Another un-original idea...

So the bureaucrats and bean-counters are talking TAX INCREASES (again). And, as usual, without finding very many significant reductions in one the spending side. Want to generate some revenue from the "Evil Rich"? Here's an idea...

How about a 50% surtax on anything earned after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Example, leave a $300K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman-Sachs, and pay a $350K surtax. Such surtax to be in effect for ten (10) years.

Now, I'm mostly after elected and appointed positions only, not the hired rank-and-file, but they don't completely escape either. Those worthy folks being paid a salary in the upper 20% percentile of taxpayers would have their 50% surtax only kick in for the difference at 20% above their public-sector salary, and would be limited to only(?) 5 years. All those above the 20% income level take the big 10-year bite with the rest.

And while we're at it, let's take the pain another step further and say that any salaries paid to such former government officials aren’t tax-deductible for corporations while the surtax is in effect. See? There's a private-sector penalty, too.

Some enterprising budget hawk (from either party) should add this concept to a spending bill and watch the fur fly.


- Steve

Behavior Modification

This is a quickie, but it obviously deserves more comment...

There is a clear understanding, among many policy makers, that if you want to manipulate societal behavior - regardless of direction - one very common method is to adjust the TAXATION of a particular activity. If you want to encourage an activity, you reduce the associated taxes; if you want to discourage, increase the taxes. Simple.

Case in point: there have been numerous attempts to 'encourage' people to suspend or quit smoking. One primary motivation technique is to RAISE taxes on tobacco products. (Caveat: there are many different approaches currently in play on this issue, but let's focus on taxes.) The idea is that people will 'grow tired' of paying the additional taxes to the point they will subsequently modify their behavior to avoid the taxes by avoiding the product; which is the stated purpose of the policy in the first place. All agreed?

Ok, Let's also consider a group of folks out there I call "wealth generators". These are the folks producing wealth, by providing products and services. The desirability of a specific product/service doesn't matter: there is a financial flow from the consumer to the creator, creating wealth. The economy *depends* on these folks to continuing to create wealth, if for no other purpose than to generate the capital which can be consumed by paying taxes.

Logically, if follows that if one targets these 'wealth generators' with an ever-increasing tax burden, they WILL eventually modify their behavior to avoid the taxes. It seems the most likely behavior modification will be to REDUCE the creation of the wealth they will not be allowed to retain. After all, why work so hard to create something that will be taking away from you?

Thus - I pose the question: If we need these generators to keep doing what they do - and we REALLY do - then why do we seek to 'punish' them for their success? And worse, why do those same manipulators FAIL to consider the ramifications of taxation in predicting future revenues? I am reminded of the 60's humorist 'Brother' Dave Gardener, who suggested we should "tax the poor folks and give them an incentive to become something", which makes as much sense as anything else...

There has been a large amount of posturing recently (all sides) which are predominately concerned with "how much we will 'save' over the next X years". Hogwash. Those calculations assume the wealth creators will blindly continue to do what they've been doing, without changing their behavior at all, and without consideration of the increase in taxation. This is wishful thinking at best.

I submit that Human Nature will take over and the currently popular "Tax The Rich" class-warfare strategy will backfire in a big way. The economy will NOT recover as expected/predicted. At the very least, the recovery (if any) will be substantially blunted. This will result in the all-too-familiar cry, "we tried, but THOSE EVIL RICH have conspired against us: they're not paying 'their fair share'.

Perhaps we need a dose of honesty - something in very limited supply in D.C. - to clearly define precisely What Level of Taxation is Considered "FAIR". But then, IMHO, if they *were* honest about exactly how much the bureaucracy wants to collect and from who, the subsequent Behavior Modification which followed would *really* wreck the economy.

Bread and Circuses.

- Steve

Steve's Libertarian streak

NOTE: This will be rambling post, I'll address various issues as they come to me - It is by no means, 'complete'...


Libertarianism, to me (and I really speak for no one else), is grounded in the belief that the pursuit of individual freedom (of action or thought) is the highest moral value. It's as much a personal philosophy or lifestyle as it is a political agenda-based affiliation. Obstacles to the exercising of such freedom - such as the authority demanded by The State, are inherently dangerous and to be avoided when possible. The State cannot be completely avoided - so anarchy is not a solution - Good Government requires an acknowledgment that individual rights and freedoms (especially property rights) must be protected.

To me, libertarianism should generally advocate the freedom of thought and action with few exceptions. One (major) exception is that the actions of an individual should not infringe upon the freedom of any other person. This is a very simplistic definition, because - sooner or later - we have to tackle the subject of “Who Decides” what constitutes 'infringement'. Later. Please.

I believe 'Liberty', defined here as 'non-interference', is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right: the Freedom to choose and act in accordance with one's own judgment. I believe recognition of individual property rights (and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition) are critical to respecting individual liberty and freedom.

I believe 'social awareness' develops out of a respect for individual liberty. I believe the only legitimate use of coercion (by the State) is defensive in nature or to rectify an error. I believe governments (and individuals acting on behlaf of the government) are bound by the same moral principles as individuals. I believe that, historically, governments have acted improperly by utilizing force for the purposes of plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other objectives which are beyond the protection of individual freedom and liberty.

I think government's primary justification is to provide a court (justice) system, police / military forces (for national defense), and manage the legislative (law / regulation) system. The first question that should always be asked - “Is this action a 'proper' function of government?” Typically, the answer will be NO. It is NOT the function of government to determine how to best promote liberty or freedom - but, instead, to insure the 'playing field is level' and to provide ONLY those (legitimate) services which CANNOT be provided by individuals, or independent groups. Above all else, Government should never be empowered to the extent that the goods and property of the effort s by one individual is confiscated, using the taxation and police power of the State, for the direct benefit of another.

Property rights are extremely tricky, simply because there are som many variations on the theme. I advocate granting strong private ownership rights. This includes freedom from 'unjustified' search and seizure, as well as clearly defined 'civil liberties', such as freedom of the press. (Note that being free to express one's opinion does NOT include mandatory access to the means by which to do so.) I can get along with Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy, although it does have its issues when applied to the current realities of the Real World. I believe in and support strong personal rights to private property, vis-a-vis free-market capitalism, including property in the means of production. I think the goals of minimal government regulation of property and minimal taxation of property are Good Things, and all within the context of The Rule of Law.

I consider private matters - such as sexual relationships and, in some cases, personal drug use - to be just that: Private Matters. They should not enter the realm of law enforcement or the legal system (unless, of course, exercising those actions interfere with the rights of others). The state should not regulate or interfere in personal choices EXCEPT to protect against aggression, breach of contract or fraud (or the freedom of others).

I disagree with the concept of compulsory military service, although such a personal sacrifice as serving in the armed forces as a volunteer should be encouraged, not discouraged.

I think it is best for government to avoid centralization and to maintain the distribution of power among the various federal, state and local levels. In this, I am more in line with Jefferson than most Founding Fathers (although Tom and I still have our differences).

As all this relates to current politics and political thought...

I don't want Americans to be detached from the workings of their government. Nor do I want Democrats and Republicans jockeying to score political points while accomplishing nothing. What I would prefer is two (or more) parties that understand that the government which governs least, governs best. When it comes to government programs, I defer back to good ol' Adam Smith who observed government should be able to finance those projects which have little potential profit to individuals, generally take time to complete, but which have great benefits to the society as a whole.

The Founding Fathers assigned Congress to finance post offices and post roads, but also included the rather vague phrase, "promote the general welfare". I must admit Roosevelt and the New Deal built TVA and Hoover Dam, built in a timely manner and producing energy, which were critical resources when World War II broke out. The TVA dam at Muscle Shoals was built to generate power for nitrogen fixing - needed to make nitric acid and various nitrates - the basis of high explosives. The 'surplus' power from the Department of War requirements was sold as power to the public. It can be argued several New Deal projects actually produced some useful infrastructure. (Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.) We can argue over the desirability of government programs and whether such things should be left to the market. But if government is going to borrow money and spend it, the end result ought to be something useful, not just spent money. I completely reject the Keynesian argument that the remedy for recession is spending money - spending borrowed money doesn't work.

