Impressive reporting

CNN's article on the resignation of Elliott Spitzer, the Democratic governor New York (can we call him "former governor" yet?) fails to mention his party affiliation. It makes a reference to the party affiliation of the Lt. Governor's mother's party affiliation, but you have to read the sidebar of the article to learn that "The first-term governor had been considered a rising star in the Democratic Party."

That's it. Nothing in the article proper. And this isn't a blurb, either - it's nearly 1,000 words long.

It's impressive. Really. Quite a feat. Way to rise above partisanship, CNN!

(note: the article will be continually updated throughout the day, so at some point the above post may become out of date if they fix the article. Currently, though, everything above is fact.)

Conservative blood

The Economist has a great quote in this week's edition:

"A disappearing species is good for fund-raising; blood on your hands is not."

The article's about the culling of endangered species in Africa. It made me think of the Grand Old Party, though, and how it is getting significantly outraised by the Dems. Could it be because they've sacrificed the party's conservative principles in the name of keeping power? 

Look where that's getting ready to get you....

On the DC streets

I just walked by Trent Lott on F Street in DC. I nodded and he nodded and we went on our ways. He was all by himself - that's what happens when you leave the Senate behind.

VRWC or VACC?

I like this headline in today's Newday:

Clinton accuses media of pro-Obama bias at debate

So maybe the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" she use to complain about really is just a Vast Anti-Clinton Conspiracy."

If she thinks the media doesn't like her, she really shouldn't go here.

McCain is not the answer

If you watched McCain's debate performance last night you can't help but be a little fearful of the man. Several people have noted to me that Senators are endorsing him just because they're scared of him and don't want to deal with him on the Senate floor after he loses.

But other than his temper, we need to be worried about the ideals he holds. Would he be an excellent defender of our national security? Probably. But what about liberty? Free enterprise? James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal points to some things that had me worried in last night's debate as well:

Two of McCain's comments--"I did it out of patriotism, not for profit" and "sometimes people lost their jobs"--lead us to think that McCain's problem with economics goes beyond mere indifference. He seems to view the making of money--that is to say, the production of goods and services that people want, and the act of supplying them through voluntary exchange in a free market--as a less than honorable pursuit.

Post-Florida, it is very easy for a lazy voter to pick McCain. The media loves him and will tell you everything you need to know about how wonderful he is (you saw this in the debate last night, with regular banners at the bottom of the page while McCain was speaking letting viewers know you can read more about his economic plan or his defense plan or his other plans at CNN.com - but they never highlighted this on any other candidate that I saw).

But he isn't the answer to the Republican's problems. He talks a good game on defense, and I believe him. He talks a good game on spending, and he probably means it but who knows if he'll act. He voted against the tax cuts that have, until recently, kept the economy afloat. He limited the rights of inviduals to give to candidates through McCain-Feingold. He is zealously trying to regulate carbon and add layers of taxation on Real People through McCain-Lieberman. And he's mean, as he showed last night.

McCain is not the answer.

The wife and I haven't been good about updating our wine blog, so I'm posting this interesting tidbit here: new research indicates that expensive wine really does taste better.

Researchers from the California Institute of Technology and Stanford's business school have directly seen that the sensation of pleasantness that people experience when tasting wine is linked directly to its price. And that's true even when, unbeknownst to the test subjects, it's exactly the same Cabernet Sauvignon with a dramatically different price tag.

I don't think this is going to have me shopping those dusty $90 bottles at the back of the wine store anytime soon - a little Fish Eye Pinot Grigio or Redwood Creek Cabernet Sauvignon suits me just fine, and for as little as $6 - but I will certainly keep this in mind next time someone else is picking up the tab.

Bill Richardson's out

CNN is reporting that Bill Richardson's dropping out of the presidential race. I think that's a shame. He's a likable moderate (in some ways) Democrat, but he really underperformed in the race this year. If he's at the top of his game, I think he could be a real threat in November.

But not, apparently, in January.

Of course, with his exceptional resume and skills, he's clearly at the top of the list in the Dem veepstakes. He'd be a great accompaniment for Hillary or Edwards - probably too many racial overtones for Obama to tap him, but, hey, why not go all out?

Delegate Count

Since presidential primary elections are usually over by Valentine's Day nowadays, it's easy to forget that what really matters is the number of delegates a candidate has, because it's the delegates who do the actual selecting of their party's presidential nominee.

This year, because the fields are so wide open and populated with so many qualified candidates, politicos are drooling over the idea that conventions could become relevant again, that no candidate will get a majority of delegates.

I'm one of them. I'd think it'd be neat.

Here's how things stand at the moment:

So Romney's "two silvers" haven't been particularly bad for him, and McCain's big win didn't do all that much for him on the delegate front - though of course prominent wins open the door for future prominent wins and more delegates, just as the inverse is true for losses.

Now, these totals, particularly the Democrat total, include some superdelegates, and I haven't dug in enough to understand exactly how those have already been pledged. You can look on CNN's delegate scorecard to see how these breakdown.

I highlight this just to once again say that, at this point, it's too early to annoint anyone, or to shove out folks like Romney and Edwards.

We don't need Mike Huckabee

Here's a new ad from the Club for Growth offering more reasons not to elect Mike Huckabee as the Republican nominee for president.

Nominating Mike Huckabee would be an abomination for the Republican party. We do not need his brand of big-government conservative populism - from him or anyone. Rapid government growth is antithetical to the very foundation of the Republican party. Republicans over the past seven years have ignored that, and have severely damaged the party's brand. It's time for a leader who can once again articulate that government is the problem, not the solution.

Mike Huckabee doesn't believe in smaller government. State government grew 20% under his administration in Arkansas. I spent a few days in Arkansas back in 2005 conducting research on the political climate, and all the conservatives I talked to were embarrassed at what Huckabee had done to the state. That's not what we need in a president, and that's certainly not what we need representing the Republican party on the national stage.

I watched his speech last night as he accepted third place in New Hampshire, a shockingly high finish for him among the independent-minded voters there. He is charming and seems friendly, but at the end of the day he's just a snake oil salesman. We need a leader of substance, someone who can articulate a message of limited government (the way both Mitt Romney and John McCain did in their speeches last night). And that means we don't need Mike Huckabee.

Thank Goodness

Now that Ralph Wiggum is running for president, I have someone to vote for if the Republicans accidently give the nomination to Mike Huckabee. Whew.

Populism and the election

The biggest threat to America? Populism, according to David Strom in a new article on Townhall.

Government policies have proven time and again capable of slowing economic growth, but with few exceptions they have never proven capable of stimulating the economy in the long term. Even policies that economic conservatives think of as "pro-growth," such as deregulation, tax cuts and reducing trade barriers are more accurately thought of as the removal of government-created barriers to growth than actual government stimulants to economic activity.

"The economy," simply put, is not manageable like a machine. It is dynamic, driven by the choices, actions, and desires of over 300 million Americans, and ultimately the billions of people around the world. However frustrating it is to think that our fortunes are hostage to the actions of people across the globe, there is almost nothing positive the government can do to change that fact. We all live on the same planet and are tapping into the same resources to better our lives. It is the inventiveness of individuals and firms that shape those resources into useful products and services that truly make up the economy.

That's a great assessment. Real People make the economy go, not government. We forget that pretty easily - and candidates forget it real fast.

Sadness

Maybe I shouldn't have complained about the carbon-hating SimCity Societies game. I indeed received it for Christmas, and after about half an hour of waiting for it to install, and then more time to receive an update for it, I got a non-apologetic grey pop-up telling me my graphics card was too old and sorry to trifle with.

*sigh* At least my new iPod works. I'll take solace in its sleek brushed silver design.

