve said my bit about trans-fat already, and that should suffice here for how I feel about Mr. Oliver’s statist opinion. That doesn’t mean I think kids should eat junk food, of course, but that’s a decision best left to parents. As his experience in England shows, some parents prefer their children to have “junk” food. We can think they’re idiots all we want (and I do, a little), but they’re going to win. Which is why the statists want to use the coercive power of government.

Rather than being anti-liberty, which they are, they could go to a more fundamental, and dare I suggest cost-saving, solution to the actual problem. Allow for school choice. The market would sort this out, with parents opting for whatever dietary preference they wish for their children. If there’s really a demand, parents will seek it out. Now, they’re stuck with what the government offers through its schools.

But that’s wishful thinking, because I clearly don’t care about the children.

“This is like déjà vu all over again.”

How to learn nothing:

That was fast. A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn’t raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway.

“You cannot solve the nation’s fiscal problems without increased revenues,” declared Mr. Rubin, the Democratic Party’s leading economic spokesman, in a speech last Thursday. He also took a crack at economic forecasting by noting that “I think if you were to increase taxes right now, you would have probably about zero negative effect on the economy.” The economics and politics here are worth parsing.

It’s premature to assume that this is The Path&#153 for the next two years because much political wrangling has to happen before we see this implemented. My reaction is more exasperation than anything, which is to say that this is not “buyer’s remorse.” I’ve said many times that a (massive) spending cut is the way to fix our fiscal crisis. But politicians aren’t to be trusted, so I reasonably expected this. Democrats can’t comprehend that spending is too high rather than revenues tax receipts are too low. They’re stupid.¹

Aside from the ridiculous notion that Mr. Rubin believes tax increases would have zero negative effect on the economy, Mr. Rubin seems to be misreading the results of the Democratic victory last week. This is not 1992, when then-candidate Clinton ran on the promise to raise taxes. Everyone knew it was coming with a Clinton victory and still he won. However right or wrong the decision was, its inevitability was obvious. Clinton had the political capital to “encourage” Congress to increase taxes.

The 2006 election signaled no such preference from voters. Democrats could be expected to misinterpret their victory, as its lack of political leadership and foresight has been evident for many years. So, again, I think no one will be surprised if the 110th Congress attempts a tax increase. But they should not be surprised when they find themselves on the outside looking in at control of the 111th Congress.

The rest of the Opinion Journal editorial is reasonable, although it glosses over the deficit considerably more than it should.

¹ As further evidence:

“The middle class is being squeezed,” Mr. Reid said. “Squeezed. The rich are getting richer; the poor are getting poorer. We must do something about education. We must do something to relieve the tax burden on the middle class.”

It doesn’t take a genius to decipher that.

Meeting Customer Needs Mislabeled As Excessive Choice

This article, titled “When Fewer Choices Mean Bigger Returns,” is not geared to me, for I like choices and the research involved¹ in some of them. However, it’s refreshing that at least there is no request for someone outside the private marketplace to limit choices. Consider:

This point came rushing back to me the other day when I heard a radio commercial for Wal-Mart in which the company boasted about how small its selection of HDTVs was. The spot wasn’t apologizing for Wal-Mart’s lack of selection, nor was it saying the fact that Wal-Mart carried fewer options than the competition didn’t matter. The commercial actually touted the fact that Wal-Mart had improved the HDTV buying process by limiting its selection to only the most popular models.

The author appreciates this because he is overwhelmed with the number of available HDTV choices. Fair enough. If you’re content with the small selection Wal-Mart offers, you’re being catered to perfectly. I don’t prefer that method, because I know that the right possibility for me might be something I’m not aware exists. So this is not a chore:

If they can go to Wal-Mart and choose from a handful models that will do the job just fine for the average person, they will be happier than if they are required to sort through 40 or 50 models at Best Buy or Circuit City.

Again, I find this article useful in that it only makes the case that a business may meet its customers’ needs by doing some of the work for them. Free enterprise doesn’t have to mean every person has to try 500 brands of toothpaste. Where the author’s thinking is dangerous, though, is that “required to sort through 40 or 50 models” is an excuse for central planners to argue that too much choice is bad.

No one is required to do any research, of course. But if I like research and want to buy a TV that few people buy, there’s still a market. I may pay more for Best Buy to stock that model, but if it’s worth it to me, I’ll pay and Best Buy will make a profit. Whether or not that’s likely is subjective, but I am the person best-suited to being the decider.

¹ Ask Danielle how true this statement is.

Who needs facts when you can hate instead?

I’ll give this guy credit for chutzpah, if not integrity:

Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, dealt what appeared to be a fatal blow Thursday to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it.
…

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment, called the recess vote a “travesty,” and, waving a copy of the State Constitution, said the legislators had “just said that it’s irrelevant.”

I’m not sure Mr. Mineau understands the absurdity of him saying that legislators believe the State Constitution is irrelevant. Maybe he should sit down and have a think on that for a bit.

A few other instructive points:

The measure had been expected by both sides to gain easily the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.

