Because liberals deserve no mercy

Check out the latest.

Credit goes to my friend Billy Beck for the original wording: people are too cowardly to go to your door and steal your property themselves. They'd rather vote "peacefully" (when it's not peacefully at all) to rob you, under the guise of a "government."

I normally don't beat up on little girls, but liberals deserve no mercy

Check it out. Like most liberals, she ignores that I refute her every claim, debunk her junk science, justifiably dismiss her bad statistics, and expose her sources' liberal agendas.

But it's fun, and good intellectual exercise.

A tale of two thieves

In his unmitigatedly warped notion of "benevolence," George W. Bush signed legislation "to boost availability of student loans." It sounds great, but after you read how it's being done, it's a great deal for students, a great deal for Bush and bureaucrats who will brag about how much they're "helping" people, and a raw deal for the rest of us who pay taxes.

"The measure is intended to inject liquidity into the student loan market by allowing the U.S. Department of Education to buy federally guaranteed student loans that lenders haven't been able to sell to investors." Investors don't want to buy the loans because they're crap investments, relative to what else is available. It tells us something about this "non-crisis economic crisis" (the one the mainstream media wishes the U.S. were in) that, even though these student loans have the guarantee of repayment by the federal government should any borrowing students later default, most investors would still prefer investing in normal markets like stock exchanges!

But this still won't stop Bush and Congress from using our money to buy the loans, touting more of this "injecting liquidity" bullshit that we've heard too much about from the Federal Reserve. The federal government will buy these loans, using money coerced from the rest of us via taxation. If the students default, the federal government will then assume the payments to the loans' owner -- itself. And we won't even see a dime, because the repayments will simply go to the U.S. Treasury.

Such accounting practices in the private sector are called fraud. Bernie Ebbers received a 25-year prison sentence for what amounted to "merely" a few billion dollars. What, then, should politicians deserve when they do this all throughout a budget of $3 trillion dollars?

My Congressman, John Hall (former member of the band Orleans who found religion socialism and went into politics), sent me an e-mail with a subject line, "How to Combat Medicare Fraud Workshops this Friday." New York State spends nearly $48 billion each year on Medicaid, and it's been estimated that a tenth of it is "fraudulent," but the pure fact is that it's all theft. It is not theirs to give by any true sense of moral principle. If David Paterson, Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver want to be charitable, or George W. Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, let them give of their own money and encourage -- not force -- the rest of us to give. South of us, John Corzine would rather tax New Jersey residents every which way he can to fund state programs, instead of giving from his own extreme wealth. You see, when a liberal like Corzine criticizes "excessive executive compensation,"

That article at Empire Center talks about "market-driven reforms," when such a thing is impossible when government is behind it. As I tried explaining last year to my friend JK when talking about Medicare Part D, there is no "market" when government is involved, because government by definition will coerce at least one person into doing something he normally wouldn't do in a truly free market atmosphere. People can talk about "choice" all they want with some new "reform" in a social program, but ultimately it's "choice" at somebody else's expense.

This article talks a bit more about NYS Medicare fraud, and talking about how the New York State Legislature "agreed to only about $700 million in savings" for 2006. That's nonsense. When politicians talk about "savings," it doesn't mean they actually reduced the size of a program, but that they reduced the previously planned growth. The spending still increased. How long could you or I run our households this way when facing a financial crunch? "Honey, we have to cut back. Now, I had previously projected a $700 monthly increase in our car budget if we got that new car. But look, if we get that less expensive new car, it will cost us only $500 more per month. That saves us $200 per month!!!"

Such "logic" seems absurd, but that's how government operates. We normal folk must work for our wages, because we cannot use compel those who hire us or otherwise trade for our goods and services. But because government can take people's property by force, it need not worry about being "worthy" of what it takes. It simply takes, and ultimately it takes from you upon pain of death -- your death. I was starting to read "Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax" by Sheldon Richman, with a wonderful introduction by Dr. Richard Ebeling. Sheldon and Richard are true lovers of liberty, and I am proud to call them friends.

[Correction: I was blogging on vacation and didn't have the book with me. It was actually Walter Williams who wrote the following in his foreword, not Richard in his introduction.] Williams explains far more eloquently what I've said before, that all taxation is coercion, and so if government takes from you anyway, it's theft. But what do you do if you refuse, believing sincerely that you will not submit to thievery? Well, then the government will "fine" you, which is merely a declaration that if you don't surrender your property, you must give up more. If you resist enough, you must give up your freedom by going to prison. What if you will defend yourself, as is your God-given right against oppressors? Then the government will send in "police" and take you by force, killing you if necessary, all because it says you don't really own what you think you own, because a majority of your neighbors banded together and elected some "government":

Give us what we demand, cried out the multitude, lest we seize it by force.

And the merchant replied, Depart in peace while ye yet can, for ye have no right to my possessions save with my consent, and as I have done no wrong to any man, none of ye have any authority to seize any of my possessions.

Behold, cried out his neighbors with one voice, that we have declared ourselves a government, and as such we have given ourselves the authority.

The merchant replied, Ye have no authority, for one cannot give authority unto oneself.

That matters not, they replied and began to grumble, for we are a greater number than thee and thy family, and because of our greater numbers, we have decided that thou shalt pay us tribute.

Then did his neighbors, armed with swords and staves, seize a goodly portion of the merchant's possessions. The merchant did not consent in his heart, but for the sake of his wife and children, he did not resist in his actions.

Anyway, I'm blogging from Davao, the largest city in the world in terms of area. My fiancee and I were visiting her family here, and this afternoon we're going to Manila. We stayed in Davao longer than planned, because we couldn't get tickets to Bohol. This being "summer vacation" time in the Philippines, all the flights were fully booked. It's probably just as well, because Mindanao and the Visayas have been quite cloudy, and the beaches wouldn't have been as enjoyable.