Are the Republicans being ripped apart?

Why is there no clear front-runner in the Republican race for president? The Washington Post analyzes the situation and does a good job summing it all up.

Is the GOP grounded in the social issues embodied by Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee or the foreign policy experience of former POW John McCain? Do Republicans see their futures in a former CEO such as Mitt Romney, who promises to tackle Washington incompetence, or in a leader such as Rudolph W. Giuliani, who talks tough on terrorism and crime? Should the party embrace anger about immigration or optimism about America's potential?

Giuliani tends to win them on economic issues, but they cannot get by his stand on social issues. They like Huckabee on the social agenda, but do not trust his economic stands. They like the Romney they see now, but they cannot forget the positions he once embraced in Massachusetts. And they dislike McCain's opposition to Bush's first-term tax cuts and his crusade to overhaul campaign finance laws.

Read the whole article. I'm not one who necessarily believes all the back-and-forth is a bad thing, though, and certainly don't believe it will "rip apart" the coalition as the Post suggests. The more options we have, the more discussion we can (hopefully) have about where we want to go as a party and as a country. The questions is will the best of all candidates rise into the eventual nominee?

News on Global Warming, Election '08 and Taxes

Here are a few interesting clips I've come across today:

Utah has implemented a flat income tax of 5%. Interestingly, despite cutting taxes for most people, the new tax is actually more progressive based on the elimination of some deductions. More states should experiment with major changes to the tax code. Let's see what works best.

The US dropped its carbon dioxide emissions 1.8% in 2006. Didn't hear about that one on the news? Total greenhouse gas emissions dropped 1.5%. The economy grew 2.9%. So, to be clear, the economy grew while naturally occurring innovation and lifestyle changes brought about through the free market achieved something that Europe has not been successful at doing over the past few years despite their mandatory rules to cut carbon. Isn't that the darnedest thing?

Anti-immigration madman - and erstwhile presidential contender - Tom Tancredo is said to be dropping out of the race. Good riddance.

Old Exec on Fire

The Old Executive Office Building is on fire.

This is my wife's favorite building in DC, and aside from that a lovely and historic building in its own right, so hopefully they will get it contained soon.

Good parenting pays

A man from Montreal found out that good parenting pays off. When he came home to discover his son smoking pot in the backyard, he sold the prize video game - Guitar Hero III - he had bought for his son.

He bought the hard-to-find game for $90. He sold it to a guy in Australia for $9,100. Not a bad trade.

The naughty son, however, will not go without a present on Christmas.

"I am still considering getting him a game for his Nintendo. Maybe something like Barbie as the Island Princess or Dancing with the Stars ... I know he will just love them," the father said.

I hope it shows the economic impact of a carbon tax?

British Petroleum really wants you to believe that it is a "good" energy company bent on saving the planet. They have taken corporate greenwashing to new heights, though, through their collaboration with EA Games and one of my very favorite gaming franchises, SimCity.

The new SimCity Societies hinges on the question of what kind of carbon footprint will your city leave. You have a choice, of course, as one review on Yahoo explained:

Bernstein is specific about how the developers wanted to implement choice. "We didn't want to impose a direction a city should go. We wanted to put out enough power alternatives to make a very green city or a heavily polluted one or something in between."

New, updated visuals help create not only a wide range of new cities, but do a much better job of modeling the effects of energy reliance. Put a series of smog-belching plants on the ground and the city will soon be literally draped in darkness. The warming effects of massive CO2 output can lead to natural disasters which, if exaggerated, are pretty obviously related to the way the city lives. By way of massive contrast, green-leaning societies look clean and livable, and we haven't yet seen a wind turbine fall over to crush a swath of Sims.

Global warming is a given in the game, and if you put too much carbon in your city then your city bares the cost in the form of droughts, etc. Amazing, the new micro effect of carbon, but I guess it is only a game.

BP is of course branded throughout the game - or at least on the renewable energy sources. I haven't read if nuclear is an option or if you only get to choose between evil coal and or luscious wind and solar.

To get a real taste of what SimCity has done, watch this video. I can't say I didn't see it coming, but I'm still flabbergasted.

Despite the stupid preaching about energy by BP in the game, though, it looks really fun.

Tickets, please

It is being unofficially reported that my Atlanta Braves will face off against my wife's Washington Nationals here in DC on March 30, 2008, as the first official game of the baseball season. I feel like this game traditionally is played by the World Series champions, but apparently the new Nationals' stadium is going to be SO COOL that it necessitates being game numero uno for the season.

It should be a very exciting game - Atlanta will contend for the World Series in '08, and the Nationals will not go quietly this year and may even compete for the number 2 or 3 slot in the East. All this in a very exciting new park.

So....if anyone has a spare couple of tickets they need to unload, say because you are called away on business or whatever, I'd be more than happy to go and provide a full report of the game to you afterwards.

(And did I mention that's the day before my wife's and my one-year wedding anniversary? What a great gift!!)

Improving the Farm Bill?

Club for Growth reports on some actual GOOD amendments offered to the massive Farm Bill Congress.

They were, of course, all defeated. Thank goodness we elected those reform-minded Democrats, ready to change the way things operated in Washington.

Another reason the GOP brand is so tarnished

Jim Wooten of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a nice post today on AJC.com decrying Georgia's Republicans in the state House to lead like Republicans. The Speaker and the Governor are both playing with taxes, and not necessarily in beneficial ways. He very nicely sums up how me and many others are feeling:

The great frustration with the new majority under the Gold Dome is that, with rare exception — tort reform and special education vouchers, for example — they are largely indistinguishable from the Democrats who preceded them. The semantics game on taxes is right out of the Democratic playbook.

It was only a few years ago that Republicans climbed down power in Georgia after more than 140 years of Democrats holding all the reigns of power. Yet, just like we saw on the national level, the Republicans have squandered their majority. And unlike at the national level, where at least the GOP started with a clear set of goals, Glenn Richardson and the Republicans never really knew what they wanted to get accomplished. Wooten's assessment matches my own:

What this majority really needs to do is develop an agenda based on the state’s transportation, education, medical and water objectives — and then determine priorities and funding requirements. If a tax increase is warranted — and it may be — Perdue, Richardson and Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle should make the case, and explain to Georgians what we’re getting and why the additional money is needed.

Instead, we get tax shifts and new tax targets and tax semantics.

This frustration is something the GOP is going to have to deal with at the federal level and in many states during the 2008 election. Republicans are tired of unprincipled leadership from their own party. I don't think they'll go vote for Democrats, but I do wonder if they'll vote at all, and that's just as dangerous.

GOP - get it together. Limit spending, hold or cut taxes, find (and sell!) some creative approaches to social issues like health care, live your values instead of just claiming them, and rebuild this party.

I volunteer to do what's already been done!

Barack Obama has come out with a plan to expand the Peace Corp and AmeriCorp by using tax breaks as an incentive to join.

Obama said he would expand the size of the AmeriCorps public service program from its current 75,000 positions to 250,000 slots; double the Peace Corps program that Kennedy founded from its current 7,800 volunteer positions to 16,000 positions by 2011; and create a national online network, modeled on Craigslist, to connect volunteers to service opportunities. ... He proposed a tax credit to pay up to $4,000 of college expenses for students willing to commit to 100 hours of community service a year.

Volunteering is great, and as long as these programs are actually doing effective, productive work (and I've heard that many of these programs bring very mixed results) then expanding them is fine.