Now, a man who has landed a job as a carpenter might see a need to borrow money to buy his basic tool kit, or even to buy a car for transportation to and from work. It makes little to no sense for that man to borrow money to take a trip across country for vacation and relaxation, or to buy frivolities. Everyone knows this except, apparently, the government we have today. Today, we borrow money to (a) fund invented entitlements, (b) build useless demonstration projects, such as local museums that no one is going to visit, (c) increase salaries of government workers and/or hire new government workers whose funding will then fall on the local community, etc., etc., etc. Spending borrowed money without a very specific purpose - and a measurable, tangible and carefully monitored goal - is nonsense.

The nation has become so disgusted with government as an entity that a return to the big spending days doesn't look likely. Thank God. But never fear, friend Chris, the Republican party will not get back into the White House this November, and for a year or so they'll have to act like they know what they are doing, while most of what they propose will be dead on arrival at the White House. Or we can throw those rascals out and look for (more) new ones.

Interesting times lie ahead.

- Steve

Judges should not legislate - follow-up #1

Chris,

My Main Point is there is a HUGE difference between overturning a State Law and overturning a State Constitutional Amendment. The California state courts 'found' a right to gay marriage in the state constitution - the people decided to add-to the constitution, which is their right. Doesn't make the decision Right or Wrong, but those *are* the rules.

Remember, too, that the U.S. Constitution is primarily a negative instrument - it defines what the government may NOT do. One of the key points is the founding principle that the federal government may NOT do is impose its will upon the states (or its citizens), *EXCEPT* where that authority is expressly granted to Congress. To my knowledge, I can't see where authority on defining or regulating marriage is granted to Congress. Sorry. Besides, that the responsibility in those cases is granted to CONGRESS, *not* the Judiciary. My whole complaint is that this is a legislative issue, not a legal one. I'm *not* saying that the situation doesn't need to be addressed - I'm saying it's not a Federal Judge's job to do it without clear Constitutional guidance.

And, NO, I don't see the 14th's "equal protection" clause as a valid argument. There are numerous situations where laws (state and federal) specifically prohibit allowing certain things under the law: holding elected office, getting a license, etc.; I pointed out several situations in my post. And unless specifically granted to Congress, authority for those controls pass down to the states. And when who has the control is not "clear", it passes to the states by default. And the citizenry, has ultimate control over that entire process through the ballot box (including an Initiative process, as in California).

The federal judge's ruling in this case to overturn a State Constitutional Amendment has a far greater scope than appears on the surface. It's arguable, under that ruling, that *any* state cannot regulate, certify, allow/disallow, "marriage" in *ANY* way: the ages, number of participants, participants gender, the species that are involved... ANYTHING and EVERYTHING goes! This is clearly one of those 'unintended consequences' situations waiting to explode - and, No, I'm not over-stating the situation: think about where this *could* go.

The history of Prohibition provides an example of how to (properly) overturn an Amendment you don't want - this time, it's happening by judicial fiat, and it's Wrong. Please don't misunderstand me: there *is* a legislative path (related to the 13th and 14th) which would have justified this ruling, but that hasn't happened.

IMHO, the federal judge should have set aside (or even dismissed) the case under the idea that over-turning a legally implemented state Constitutional Amendment is outside *his* jurisdiction. In other words - kick it upstairs (where its going to end up anyway). Trying to guarantee the decision *he* wanted, in spite of opposition of the citizens of the state, is the source of the judge's error. Clearly, he was more concerned with achieving a particular outcome than he was in doing his job - ruling in accordance with the law.

If management of an issue is not specifically (and clearly) granted to Congress via the Constitution itself, then control passes to the states. Period. That doesn't guarantee the state legislators (or their citizens) will exercise that power correctly or like everyone desires... but those are the rules. Please re-read my post with this perspective in mind.

And re-consider the phrase: "Consent of the governed".

- Steve

Judges should not legislate

Prologue: A federal judge ruled that a California State Constitution Amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional. He also held that the states do not have an interest in such legislation...

I really don't like jumping into the fray over the Gay Marriage issue as raised in California, but I feel I must. I do this only because I don't see anyone looking at this issue from any position other than whether or not “gay marriage” is right or wrong (morally and/or ethically). I do NOT think that is the correct issue.

It's about upholding the Rule of Law and the constitutional Separation of Powers.

I think the judge's decision is flawed. I also think it is a power grab of enormous consequence. We're talking about overturning, by federal judicial fiat, a duly implemented Amendment to a State Constitution. Not a law. Not a ruling. Not a bureaucratic regulation or invention - a (state) Constitutional Amendment. This is not an insignificant matter. It is arguable this federal judge is imposing his personal(!) view of the desirability of the Amendment upon the citizens who have demonstrated they wish to do otherwise. Herein lies a path to doom and destruction.

To begin: this issue has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is a good or a bad idea. I personally DON'T REALLY CARE what you do in your own home. My personal opinions and agreement with or disgust with private practices that do not directly interfere with *my* personal rights is immaterial from a political and/or legal perspective. Instead, the issue that is REALLY at the core has to do with the fundamental purpose and scope of constitutional law.

In the case of gay marriage, some states adopted (allowed) gay marriage either by legislation or through state judicial action. The legitimacy of those actions was not in question in this case, nor should it have been (State's rights). In California, the state courts had found a 'right' to gay marriage. However, in response to that ruling, and through the constitutionally legal Initiative process, the people of California amended their state constitution to forbid that. The trial should have been over the right of the citizens of the state to make such a decision. The California Amendment can *only* be overturned if it is clearly in conflict with the US. Constitution. (It isn't: the Constitution is silent on the matter. Sorry.) We're not talking about the way things ought to be or the way a vocal minority/majority would like it to be - we're talking about the Law.

Instead it became a trial over the “wisdom” of the amendment. The judge wanted to hear evidence that forbidding gay marriage had some legitimate state purpose, and part of his ruling is that the state has no such reasonable and legitimate end. Whether he is right or wrong about such ends is beside the point. The fact remains that those issues are clearly legislative matters. I have doubts that even the currently defined Supreme Court will be able to find such a foundation to justify that ruling overturning the Amendment. This is not about enforcing mob rule (e.g., 'democracy' in action). It *is* about the separation of powers and the relationship between the federal and state branches of government. The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT provide for the Federal Government to substitute its judgment for that of the state legislatures or state citizenry *EXCEPT* where Congress is explicitly granted such powers. The amendments where the Gay Marriage ruling must be grounded in Constitutional law do NOT mention equality of the sexes and genders.

It should be noted the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) *DID* cover this topic. But, for better or worse (arguable either way), the ERA failed of adoption by the states. If the ERA *had* become part of the Constitution, there wouldn't have been a question about the power of Congress, and a bit more about the power of the Supremes to *impose* acceptance of Gay Marriage upon the states over their objections, if any. But the ERA wasn't adopted: it didn't happen. Therefore, neither Congress nor SCOTUS has been given explicit power over the matter, as required by the principle of Separation of Powers.

*** A sidebar comment on the ERA itself - Through much of the early 20th Century ERA amendments were introduced in Congress by Republicans and rejected by Democrats. General Eisenhower was in favor of the ERA, as were many women's rights organizations. Other women's organizations wanted special provisions to allow work rules that would shield female office workers from heavy lifting, require nursing rooms, etc. Eleanor Roosevelt opposed the ERA on the grounds that women needed certain protections. The arguments tend to be sociological, not legal. Which, IMHO, is one reason (among many) why the legislation failed. The point: the ERA is not (was not) a Democrat vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative issue. I raise this point to show that both parties have positioned themselves on either side of the ERA legislation from time to time as deemed politically expedient. ***

The U.S. Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government. All other powers, including matters such as slavery and racial equality, were left to the states. The states are free to adopt mutually inconsistent laws (one of the few things they don't avoid doing), unless Congress has been given (and exercises) jurisdiction. What one state may see as a virtue, another may see as a vice - and that's OK... IMHO, that is precisely what was intended by the Framers, with the issue of 'slavery' being the best example. I've read that John Adams (for one) personally hated the institution of slavery, but in order to form the Union, he agreed not to forbid it at a federal level so that those states which favored allowing slavery could continue to do so. The Civil War Amendments gave explicit authority to Congress over the states in certain matters. Those Amendments did NOT abolish state sovereignty.

The Nineteenth Amendment gave women the vote. The old joke went, "The boys went overseas to war and came back to find that they couldn't drink and women could vote." However, the Nineteenth Amendment still did not specifically take aim at or directly change divorce and alimony laws in the various states. It should be noted that by granting women voting rights, such laws were subject to change, and such changes did occur - but not through 'judicial' mandate.