Yesterday we went to "Paradise Island," a resort on Samal Island, just a few minutes off the coast of Davao. It's beach isn't one of beautiful white sand like Boracay's, and in some places a little pangit with the tide out, but it's a wonderful little getaway if you're in this part of Mindanao. Mr. Tungol, our host, was extraordinarily gracious. He was always checking on us and the other guests, ensuring our comfort. He also brought over the four-piece band to serenade us, inviting me to join in, which I couldn't resist when they did a Sinatra/Bennett/Elvis medley. Victor Heiser, an American doctor who spent a lot of time in the Philippines in the early 20th century, wrote that he believed you could give musical instruments at random to Filipinos and hear sweet music at once. Perhaps an exaggeration, but it was truly amazing to hear what bongo drums, two guitars, a bass and three voices could produce.

More mainstream media lies: Bush's budget is hardly cutting Medicare spending

I'm the first to say that Medicare and other socialist (not to mention unconstitutional) programs should be abolished completely, but let's continue debunking a common lie since the start of Bush's administration. My blogfather Don Luskin has pointed out for a long time that, regardless of whether you think the programs are right or Constitutional, Bush has increased spending so much that it ought to make any liberal happy. I'm still trying to find his very detailed analysis that proves my point here, that Bush is hardly cutting funding from health care to childrens' programs -- his proposals are to cut only the increase in spending, so spending still increases.

Update: check this.

To continue this tired old lie, HealthDay News, a socialist propaganda group masquerading as a news source (like pushing a survey claiming Canadians are healthier than Americans, ergo Americans need socialist medicine), "reported" today:

MONDAY, Feb. 4 (HealthDay News) -- President Bush's new budget proposal would cut $196 billion over five years from both Medicare and Medicaid -- programs that provide health care to millions of poor and elderly, federal officials announced Monday.

The proposed cuts are part of a plan to stop Medicare from running out of money in little more than a decade, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Mike Leavitt told reporters during a press conference. He said the savings would help keep premiums affordable, maintain the Medicare/Medicaid system, and balance the current Medicare budget.

"The Medicare portion of the budget should be viewed as a stark warning," Leavitt said. "Medicare on its current course is 11 years from going broke. Americans have become numbed to entitlement warnings as a repeated cycle of alarms and inaction," he said.

But President Bush and Leavitt are sure to face a Congressional showdown over the budget proposals.

"This administration ought to know that five years' worth of Medicare and Medicaid cuts totaling $200 billion are dead on arrival with me and with most of the Congress," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told the Associated Press.

But if you want the truth, read further into the article:

Under the president's plan, the annual growth of Medicare spending would slow to 5 percent instead of the 7 percent currently projected. Similarly, spending growth would slow from 7.3 percent to 7 percent for Medicaid.

If a spendthrift family were going to spend 7% more, but instead spent only 5% more, is it accurate to say they "cut" their spending? Of course not. The fact is, spending will continue at a record pace. Even at 5%,

Well, why not accuse Bush of cutting the programs by 10%, or 20%, or 100%? Why don't Democrats just accuse Bush of cutting $1 trillion from the programs next year, because he wouldn't go along with a plan to increase taxes by $1 trillion? After all, the federal government could have increased spending the money as much as tax revenues and borrowing permit, by their warped logic.

Again, this is regardless of what you think about the programs. My initial point is that the MSM is so rabidly infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that reducing a proposed 7% increase to 5% is a "cut" to them, and they've always seized on that as a lie. The very purpose is to rile up voters who live off taxes the rest of us pay, of course, and the sad thing is that it works. People believe the half-truths and outright lies that the news throws at them, like in this article. It's correct to point out the huge deficits under Bush, but it's completely dishonest to imply that things were great under Clinton:

Seven years ago, Bush took over a government predicted to generate $5.6 trillion in surpluses over 10 years.

Such predictions were overly optimistic, it turned out, being based on the unsustainable economic growth of the very late 1990s. Furthermore, let's say the $5.6 trillion in surpluses was realized somehow -- that wouldn't have been because of any spending cuts, but because Congress taxed us $5.6 trillion more than what they spent.

Now, if we want to talk about whether the programs should exist, the bottom line is that they're morally wrong. It's not morally wrong to help people, but it's morally wrong to steal from one unwilling group of people, no matter how benevolent the intentions may be. People like Paul Krugman would have you think that not funding these programs from the poor, because you're giving tax cuts to the rich, is "Dooh Nibor" economics, "Robin Hood" backwards, i.e. what they claim is theft from the poor to give to the rich. As Don Luskin explained, that couldn't be less true:

In other words, by cutting taxes that robbed high-income earners of their income -- and cutting government spending that transferred that stolen income to low-income earners -- we have a "transfer of income from the middle class to the very affluent"? If we simply reduce the rate at which we are stealing from the rich, are we therefore stealing from the poor? We can certainly have an argument about whether there ought to be redistributive taxes. But it's nothing but sophistry to suggest that a move toward less redistribution in the future constitutes robbery.

But this feeling of "entitlement" will persist so long as people think that majority voting somehow gives them a right to other people's property. I was thinking about this "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" quote the other day: "Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

But is the second any less absurd, when your neighbors band together, call themselves a "government," and as "the masses" proclaim their inviolate right to seize your property against your will?

Read her lips: no new bureaucracy!