What I don't get is why the government would need to set up "national online network, modeled on Craigslist," when we have....Craigslist. A quick look at the Volunteer link on the Washington, DC Craigslist page shows 32 opportunities for volunteering from yesterday alone, and that seems to be a fairly average number. And those are all LOCAL opportunities for volunteerism. I don't need to know what I could do to help out for a few hours in Chicago on a Tuesday night (though if I did, I'll bet I could go to the Craigslist-Chicago page and find one).

Why do so-called "progressives" think that to do the things they want to do, they have to build the system themselves when working with what you have - or letting the market handle it, as Craigslist and many other sites have done - is often the most efficient way to do it.

HT: Chronicles of Philanthropy

This post causes global warming

"Tonight on Fox News at 10, rising divorce rates may be contributing to global warming."

No lie, that was the promo for the local Fox affiliate's news last night. I didn't bother to watch - I'm sure staying up late would have contributed to global warming as well.

As Congress prepares to vote out of committee a massive global warming bill that will regulate our economy to new degrees, stifle innovation, and lead to significant declines in the economic output of our country, here's a list of all the things that legitimate news outlets and research publications have blamed on global warming. This is not just droughts and extinctions, it's important things like hibernation ending too soon (and also too late), the Earth spinning out of control, and the severe threat to outdoor hockey.

UPDATE: Right after I posted, I found this.

Oh, stop complaining

Do you find yourself complaining a lot? Our society embraces complaining, sometimes even requires it. It may relieve some steam, but is it improving anything? Or is your complaining just a gateway drug to gossip, mockery, and, eventually, people complaining about you?

I stumbled on an article by Martha Beck on CNN (yes, it was originally published for an Oprah magazine, but I'll let that slide) called, simply, "Why you should stop your complaining." The article advocates going on a "venting fast," but more than just suggesting you give up complaining, it analyzes why we complain, and where it gets us (which is generally nowhere).

If you think that a venting fast requires willpower, you're half right. After a few whine-free days, you'll find that it also requires courage -- possibly more than you've ever used. To understand why anyone would put themselves through a venting fast, it helps to know a little about the psychological dynamics of complaint.

And she goes into it, and I found it quite on-target.

There can be good venting - complaining about things you don't really want to change - but that's not overly common. Mostly, we're avoiding real change by complaining about the way things are.

A lot of what passes for political discourse today really is just intellectual complaining. Not enough effort is focused on finding real solutions. If I had my doctorate in political science, I would prescribe a venting fast to politicians - and their surrogates. Quit telling us where everyone else screwed up. Tell us what you're going to do.

I'm going to go on a vent diet for the rest of the week. I normally am not much of a complainer (or at least I fancy myself not to be). I try to stay level-headed, and I think that works out pretty well for me. But when I get going on complaining, I really can get going. This week, through Sunday at least, I'm not going to get going. If I start complaining, I'll stop, and starting pondering what exactly is making me mad, and what I can do to change it. And if there's nothing? I'll just let it go.

I'll report back in a week. Wish me luck.

A win in Ven, but Vlad's not sad

Democracy faced off against further slides towards socialism on Sunday. The score was split, but perhaps the more important victory was the one where democracy won.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez appears to have lost his bid to dramatically alter the constitution that he wrote only a few years ago. The changes would have solidified the socialist state Chavez has methodically developed, allowing him to, "to run for re-election indefinitely, control foreign-currency reserves, appoint loyalists over regional elected officials and censor the media if he declares an emergency," as the Washington Times reports. I leave nothing to chance when Chavez is in charge, so I'll be uneasy until there are some official announcements, but the indications as of now are that the pro-democracy opposition has won in Venezuela.

On the other side of the world, Russia's slide back to oligarchy continued as Vladamir Putin's United Russia picked up a significant majority in the Duma, which should leave Putin as the Russian prime minister. Putin is limited by the constitution from serving another term as president, but is not ready to relinquish power. All expectations are that he will work to elect a puppet president while he continues to run the show from the historically less powerful chambers of the Duma. Although questions of irregularities in the vote, of which United Russia appears to have received more than 60%, my guess is those investigations won't go very far.

Politicians in America will probably have to tread lightly around both decisions, given the fickleness of both regimes and the significant amount of oil we import from both, but we should be very excited about what happened in Venezuela and we should be very worried about what's happening in Russia. Venezuela, though, is more significant in my mind given the impact the defeat will (hopefully) have on Evo Morales and other socialist-trending Southern American leaders.

UPDATE: I just heard as I write this that Chavez is conceding the election. That's an amazing step forward. But as a co-worker just reminded me, he's still in office until 2012, plenty of time to try again - and break a few arms along the way to make sure he doesn't lose again.

Unbiased?

Is the Washington Post - the paper of record for Washington, mind you - only interested in catering to Democrats? Let's look at today's political articles:

Front page:
"Democrats Gear Up for Final Appeal to Undecided Voters" -- because the Republicans aren't?

Page A6:
"DNC Punishes Michigan for Early Primary Date"
"Abundance of Warmth at Democratic Forum"
"Wintry Storm Curbs Campaigning in Iowa" (talks about Clinton campaign mostly, a little about Obama. The extent of GOP mentions: "Mitt Romney (R), the former Massachusetts governor, cancelled events in the Southern part of the state." That's all that is noteworthy from the GOP campaigns.

The Sunday Fix:
Three items in this political roundup. One is on how YouGoGirl.com, an Emily's List affiliate, is getting out the caucus vote for Hillary. One item is about the wishful-thinking opportunity for a Democrat to win a Senate seat in Mississippi. The lead item is about Mike Huckabee, who I'm sure the Dems would love to have as the nominee because half the Republican base (the economic part) can't stand him.

AdWatch on A5:
A review of a Rudy Giuliani ad that hits Democrats for wanting to raise taxes. The "Analysis" piece is an apology for Democrats, saying they're not really going to raise taxes on everyone, or if they're going to then, well, it isn't certain yet. That mean ol' Rudy.

And just in case you want to get to all these tilted headlines without getting ink on your hands, they're all (except the AdWatch) linked at the very top of the WP website as well.

For further amusement, go to the About the Post section and read what it says about its news and editorial staff: "At The Post, the News and the Editorial departments are separate and operate independently." Or this from its Principles page: "The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men."

Right.

Scenes from an Advance

I stopped by the Virginia Republican Advance, a sort of mini-convention the party holds every year. It's just like a convention, and brings together all the same types of folks you'd expect at a convention. I only went to drop in on an acquaintance who's considering a bid for Congress, and as it was being held only a few blocks from my house, I figured I didn't have much of an excuse to not drop by.

The meat of my political experience is in Georgia, and so I know the Georgia political hacks and players, but I know very very few of the ones in Virginia, and none of the ones I knew were there last night. Without anyone to seek out except the candidate, I got stuck in a conversation with a Ron Paul supporter. He supports him because of the war, and I think that's about it. I tried to engage on government spending, but that didn't go very far. He told me as a second choice, he'd go with Fred Thompson.

"Yeah, Fred Thompson's nice," I said, "in that way that sitting by a pond is nice - it looks pretty but it's too shallow to swim in."

We didn't talk much after that.

Except for not knowing anyone, it's interesting to see that the politicos of Virginia are really just like the politicos of Georgia when they get together. There are the overzealous but personally insecure young campaign workers, the College Republicans who think they're the coolest for being there, even when they're just crowding the elevator and sending it to the wrong floor. There are the Republican women with fancy elephant brooches, and the old man in the funny outfit that always gets noticed and is as pleased as punch to be there. There are the candidates, with charm oozing from their pores, and stray county party leaders, forcing out some synthetic variation of charm.

Yet despite all that, there's an energy in the air that brings back memories of excitement tinged with exhaustion and hope. The energy of politics, of The Campaign, of winning.