Whether or not gay marriage is a good idea, whether or not the legal effects of marriage are achieved by a Civil Union, whether or not states have a legitimate purpose in allowing or forbidding gay marriage should NOT be a part of a federal trial before a federal judge. As this case wanders through the court system, the arguments *ought* to be more focused on following the established constitutional limits of the judiciary to pass judgment on legislative matters. It is not for the courts to debate the wisdom of allowing or forbidding gay marriage. That is a legislative matter. Period.

OK - Here's my Key Point - Once you begin to hand over purely legislative matters to judges appointed for life, you have abandoned the principle that governments derive their just rights from the consent of the governed. (It's arguable this was done long ago, and the current environment is just another step down a familiar and dangerous road. But set that aside for now.) We abandoned that particular governmental principle when we threw out rule by monarchy.

OK.. OK... I can hear the counter-arguments starting... Would it be inappropriate if a federal judge overturned a law preventing blacks to marry? Or preventing blacks from marrying whites? Why is it an overstepping of bounds when a federal judge overturns a law that tries to prevent two adults of any sort from marrying? Given that - according to some, but without objective proof - a tendency towards homosexuality is a genetic condition, just as skin color is a genetic condition, it seems odd to allow discrimination against the one (no matter how many people vote for it or desire it) and not the other...

#1 - There is a HUGE difference between overturning a LAW versus overturning an AMENDMENT to a State Constitution. Adding Constitutional Amendments - state or federal - is not supposed to be easy for that very reason. And it isn't.

#2 - Social engineering forced upon an unwilling populous is dangerous and painful, no matter how well-intentioned, especially when it comes from an unaccountable judge on the bench.

BUT - More importantly - that entire argument ignores the fact that the Civil War Amendments *gave* Congress specific power over the states with regard to race. The 14th and 15th Amendments were intended to accomplish that result. But the Civil War Amendments were not self-enforcing.

Let me take a moment to be perfectly clear - I am *NOT* in favor of segregation, but that I am very much against the Courts assuming legislative duties and trying cases on so-called “sociological evidence”. I believe that the law ought to be color blind - Period. Preferential treatment under the law in ANY direction is wrong. I strongly believe in the Constitutional separation of powers, and that no matter how good the result that comes from judicial legislation, it is a very bad precedent, and ultimately destructive.

The federal courts DID overturn laws that forbade blacks to marry whites. But they only did so citing the U.S. Constitutional Amendment that specifically forbids the states from denying anyone the equal protection of the laws, and it was recognized the intent of the Amendment was to establish the rights of the freedmen. If one had put to that Congress, or to the state legislatures that had to accept the Amendment, that this established the right of blacks to marry white, the results are not entirely determinable. Congress never acted on the matter.

That said, I think there is no question regarding the opinions of large majorities of the citizenry on the subject of same-sex marriage. You cannot reasonably infer that any legislative body adopting the 13th and 14th Amendments *ever* contemplated that issue. Of course we can get around this conflict fairly easily - all that is required is an Act of Congress clearly defining "privileges and immunities". They have not done so.

Consider: among other things, the individual states control “Licensing” for various professions. Doctors, Insurance Agents, Cars Dealers, Plumbers, Hairstylists, etc. Each state sets its own licensing requirements. In a similar fashion, each state can require particular provisions (e.g., insurance mandates) for certain products sold in their state. There is no question that the 'equal protection under the law' is not an issue. Such power - regardless of how beneficial such standardization might be - does not explicitly rest with the federal government; it's handled by the states.

*** Sidebar: We all know there is a LOT of political discussions about creating a federal statute for mandated health care insurance coverage which would take this control away from state regulators. No one (seriously) suggests that the Constitutional clause for 'Equal Protection' is THE reason we should do it. Instead, the argument (correctly) is over whether or not we want the federal government to have that specific wide-ranging power. ***

Another point, and closer to the gay marriage issue - Each state has its own laws on the minimum AGE for a couple to become married. Old TV/movie stories frequently used a plot-line device where a young couple had to “cross the state line so they could get married”. No one questioned the constitutionality of this arrangement - everyone accepted that each state could set its requirements as they saw fit. Under the federal ruling in the California case, could a young couple (regardless of gender groups) argue that prohibiting their marriage (which each person wanted), was a violation under equal protection? What about polygamy? And this scenario is just concerning a mere state LAW, not overturning a legally implemented (state) Constitutional Amendment.

One more: I won't go into detail here for obvious reasons, but could you argue, under the Equal Protection clause, that states should not be allowed to force membership in an 'approved' union before obtaining a job? Some states have “Right to Work” laws (Georgia is one); others do not. Is it morally and ethically correct to restrict one's employment options - and thus restricting their personal survival - in this manner?

Simply put: It is not for the courts to determine legislative matters. The point of legislation is that it is the proper expression of the consent of the governed. It is not for the courts to make those determinations. I can argue for or against the idea that the average judge is smarter than the average Senator. We can point fingers at various instances where the courts are better (or less) able to legislate than the Congress and/or state legislatures. Perhaps the world would be better off if we were all ruled by the best and the brightest; but that is not the world we live in. Besides, just WHO gets to decide on WHO to put in charge and over WHOM?

THE founding principle of this country is that our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Judges should not and cannot attempt to manage our 'consent' for us. Those powers are given to legislatures. If laws are unjust, how can judges enforce them? That is a question of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has the authority to run its house as it chooses. But it does not have that same power over state courts. This, in my judgment, is the right way to deal with the issue. Leave it to the states and their legislatures. The same ought to have been done with abortion, and with school segregation and potentially assigned to other areas (social security and retirement). The CORRECT remedy to ending segregation was to clearly establish voting rights, which were very properly within the constitutional authority of Congress. When they *finally* got around to that, they did more to end Jim Crow than the court interventions ever did.

RIGHT NOW, Congress has authority over the states in matters of race. It attempted to gain such authority in matters of sex, but the ERA was not adopted by the states and is not part of the Constitution. Congress might assert such authority by defining "privileges and immunities" in an Act of Congress, but it has not done so. Until that time, I would say that the plea to allow or disallow gay marriage ought to be directed to the state legislature, or, in the case of California, directly to the people - who have already spoken on the matter. Right or wrong, the ball is, and belongs in, the people's 'court'.

In any case, such decisions should not be up to judges.

- Steve

Immigration Reform (After Securing the Border)

Ready to switch gears (again)?


Ok, Chris. You said we have a fence (we both know we don't). But, I'm going to start from the position that EVERYONE (especially the feds) is on-board with *really* making border security a top-priority-no-excuses issue. That means enforcing existing laws, building and patrolling the border (armed and ready to repel!) building and fixing fences, walls, digging a moat - whatever it takes. Now, out here in the Real World and away from political agendas, that is going to be a MUCH bigger deal than it appears, because a lot of emotions are involved. But regardless... “We've got a fence. What do we do now?”

OK, here's my first stab at it... Take a deep breath. In... Out... In... Out... Go to the Happy Place until you're ready... ;)


2. Take direct aim at the source motivations behind illegal immigration.

First, I'll admit it's not really the fault of worker. They're chasing hopes and dreams and a chance at a better life. I understand that. (For now, I'm going to skip over and dodge the political aspect of encouraging illegals as a vote-buying scheme, but it *is* a real problem.)

As much as it pains me to say it, the problem is with private business. They are explicitly taking advantage of the wink-wink-nod-nod 'enforcement' policies of the government for commercial advantage. Now, those policies are going to change, but that will take time. In the meantime: make it painful for a business to employ illegals. The job market will dry up, which means the game changes. So -

2a. Make it Real Easy for existing illegals to leave the county immediately without legal proceedings.

Be prepared to step up and follow the rules or hit the road. You don't have to stay. You don't have to go. But be ready... The times, they are a-changin'

2b. Announce tomorrow morning that we are going to actively and aggressively enforce the current law for all employers.

Start by tell the IRS the first thing they look for in an audit is for 'employees' that are not legal. That includes taking a hard and careful look at government funded organizations as well. I remember reading how our wonderfully two-faced government insisted that businesses involved in the Katrina recovery make sure they pay all of their illegal workers. Sheesh!

Let's make sure we know there are two groups potentially at fault here: private business *and* government. There are people in the business community knowingly hiring people who are not legally here, and you can tell because they do not pay taxes. That is a clear violation of the law. If you got somebody who is not collecting social security tax, and they are not collecting income tax, they *know* the person they hired is illegal. That business - specifically the owner - should get hammered. I'm talking significant fines, say $10K per person, combined with mandatory jail time, say: 3 months per person, 1 year minimum. The idea is to Make It Painful. BTW - if you employ illegals as part of meeting a government-funded contract obligation, fines and jail time are doubled. Cha-Ching!