Hillary did a Sunday morning talk show blitz, appearing on all five that are nationally broadcast to defend her socialist health care agenda. I didn't watch any of them, as is my normal practice, so I can only wonder how she "giggled." Is it really a laughing matter to her? I guess it's all fun and games to her that she wants to take money forcibly from those who produce things of economic value, and give it to those who don't produce as much (if at all).

Remember that the supposed 47 million Americans aren't as numerous as is claimed. Many Americans voluntarily choose not to have it, because while they can afford it, they'd rather pay out of pocket. Many of these "uninsured" are illegal immigrants (who should be deported into the Pacific, along with others who leech off taxpayers, before the rest of us are coerced into giving them so much as a goddamn penny). Under Hillary's plan, those of us who work will have to pay for every Pablo and Maria who come here for our welfare state, and every Akisha on welfare with her five out-of-wedlock children. But of course, Hillary will raise taxes only on the richest Americans, right? Never mind that, as I said below, everyone else's jobs depend on the saving and consumption of "the rich." When "the rich" are taxed more, and assuming the unlikelihood of them continuing to produce as much economic output, they'll have less to spend and save. As Bastiat taught us, in the end the money merely shifts. Instead of hiring yard workers, going out to dinner, and buying fancy clothes, cars and jewelry, "the rich" will be paying taxes for everyone else. So some landscapers, waiters, Mercedes-Benz car dealers, jewelers in the Diamond District on 47th Street, et al, will be out of jobs when "the rich" cut back -- but at least they'll have health care, right?

Notice how Newt Gingrich, often hailed as a real conservative, and the architect of the bullshit called the "Contract With America" (the lies the GOP told in 1994 to regain control of Congress), actually said, "Some things that she proposes are interesting and useful." There's nothing "interesting" or "useful" about her plan. That's the problem with Republicans: for all their talk, they also want a bloated government, just with different programs than Democrats want. What happens is that both sides compromise, leading to further expanded government.

I didn't see the interview, so I don't know if she repeated her claim that there would be no new bureaucracy necessary for her plan. Who really believes that a plan costing $110 billion a year (meaning we can count on easily double that estimate) will require no new bureaucracy? Oh no, she says, no new bureaucracy, even though government will need a way to force you into the plan unless you want to work an underground job. Or is she technically speaking the truth, in the same way that Bill didn't create new taxes (or did he?). He merely increased them. So Hillary won't create a new bureaucracy -- she'll just expand the existing Department of Health and Human Services.

But forget the argument about logistics and economic efficiency. Her plan is based on the immoral notion of a "moral imperative" to coerce people into giving up their property for others. That's all there is to say. Only a state-worshipper can fail to understand.

Is it unaffordable for all Americans to have paid sick leave? Well, yes

Leftist "economist" Julianne Malveaux had a bleeding-heart op-ed about how supposedly all workers should receive paid sick leave. It's full of emotion and lacking in substance, i.e. typical liberal rhetoric that advocates this and that but fails to ask (let alone answer), "But who will pay for it?"

How can someone receive a doctorate in economics yet posit such flagrant fallacies of economics and logic? She has a fellow socialist MIT alumnus who makes you wonder if something's in the water there, although MIT does produce real economists. First, it's true that an entire group's productivity goes down if a sick person can go to work and spread the illness to others, but if and only if the sick person is infectious. Not all illnesses are infectious. Today, actually since Saturday, I've been feverish off and on. Yet I toughed it out and went to work, alternating between cold sweats and hot flashes, but not contagious such that I passed my illness on to others.

Now, Malveaux claims there's a "high cost" to unpaid sick leave: "According to a Cornell University study, presenteeism — the phenomenon of a sick person coming to work — costs employers about $255 per employee per year, for a total of $180 billion." She forgets that everything has a cost, and ignores or does not understand that unpaid sick leave exists because it costs more to compel companies to provide paid sick leave for lower-end jobs. Who doubts that the drop in total productivity would be greater if all workers were suddenly able to take time off even if they merely "just didn't feel well," content with the knowledge they'd get paid anyway? It's not that the economy is running inefficiently, but that it is running more optimally because companies can choose the less expensive of two choices.

There's a damned good reason not everybody can be paid for calling in sick: we are the United States of America, and we don't want to turn into that shitty little France country. People respond to incentives, and whether they're honest job-seekers or lazy frogs, whether they're genuinely sick or just looking to sleep in, people will tend to seek the path of least resistance. It's the same problem with socialized medicine: people will take advantage of it whether they really need it or not.

Also, if payroll costs increase 3%, who -- besides leftist bleeding-heart types -- is idiotic enough to believe that businesses won't pass it on to consumers, or cut back on pay raises and other compensation, if not actual salaries? Prices are ultimately set by market forces, and not entirely by the costs put into production, but a business will "shut down" (stop producing) if marginal costs exceed marginal revenue. So if a business cannot cut costs and cannot pass on new expenses to its customers, then it will cease to provide the goods or services that consumers would have otherwise been able to buy.

So if we want high unemployment and economic stagnation a la France, let's go ahead and pass Chappaquiddick Ted's bill to force companies to provide paid sick leave. We'll have no right to be surprised when companies hire fewer and fewer people, paying them less and less. Just like with the minimum wage, the ones who are affected most by a government-induced shift are just above the very bottom. Their overall purchasing power is reduced when they receive cuts in compensation and/or have to pay higher prices, and they become the new bottom because those below them are artificially pushed up.

Competing to be the party of big government

"Dems Lambast Prescription Drug Benefit" reads the headline. You'd think, considering how the Democrats are trying to reinvent themselves as "fiscal conservatives," that their criticism of the prescription drug behemoth is its size. But they're not criticizing that the program could grow to be the most expensive piece of legislation ever:

WASHINGTON Mar 25, 2006 (AP)— Seniors need another six months to sign up for the Medicare prescription drug benefit, a Democratic congressman who's also a pharmacist said Saturday.

Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas also said the government needs to think long and hard about meaningful Medicare reform.

Berry said people eligible for the prescription benefit are confused by the various offerings, and some are even paying more for medicine now than they were before they joined the program.

"We need to extend the sign-up period by six months to give seniors more time to make sense of this benefit, and we need to eliminate the Bush administration's prescription drug tax," Berry said in the Democrats' weekly radio address....

"I will never forget one conversation I had with a pharmacist from DeWitt, Ark., who had given away $60,000 in free medications in just one week because he knew his customers might die if they did not receive their refill that day. Medicare Part D is the FEMA of health care," Berry said.

Medicare could bargain for lower drug prices to save money for the government and for the elderly, he said.

"Every American deserves the best health care we can provide. We do not have to accept a failed benefit and we do not have to tolerate a culture of corruption or leaders who are afraid to admit their mistakes. Democrats have the answer, and under a Democratic Congress, we will give seniors the prescription drug benefit they were promised years ago. Together we can do better," Berry said.

The Democrats aren't criticizing the Medicare bill because it's a waste of $700 billion over the first ten years. They're criticizing it because it doesn't go far enough! This is yet another manifestation of Democratic hypocrisy, particularly when Democrats can get all sorts of misleading headlines from sympathetic mainstream media. Once again, "we" must provide this and that, but just who's picking up the tab? Who will bell the cat?

The one thing Berry got right is equating "Medicare Part D" with FEMA: both should be abolished, and that can't happen too soon.

Berry gave a sob story about a pharmacist who gave customers "$60,000 in free medications in just one week." Don't believe it for a second. He simply distributed the drugs, knowing the federal government would later pay him -- by taking money from everyone else. Let's not kid ourselves: the pharmacist knew what he was doing, and he certainly knew he was doing no act of genuine charity. As a matter of economics, government again skews supply and demand curves, because it takes wealth from some people and gives it to others.

It's yet another fallacial notion about the pharmaceutical industry that a government can "bargain" to buy drugs at lower prices. Drug companies can only go so low, because if marginal revenue falls below marginal cost, they will stop selling. Even if marginal revenue still exceeds marginal cost, if it's not profitable enough, then the company will pursue another drug or possibly shift to different endeavors. Let's say that in the natural equilibrium of the free market, consumers might value life-prolonging drugs more than drugs to treat, for example, erectile dysfunction, and pharmaceutical companies are happy to offer the former because of higher profit. So when government makes it too expensive to make Lipitor, which cuts into profit margins because consumers aren't willing to pay the higher prices, then let's not be surprised when we have more Cialis.

If politicians were really serious about making drugs more affordable, they would eliminate all the FDA red tape (preferably abolish the FDA altogether) that drives up pharmaceutical companies' costs. Because of the studies and years required to obtain FDA approval, it costs an average of $800 million to bring a new drug to market. That $800 million used to come from individual customers, but now with the Medicare prescription drug bill, the federal government can pay it via the taxpayer's wallet. Am I the only one who sees the senselessness in government "bargaining" to reduce prices that it drove up in the first place? It's as senseless as the "War on Drugs," one of whose effects is making criminalized drugs more scarce, and hence a much more profitable and attractive business than before.

While environmental activists suggest we can find cures for cancer in the rain forests, it would be more effective to let pharmaceutical companies do the research without having to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops. And if a particular drug has certain dangers, whether it's a "clot-buster" for stroke victims or a drug that suppresses a transplant patient's immune system, then caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware and assume the risks, because someone might consider the possibility of death worth the chance at life. You, I and no one else -- and that includes government -- have no moral right to deny someone that choice.

Caught between Scylla and Charybdis

(Oops! I changed the time but forgot to change it to PM, and I didn't change the date either. Writing about the SOTU at 2 p.m. on Tuesday? Call me psychic.)

Transcript: President Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address

Transcript: Gov. Tom Kaine delivering the Democratic response

President Bush said some good things tonight in his State of the Union speech, but some bad things too. And as I fully expected, the Democratic response, instead of challenging President Bush on the actual Constitutional limits on the federal government, relied on partisan politics and new myths like "energy independence" and that the federal government should "serve us."

As I'm writing this up from my quickly typed notes, Fox News showed a clip that I didn't notice before. John Kerry turned to his left and said something to Dianne Feinstein. The side of his face was toward the camera, but Feinstein was facing it, and it wasn't hard to read her lips. She replied, "I know." Maybe he said something like, "That should be I up there!"

The President began well with a good indirect jab at the Democrats, criticizing the partisanship in Washington. The Democrats' behavior throughout Justice Alito's confirmation hearings was so disgusting that even Robert Byrd said, "The people of West Viriginia in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings." Byrd could have been stronger and said he was pointing fingers at unnamed members, but what would you expect from a partisan Democrat? Byrd could have a very tough campaign this time, so he needs to sound less extreme and more centrist. He's probably taking lessons from Hillary.

"We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline." Take that, John Kerry. Wide and straight is the road of protectionist economics, and it leads only to impoverished economies.

"There is no peace in retreat, and there is no honor in retreat.... But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil." As one who supported invading Iraq to topple Saddam and turn the most willing Iraqi people into friends, I'm naturally biased, but I rather liked that. Contrast Bush's refusal to surrender with the anti-war left who want to cut and run, come what may to Iraqis, and not because they have a sincere desire, but because it's to take the opposite position.

I was watching the speech on Fox News, which then cut to Charlie Rangel. He looked like he didn't particularly give a damn. Cut to John Kerry, whose countenance screamed, "Damn it, I should have been giving the speech tonight!"