As Kip pointed out, 50 votes out of 200 are required for a constitutional amendment to end up on the ballot because a citizens’ group proposed it? Huh? THAT is the form of democracy people want me to respect? No.

Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said the vote was a “triumph of arrogance over democracy.” He said that he would “explore any alternatives” to try to force a vote, but that “my options are limited.”

I’m sure exploring any alternatives couldn’t be considered activist. Gov. Romney is a conservative, after all. Only the liberals do that. Oh, wait while I smack my forehead. Activist depends on the outcome, not the action.

But the fact that the amendment had enough supporters to pass the first 50-vote round indicated that the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive three years after the state’s highest court ruled that such marriages were constitutional in Massachusetts. More than 8,000 same-sex couples have since married.

Having enough votes to meet a 25% requirement does not, of itself, indicate that the issue remains divisive.

Polls have generally found that just more than half of the citizens surveyed supported same-sex marriage, but about the same number wanted the constitutional amendment to come before voters.

Big deal. The test should be more stringent than whether or not citizens want it. Reducing rights should never be put to a vote.

Final Thoughts: Election 2006

First, I need to admit that I was wrong about voter sentiment and willingness to vote in Democrats out Republicans. But I’m not a professional prognosticator, so it just proves that I can be an amateur idiot. Go, me! At least it’ll inform my future thinking, which is a small victory.

I did get the result I wanted, which is the chance for gridlock. For most races, I don’t think we have cause to celebrate, though, as much as we have a chance to regroup and start anew. I imagine that will be squandered, so I haven’t engaged in any gloating, save one race. With the inevitable concession out of the way, I’m laughing hysterically at James Webb’s defeat of Sen. George Allen. Few candidates in recent memory deserved to go from presidential contender to unemployed in three short months more than Sen. Allen. Good riddance. So, Sen. Allen: Ha-ha!

Looking ahead, I’m not making a prediction, but the tossing around of bipartisanship already leaves me thinking that the big government proponents on both sides of the aisle will form an alliance. Wonderful. Is any politician capable of paying attention?

For example, from Robert Novak:

Republican leaders are still in denial in the wake of their crushing defeat. They blame individual losing candidates for failing to prepare themselves for the election. In contrast, the private reaction by the candidates was anger at President Bush and his political team.

The candidates should look in the mirror as much as they should look toward President Bush. Yes, he’s reckless, but he only has Constitutional control over one branch. Many of the Republican candidates tossed aside on Tuesday had control of their own and they bowed at President Bush’s feet at almost every opportunity. Once a politician, always a politician. If they can’t figure that out, they’ll never achieve the permanent majority they thought they had in 1994. Nor should they.

The money quote from George Will’s column states this well:

The country remains receptive to conservatism. That doctrine — were it to become constraining on, rather than merely avowed by, congressional Republicans — can be their bridge back from the wilderness.

It’s too early to talk about, but I think 2008 is up for grabs. Thankfully. Will either party put common sense ahead of party ideology and a lust for power? I doubt it, but the next two years should be different, at least, if not exactly fun.

How many times do we have to go over this?

Here we go again:

Circumcising all baby boys could cut the rate of sexually transmitted diseases by about half, a study suggests today. The study adds to the growing scientific evidence that challenges a policy against routine circumcision by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I forget them all the time, so I’m glad to have the opportunity to remind myself of the assumptions that make this allegedly relevant to ethics of routine infant circumcision, rather than some other policy, say adult elective circumcision:

  • Infants are having sex, which will expose them to STDs.
  • Condoms are not available for adults.
  • Personal responsibility is not a viable safe sex concept.
  • Parents are unable to teach their children safe sex.
  • Fortunately, parents are all-knowing regarding their children sons’ future sexual risk.

There are other, typical claims in the article, including support for cutting children from the usual suspects. What’s interesting is what the article leaves out. And this article. And presumably the majority of the media who rush to point out something “miraculous” before investigating whether the miracle is really there.

Instead, consider the study:

METHODS. Data were gathered as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 25-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand children. Information was obtained on: (1) the circumcision status of males in the cohort before 15 years old, (2) measures of self-reported sexually transmitted infection from ages 18 to 25 years, and (3) childhood, family, and related covariate factors.

Can you spot the flaw? I don’t claim that self-reported is sufficient to overcome the study’s conclusion, only that it’s a glaring fact that’s being ignored in reports. Just as intact men can become infected, circumcised men can become infected. Personal responsibility matters. Also, if the men involved are competent enough to self-report their STDs, they’re competent enough to practice safe sex. If they do not practice safe sex, the intact males do not have their foreskin to blame.

Something Not About The Election

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps believes we’re not doing enough to ensure that all Americans have access to broadband access to The Internets. Consider:

America’s record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It’s hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don’t do something about it.