I came home and reported to the wife that it was just awful. Yet I know that my eye-rolling exasperation with the event wasn't fair. I would have eaten it up if I were in Georgia - even though I'd probably still do the same amount of exasperated eye rolling. Same idiosyncratic people. Same energy. Shared party. Shared goals.

Things I've Learned

If you pull down the Hershey's Special Dark cocoa mix but have trouble finding how many scoops you should put in for hot chocolate, there's a reason for it. It's not meant to be hot chocolate.

And even when you put in milk and a few helpings of sugar, and even when you tell yourself it isn't so bad, it is, because it's not meant to be hot chocolate.

How Conservatives Tackle Social Problems

I liked this piece in the Washington Post the other day, written by a scholar from the pragmatist-right American Enterprise Institute.  The author, Douglas Besharov, lists six principles of how a conservative approaches a social problems (and I encourage you to read his fuller explanation of all of these).

1. A preference for limited government
2. A desire to means-test or otherwise target government benefits
3. A concern about the behavioral consequences of assistance
4. A deference to mediating institutions
5. Respect for private choice, often in the form of markets
6. Humility bred from disappointing experiences -- and the likelihood of unintended consequences

He finishes strong as well:

When a problem seems bad enough, people often want to "do something," whether or not it is unproven or unlikely to succeed. Being conservative sometimes means seeing problems and deciding that nothing can be done -- at least not immediately. (That should not be the end of the inquiry. Being conservative includes a commitment to experimentation -- even with ideas with which one does not agree -- coupled with rigorous and honest evaluation.) These principles actually apply to any sound approach to social policymaking. One does not have to be conservative to be wary of unrealistic goals and the possible ill-effects of government intervention.

Chuck Norris Approved

If you haven't seen this ad for Mike Huckabee, you must.

Right now.

So I can just....not pay....?

Charlie Rangel says that we have a "voluntary tax system." Isn't that exciting?! Donald Luskin discusses this in a neat op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal (and it's not just neat because I am, or at least was, linked at the bottom):

Perhaps from Mr. Rangel's perspective, our tax system is indeed voluntary. After all, he chooses who pays taxes, how much they pay and how their money gets spent. If he wants to raise our taxes to support a $2 million earmark to create a Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, he can volunteer to do that -- but the rest of us have no such choice.

To be fair, our tax system is indeed voluntary in certain respects. For example, wealthy liberals like Warren Buffett, who call publicly for higher taxes on the rich in the name of fairness, can volunteer to pay more themselves any time they wish to do so. All Mr. Buffett has to do is send a check to Department G -- that's G for "gift" -- at the Bureau of the Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va.

But could it truly be a vountary system? Luskin says yes.

Why not try an experiment in which the tax system is made truly voluntary? Already 42 states (as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) raise revenues with lotteries, through which citizens voluntarily paid $57 billion last year. It's a long and noble tradition. Before the birth of Christ, the Han Dynasty ran lotteries to raise the revenues used to build the Great Wall of China.

Government could be entirely financed by voluntary taxation. Yes, the government would have to be small enough to make do, and citizens would have to be sufficiently public-minded about it. But all 13 original American colonies ran lotteries, and playing them was considered a civic duty. Proceeds from lotteries established Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, Princeton, and William and Mary -- and paid for the cannons that defeated England in the Revolutionary War.

It's that "small enough to make do" part that really throws some gunk in the works, though. Our elected officials are a bit allergic to that idea.


Read the whole thing here, and you should also check out Don Luskin's blog, The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid.

Standing up to spending

At least one GOP leader gets the spending thing. John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, had an excellent letter to the editor in Monday's Washington Post arguing the same point I did in an earlier post - that the best way to "pay for" the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax isn't through new taxes, it's through spending restraint.

Congress doesn't have a revenue problem. Revenue is at an all-time high after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which have triggered economic growth that is "paying for" an AMT patch many times over. Rather, Congress has a spending problem, and raising taxes to "pay for" an AMT patch is simply a backdoor way to feed its addiction to pork.

He calls out several irresponsible earmarks that would at least make a dent in paying for the AMT.

I'm so glad to see Boehner singing the song of less spending. He needs to push more of his colleagues in this direction.

HT: Poor and Stupid

Quote of the Day

"If [your] child is 40 years of age and still living at home and says, 'hey mom and dad, you didn't give me my allowance this week,' you really haven't provided an atmosphere for a productive human being."

That's from Joe Manchin, Governor of West Virginia, discussing the dependence on government money in West Virginia. In that wild and wonderful state, 52% of state spending is done by the government sector. The quote is from a while back I think, but is in respond to a great book called Unleashing Capitalism: Why Prosperity Stops at the West Virginia Border and How to Fix It, which you can pick up through the West Virginia Policy Foundation.

Think about that 52% number for a moment, though - government money comes from taxpayers. Some of that money is going to be federal dollars, but a whole lot of it is drawn from in-state. So WV is giving money back - in the form of job assistance, welfare, subsidies, government jobs - to the very people it got money from in the first place. Money is going into the WV economy only after it is taken out of it first.

Private sector growth offers a different model, where someone else fronts the money for, say, a new car plant. The plant creates jobs, which creates money that doesn't cost WV citizens anything. Jobs provide skills, skills inspire entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs set up new businesses with private money, those new businesses create new jobs. The process repeats, the economy grows, and everyone, especially the middle and lower classes, wins.

Overnight change? No - only government can promise that. Sustainable change and long-term improvement? Yes - that's what the market does.

Trust People

Joe Biden, the marginally better Democrat candidate for president than the frontrunners, has said something we support whole-heartedly.

Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader yesterday that too many Democrats, including the frontrunners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people.

“We’ve got to trust the American people more,” Biden said.

“I think they’ve really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them,” he said of his leading rivals.

When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said. He said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are.

Absolutely! And how do we trust people more? Well, we certainly don't mandate that they volunteer, as another presidential candidate suggests; we assume they have the goodness in their heart to do this on their own. We let them manage their Social Security money in the way they see best, whether that's a public or a private investment solution. We assume that people in local communities know more about managing their own affairs than people in far off places do. If people fail once, well, that happens, and if they fail over and over and over then maybe there's a place for government to step in.

But you're right, Joe. Step one is to trust Real People - instead of government. If a leading candidate makes that argument, and does so passionately, I don't see how that candidates can fail next year.

Voters choose fiscal restrain in New Jersey

A recent ballot measure in New Jersey asked voters whether they wanted to approve $450 million dollars in bonds to fund stem cell research in the state. Despite wide-spread support for stem cell research in the state, and despite a similar measure passing in California a few years back, voters rejected the measure. This quote from a political consultant for the pro-funding side sums it up well:

Mr. Oster said that although polls conducted in July, shortly after Mr. Corzine signed legislation placing the measure on the ballot, showed that nearly 7 in 10 New Jersey residents supported the research, organizers in favor of the bill also noted than barely 4 in 10 supported using state money to pay for it.

Newsflash to the GOP (and to politicans of all stripes) - Real People understand the need for financial restraint. They don't want their money wasted when there are private solutions available.

Statists would like us to believe that if the government, particularly the federal government, does not fund stem cell research then no one will. Research by the Reason Foundation from a couple years ago shows that is not true.

Already there is nearly $4 billion in private and state monies committed to stem-cell research over the next decade, with another three-quarters of a billion dollars under active consideration.

That's some real money. My guess is that money is going to be used more judiciously and have more results demanded of it than government money will, and that means cures sooner.