"In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship, to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections." As I wrote last March, even the United States, after declaring independence in 1776 and formally gaining it in 1783, had much civil unrest (to the extent that George Washington thought a civil war was imminent) and an ineffective federal government until 1788. With our help, Iraqis have accomplished so much and so fast that it borders on miraculous.

"Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning. The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels. But those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C." Very good: peace through victory.

"...there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy." Another good jab at the anti-war Democrats. God knows we've made tactical errors in Iraq, but that is the nature of war. My father reminded me more than once how we bombed our own troops in Italy during World War II. It's one thing to examine mistakes and try to improve our military -- it's another to say that because we made mistakes and will inevitably make mistakes, we should never go to war and simply surrender.

"...the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism and work for lasting peace." I fear that's just a pipe dream. Hamas is all about working toward the destruction of Israel, using terrorism against innocent civilians.

"Liberty is the right and hope of all humanity." A bit of a platitude, but good to inject.

"...Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, and that must come to an end." With all the focus on Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons, I'm glad Bush reminded us that Iran's very government has long since been a major sponsor of global terrorism.

"I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America." I sighed here, because this compassion is the false notion of government charity, which of course is paid for by other people.

"So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected Al Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America." I more than sighed here, because not only does the Constitution of the United States not give such powers to the executive branch, the Fourth Amendment requires warrants. In these days of instant digital communications, obtaining a warrant within minutes should not be difficult.

Gathering intelligence on terrorists is certainly essential. I and other libertarians (currently derided by many conservatives as "civil liberties Chicken Littles") do not oppose the intelligence gathering, but the methods. As someone recently asked me rhetorically, why won't the administration submit requests to FISA? Are there so many terrorist-connected calls coming out of America that it would overwhelm the system? Is the administration is trying to save taxpayer dollars by cutting down on paper usage? Or are they not wiretapping who they say they are, so no court (even FISA) would actually grant such warrants? I'll also add, in all fairness, the possibility of an overzealous and misguided attempt to protect Americans.

The camera cut to Hillary Clinton, the queen of state-worshippers, who was smiling insincerely and slightly shaking her head.

"Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy, a war that will be fought by presidents of both parties who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom." The camera cut to Hillary again, who was no longer smiling and clapping just halfheartedly.

"In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs -- more than Japan and the European Union combined." That was a sobering statistic illustrating Japan's travails (and not from a lack of effort) and the EU's stagnation (which is from a lack of real effort in reforming their tax policies and welfare states).

"In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors like China and India. And this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy." I very much liked this. Bush can talk like a real free-trader when he wants, but he's disappointed me a few times with things like steel tariffs.

"We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy, even though this economy could not function without them." Though our welfare state attracts many immigrants who want a free ride, that is all too true. Many illegal immigrants really do do the jobs that Americans won't, and they're people who simply want to come to this country peacefully and work hard.

"All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction: toward a stagnant and second-rate economy." The road goes in only two directions, and the other way is toward prosperity.

Bush touted his tax cuts, as he should have. "In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses and families. And they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth." That's $880 billion spent by people on what they judged was necessary and efficient, not politicians' latest projects.

I still maintain that the timing of Bush's tax cuts was a stroke of luck, otherwise our very mild recession (unemployment not even at 7%, when "normal" unemployment in a stagnant but "happy" economy like France's is 10%!) would have been much worse. Bush added, "I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent."

I would like to add that I urge Congress and the President "to act responsibly" and cut federal spending -- by a lot. When Bush spoke of "another $14 billion next year," I could only laugh bitterly and say, "Big deal!" That drop in the bucket will make no difference in the deficit, let alone halving it by 2009.

Once Bush mentioned the word "earmarks," McCain vigorously applauded. Bush then called upon Congress to give him the line-item veto, which Clinton briefly had. I fear that, even with a Republican Congress, President Bush expressed the same hopeless desire that his father did.

Bush then turned to massive growth in "entitlements" (how I hate that term, because it implies obligation on government's part). By 2030, nearly 60% of the federal budget will be on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. To put it in perspective, our current entitlement spending is about $1 trillion out of a $2.5 trillion federal budget, and at 60% it would be an even more staggering $1.5 trillion. If you follow that link, one error I'd like to note in the newspaper article is that the $2.2 trillion figure is budgeted federal spending, but actual federal spending in 2005 was $2.47 trillion.

"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security, yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And with every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse." Good, very good. Emphasize that the longer we delay, the more wealth we lose and the more painful we make reform.

Then Bush said, "So tonight I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." Oh, for the love of heaven, we already know the full impact! Numerous thinktanks of all political persuasions have all done projections and arrived at more or less the same figures about how many elderly will be retiring and how many workers will be supporting them. Where they differ is how to deal with it.

"One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American." It's a good statistic to show the regular American how free trade may send some of our jobs overseas, but we create new jobs to make things for our new trading partners.

But it really scares me Bush talks about "a level playing field." Is that a sly reference to China's alleged currency manipulation, which GM and Ford have recently used as an excuse for their failures?

Bush then got to the meat of his "compassionate conservatism": "Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care," and "Government has the responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly." I again was reminded that he might sound Reagan-like in promoting tax cuts, but Bush is still a big government conservative.

"We will make wider use of health information technology to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors." If private companies could already use the technology to control costs, though, they already would have. Companies would jump at the chance because they could continue to charge the same prices, increasing their profits...at least until one company charged less to get more customers, and others followed suit.

He promoted "health savings accounts" as he did during the 2004 campaign, and that they should be "portable." But such accounts wouldn't be necessary if we didn't tax savings -- if we had a more sensible tax system that didn't discourage savings (which fuel investment), people could simply save that money without the need for more government regulations.