HOLD ON! There are a bunch of businesses saying, “Look, they brought me paperwork. Here's my copies. Looks good me. It's not my job to validate it. I even collected the taxes and sent 'em in. Don't blame me.” Fair enough.

If the government cannot run an identity system accurate enough to detect, in real time, that a person is illegal, and you are withholding taxes and doing everything in good faith, the burden is on the government, not on the employer. But, if you know they are illegal and you are not following the law, the burden is on you. That is an easy dividing line for the short run, and that would, overnight, start to transform the entire issue. This leads directly to...

2c. The U.S. Government must immediately sponsor development of a tamper-proof Identification system for non-citizens allowed into the country.

Non-Citizens need ID cards to prove they are here by consent and within the law. At a minimum, we need a quick easy-to-use reference/validation system to confirm legality, via an ID card, is genuine. The technology is available, just do it.

BTW - Checking for an ID-card or otherwise asking for proof of one's citizenship status is a reasonable follow-up request in *any* investigation and especially for hiring, applications for admission to public institutions (e.g., colleges), etc. You don't have to “go looking” for illegals on every street corner, but if someone is stopped for a legitimate reason (or fills out an application), It's OK to ASK. Get Real - It is NOT that big an imposition. If I'm stopped for a traffic violation, I have to show my driver's license don't I? Yes, there should be provisions to prevent abuse of what constitutes 'reasonable', but those instances will be few and should be dealt with harshly. The possibility of misuse is not justification to avoid addressing the problem.

2d. Implement a functional temporary visa program (or a “Guest Worker Visa”, whatever). This really needs to be a separate issue, but I'm including it with #2 because it depends on the ID-card system.

I accept reality. We need a large number of temporary workers. Lots of good reasons. You need the number of people who are being hired, and who are going to be hired for economic expansion because, otherwise, you create a new black market in human trafficking. So how do you regulate and make legal the process of being allowed to work in the United States: how do you track it, and how do you start it?

When a business hires someone, how do they look people who graduate from American colleges and universities? You start with a bias that says we’d like to make absolutely sure, first of all, that if we are going to have X number of people who will get a work visa, it only makes sense that the smartest, best-educated people get the first shot. We don't do that today. Don't make it overly difficult or needlessly complex, but build a priority list, for heaven's sake! If you're just a whatever-I-can-find immigrant, at least give preference to someone who has an existing U.S. citizen as a sponsor. But fill those we-need-the-best-and-brightest slots first while allowing the doors to be open to anyone.

Further, a Worker Visa Program can only work, *IF* it is designed around Contract Law. The applicant must sign a contract to obey the law (all of them) and pay appropriate taxes. You have to supply a biometric for identification purposes: retinal, DNA, whatever. The country you come from has to turn over records every month on who their convicted felons are so we can verify you are not a convicted criminal. The Worker Visa has a limited term (minimum 2 years, maximum 10), and when it expires you LEAVE. Otherwise, get busy on becoming a citizen while you're here on that visa (more to come on this). But feel free to simply re-apply as a Guest Worker if you wish; just go home and get back in line...

And - under contract law - if you violate the terms of the agreement while you're here, back you go. No return for at least a year. Do it again, and you're out for 5 years. Third strike and you're out, permanently. I'm not talking about minor traffic violations, this is about serious and felony level crimes. C'mon, man: be real.

Here's the real kicker - I want to outsource the entire program to Visa, Mastercard, or American Express under a defined, annually renewable and funded contract. They already understand how to run a program like this and there is ZERO reason to believe the federal government could do it half as cheap or effectively. And we don't another bureaucracy anyway.

Within two or three years at most, you could have a system where when somebody showed up, if they did not have absolute proof of being an American citizen, they had an ID card. The card could be quickly and easily verified 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The burden is on the government to make sure the card was accurate, and its not that hard to design cards that are very hard to counterfeit, especially if you include retinal scans or other biometrics. And you'll get a correct answer in only a minute, probably seconds. Do it.

3. Effectively living and working in America requires knowledge of the English Language. We must insist on a consistent standard for communication which applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. That means making English the official language of government and insisting new immigrants or 'Guest Workers' know, understand and can use the English language.

No special privileges. Our signs are in English. Our LAWS are written in English. The vast majority of American citizens speak English as their primary language. I don't care how many languages you speak, but a functional knowledge of English is required. You cannot expect to become a fully-functional participant of this country WITHOUT understanding the language. Deal with it.

4. Path to Citizenship - We must insist on patriotic assimilation for new immigrants by requiring they have a basic (e.g., 1960's 8-grade level) understanding of American history and its founding principles.

Just wanting a paycheck is not good enough. The American people are very much in favor of having people come to America to become Americans.

I like what Theodore Roosevelt said in 1907, “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against such men because of creed or birthplace origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also is not an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is the loyalty of the American people.”

Short form: Get rid of the hyphens. Celebrate your ancestral heritage all you want, just do it privately. By immigrating to this country, you have chosen to *BECOME* an American: DO IT. Otherwise, you're just visiting. Have a nice day and travel safely on your way back home.

Whew - I'm trying to wrap up this post, but one nasty topic is left....

We are going to be serious about controlling the border. Serious about getting the Rules of the Game straightened out. Building a Worker Visa Program that is real. Developing a system with functional background checks. And - most important - we are totally committed to making the whole thing enforceable at federal, state, local and private levels from Day One.

Having done all that, you are finally in the position to address dealing with the folks already here illegally. My proposal is painful, but I see no way around it.

Go Home.

You go home and you get the new card at home. You *only* get the card when you go home; no way to get a card while you stay here. If necessary, we'll help you get there. (Which should count against you if you try to come back, though.)... SORRY. Consider it a fresh start. Everybody deserves a chance to start over and do it Right. So - We *insist* that you start your experience of Life in America by obeying the law. We are a country based on the Rule of Law. EVERYBODY has a duty to obey the law. Start by accepting this founding principle of what America stands for and what this means: NO EXCEPTIONS.

“Well, how can you ask them to do that?” Those who say it is too great a burden to require somebody (who is here illegally) to actually go home and start over typically say doing that is imposing an unfair fine on those who can't pay: the amount of money required to go home. Hogwash. If I steal a loaf of bread because I'm hungry and have no money, it doesn't excuse the fact that I *STOLE* to do it. An individual's current economic condition is No Excuse for Breaking the Law. Period.

Besides, in relative terms, it is actually very cheap to go home. Consider: We are talking about people who managed to enter the US illegally, so we *know* they are able to travel. We are not uprooting somebody who was born in Kansas City and never left town and is frightened of waking up in Guatemala. We are saying, “You can go home legally. We are going to give you an express line right through TSA. You need to get a cheap airplane or you can take a bus. There are lots of options: grab five of your friends headed in the same direction and pile in a car. Start walking. Please travel safely. See you when you get back.” Yeah, there are details and some difficult situations - but they are the exception, not the rule (and no reason to avoid the issue).

Here's the key point - People should not expect that it is acceptable to participate in the benefits of life in the United States by breaking the law. Establishing some kind of phony con game to reward (and that's what it is) those who have obviously broken the law is flat-out WRONG. This country is based on the Rule of Law and its core principle is that the Law applies to EVERYONE. Deal with it.

Now, I’m not suggesting we run around looking for reasons to expel anyone. I don't think that is a sustainable policy. In some respects it's anti-human, and I see little to be accomplished by getting into fights where you say, “We are going to pick up somebody in the middle of mowing a yard or loading a truck and try to deport them.” But I also don't see how blindly condoning willful law-breaking, regardless of the emotional reason or sob-story behind it, can ultimately lead to a lawful outcome. It strikes me as in the long run as unwise and inappropriate.

Remember: My key point is this: Dealing with those who are already here illegally is NOT issue #1. We're dealing with human beings, not locusts. We *must* fix the environment (e.g., the fence, economic incentives to break the law) and fix the process (e.g., id cards, guest worker visa, path to citizenship) *BEFORE* tackling what to do about the swarm that made it in the door which shouldn't have been open in the first place. I believe if you have a simple & effective program which provides an effective mechanism to enable those who desire to come, work and live in this country to do so honestly - and operating within the law - you are not going to have those kinds of problems in large numbers.