Quote of the Day

From FoxNews' business guy, Neil Cavuto:

"It's about food. It's about your home. It's about your life. The government is worried about all of the above. All I'm saying is you should be worried they're worried. Here's why: They're telling you that you can't take care of yourself. You can't be trusted with what you put in your mouth or what you sign on the mortgage dotted line. So they'll tell you what to put in your mouth and they'll save you from what you signed on that dotted line. Does anyone see a trend here? Personal responsibility has now become government responsibility."

HT: GPPF

Lou Dobbs almost killed me

I had a near-death experience in the barber's chair today. Of all ironies, the hard-working Vietnamese immigrants that cut my hair had anti-immigrant bigot Lou Dobbs on their TV. I've grown so disdainful of his biased, short-sighted, illogical opinions as to physically recoil at the sound of his voice. The air was blasting so I couldn't hear his blathering....until, with hot foam lathered on my neck and a straight razor bearing down to clear it away, the air shut off and I could hear old Lou going off on another tirade.

As the razor scrapped across my neck, I froze and tried to tune him out, knowing that sooner or later he would say something so remarkably stupid that I would involuntarily shutter, and the razor would slip and that would be the end of me. Death-by-idiocy.

An example of the demagoguery I had heard on the show already: one of the FOOLs (Friends of Old Lou) was talking about how partisanship today was at an all-time high - all because of Iraq, mind you - and that it is higher now than it was during the height of the Vietnam War.

But let's think about that for a moment. The height of the war was, what, 1967-1968. Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Democrat, was president. He led a Democrat-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate, all of whom felt committed to this war in Vietnam. But you can't expect the Republican party, traditionally the more strong-defense, support-the-troops party, to be yelling and screaming about "Johnson lied, people died" and how the Gulf of Tonkin was a sham. No, they supported the war effort and the president leading the war effort.

Reverse the parties in power, and you'd likely see a partisanship on par with today's tone.

The problems with Rangel's tax bill

Real Clear Politics has a good update on the Rangel tax bill, specifically focused on Republican plans to use the bill against Democrats in the 2008 elections. The article expands on some flaws that I didn't realize:

Mr. Rangel's plan would slap a hefty 4 percent surtax on single taxpayers who earn more than $150,000 and on married couples filing jointly who make more than $100,000 each. In effect, they are "putting a massive new marriage penalty into the tax code," Ways and Means Republicans charged. [emphasis added]

Moreover, under Mr. Rangel's bill "you can kiss your deductions goodbye," they add. The surtax would be levied on adjusted gross income before any deductions for charitable contributions, mortgage interest, medical costs, and other expenses.

But the new surtax Mr. Rangel wants to impose on working Americans would also affect an estimated 24 million small businesses who pay their taxes through individual tax returns. Many will lose deductions that lower their taxes on business income, while incorporated businesses will benefit from a rate cut, making it harder for small employers to compete with the Wal-Marts of this world. Mr. Rangel would also slap his surtax on capital gains, effectively raising the 15 percent long-term capgains rate by another 4 percent or more for millions of investors.

Jack Kemp offers some important advice to Republicans ready to pounce on this. Says Kemp:

"It isn't enough to be against Rangel's bill, we have to offer our own proposals. He has, to his credit, begun a debate over tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30 percent, but pays for it by raising taxes on capital gains and capital investment which is a bad idea."

Sounds familiar. But based on recent trends, such sound advice will, of course, be completely ignored.

Governmental Success

Seth Godin lists the points below under the heading "Small Business Success," but it's something we could all take to heart.

Three things you need:

1) the ability to abandon a plan when it doesn't work
2) the confidence to do the right thing even when it costs you money in the short run
3) enough belief in other people that you don't try to do everything yourself

Specifically, I would love to see government applying these. Government is typically very good at the 2nd rule, but usually at the expense of rules 1 and 3.

I'm not so libertarian as to think government serves no purpose. There are some "right things" that government should do, and when it is doing them it should spend money. But when things aren't working as planned or when there are existing market solutions to problems, the government needs to step back, re-evaluate, and either exit gracefully or reorganize (generally the former).

Hopefully hate speech is banned too

This is true:

A 13-year-old junior high school student was given two days of detention after school officials spotted her hugging friends after school last Friday.

Megan Coulter, an eighth-grade student at Mascoutah Middle School, was hugging her friends goodbye after school Friday when vice principal, Randy Blakely, saw her and told her she would receive two after-school detentions.

Blakely had previously warned Coulter that she was in violation of the school's policy on public displays of affection after she was seen hugging a student at a football game.

The school's policy says that “displays of affection should not occur on the campus at any time.”

Are we really trying to sensitize and sterilize society this much??

HT: OpinionJournal

Conversations you only hear in DC

Heard in front of the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.  A man introducing his wife to another man:

"He was Ambassador to Sweden when I was Ambassador to Denmark."

Ah.  Of course. 

A winner's view on global warming

I haven't blogged about the ludicrous selection by the Nobel Peace Prize committee of Al Gore and the IPCC for this year's award because I've been so absolutely appalled by it and have found silence a helpful way of dealing with the ridiculousness of it all.

One of the award winners (as a member of the IPCC) had an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week discussing his own disappointment with the alarmism that has built up around this issue.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

In the piece, he helpfully reminds us that the true heart of this debate is a debate over energy, and that so many of the called upon changes will do drastic bits of damage to our economic prosperity by significantly increasing the costs of energy production while doing precious little for climate.



Christy is an excellent scientists, but he also brings a real-world perspective to this discussion.

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Here here.

Cut through the clutter

The spam filter on my email is pretty good, so most of what ends up in my spam folder is from companies I've signed up with or bought something from.

Most of the time I don't read the solicitations from Crate and Barrel and Macy's and all the airlines that end up in my spam box. They have long titles that all blur together, because of course they know I'm not going to open their email, so they feel they need to cram as much into that subject line as they can.

An email in my spam box today cut through the usual clutter. An email from the Hard Times Cafe had an extremely compelling subject line: "You are awesome!"

Well, thank you. You're too kind.

There was no special deal or coupon in the email, just an invitation to come into their place of business and watch the Redskins game this weekend. To come be a part of the gang in your friendly neighborhood wings-and-beer place. And I opened the email, and considered a restaurant I hadn't thought about it a while.

And why? Because they appealed to the one thing that everyone cares about - their own sense of self worth. Everyone wants to be liked, and people like people who like them.

So go out there and like your customers. They'll appreciate it, and you'll probably appreciate the results.

I'll write for you

With Hollywood's writers set to go on strike, I am happy to offer my services to those shows who may want to experiment with amateur talent.

I bring a libertarian edge and droll wit that will certainly spice up....just about anything on television. Yes, my first few scripts may be duds (so perhaps I should start with sit-coms), but soon I will have honed my skills to be writing for the best television has to offer. In this new digital age, it is cheaper for you and me to work remotely from Northern Virginia and assemble a small team to assist with the scriptwriting.

Plus, I will never unionize.

Serious inquiries may email me at petersrole at yahoo dot com. Non-serious ones can email me there too.

Important Hollywood producers, you have it in your power to save television. I look forward to saving it with you.

College costs

Marketing guru Seth Godin rants about the cost of college today:

According to The Chosen, an exhaustive study of college admissions, there's no measurable difference between the outcomes of education with the most exclusive schools and the next few tiers. Graduates don't end up happier. They don't end up with better paying jobs. They don't end up richer or even healthier. The whole thing is a sham (which costs a quarter of a million dollars a person at the top end).

Part of his assessment is that what really separates the "best" schools from the "average" schools is marketing and branding. This make sense, particularly, as he points out, among the baby boomer generation, who always want "what's best."