Medical liability reform is a must, but I have no confidence in this being passed anytime soon. It's been proposed for years, and nobody does anything significant.

What is significant is Bush's attempt to brag that, "Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources." In other words, we've spent $10 billion so that we can use more expensive forms of energy, like wind, solar and water. If these were more efficient and cheaper than fossil fuels, then we'd already have been using them. The President sadly does not understand this aspect of the free market, because he continued in proposing his "Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas."

How much more of our money can the federal government spend so that we can use more expensive, less efficient ethanol? How much must we spend so we can use hybrid, electic and hydrogen-fueled automobiles, which, as our friend TKC pointed out, don't really save money overall?

Federal subsidies for ethanol are something I've criticized several times. When President Bush proposed federal funding for "additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass," to "make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years," I wanted to tear my hair out.

What he said next sounds like a good idea, "to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025," but as I pointed out here, it's not a bad thing to import something for cheaper than you can make it yourself. We could ban all imports of Middle East oil, but at what price? "By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." Again, at what price? When we've made oil so expensive with bad supply-limiting policies that we stifle our economy?

Next, the proposal of the "American Competitiveness Initiative," i.e. another big government program to skew the labor markets. "I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years." In other words, double the spending, but what exactly are the "most critical" programs? Who will determine them, business investors who carefully weigh what they're pouring their money into, or government bureaucrats who dole out other people's money while under the influence of industry lobbyists?

The "research and development tax credit" is a good start toward real tax reform, because it sounds general enough. Specific tax incentives are bad policy, simply because they skew markets by favoring one industry (or company) over another. What I want to see is a full repeal of all taxes on businesses, because they do not pay taxes. I explained toward the end of this entry that businesses merely pass taxes onto consumers, which requires overhead, so it's actually better to have individuals bear the full tax burden.

"We made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country." Even conservatives like Michelle Malkin are more than dismayed at the huge mess and boondoggle of NCLB. With all those billions wasted, and schools in fact rarely left better off, how can we trust the federal government, as Bush called for tonight, "to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs"? As I discussed here, schools cannot attract professionals who can make much more in the private sector, and many school districts are like NYC's, unable to pay those salaries because they're too busy paying so many bad teachers.

"I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act and provide new funding to states so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America." This is fundamentally redistribution of wealth, and it is self-defeating. Giving more money to states will encourage greater supply of the medicines, it is true, but it will divert pharmaceutical companies' efforts from other ventures that they'd have undertaken. They will make less medicine for influenza, less insulin, etc., so this is another example of government skewing the free market's determination of what is most important to people.

"Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility, and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss and never betray." Actually, I thought he and Congress made pledges "to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States."

And now for the Democratic response:

I was immediately suspicious when Tom Kaine began by mentioning his missionary experience. It's just like liberals to blur the important distinction between individual charity and government powers. Indeed, he wasted no time: "Our faith and values teach us that there's no higher calling than serving others. Our federal government should serve the American people."

Could there be any bigger poppycock in the world than liberals' belief in the nanny state?

"As Americans, we do great things when we work together." Perhaps he should ask, oh, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and most of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committe, who disgraced themselves at Justice Alito's confirmation hearings.

"When there is a natural disaster, you expect a well managed response." A nice generality, but the federal government has no Constitutional authority to do what it has for Louisiana and Missippippi in Katrina's aftermath.

"...you have a right to expect government to be fiscally responsible, pay the bills and live within its means. Tonight we heard the president again call to make his tax policies permanent, despite his administration's failure to manage our staggering national debt...huge surpluses to huge deficits..." Again I ask, where was the Democrats' "fiscal austerity" were in the 1980s when they were refusing to go along with Reagan and cut non-military spending, when Democrats controlled Congress and produced several budget deficits higher than today (as a percentage of the economy)? Moreover, not only were Clinton's two "surplus" years achieved in teamwork with a Republican Congress, the surpluses were not that large as a percentage of the budget or the economy.

In fact, federal debt has increased but is not as bad many think. Forget the absolute numbers and look at Steve Conover's January calculations. U.S. federal debt as a percentage of GDP is quite favorable compared to other nations, especially those in our range but whose economies are performing dismally. I'll post more on this another time, but federal debt is actually quite manageable right now. How many people do you know have a high debt ratio, but also get consistent pay raises of nearly 4% a year, pay between just 4% and 5% interest on their loans, and can borrow all the money they want because there are so many who are offering to lend money?

Kaine's nonsense about the United States' "credit rating" reflects either his ignorance or his partisanship: a country's credit rating is reflected in the interest rates it pays on its government bonds. The still-low interest rates on Treasury bonds are why paying interest on the national debt no longer consumes a quarter of the federal budget, unlike in the early 1990s. Foreigners have become so eager to save their money by buying our bonds, and they earned the dollars by selling goods and services to us.

"Congressional Democrats have a plan to educate 100,000 new engineers, scientists and mathematicians in the next four years." Ah, Bush proposed 30,000, so the Dems will more than triple that to prove that they're still the premier party of big government!

"The White House has made efforts to cut Medicaid funds for our most vulnerable citizens. Our seniors were promised that the new federal Medicare drug plan would make it easier and cheaper to obtain their medication." The Medicare prescription drug plan was bad, but Democrats don't see why it really is. To them, it's bad because they were beaten to it by a Republican President and Republican-controlled Congress. In reality, it's bad because the drug plan, and in fact Medicare/Medicaid, are not part of the federal government's constitutional powers.