There. It's a start. Is it complete? No. Are there a lot of details remaining? Sure. At least I got started... I just want to try and reach an agreement on building the foundation for the house, and making sure its solid, before we worry about interior paint colors.


- Steve

Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire

An *incredibly* good article on economics - with a focus on the impact (short-term and long-term) of government decree - can be found here.

It opens with an interesting observation:

"...the wonder was not that the Roman Empire had fallen, but rather that it had lasted so long...."

For the purposes of this blog, application of the article to modern times is left as an exercise for the student. No doubt, different people will see different lessons to be learned, but I think the key point is in the last paragraph:

"...In other words, the Roman state was the enemy; the barbarians were the liberators..."

A most fascinating read. Enjoy.

- Steve

Killing the Golden Goose

I *know* you've been waiting for my pithy response to the situation, so here goes... A few quick notes based on your post...

* * * * *

"This is the death knell of the American Dream!"
- Arguable. Depends on which side of the fence you're on and whether you think America is great because of it's people (when left alone) or its government (when in control).

People are going to lose a lot of sleep over this.
- Correct. On both sides. From the Right: “I can't afford this - what do we do now?” And from the Left: “How do we keep the productive people funneling all their money and efforts into our new vote-buying Ponzi scheme?”

the real loser here is the Republican Party itself.
- Probably. But they have time (a little) to turn this into a dynamic process and return to power. We'll see. (I doubt they have the cojones to do what it will take.)

the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
- That seems like a slight misrepresentation, based on my typically flawed memory. However, the process of “building on ideas” which change the focus of the idea itself (e.g., from a focus on self-reliance to government-reliance) is the creation of a HUGE gap.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views?
- Why? At what point do principles become “not for sale at any price?”

...voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?"
- Hardly. They have, however, been persuaded (and correctly) about WHO intends to be making the ultimate decision on the care that grandma gets.

..Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination...
- This whole diatribe assumes that talk radio hosts *only* have a desire to generate ratings for their own personal gain and do not have legitimate political principles behind their statements. Hogwash. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't have a valid political point, even if my career will, as a side point, be impacted positively. Is this any different from claiming (as PROOF) that Al Gore *doesn't* really care about (or believe in) global warming because his business holdings will expressly and directly benefit from the AGW proposals?

...it will come as no shock to you that I am happy we managed to pass this bill. I consider it to be a step in the right direction.
- Just as it will not be a shock to you that I disagree on the direction being taken. Atleast you and I are willing to TALK, even if all we do is agree-to-disagree.

...how much better I believe this bill could have been with Republican input.
Better? For WHO? For those who believe government has a better grasp of what is in *my* best interests than I do?

private enterprise is the engine which harnesses that energy
- And demonizing those who work to provide the fuel driving the economic engine is a morally correct approach?

standing up for their principles and working out compromises which included at least some of the important and necessary market based solutions which health care reform desperately requires.
- Agreed up to the point that there MUST be a line which cannot be crossed. However, in my opinion, there was no true desire or consideration of market-based solutions being offered or that would be accepted by the party in power.

...the real problem at the heart of the health care crisis in this country is supply and demand.
- Agreed. And the demand for a 'free' product or service is infinite. Apparently, that simple economic fact is beyond the authors of the bill.

This bill is going to address some important issues. It has the potential to give government the tools it needs to correct many of the excesses and inflated costs which government itself has been largely responsible for.
- And it has been prevented from making those corrections... how? This bill also has the potential to give government the power to make things MUCH WORSE. All the more reason to more in small, carefully targeted, incremental steps as opposed to the drastic restructing of 18% of the economy. Liberals seem to believe that (effectively) nationalizing health care - which has never functionally worked anywhere else in the world on this scale - will “work” THIS TIME simply because THEY are going to be the ones doing it this time.

Should we not at least expect our representatives to possess the power to read?
- Many on both sides, and IMHO most of the party in power, never read it. We also expect them to LISTEN, and they're not too good at that either.

I repeat: "What then?".
- It depends on which branch of the Republicans find themselves in power. If
it is the 'Country Club Big Government' bunch that has been running things for the last decade or so, then I agree that they will likely screw things up, too. On the other hand if a truly traditional conservative (e.g., self-reliance focus) power base, then we'll have to see, won't we?

They have not only dismissed the public option (understandable), but also trashed the idea of insurance exchanges (preposterous).
- As stated many times before: I have no objection to government agencies providing optional (*not* mandatory) services ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. But when government programs don't have to make a profit and can dip into the public trough as needed without limit, the field ain't level.

if there isn't anything in the bill worth saving, how exactly do Republicans plan to go about fixing a broken system?
- You start over. Everything - including Social security and medicare and all other entitlements - *must* be on the table. No exceptions. When the hole is getting too deep, you have to stop digging first. That's the difficult (but correct) place to start.

they have gone along with the right wing entertainment media's demonization of Democrats.
- Just as the MSM tame dogs are demonizing Republicans. Both sides are wrong by shifting attention away from the ISSUES to one of personal attacks and personal destruction.

do you actually believe liberals running for office in this country all secretly want to euthanize old people?
- Please. No, not expressly. But I do believe there is a substantial number of liberals who believe THEY (and government as a rule) are better able and better qualified to make decisions directly affecting MY life than I am. And, IMHO, they're the same bunch that are more than willing to say “sacrifices must be made” when grandma's treatment is not considered 'cost effective' to the bottom line (assuming she's still alive after the paperwork winds its way through the system).

We need honest, rational conservatives in government and we just aren't getting them.
- I agree 100%. We need some honest, rational liberals, too. In effect, we need fewer politicians and more statesmen. 'Nuff said!

* * * * *

It is no surprise to you, that I believe this bill is a Huge mistake (or 'wishful thinking' at best). Further, while I desperately HOPE the voting public will toss the Big Government politicians (in *both* parties) out on their ear in November, I fear that will not happen. If the appropriate corective steps (in my learned opinion) are not taken by the voters this fall - I and many others will stop arguing, stop protesting, step back, stop growing the economy, and seek to do as little as possible economically - with the explicit goal of providing for me and mine and nothing more. As succinctly described elsewhere, I will be “Going Galt”. If you prefer to call it 'giving up', so be it. In essence, all those folks clamoring to put THEIR hands into MY wallet for THEIR benefit at MY expense, can go pluck the gifts of freedom and liberty off the tree where they think it grows. And please take note that wishing will not make it so. Bread and Circuses.

Short form: I cannot actively support a government (or a society) that demands the human sacrifice of SOME of its (most able?) members to achieve some arbitrary, and unlimited benefit for OTHER (most demanding?) members. I will not willingly braid the rope that will be used to hang me.

- Steve

The IPCC versus Science

(Sorry, I couldn't wait...)

Direct from the IPCC web-site:

“The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.”

No, it's *not* a “scientific body”: it is a political organization. IMHO, it has a clearly established agenda, and makes proclamations and issues reports in line with that agenda. The IPCC has set itself up to be THE authority and research information storehouse for Climate Change. But, while providing a central clearinghouse for collecting research data is good thing, Science does not want or need an “Authority” - it needs open, honest and comprehensive evaluations of the data and research into all issues. This evaluation should lead wherever the FACTS take them. Science does not (and should not) have any interest in the result of the evaluation other than accurately and honestly testing a theory.

The IPCC, as a political organization with an agenda of its choosing, clearly DOES have an interest in 'proving' a certain set of results... and it acts accordingly. But that's not SCIENCE.

Now, the UN and the IPCC and all other similar organizations are more than welcome to exist as political entities. But at least have the honesty to present themselves for what they are. Whether you, I, or anyone agree or disagree with their policies, ideology or agenda are irrelevant to the pursuit Good Science.

Caveat: To be completely honest, I was relatively unaware of the existence of the IPCC until they started making claims and issuing reports that were being taken so seriously. I believe most people share that position. But when a group start setting itself up as the ultimate, world-wide authority on something and proposes it will effectively be dictator for how *I* will be living my life, it gets my immediate attention and intense scrutiny. Proceed with caution.

Back to the IPCC...

“Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.”

Boy, that sure sounds good in print, but the actions of the IPCC (and the UN in general) yields a decidedly different result. The IPCC has an agenda. It is NOT “neutral”. IMHO, there has not been a remotely neutral aspect to any organization within the U.N. for decades. It's all about 'policy': the policies IT wants and desires for its own purposes.