Godin's rant hits at a topic that Dr. Richard Vedder of Ohio University has been ranting about - from an academic perspective - for some time. His book, Going Broke By Degree, dove into this topic extensively, and his Center for College Affordability and Productivity spends its days trying to figure out why college costs have spun out of control even as the efficiency and effectiveness of college education seems stagnant. If this is a topic that interests you, CCAP, particularly its blog, will provide you with lots of information and insight, such as this suggestion to control costs.

Principles matter

From the Politico, the People magazine of politics:

Only 36 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the GOP "does an excellent or good job" of "standing up for traditional GOP positions" on issues like reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, and promoting conservative social issues.

That's a decline of 25 points since July 2004. In fact, it's the lowest Republican rating for the GOP since Pew began tracking the issue in 2000.

If it turns out to be a subway race between Giuliani and Clinton, Pew further found that two-thirds of Republicans say their vote for the Republican would be more accurately described as a vote "against Clinton" and "not for Giuliani."

Principles matter. Poll after poll after poll - for three years now - is telling the Republican party leadership they need to fix their tune on solid conservative principles and yet they continue to defy that. If they don't get with it, why shouldn't they get their clocks cleaned next year?

Candy welfare for tomorrow's CEOs

Should you give candy to trick-or-treaters who aren't wearing costumes?

On the surface I say no, but I get mushy on that when I consider the incetives. I typically believe in following traditions wholly or not at all, so if you are going to trick-or-treat, put on a costume and be part of the game or don't go at all. Showing up at my door dressing in the same thing you wore to school this morning is, at best, candy welfare, and at worse it's a Jesse Jackson-style shakedown.

I think kids that go without costumes know what they are doing, in so far as bucking tradition but demanding candy anyway. It's rebellious. Therefore, rather than see it is as a risk and thus being understanding when I, the gracious giver of candy, decide not to give them a treat, these rebellious ones have an incentive to maintain their rebelliousness, which likely spells the end of my pumpkin or, worse, my comfy porch chairs.

So the downside - loss of the serenity of my porch or yard - is significantly worse than looking the other way and begrudgingly handing over a piece of candy. A theory worth testing, to be sure (and likely to be tested while renting), but if we're after maximizing our own economic benefit, being extorted by these costumeless children seems to be the best way to go.

But is it right for the long-term? Really, there's not much difference between the unfrocked children and bad-actor companies like Enron or Global Crossing. Both are acting within a framework - the Halloween spirit and the corporate structure - were there are standards and practices to be followed. Yes, some of the rules and constructs of those frameworks are dumb and we have to work to get them changed while still following them. But some rules are there because, without them, you fail to add real value to society.

Enron, for example, seemed to be creating jobs and wealth for thousands and thousands of people, when it reality it was doing the accounting equivalent to trick-or-treating without a costume, going through the motions and seeking the profit but not staying within the spirit of the rules.

Even if I lose a pumpkin or a lawn chair, by not giving these kids candy, maybe I can change their long-term incentive and get them playing within the spirit of the holiday. So no candy for them next year - but maybe I'll slip them some Enron stock.

Who's paying for whose mistake?

Professor Don Boudreaux makes a helpful observation about Representative Charlie Rangel's attempt to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. Framing the mission creep of the AMT as a "mistake" that Congress appears ready to correct, he notes:

Given that the current operation of the AMT is a mistake, why do Rep. Charles Rangel and so many others talk of the need to "pay for" fixing the AMT? A merchant who mistakenly overcharges customers is obliged to refund the money and stop overcharging, period.

The problem, of course, is that Congress has already spent the money. But I guess they could just dip into those unsecured Social Security monies to pay for things like they did in the good ol' days.

Stick this in your ear, Lou Dobbs

If you want to stop manufacturing job losses in America, put the breaks on technological innovation, not on free trade. Also be prepared to see reductions in real wages, not gains. This is according to a new study from the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute called "Trading Up: How Expanding Trade has Delivered Better Jobs and Higher Living Standards for American Workers.” The key take-aways:

Trade has not caused a net loss of jobs in the U.S. economy, and accounts for only 3 percent of annual job displacement. Further, the study shows that “between 1997 and the first half of 2007, the U.S. labor market did in fact shed a net 3.3 million manufacturing jobs, but that has been overwhelmed by a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing.”

Critics claim that the “average real wage” has declined since the 1970s, but this study shows that the average real wage is a flawed measure. A more accurate measure of earnings is “real hourly compensation,” which takes into account not only wages but benefits. “In the decade since 1997, as the U.S. economy has become more globalized, real compensation per hour for American workers has risen by 22 percent.”

The study also finds that household income has been rising and middle-class families have been moving up the income ladder. The real median net worth of U.S. households has risen 31 percent in the past decade while the share of income needed to finance debt has remained stable. [emphasis mine]

In other words, increased trade has made our society better, not worse, richer, not poorer, and changed and grown economic opportunity, not shrunk it.

Protectionism is not "progressive." If you really want to be progressive, support free trade.

But everyone else is doing it!

This is brilliant.

I wish I'd read it before my previous post, but it serves to further the point. Thanks, Offa!

Last picked for prom

Turns out Congress is not nearly as popular as its boyfriend SCHIP - 75% of Americans disapprove of Congress's handling of its job, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. 22 of every 100 people think they're doing a good job (versus about a 33% approval for Bush at the moment).

This quote from the CNN article about the poll intrigued me, though:

The big issues of the day just don't seem to be being addressed," said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University who studies Congress. "The issues that matter most to people -- the economy, health care, the environment and the larger war in Iraq -- it is so difficult for Congress to move on those issues that I believe the public looks and says, 'Why aren't they doing anything?'"

Are those the issues that matter most to people? I found a site that synthesises a lot of recent polls. Economy? Yes, that's generally in the top three. Health care? Yup, that one's up there. The "larger war in Iraq" (an odd characterization, since the "larger war" is generally thought to be the war on terror, whereas the war in Iraq happens to be the single largest and most well-known theater of that war) is, without fail, the number 1 issue sited as being important in each of the polls here.

Environment? Irrelevant. The most recent CBS poll listed has 2% of people saying it's the most important issue for presidential candidates. Doesn't merit a mention in the next poll down about the "most important problem facing this country today." Poll after poll shows it to be way down on the list of priorities.

In the next week or so, Congress will begin marking up a new global warming bill that would have disastrous effects on the economy with marginal-to-zero impact on the state of our biosphere. Real People get it, whether or not they can articulate it. Why must the politicians and academics like Ms. Binder continue to force an issue that the American public does not want the government dealing with?

Don't write off the Rangel tax bill yet

The good pieces of Charlie Rangel's (D-NY) proposed tax overhaul bill are good, and they're good for everyone. The bad parts are bad, but they're only bad for some people, and that's the cleverness behind the plan. What's missing is also bad for everyone. Let's look (and if this isn't enough detail for you, Money's website has a pretty good run-down of the bill).

Here are the good things about the bill:

• Full elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which has slowly hit more and more middle-income Americans over the past few years. This is not what the Democratic authors of the bill intended 40 years ago but, because they didn't index it for inflation, that's what happened.
• Expanded credits for low-income couples without children
• 4.5 percentage point cut in the corporate tax rate

And the negatives:

• Hits high income earners ($200,000+) with a new, additional 4% tax
• Hits hedge fund and other money managers with a change in how part of their compensation is classified, resulting in as much as a 20% additional tax on them
• Closes some corporate tax breaks (while this one is unfortunate for the companies, I'm largely ok with this one as I generally view tax breaks as subsidies that you pay to yourself)

What's missing:

• Spending cuts. The money to pay for the good things has to come from somewhere - that's the rule - which is why the tax cuts are made with tax increases. Rather than simply shuffle the tax burden, we would be better served finding places where we can cut spending. Ending earmarks is one place, but that won't help all that much. Finding some bloated federal agencies to trim down would be a good start. Not expanding SCHIP would be a good idea, too. Because here's the magic of the market - tax cuts put more money out in the economy, providing more resources for private firms to fill the gaps where government is stepping back. But I digress. The point - cut spending instead of hiking taxes.