"In Virginia, we've worked to provide health insurance coverage for nearly 140,000 children who weren't covered four years ago." But the age-old question: at what cost? Who's paying for it, and what are the taxed people not buying (meaning jobs are destroyed all over, little by little) because they are paying for others' health care?

"...Republicans and Democrats alike have come together to fight the administration's efforts to slash Medicaid and push more costs onto the states." And that is why both parties can be so wrong. The federal government under the real U.S. Constitution, not Robert Byrd's revised edition that allows spending on whatever they damn well please, is one of specific, limited powers. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that everything else is reserved to the states or to the people.

Kaine drudged up the old "inaccurate information" accusation, a nicer way than some Democrats' claim that the President deliberately misled the American people, when Democrats (among whom were Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy) since the late 1990s warned that Saddam was still pursuing WMD programs and couldn't be trusted. I look at the War on Terror this way: the Taliban are gone, a regime that harbored al Qaeda. Saddam has been toppled, a dictator who permitted al Qaeda and other terrorists to operate training camps in Iraq. Saddam also harbored Abu Nidal and gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers' families. Instead of two countries whose governments call for our destruction, Afghanistan and Iraq's governments are now friendly to the U.S., with about 50 million people now able to determine their own destiny. That sounds like pretty good success to me within four years.

What will be curious in the next while is the verifying of an Iraqi general's claims that Saddam sent chemical weapons to Syria on stripped-down civilian planes.

"Working together, we have to give our troops the tools they need to win the war on terror." Is that why John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it?

"Last summer, I joined Democrats in Washington and in other states and called on oil companies to share in our sacrifice and return some of their record-breaking excess profits." The Democrats ignore the fact that if oil prices hadn't gone so high, oil companies and oil-producing nations wouldn't be working so furiously to develop new oil fields so that we don't run out of oil. For more on the Democrats' myth of energy independence, click here. For the reason that Hillary and other Dems' desire to tax oil companies to hell will backfire by causing even higher prices for consumers, click here.

Beware: the Democrats' plan for energy independence will only make everything more expensive for us all by reducing our access to less expensive fossil fuels, by increasing our use of expensive alternative fuels.

"But at the same time, we have to ensure that our homeland defense efforts begin with consistent federal action to protect our borders." After how many years, Democrats are starting to talk like Republicans on immigration.

"The administration is falling behind in other critical areas: preserving the environment, keeping our workplaces safe, protecting family farms, keeping jobs in America." The environment is doing quite well. Because of technological advancement that allows us to do more with less land, as well as conservation spurred by the free market, we don't need to cut down as many trees, and we thus have more forest today than at any time since the 1940s. How are workplaces not safe, other than post offices that seem to produce a lot of lunatics? "Family farms" tend to be old-fashioned and inefficient, and they should be allowed to go under or be bought out. And "keeping jobs in America" is the tired old Kerry line from the debates, which is ignorant economics.

When Kaine talked about "rights endowed by our creator," is he talking about what liberals claim as rights? The right to health care, i.e. getting medical care at others' coerced expense? The right to work, i.e. the right to force a business to continue your employment no matter how unfit you are? What liberals' "rights" come down to is using the government to help yourself to others' pockets.

If Kaine and other Democrats really do want to "replace the division that's been gripping our nation's capital," then absolutely "we need a change." But in no way, after watching their shameless antics since President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada, are "Democrats are leading that reform effort" like Kaine claimed. If Democrats are serious about eliminating the partisanship, then their leadership can start by obtaining Congressional resignations from, in no special order, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin and Byron Dorgan (I include Dorgan for his belief in taxing oil company profits above $40 a barrel).

"...working to restore honesty and openness to our government, working to replace a culture of partisanship and cronyism with an ethic of service and results."

Before telling others to take the specks out of their eyes, Democrats would do well to remember names like Henry Cisneros, Ron Brown, Susan McDougal and Marc Rich.

When government kills people

Since the dawn of human civilization, big government has killed people via outright massacres and deliberate starvation. In modern times, big government very much kills people by denying them the freedom to choose experimental medical treatments that might be successful.

Don Ho (link is to an AP article at Yahoo! News) underwent a highly experimental procedure for his failing heart. It was successful, and as he said, "It was my last hope."

Are government bureaucrats God, or agents of the Almighty, that they can approve or deny this procedure, though the patient fully accepts any and all risks involved? These were Ho's own stem cells. The procedure involves no embryos, so neither side of the "culture of life" debate applies here. Ah, but government steps in to save us from ourselves, because like Paul Krugman and big government's other proponents say, government should reduce the risk in our lives. Even if we accept those risks, and even if we believe we have much to gain?

As Jefferson said, and this is worth quoting as often as needed, "The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills."

When my father had a stroke at 80 years old, there was at least one clot that immediately threatened his life. With standard treatment, he had very poor odds of survival, let alone recovery. The then-new "clot-buster" drugs were the only treatment capable of clearing the blockage. These particular substances had recently been approved by the Food & Drug Administration for use on stroke patients outside of tests.

I was 22 at the time and still living at home, but I was out when my father suddenly fell down in the kitchen that night. He later told me that he knew instantly that it was a stroke. What he didn't tell me was that he begged my mother, the only other person home, to help him to bed so he could die in peace. Thankfully she refused to give up and instead called 911. She was too distraught to go to the hospital with him, however. By the time I got home, learned what happened and rushed to the hospital, I found that my father was lucid enough that he had chosen and had already taken the new drugs.

The doctors had explained to him very carefully that the "clot-busters" had but a 10% chance of success; there was a 90% chance they would work too well, causing an uncontrollable brain hemorrhage and subsequent death. Aware that standard treatment, at best, meant he'd spend the rest of his life as an invalid, my father figured he had nothing to lose. He chose to take the new drugs, which succeeded without causing a hemorrhage. They succeeded well enough that, true to his style, he was busy charming all the night shift nurses. He still lost a lot of strength and his sense of taste, but he did hold up pretty well -- until about 18 months later when he started dying of cancer.