“The IPCC has also a Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The main objective of the Task Force is to develop and refine a methodology for the calculation and reporting of national GHG emissions and removals. In addition to the Working Groups and Task Force, further Task Groups and Steering Groups may be established for a limited or longer duration to consider a specific topic or question. “

This very clearly sets out the agenda of the IPCC. By using its own 'calculations' of national emissions, the IPCC presents itself as the final arbiter of energy production and consumption on a national basis. The IPCC intends to interject itself into the economic activities of 'selected' countries. in short: it wants to be economic dictator of the entire planet. (Am I taking this to an extreme? Really? Think about it...)

If addressing the problem of climate change was a problem for *everyone*, then everyone would have to be part of the solution; and there would be no need for a 'Task Force' to monitor the actions of selected 'nationals' (other than for enforcement of policies they already agreed to - which is a different issue entirely).

“Comprehensiveness, objectivity, openness and transparency: these are the principles governing the IPCC work. All major decisions about the organization and its work are taken by the Panel of its member countries during the Plenary sessions. The Panel has established clear procedures for all main activities of the organization.“

The recently revealed actions of the CRU, individuals, and other groups have clearly demonstrated the sources relied upon by the IPCC and others are NOT 'comprehensive' (if you don't agree with 'the consensus', you cannot be heard), are not 'objective' (ditto), are not open (again), and by no reasonable standard considered 'transparent' (hah!). Also note that decisions are made by “the Panel of its member countries”, i.e., politicians.

“Review is an essential part of the IPCC process to ensure objective and complete assessment of the current information. In the course of the multi-stage review process, both expert reviewers and governments are invited to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/technical/socio economic content and the overall balance of the drafts. The circulation process among peer and government experts is very wide, with hundreds of scientists looking into the drafts to check the soundness of the scientific information contained in them. The Review Editors of the report (normally two per chapter) make sure that all comments are well taken into account...All IPCC reports must be endorsed by the Panel during a Working Group or a Plenary session. There are three levels of endorsement:

“approval” means that the material has been subjected to line by line discussion and agreement. It is the procedure used for the Summary for Policymakers of the Reports.

“adoption” is a process of endorsement section by section. It is used for the Synthesis Report and overview chapters of Methodology Reports.

“acceptance” signifies that the material has not been subject to line by line nor section by section discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the subject matter.”

Read it again... This is simple, agenda-driven nose counting at its finest level. Notice that the IPCC review process, by its own definition, requires acceptance not only by the scientists, but by government reviewers and agencies. Again, this alone is proof that we are not dealing with Pure Science, but with a political organization, hence, it is ideologically-driven. I could make a comment here about the claim that “all comments are taken into account” is a load of ^%$@, but that would be repeating myself.

“This Special Report will consider three types of extreme events: the ones for which climate change has or will amplify occurrence - as floods and droughts; the ones in which trends outside the domain of climate will increase exposure or vulnerability to climate-related extremes - for instance coastal development increasing exposure to storm surges; and new kinds of potentially hazardous events and conditions that may occur as a result of climate change - such as glacial lakes outburst. The report will include 9 chapters. Three of them will focus on managing the risk at different levels in the society: community based responses; national scale and international responses...”

This 'report' is requires that it is possible to ACCURATELY predict such events. Further, it relies on the ASSUMPTION that specific actions by mankind (a) are ultimately responsible for these events, and (b) can manipulate (mitigate) the results. Hogwash. (Unproven.)

The key aspect of the agenda is contained in the last sentence above: “managing the risk at different levels in the society”. THIS is the definition of the ultimate agenda being pursued: political control on the lives and actions of people. It's not about research, it's not about finding problems or looking for solutions: it's about POWER. Power to be wielded in support of a specific political ideology and the pursuit of THOSE goals at any and all costs.

The Climate Change QUESTION is simple:

Do the actions of man significantly add CO2 to the atmosphere, and, if so, how much of an impact (e.g., temperature increase) will occur directly related to those actions?

I've highlighted the key words to prevent confusion. Note that it's not a question of whether or not man 'affects' climate - sure we do. So do all living things like animals, bacteria, plants, and even non-living things like volcanoes and clouds, Instead: Is the effect of mankind's actions (or inaction) materially significant? How big is our impact when compared against other sources on a global scale? And just what is the optimal temperature range for mankind? And can we do anything about it?

Remember:

#1 - Proof of climate change (warming) IS NOT PROOF that man-made CO2 emissions are the cause.

#2 - Being skeptical is Perfectly Acceptable. If you believe, fine. But be prepared to provide supporting evidence. A 'consensus' of opinion IS NOT evidence. And a computer model, no matter how carefully designed and cleverly written IS NOT evidence. (BTW, if your model cannot accurately predict temperatures over a ten-year period, why should I trust its 100-year forecast?)

#3 - We don't need one single All-Star Team of scientists working on this. As nice as that would be, I would much rather see a LOT of teams, each working on their own particular aspects and specialties. The more widespread the research, the less likely the review process will get bogged down in personal agendas and the pursuit of desired results instead of the pursuit of fact.

I'm gonna be blunt... If man-made CO2 is not proven by the evidence to be a significant cause of planetary warming beyond optimal conditions, then carbon controls, cap-and-trade, emissions trading, Kyoto, Copenhagen, et. al., are a waste of time and resources better spent on Things That Matter (like finding cures for cancer and other diseases, providing clean water, feeding people...)

With all that in mind -

- Don't refer me to an Authority. Argument by authority (or demands to 'yield to the consensus') only proves that a committee with the intention to find a particular result will do so. Go back and look up the “phlogiston theory”; read about the peer-review and discussions among scientists during that time. SCIENCE is not democratic - natural laws and facts are not subject to a vote. Counting noses proves nothing.

- Don't change the subject. “We need more research into renewables”. I Agree 100%... but let's do things for the right reasons. Doing it because 'it feels good' is government by wishful thinking. If an opportunity for profit exists, the forces of capitalism will find it and work to extract that profit as proven time and again (enlightened self-interest is a powerful force). “We need to take precautions.” Perhaps. But consider that every action has a cost. How much should we spend on a problem that may not exist? And how will we know what we do is working?

- Don't resort to name calling. I'm not a climate scientist and neither is Al Gore: what does that have to do with anything? I could be a Nazi, an oil sheik, a fascist, anarchist, or conservative: none of those things change satellite temperature records or ice core data.

- Don't even mention someone 'being on the payroll of Big Oil'. Exxon-Mobil spent about 23 million on climate research between 1989-2007. The US Government alone spent over $30 BILLION during the same period. If you're gonna follow the money, follow ALL of it. You get what you pay for, and government interests are political, not scientific: period.

- Don't mix cause and effect. Rising sea levels, ice melts, disappearing forests are effects, not causes. Their existence, even if proven, does not tell us what caused them.

- Don't confuse Lab Results with Reality. The warming effects of CO2 have been known for a long time. It's also been known that CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths of light and there is a 'saturation point', where adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not materially increase temperatures. A theory may be fine, but you must compare the observable Real World results and use THEM, not what the lab or the theory predicts.

- Don't appeal to emotion. Polar bears are wonderful creations and brainwashing children to believe they are endangered so the kids will whine and cry about it to parents doesn't prove your case. Being fearful of hurricanes is reasonable; but don't claim 'more storms are coming' when the evidence shows otherwise (another 'model' that doesn't work.) Address your theory and the supporting facts to my brain, not to my heart.

- Don't insist on 'peer-review' as a requirement. (see Authority discussion, above) Be careful what you wish for... some papers contradict each other, so they cannot ALL be right. Many peer-reviewed papers still turn out to be false upon further review. Besides, such a system is only as good as the impartiality of the reviewer (need I bring up the CRU scandal again?). Peer-review *is* useful, but does not constitute Proof. A theory stands or fails on the evidence. In fact, peer-review *must* proceed from the starting point that the theory in question is FALSE or the review is worthless. Ask Fleischmann-Pons about their “Cold Fusion” experiments and peer-review. If you cannot duplicate the results, they aren't real, and it doesn't matter if you (personally) agree with the proposed conclusion or not. Keep working and refining your theory until you can duplicate it. Until then, basing government policy on an unproven theory is potentially destructive in the extreme. And you're just guessing anyway.