As is the want of the out-of-power party, the Republicans will likely say this whole proposal smells like moldy goat cheese, yell, stomp around, put their fingers in their ears, and then completely fail to offer a suitable counter proposal. I'd like to suggest a different tact:

1. Admit that there are good things in this bill, particularly the AMT elimination at the corporate tax cut. Our corporate taxes are the second highest in the industrialized world, and other governments (of all political persuasions) are cutting their rates, making us less competitive. This is a big deal. The average American will understand there are good things - if you say it stinks, it looks like you don't understand the concerns of Real People. Hint - that's a bad thing.
2. Be for fairness. The good things are good because they have the potential to help everyone, but that's done at the expense of a small number of people. Congress can't, or at least shouldn't, be in the business of picking winners and losers or deciding at what point someone becomes "too rich."
3. Don't whine about the fact that Democrats will get to have elimination of the AMT as a campaign issue. A friend of mine notes that Republicans have done a terrible job of pounding on the fact that Democrats created the AMT. It was also the Democrats who prevented the GOP's attempts to eliminate the AMT in the past decade. Instead of being mad about this, just have a consistent message of "We are glad the Democrats have decided to eliminate the tax they imposed on America 40 years ago, and we are glad they are now seeing things as we have seen them for years - that this tax needs to go. Republicans are happy to once again vote for the elimination of this tax."
4. Push for compromise. Use Rangel's bill as a jumping-off point, agree on the good things, and then offer spending cuts to make up for the tax increases. Remember, my Republican friends, tax cuts alone are not an end-game - our goal is smaller government. Tax cuts are a tactic - spending cuts are real progress.

This is a monumental opportunity, and there is some urgency to it, as the Tax Foundation points out:

The IRS sends the 1040 forms to be printed on November 7, and they need to finalize the rest of the forms by November 16. If Congress doesn't do something with the AMT by then, the updated forms will not be available to taxpayers until after the filing season has started and the original incorrect forms have already been issued. As if taxpayers needed any more confusion, they will then be stuck trying to figure out which set of forms is the correct set.

I'm not so delusional as to not think, given the above comment, that Rangel's not just playing politics by saying he will end the AMT while knowing there isn't enough time to do it. It could all be disingenuous. That's ok, because market-oriented leaders can force the issue. Take up this opportunity and run with it.

SCHIP for Class President! He LIKES you!

The breaking-news headline on CNN right now reads "The House of Representatives passes a more modest expansion of the popular children's SCHIP health insurance program."

I have two problems with this headline.

The first, and more trivial problem, is the use of the word "popular," like SCHIP's the captain of the football team. Throwing that in there is nothing more than editorializing. It is a blatant suggestion by the editors about how they believe their readers to feel about the program. A quick Google News search shows that many other news sources also want to be friends with that popular SCHIP, too.

The second and more substantive problem, though, is that this version is not more modest. It still allows able-bodied adults into the program. It still expands SCHIP into covering middle-class kids. It fails to insist that poor kids be covered before the middle-class kids. It raises taxes in the wake of record federal government revenues. It incentivizes states to enroll more kids in order to get bonus federal dollars.

Rather than offer a bill that provides beneficial coverage for poorer children, the Democrats have once again offered a bill that will lead middle-class families down the garden path of government dependence. Given the choice between "free" health care from the government and health care they have to pay for themselves, people of sound economic judgement are going to take the former. And it's free, so of course it's going to be popular, and since it's popular, we'll just expand it a bit more, so that people making $100,000 or even $200,000 can opt in.

Well, at that point you've got almost everyone, so you might as well make it universal. Everyone has free health care! Hooray! I mean, sure, there are fewer doctors because the money's not what it use to be, and sure the drug companies are folding up and doing less research because there's no profit to be made in that, so we're curing fewer things, but at least he drugs we do have are free. Taxes sure have gone up and the only hospital still open isn't quite as clean anymore.

But that's ok, right? Because it's free health care for everyone.

Libertarians as the future of politics?

Time magazine suggests its possible. Its article, Libertarians Rising, suggests that as the major parties continue to blur the lines of distinction between them, people will increasingly be attracted to a more ideological model such as libertarianism (or, on the other side, what it calls "communitarianism", a phrase I'm somewhat familiar with because a friend of mine use to work with a scholar who promoted such a philosophy. If that's the opposite of libertarianism, then libertarians are pretty safe from some all-out ideological assault for now).

Time gets things right for once:

Libertarians and communitarians (to continue this unjustified generalizing) are different character types. Communitarians tend to be bossy, boring and self-important, if they're not being oversweetened and touchy-feely. Libertarians, by contrast, are not the selfish monsters you might expect. They are earnest and impractical--eager to corner you with their plan for using old refrigerators to reverse global warming or solving the traffic mess by privatizing stoplights. And if you disagree, they're fine with that. It's a free country.

I like it because it's true.

Despite it's glib tone, the article points to the very real fact that the major parties are increasingly not offering what their constituencies want. The ideology offered under the brands of Republican and Democrat have become muddled. There is a great opportunity out there for libertarians and other more ideological movements to kick into high gear and offer a real alternative - or, if not an alternative, at least a source of pressure on the parties. If such a thing happens, it would be exciting and extremely good for American politics.

Quote of the day

"For most voters, they're voting for the brand," Sullivan said. "When I go to the grocery store and I buy Dr Pepper, I expect it to taste like DrPepper. If it tastes like Pepsi, it's going to bug me."

Michael Sullivan, president of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, talking about people of one party too often vote with the other - and vote against their party's identification as the smaller government party.

Call a spade a spade

Mitt Romney breaks the 11th commandment and takes a swing at the Republican party in a new campaign ad set to air in Iowa. The ad is called "Change Begins With Us," and here's the heart of it:

"If we're going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in
order," Romney says, speaking directly to the camera. "We can't be like Democrats -- a party of big spending. We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration. We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno."

This is an exciting turn for the Romney campaign to come out strong like this. As the CNN article notes, the Democratic candidates have gained a lot of traction by focusing on change, but the GOP leadership has stubbornly (for two+ years now) refused to believe that the GOP needs to do any changing. They didn't even get the joke when the party's control of both chambers of Congress went down in flames in Nov 2006.

Republicans are upset, and they're upset about a lot of different things. Democrats are upset, too, but they do upset different - they get loud about it, rile others up, and that will lead them all out to the polls next November. We Republicans put up the silent treatment, so no one else knows if we're mad or just don't want to argue or are supportive of the way things are. People don't get riled up, but instead they will stay home on Election Day, which spells disaster for the GOP.

Romney's ad should get people talking, openly and honestly, about the disappointment the Republican base feels in current leadership. Romney's right - it's time for change. More and more, Romney's looking like the one to lead it.

PS: Here's the ad. I think the music's a little much, but the message is good.

Thank You, Metro

It seems like a small change, particularly to people who don't ride the yellow and blue lines on DC's Metro, but starting soon, those two lines will no longer be plagued with 4-car trains during rush hour. Knowing there will always be 6 cars in the train means less cramming into the first and last cars, less running to catch a train that pulls up far short of where you expect it to be, less being a few minutes late to work as you stand dejectedly outside a crammed door through which you cannot squeeze. Now we get to be just like all the folks on all the other three lines with standard six-car trains.

Thank you, Metro, for this very valuable fix.