Now consider this: when the drugs were still experimental but not yet approved, how many stroke victims could have been saved? How many would have gladly accepted the high risk of dying if it meant a solid chance at recovery? Isn't that their choice? It's one thing if the doctors simply give potentially deadly medicine, but if the risks are completely, properly and sincerely presented to the patient, who is government to decide? Had my father suffered a stroke just a year or two prior to the "clot-busters" approval by the FDA, government would have told him, "You'll just have to die. We won't let you take this stuff, because it could kill you."

John Edwards' hypocrisy

From the AP:

John Edwards, former senator and vice presidential candidate, has a new part-time job as head of the University of North Carolina law school's new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.

Edwards, who represented North Carolina for one term in the Senate, began work Tuesday by moderating a panel discussion on the importance of savings and assets in moving families out of poverty.

"We have millions of Americans who work full time and still live in poverty, and that is absolutely wrong," said Edwards, a Democrat.

It's not "wrong" per se, but a fact of life. That doesn't mean we can't extend a helping hand, however. That sounds like a worthy cause, doesn't it? A "Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity," with emphasis on helping impoverished families save and accumulate assets.

From its name, I presume that John Edwards will work toward Social Security privatization. After all, it is the way for lower-income people to save money that is theirs. That's the ultimate way for poor people to build up their own assets.

Oh, but John Edwards doesn't support Social Security privatization. He'd rather have poor people stay poor, and be supplicants (as Michael Tanner of Cato said) to the government for their retirement.

Will John Edwards support free trade, which benefits poor people the most? First, free trade creates jobs, and better ones to help poor people out of poverty. NAFTA did push some jobs to Mexico, but the U.S. had a net gain in jobs -- and mostly higher-paying ones at that. That's because it allows us to do more productive, better-paying work that Mexicans, Chinese, et al, cannot do as well. Meanwhile, our trading partners produce things more efficiently -- more cheaply -- than we can, and they trade for the things we produce better. And the low prices benefit poor people more than others.

Oh, but John Edwards doesn't support free trade. Not real free trade, no. He voted for the farce of "permanent normal trade relations" with China and Vietnam, but he believes free trade puts Americans at a disadvantage and even "hurts" them. And just what would this "National venture capital fund" do? Evidently it will use tax dollars, so I'd like to know just how you'll take people's money and redistribute it to Americans "hurt by trade" -- how would you determine who's worthy, and how much each receives? And more fundamentally, how do you justify forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another?

Look at John Edwards' switch-hitting: he actually came out somewhat for NAFTA before he came out against it. That's worthy of John Kerry.

Well, maybe John Edwards supports across-the-board tax cuts for businesses, so that they can afford to expand? More jobs mean more opportunity for poor people, instead of wasteful government spending. But no, John Edwards doesn't believe in tax cuts for businesses. The Kerry-Edwards plan proposed tax credits, and only to certain businesses. It also proposed cutting "the corporate tax rate by 5 percent – providing a tax cut for 99 percent of taxpaying corporations," but paid for by a tax hike on the remaining 1%.

As Bastiat would remind us (go here and scroll down to 1.56), that is not the creation of wealth, but merely a transfer. These "tax credits" are a euphemism for subsidy, whereas a true tax cut is an incentive giving real economic benefit to everyone. The plan's provided scenario is mind-boggling in its ignorance of economics:

For example, a medium-sized manufacturing company employs 1,000 workers. If this company hires an additional 100 employees at $40,000 – bringing the total to 1,100 workers – they would get a tax cut of $3,060 per worker $306,000 in total.

So the Kerry-Edwards plan was to pay the payroll taxes of certain businesses...just where did the Dynamic Duo think that money would come from? And it is a transfer at best, because the requisite tax increases are a disincentive for the other businesses that must pay them. Also, why do Kerry and Edwards believe it's ok to discriminate against big businesses, like Wal-Mart? It seems to be solely because they're "big." What is intrinsically wrong with a big business, whether or not it uses "economy of scale" to the consumer's advantage? It's still people, and people working.

Why are liberals like John Edwards so against Social Security privatization, free trade, and real tax cuts for all businesses? Well, it doesn't matter that these are the most economically effective measures to benefit the poor, as well as the rest of society. That's just it: liberals oppose any public policies that would help the poor if such policies might possibly benefit one "rich" person, no matter how small the extent. Can't cut income taxes, that would help the "rich"; can't cut capital gains taxes, that would help the "rich"; can't cut property taxes, that would help the "rich" too. But the fact remains that we're all in this economy together, and I for one declare that "trickle-down" does work. Read carefully what I say in my entry there: I'm not saying the rich shouldn't pay any taxes while the rest of us do, but a heavily progressive tax structure eventually hurts poor people too.

I wonder about something. John Edwards is a multi-millionaire trial lawyer. Since he thinks millionaires don't pay enough taxes, will he donate his $40,000 annual salary from the UNC to the U.S. Treasury? Has he started to calculate what is his own "fair share" of taxes and start paying that, regardless of current tax law? Will he sign a pledge stating he will never "evade" taxes via tax-free investments, like munis?

Or he could demonstrate his compassion for the poor by donating his $40,000 annual salary from this "Center" to a charitable cause. If he will or already donates extensively, please correct me: I will applaud anyone, even a liberal, who puts his money where his mouth is. On the other hand, I will not refrain from criticizing liberals who want to tax some people to benefit others, without putting up their own money first.