- Don't demand presentation of an alternative theory first. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. It only takes ONE FACT to disprove a theory, no matter how nicely the theory is wrapped. “We don't have a better explanation” is an argument by ignorance; it's not proof.


In conclusion (yay!): Good Political Policies require Good Science.
Especially if the risk for being wrong - on either side - is as great as it is claimed.


- Steve

Loaves and Fishes

(Yet-another rant in a familiar direction... Sorry: I needed to get it out of my system.)


Ideology doesn't matter if you tell the TRUTH. But if you try to live by blindly following your ideology – e.g., you're a politician – that LAST thing you want to do is tell the truth. Why? Because it's unpleasant. (And that will cost you votes.) Truth isn't “hidden”, it just requires a certain level of intelligence and honesty to find it. Once discovered, however, one should be aware that uttering these “obvious” truths will be placing cross-hairs on a number of scared cows. For example:

= A purely diplomatic solution that doesn't involve military action - or at least the threat of such action - to Middle-East issues is not possible.

= A purely military-imposed solution to Middle-East issues is not possible, either.

= Providing 'unlimited' health care specifically for seniors means that young people will pay more. BTW, it's so expensive to treat older people at the end of their life, sooner or later someone will propose (implement) a policy based on the concept that it's cheaper for everyone to “just let them die”.

= Allowing more people into the health care system will make everyone pay more and is highly likely to lead to reduced care for the same dollar.

= A society that can impose the total financial burden for the society (via taxes) on less than ½ of the members of that society – i.e., where more people are receiving from the system than paying into it – will eventually collapse. This is unavoidable whenever “who votes” is deemed more important than “who pays”. In other words, if you ignore the Golden Rule (“he who has the gold, makes the rules”), those with the gold will take their money and leave for greener pastures.

= Addressing the issue of Global Warming – whether it is man-made or not – at this time is simply not possible without creating a hugely expensive, tax-driven bureaucracy that is highly unlikely to produce any verifiable results in the foreseeable future.

= If we rely on government to control health care costs, there will be “less innovation” in medical technology and you should not expect to live much longer than your parents.

= We're going to have to find a way to pay teachers more for quality public education (which will cost everyone more), and we have to be willing to fire the incompetent ones as part of that process (regardless of what the unions desire).

= Anyone who still relies on an unskilled, repetitive job is going to lose it in the near future (to outsourcing and/or automation). No one can or should do anything about trying to postpone the inevitable either. Encouraging (forcing?) people to be 're-trained' when they have already avoided taking advantage of doing that on their own, is ultimately a futile exercise.

= Increases in the minimum wage doesn't create jobs, to eliminates them, especially at the job tasks most closely associated with those wages. Period.

= Regulatory demands to increase the minimum wage has much less to do with making a guarantee of 'a living wage' than it does with using the power of government regulation to create a salary increase for employment contracts (e.g., union contracts) which base their rate of pay on the prevailing minimum wage.

= Allowing the government to mandate a “minimum wage” will one day lead to a government mandate a “maximum wage”.

= Unless it is completely discarded in favor of a different and re-vamped system, the existing Medicare program is (a) going to bankrupt the country, (b) impoverish the earning power of our younger workers , and (c) eventually reach a point where no one will receive benefits equal to what they paid into the system.

= The best way to increase the 'Human Condition' is to provide new and ever-increasing access to cheap energy. It doesn't matter if it's “green” energy or not - it just has to be cheap and plentiful and effectively provided from whatever source is available. And do it. That means using nuclear power-generating plants instead of geo-thermal, solar, wind, water and other “planet-friendly” options which are hideously expensive with minimal advantages over what we know how to do with nuclear. And until the U.S gets nuclear plant development going and online, we need to use petroleum and coal to our best advantage. Ignore any impact on the so-called 'carbon footprint': we're talking about people's lives.

= The best way to address world hunger (and thereby world poverty), is to eliminate all farm subsides and import/export tariffs on a global scale.


See what I mean? … There's a ideological word that sums up that laundry list of points: “heresy”. A politician that publicly utters these truths would be both unelectable and politically dead forever.

What does this mean? Simple: “You really can’t have something for nothing.” Or as our friend Bernardo says, TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. And politicians, always focused on gathering votes, never want to speak of the obvious; they will always try to have it both ways. Even when politicians choose one ideological path over another, they will always take clear steps to at least suggest they are simultaneously proceeding down two divergent, non-intersecting paths.

The reason politicians continue to survive is that human creativity (usually) rides to their rescue. New knowledge, new resources and new worlds have turned many bumbling hacks into legitimate statesmen. But they are the beneficiaries, not the creators of productivity. It is irrational to expect genuine creativity in a world dominated by politicians.

This is because politicians believe only in “zero-sum” situations. By that, I mean that the size of the pie is not static. Politicians see the world as saying: “If I want more, then you must have less.” They only see things as “win-lose”, and (naturally) they want to be on the winning side (by making sure their supporters are on the winning side). The possibility of a “win-win” - or “lose-lose”, for that matter – never enters into their thought processes.

This is why the effects of taxation is so often misunderstood. If you charge more taxes, people will take actions to the reduce their tax burden. If you charge less in taxes, they take advantage of those conditions to expand their horizons while conditions are favorable. This is because non-politicians understand that Things Change (and one must get while the getting is good).

Returning to dealing with Observable Truths and what to do with them...

It can be very simple. Difficult questions come down to choices. lower costs vs. death counselors; torture vs. intelligence; equity vs. growth; creativity vs certainty, bureaucracy vs innovation; risk vs reward, life vs. death. One can disagree with the choices made, but avoiding making the choices is not possible.

We can live only if we are willing to take the risk. And that Truth is the most uncomfortable and difficult to accept and is the most “unmentionable” Truth of all.

This country was founded on the princple that one's personal success or failure should be due to the efforts one was willing to apply. No safety-net, no bailouts, no 'too-big-to-fail - just actions and consequences. In other words, exactly what Risk are YOU willing to take for the Reward that YOU value most? Today, we are busy trading our Liberties and Freedoms for 'security' and 'safety'. Rubbish.

It's time to get back to the basics.

- Steve

Still running from my imagination

Still running from my imagination...

1. My only purpose in limiting the scope of our budget discussion, is that the monster has grown so huge, we can spend the rest of our lives picking it apart piece-by-piece. I'm willing to concede that there are issues with the Military budget. Specifically, it has too many things we don't need or over-pay for the value received or are not relevant to defense or don't simply belong. My only concern is that we don't hack-and-slash the military side of the budget blindly, without considering the ramifications of expenditures which are legitimately needed for national defense. Again, I point out that national defense is by definition a function of federal government, and is constitutional mandated. Many (most?) aspects of domestic (e.g. entitlement) spending are NOT. I'd like you to concede the domestic budget has similar problems - i.e., things we don't need (not consititutionally required) or over-pay for the value received (whee!) or are not relevant to proper government ("pork") or don't belong in the federal budget (too many to list). If so - we can jointly agree - THE BUDGET IS BROKEN and move on. (And leave this for another discussion later).

2. I think you may have misinterpreted my post on TYRANNY. Number one - I wasn't talking about LAWS. I was talking about the forced implementation of social policy objectives - which you implied was a proper function of government with "enforced generosity"). If I implied that LAW was subject to equal treatment (civil disobedience?), I erred in my presentation. I *do* think we have moved FAR away from where government should be with respect to personal conduct. Government should apply the LAW as a means of protection of Individual Rights, not as a means of imposing social policy goals. Kaczynski BROKE THE LAW - and, interfered with the rights of other individuals: his motivations for doing so are irrelevant. In a similar way, using the force of government to "enforce" specific social policy ideals upon others - who may legitimately disagree with the policy (which are not, nor be considered to be, The LAW) - is WRONG.

3. I remind you of a quote attributed to our friend Bernardo de la Paz... "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free, because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything that I do."


4. "...you are an individualist and I am a collectivist? Is this a comment on what each of us think government should do, or what government should be? The distinction is important. Without doubt, I have a more liberal view than you of what government should do. So far I have proceeded on the assumption that this is the entire basis upon which we differ. But - do we have a more fundamental difference?"
I think the "fundamental differences" in our viewpoints drive how we view government for what it is and for what it should be. So the answer is YES. Thus, we justify the continued existence of this blog. :)

5. "...As for myself, except for (an admittedly arbitrary) requirement of age, I think every citizen should be allowed to vote and that our system of government is just fine as it is." Not surprisingly, I think the age limit is unnecessary. In simple terms, I would prefer that the "right to vote" be limited to people who pay the bill (e.g., taxes). I see no reason why someone on the dole should have a voice in deciding WHO will run things (i.e., write the check), while - for example - an employed teenager, generating tax revenue to support government, should not. The "Golden Rule", if you will: "he who has the Gold, makes the Rules." Of course there are obvious implications to this approach, and it certainly needs to be fleshed out beyond this simple statement - but you get the idea. (another thread?)