The real solution to outsourcing

I implore anyone of the mind that we are destroying our country and our future through out-sourcing, free trade, or mechanization of industries to read this blog post by Russ Roberts, economics professor at George Mason University. The super-abbreviated conclusion:

Preserving manufacturing jobs for their own sake is the road to stagnation.

The natural forces of competition and self-interest are encouraging manufacturing workers to get more education and find new work.

Russ really brings to life a lot of the benefits of outsourcing and trade. Yes, there are short-term pains, but those are exponentially off-set by the long-term gains - gains not just for the economy, but for Real People. (and Russ is one of the best in the business at connecting the abstract ideas of free-market thought to the lives of Real People)

How do we continue to grow the economy through free trade? First, let's agree that freer trade will lead to significant benefits for the next generation, and in many cases the current one after a number of years.

Second, let's be honest about the near-term challenges (and near-term could be months as easily as it could be years) such as job loses and shrinking towns, creatively exploring both temporary fixes like unemployment payments, continuing education grants as well as longer-term changes, such as moving away from defined benefit pensions and more towards ownership of our retirement through defined contribution plans.

Finally, let new industries grow organically while old ones fall away without intervention from government. If government tries to pick winners in the new economy or to save the losers by subsidizing their diminished existence, we are all the worse for it.

Cyber-tax

On November 1 of this year, the moratorium on taxation of the Internet will expire. Congress has the opportunity to renew this and avoid losing the (largely) untaxed free market that the Internet is today. The benefits of such a move are easy to see, as Phil Kerpin explains:

The Internet has been a remarkable engine of economic growth and innovation over the past decade, in large part because it has operated as a free market without undue taxes or regulation. A federal moratorium first put in place in 1998, and subsequently extended, has protected the Internet from access taxes and discriminatory or multiple taxation. That moratorium prevents state and local governments (with a handful of exceptions where taxes have been grandfathered in) from imposing a list of taxes and fees that would appear on the Internet portion of your cable and telephone bills.

If the moratorium is allowed to expire, states will likely impose new taxes on Internet access fees, bit-taxes on downloads, and perhaps even e-mail taxes. There would be unlimited potential for taxation, which would only impede the flow of commerce and information on the Internet and slow a great engine of economic growth.

Drop your representative a note and ask them to make sure to extend the moratorium - even to make it permanent.

Tidbits on global warming

Two interesting things I stumbled on re: global warming today.

First, an interesting article by Christopher Horner about the uneven and sometimes misleading results drawn from global temperature stations. I've heard him speak before about how the sudden rise in global temperatures around 1990 may have less to do with dramatic shifts in climate than it does with the fact that about half of the world's temperature recording stations went out of commission then with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many of those recording were in cold-weather climates, leaving the recorded data to skew warmer.

The other piece is from Americans for Prosperity's blog and reminds us that everything - everything - is caused by global warming.

Freddie-come-lately

Fred Thompson is officially a candidate for president, despite the fact that the other top candidates (from which most reports now eliminate McCain and mention only Giuliani and Romney, whereas on the D side, John Edwards has done a good job of clawing his way back into the "top candidate" ring over the past month or so) have been out there for most of 2007, if not before. Rich Galen, Mullings author and paid consultant to the Thompson campaign, gives an honest assessment of what being a latecomer in this environment is like:

If we don't do this [the Thompson campaign's first bus tour in Iowa] well, we can't explain that we haven't done one of these before and therefore we should get a pass. We chose to wait until after Labor Day so it's like skipping spring training and stepping into the batter's box against major league pitching a third of the way into the season.

The Lexington article in last week's Economist takes this blog's view, which is that Mr. Thompson missed his opportunity to really be a powerhouse candidate by not getting in when his stock was at its peak earlier in the summer.

Will he be a top candidate? Yes. Will he influence decisions and tactics chosen by the other candidates? Yes. Will he be able to raise the funds and build the ground game necessary to win any of the early states except maybe South Carolina? I'm not convinced.

Forced innovation

Though it seems a little forced, I really like this idea. A Siberian mayor has found a way to force bureaucrats to think creatively and find ways to solve problems instead of skirting them all together:

The mayor of a Siberian oil town has ordered his bureaucrats to stop using expressions such as "I don't know" and "I can't." Or look for another job.

Alexander Kuzmin, the 33-year-old mayor of Megion, has banned these and 25 other phrases as a way to make his administration more efficient, his spokeswoman said Tuesday.

"It's a suggestion to the staff that they should think before saying something," Oksana Shestakova said by telephone. "To say `I don't know' is the same as admitting your helplessness."

Some of the other prohibited phrases are "What can we do?" "It's not my job," "It's impossible," "I'm having lunch," "There is no money," and "I was away/sick/on
vacation."

It seems to be working.

Anna Borovikova, the mayor's chief of staff, said the novel approach has improved discipline.

"Before, it was so easy to say `I don't know.' Now before reporting to the mayor we prepare several proposals on how one or another problem can be solved," Borovikova said.

I'd love to see a follow-up report a year from now to see how much progress has been made. If it's working, let's see about testing the same rules at our local DMV...

Apply it to everyone and there's no more crime!

My friend Catherine shared an article from Newsmax talking about how the Larry Craig case is indicative of the above-the-law sense of entitlement that lawmakers have developed. It talks about an interesting tool used by the diligent Capitol Police - the "unarrest."

Unarresting is what happens when a Capitol Police officer has the misfortune to learn, after having made an arrest, that the person charged is a member of Congress. In that case, a supervisor is called, and he drives the member of Congress home. No record is made of the arrest. In other words, it is covered up.

Of course, if a Capitol Police officer learns before an arrest that the suspect is a member of Congress, the process is much simpler: He never makes the arrest in the first place.

Simple, isn't it? See the article for a nice snapshot into the life of Ted "The Bridge" Kennedy.

“The ego and the arrogance of some of the members had an impact on me,” John R. Niston, a former Capitol Police officer, told me. “They get to the point where they think the people in the country exist to serve them instead of the other way around.”

I could be wrong, but I don't think that is the idea the Founders had in mind...

Hard work

Seth Godin has a really great Labor Day post about what hard work really means today:

Richard Branson doesn't work more hours than you do. Neither does Steve Ballmer or Carly Fiorina. Robyn Waters, the woman who revolutionized what Target sells -- and helped the company trounce Kmart -- probably worked fewer hours than you do in an average week.

None of the people who are racking up amazing success stories and creating cool stuff are doing it just by working more hours than you are. And I hate to say it, but they're not smarter than you either. They're succeeding by doing hard work.

There's a new book out there that I thumbed through at the bookstore recently (and I'll put in the name when I remember it). I enjoyed a particular passage that argued that the biggest different between those in the middle class and those in upper class is that most of us in the middle class are risk-averse. We don't want to take big risks because, even though there could be pots of gold at the end, it's really hard to get to there. Most of us will give up before we get to the reward, which means most of us will fail, which means why bother in the first place.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone. I keep hoping for the "right" idea to come along, and I keep pushing off big ideas that aren't quite "right enough." I'm slowly waking up to the fact that it can't be "right enough" without a lot of effort.

Starting this blog was a risk that I easily could have not taken. I'm still not working hard enough on it to make it a product people really want to read regularly, but I've done the hard part, which was committing publicly to do something. If I'm going to own a domain name, I better keep putting new stuff up there. And (I think) it gets better over time, so even if it stinks now, I'm in a position to continually improve. Remember, even today's favorite swans started out ugly.

If you have a big idea you're hedging on, start with committing publicly. Get the idea out of your head and tell someone who can hold you accountable, "I'm going to do this." When you've told people that you're in the game, your incentive strongly biases success.