I’m fired up to Do Something&#153. So what’s Commissioner Copps’ solution? Take a guess:

The FCC needs to start working to lower prices and introduce competition. We must start meeting our legislative mandate to get advanced telecommunications out to all Americans at reasonable prices; make new licensed and unlicensed spectrum available; authorize “smart radios” that use spectrum more efficiently; and do a better job of encouraging “third pipe” technologies such as wireless and broadband over power lines. And we should recommend steps to Congress to ensure the FCC’s ability to implement long-term solutions.

We need a broadband strategy for America. Other industrialized countries have developed national broadband strategies. In the United States we have a campaign promise of universal broadband access by 2007, but no strategy for getting there. With less than two months to go, we aren’t even within shouting distance.

Government is the answer, apparently. To be fair, Commissioner Copps later suggests that universal broadband access will require a public-private partnership. Perhaps, but he offers no clear situation in which private comes into play, other than taking dictation from the FCC. We already have that, and we’re going to miss our goal. What am I missing?

Maybe the government just needs to get out of the way and let the market develop itself. If Americans don’t have access to broadband, it’s certainly possible that they don’t care to have access. Considering they can get satellite DSL anywhere, I’m hard-pressed to find a lack of access warranting massive intervention.

An argument against satellite is that it’s too expensive. But who decides what price is the reasonable limit that government should push? Because we want that price does not mean that we can sweep aside the cost of infrastructure to build that access. Price is a function of that cost. If customers want the service at the price necessary to make universal access possible, they’ll pay it. If not, they won’t pay it. Why should everyone else be forced to subsidize another’s decision to live in a sparsely-populated location where universal access isn’t economically feasible?

There are costs associated with the rush to get universal access. If it costs us $600 billion to achieve the $500 billion economic boost Commissioner Copps mentions elsewhere in his editorial, we will have fallen behind to avoid falling behind. With deference to Commissioner Copps, we already have a broadband strategy for America. It’s called Capitalism. It works. Maybe a little slower than the snap-of-a-finger speed desired, but better slow-and-correct than fast-and-wrong.

Limited Government, Not Rights

Before I get into this entry, I admit to being guilty of What’s the Matter With… in this entry. Do I get a free pass because I’m complaining about citizens voting away the rights of other citizens, rather than people aren’t behaving the way I want? Yes or no, so be it. Moving on.

I didn’t expect to be as angry as I was when the anti-marriage amendment passed yesterday in Virginia. As I mentioned this morning, I knew it would pass and I still wanted to rant and swear and threaten to leave Virginia. But I’m beyond that, for several reasons. Primarily, I own a home here, so it’s not as easy as just letting my lease run out and then moving away. But that’s only the structural roadblock. There is something more fundamental.

I grew up in Virginia. I went to college in Virginia. This is my home. And I’m not abandoning it to the bigots. Virginia’s role in the founding of America and the enshrinement of our principles in the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States is too proud and too strong to let it slip away just because a majority of adults motivated enough to vote fear gay Virginians. Those of us who know better must stay and fix this mess. As such, I’m not going anywhere. This victory will be Pyrrhic.

With that in mind, I want to bring attention to a few quotes on the anti-marriage amendment. After that, I’ll be done for awhile. Probably.

First:

Attorney General Bob McDonnell said, “Today Virginia said yes to traditional marriage. This amendment to add constitutional protection to traditional marriage gave Virginians the opportunity to directly affirm their longstanding belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. This is a victory for Virginia families, and the democratic process. Virginia is stronger because of the passage of this amendment.”

Let’s see, this amendment attacks a portion of my family, but it’s a victory for them. It also proves that the democratic process includes the ability to vote away the rights of a group of citizens. How exactly does this make Virginia stronger?

Next:

“I’m not an ultraconservative when it comes to homosexuals. I have some wonderful friends who are homosexual, but I think marriage is between a man and a woman,” said Ann Potocnak, 37, of Prince William County.

Forty-five years ago, that would’ve said I’m have some wonderful friends who are black, but…, followed by a self-satisfied cleansing of any possibility she might be wrong. I’m sure her gay friends are content to know what she thinks of them, though. I hope my wonderful friends will stab me in the back when given the chance.

“I feel [same-sex couples] should have rights as far as benefits are concerned, but I feel marriage should be between a man and a woman,” said Chris Murray, 36, a mortgage broker from Fairfax County. He said he realized that there was a chance the amendment would lead to the loss of legal rights for same-sex couples, but “you can’t vote ‘maybe’ or ‘kind of,’ ” he said.

Of course, a logical person might say “you can’t vote ‘maybe’ or ‘kind of,’ ” to Mr. Murray’s unproven fear that a Virginia judge will rule that the state must recognize same-sex marriage. Apparently you can vote maybe or kind of, if the desired outcome fits your personal whim. Collateral damage be damned.

I’m going to end with a nod to someone who gets the obvious:

“It’s already there. Why go on and drag this out, just because some religious groups want to exclude certain things from certain people that have different lifestyles?” asked Frans Hagen, 72, a retired restaurant executive from Annandale who runs an education foundation.

Anti-marriage amendments are just a speed bump in the path of liberty. An ugly, shameful speed bump, but Frans Hagen is correct. History will not be kind to the defenders of these amendments.