That said, I believe our Founding Fathers did a spectacularly Good Job. I think our system of government is fine - at least, as originally defined and designed; but not necessarily what it has become. Clearly, the government we have today has severe and significant problems with the feedback mechanisms. But it *can* be fixed. We just need the will and courage to make some tough choices by defining the proper scope of government (what is can, cannot, should and should not *DO*), get it established with proper and functional checks-and-balances in place, and - most importantly - leave everything else alone.

What is TYRANNY?

I’m going to try and stay on ONE POINT and use multiple posts when needed – that doesn’t mean they’ll be shorter, however…

By my definition – “TYRANNY” occurs when a ruler (whether a single person or committee) places *their* interests above those of the individual or society at large. By that definition, if a government decides what *I* should believe or where in its judgment *I* should place *my* priorities, without consideration of or in direct opposition to *my* views on the subject and thereby uses the force and power of government to accomplish that goal – that government is being tyrannical.

You said… And if society, by the agency of government, accepts the responsibility of caring for the least fit of its constituents, well then so what? If government, by law, forces a man to participate in that responsibility, I would rather consider it an enforcement of generosity rather than of tyranny.

Chris, I *sincerely* hope you are not serious. I’m guessing you’re just pulling my leg or trying to push my buttons. And you did a Good Job, because… I don’t think you could have chosen a better way to clearly define what I consider to be the most despicable and insidious form of TYRANNY in the modern world. It is *not* society’s responsibility to “care for others”. That action must be taken at a personal level. Individuals have responsibilities; groups (e.g., “society”) do not and CANNOT.

Let’s play the Definition Game for a bit… “Charity” - which is the concept you are promoting – cannot and should NEVER be “imposed” upon the unwilling. Why? If participation in such an action must be FORCED, it’s not “charity”. By definition, charity is a VOLUNTARY action. As such, while desirable, Charity is not a Responsibility – it is a CHOICE. “Responsibility” is an aspect of “Duty” and “Obligation”, which are also Freely Chosen. And, above all, “Choice” is an action taken at an Individual level. Even if the decision is promoted by a group (“we think this should happen”), the Individual *chooses* to follow that Recommendation - voluntarily. And will reap or suffer the consequences accordingly.

This key point is where I have serious philosophical issues with the Left. And, to be sure, I have the same problem with some who stand on the Right, too. It’s not a Left-vs-Right or Democrat-vs-Republican thing… It’s much more Basic.

I *do not* believe that voluntary participation in a group releases (or transfers) *MY* Responsibility and Accountability. I may choose to “work with others” with the object of accomplishing greater things and expanding the scope of my efforts. But, ultimately, the Responsibility remains MINE… Let’s take the next step: people may choose NOT to acknowledge a Responsibility and attempt to re-assign or abdicate their Accountability. This is just as Wrong as trying to impose your will upon another.

Now - There *are* responsibilities one acquires by participating in a group (i.e., being a member of the group has Rules). In that case, and in that case only, the group *may* be justified in questioning one’s continued participation. There is (or should be) the option of expulsion from the group as an alternative. Simply, if you are going to receive the BENEFIT of being part of the group, you must be appropriately ACCOUNTABLE. The decision to submit, leave or be kicked out *must* remain with the INDIVIDUAL – it is *not* up to the group to “decide” what action to take beyond expulsion. (You can also ask the Rules be changed, but let’s keep it simple.)

Chris – you cannot ENFORCE a sense of GENEROSITY… You either have it or you don’t… Using *Force* to impose the will and judgment of one over the wishes of another is TYRANNY.

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck; odds are - it’s a duck… What you described as being an acceptable aspect and function of government is TYRANNY, plain and simple… Call it a “Bed of Roses” if that will let you sleep at night, but that doesn’t change what it *IS*.

C’mon, pal - you *know* where I am headed… It goes back to that glorious Jeffersonian prose:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

These Rights are granted by God – not by “groups” or “governments” or “courts” – they are inherent with existence. And - These rights are granted to individuals, and not because they belong to some favored group, or passed a litmus test, or rubbed blue mud in their navels while chanting “Ommm”… And no, some are *not* more equal than others – it says *ALL* MEN…

“…to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government,…”

The government works FOR the people, government is a Servant, NOT a “Master”. There are *WAY* too many people who use the power of government to enforce THEIR opinions and THEIR motivations onto others. It is reasonable and just for The People to rise up in revolt when this happens…

“…laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

There is NO GUARANTEE such Safety and Happiness will be achieved. Note that what constitutes being “safe” and “happy” are, BY DEFINITION, based on one’s Individual judgment. *YOU* cannot *force* me to accept what YOU define as “what makes ME ‘safe’ or ‘happy’”. But we’ll try our best – “as to them shall seem”, e.g., in OUR judgment, by voluntary agreement.

“…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed...”

You don’t change things frivolously or because “it doesn’t seem right (to me)”. And you *certainly* don’t change things, just because YOU are the one in charge at this moment. Nor do you use your (temporary) wielding of power to impose YOUR judgment and YOUR wishes onto others…

I could go on and on… But let’s get back to the point:

It is clear that I promote Individualism while you (apparently) promote Collectivism. These are diametrically opposed philosophies. I doubt we will change the other’s mind; I still have the hope you will one day reject the Dark Side. ;-) The key difference between us is that YOU have chosen to subordinate your own judgment to whatever is deemed to be “in the best interests of the ‘collective’”. There are many that agree with you; like Rousseau. Bully for you: I hope you are happy with your choice. Have fun…

But, I respectfully disagree. THAT is not a choice I am willing to make. However, I will defend your right to make that choice for yourself. It goes without saying that you are welcome to attempt to convince me to go along where we share a common ground or have the same objective - just as I will ask you to follow my lead on occasion… If we agree, wonderful – if not, maybe next time… And it ends right there.

In this respect, I agree with many aspects (but *not* all) of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism – which regards man - every man - as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. (And in spite of his occasional ‘irrational’ actions.)

A truly civilized society - or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men - can be achieved *only* on the basis of the recognition of Individual Rights. A “group” has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

When it comes to governance, I hold that the State *must* - as it’s *first* priority - take clear and distinct actions to protect the freedoms and liberty of Individuals to act as they wish as long they do not infringe on the freedoms and liberties of others. Despite their posturing to be “fighting for the Little Guy” or “representing the oppressed”, what Collectivism really wants is True Democracy – where the ‘group’ leadership decides who gets thrown to the wolves, and the ‘winner’ goes along joyfully. Obviously, this is Great for the leadership; not so good for everyone else… This is dishonest governance at best.

The downfall with Collectivism – which Rand points out ad nauseam - happens when it becomes apparent that “the collective goal” requires *MY* participation in order for “things to work”. When I refuse, Collectivism mandates the use of FORCE to IMPOSE the will of the collective. (Otherwise, if it were to fail – it could not be due to flawed logic or poor implementation or that the thesis flatly ignored common sense - it can only fail because *I* sabotaged it by failing to participate.) It is a very short step to Totalitarianism, which I think is Very WRONG – and one of the few things worse than simple, misguided Collectivism.

In my view, only an Individual can possess rights; so the expression "individual rights" is redundant. The expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms. Individual Rights are not (and should never be) subject to a public vote. A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority (although that truism rarely stops some from trying).

In essence, the political function of RIGHTS is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities: and the smallest minority is the individual. That is not to say that we will not err, or make no mistakes… “I’m messed up, You’re messed up, we’re all messed up” … but those mistakes – or successes – to cherish or learn from, will be OURS and ours alone.

If you believe there is an inherent goodness in mankind – a positive value represented by each and every one of us - then you can believe nothing less than the ultimate rights, responsibility and accountability which reside with the INDIVIDUAL.

Let me close by repeating the simple fact because that we are able to maintain a sense of honesty and a humble recognition of our differences, we are allowed to rationally and critically evaluate each other’s desires and motivations with respect and honor. It is to our joint credit. Thank you.

- Steve