Why I Am Not a Pure Libertarian

I occasionally catch snippets of the unruly Glenn Beck radio show. Rarely is Beck short on entertainment value, but I frequently find myself disagreeing with his overly simplistic take on issues. Some of his one-sided pronouncements ignore facts to the point of crossing over into the realm of propaganda. He’s good at evoking emotional responses by citing things out of context. But Beck can make me laugh.

Among Beck’s regularly stated positions is his occasional discussion of his lack of affinity for pure libertarianism. He seems to quite enjoy goading Ron Paul supporters over certain libertarian stances that he finds either immoral or impractical. The other day he went on an anti-libertarian tirade that had me laughing so hard that I nearly had to pull over.

But within Beck’s raffish romp I found a good description of why I can’t bring myself to be a rock solid libertarian. Beck said that part of him wants to be a libertarian and that he agrees in principle with libertarians on 80-90% of their positions. But he just can’t go all the way and accept the remaining 10-20%.

It comes down to morality, Beck said. Our Founders were libertarians, but even the most libertarian-minded of them understood that none of what they were establishing would work without a strong moral framework. Libertarians argue for a laissez-faire approach, not only to economic and political matters, but to moral issues as well. There is a strong amoral (not necessarily immoral) tendency in libertarianism; although, libertarians will argue that freedom from moral strictures eventually creates its own morality. Like Beck, I just can’t go that far.

Kay S. Hymowitz captures this sentiment much more eloquently in this Commentary article (reprinted in the Wall Street Journal). Hymowitz begins her article with a humorous look at the libertarian stereotype of “a scraggly misfit living in the woods with his gun collection, a few marijuana plants, some dogeared Ayn Rand titles, and a battered pickup truck plastered with bumper stickers reading "Taxes = Theft" and "FDR Was A Pinko."”

Hymowitz says, “The Libertarian Party's paltry membership has never reached much beyond the 250,000 mark, and polling numbers for Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate seeking the Republican presidential nomination, remain pitiable.” She also discusses trends that libertarians must find appalling.

“[A]ntistatist ideas like school vouchers and privatized Social Security accounts continue to be greeted with widespread skepticism, while massive new programs like the Medicare prescription-drug benefit continue to win the support of re-election-minded incumbents. A recent New York Times survey found increasing support for government-run health care, and both parties are showing signs of a populist resurgence, with demands for new economic and trade regulation.”

Conversely, Hymowitz also notes that libertarian principles have become more ingrained in economic and personal choice matters than at any time in modern history. But Hymowitz also argues that libertarians have gone overboard in the arena of personal choice to the point of even advocating for immoral behaviors that, left unchecked will completely destroy the basic framework required for principles of liberty to exist. She calls this “the cultural contradictions of libertarianism.”

Research shows, asserts Hymowitz, that the natural (ostensibly middle class) family is absolutely essential to creating and maintaining the economic structure in which liberty can thrive. And yet libertarians have willfully ignored the indispensability of the community and the natural family in their support of policies of “freedom” that have contributed to and are contributing to community and family breakdown.

Bizarrely, “do whatever you want” attitudes with respect to morality have led to substantial growth of the type government dependence and government intrusion that “libertarians reject on principle.” Divorce and out-of-wedlock births have created “an increased demand for state-funded food, housing and medical subsidies.” And due to liberal divorce policies, family law courts “are forced to be more intrusive than the worst mother-in-law: They decide who should have primary custody, who gets a child on Christmas or summer holidays, whether a child should take piano lessons, go to Hebrew school, move to California, or speak to her grandmother on the phone.” This is the antithesis of liberty.

Hymowitz writes, “The complex, dynamic economy that libertarians have done so much to expand needs highly advanced human capital--that is, individuals of great moral, cognitive and emotional sophistication. Reams of social-science research prove that these qualities are best produced in traditional families with married parents.”

But the family is of necessity a very undemocratic institution. A good family requires a level of constraint, intrusion, sacrifice, dedication, and compulsion that we would not tolerate in other social institutions (outside of prison, perhaps). And yet the family is also the laboratory in which principles of liberty are introduced, taught, and fostered in ways that our finest public institutions cannot come close to matching.

Thomas Hibbs writes in this NRO article that “religion, skepticism about government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism” are essential to fostering vibrant communities that take care of themselves and require less government intervention. That is, strong communities are required for liberty to flourish. But like strong families, strong communities require the limitation of some individual freedoms for the common good. Libertarianism seems to recoil that the phrase, common good.

Some of the elements mentioned by Hibbs, such as entrepreneurism and being skeptical of government resonate well with libertarianism. But other elements actually limit maximization of personal freedom. And yet all of these elements are needed to create and protect liberty. What is needed is a balanced approach that maximizes liberty without killing the goose that lays the golden egg. But pure libertarian ideology, at least as far as my exposure to it, refuses to give any quarter to reasonable limitations on personal freedoms.

The libertarian refutation of a societal moral framework that fosters the kinds of families and communities that produce individuals that can create and sustain liberty stems, claims Hymowitz, from a radical search “for absolute freedom.” She says, “It is a quest that has left little room for the confining demands of family and other unchosen social bonds.” In other words, it is yet another attempt to create utopia that carelessly leaves destruction in its wake.

Many libertarian principles ring true to my heart. Like Glenn Beck, part of me longs to be a libertarian, but the excesses of libertarian amorality prevent me from going there. I believe that John Adams was correct when he said, “Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.” Amorality is modern libertarianism’s Achilles’ heel.

North Ogden Yawns Over Primary Election

North Ogden is a community of about 18,000 residents. Since it is a bedroom community with a large number of two-parent households and larger than normal families, minor children make up about 35.2% of the population (see here).

This means that there are approximately 11,600 adults that could qualify to vote in North Ogden. In the 2005 general election, North Ogden had 10,561 registered voters, but only 30% of them bothered to vote (see here). Today, North Ogden has 9,532 registered voters. So, 82% of North Ogden residents that could qualify to vote are actually registered to vote. That’s a good thing. But not very many of these people actually vote.

Yesterday’s primary election narrowed down a field of 10 candidates to six that will vie for three city council seats on November 6 (see results). 2598 votes were cast in the election. Each voter was to vote for three candidates. That means that about 866 people voted in yesterday’s primary election. 9% of registered voters in North Ogden bothered to turn out to vote yesterday.

Frankly, that’s pretty pathetic. In June the city held a special bond election that would have paid for building a cover over a small portion of the city swimming pool at an exorbitant cost. In that election, 2438 ballots were cast (about a quarter of registered voters); 71% of which were votes against the bond (see my post on the issue). People were pretty hot about the swimming pool bond, which would have amounted to a property tax increase of about $31 per year on the average North Ogden home.

But the city council primary election comes along, and it’s a yawner. People can’t bother to find time to even think about it, let alone vote. Yet, the people that end up on the city council will have a far greater impact on the lives of city residents than a mere $31/year property tax increase. Where are people’s priorities?

I’d have to say that part of the problem is a general lack of enthusiasm and information. I received campaign literature from exactly two candidates — on the same sheet of paper. It was a very amateurish production, complete with spelling errors. It was apparently produced by someone that had little experience with a word processor. Even high school student government campaigns produce better stuff than this. Exactly one candidate had a smattering of yard signs throughout the city until the day before the election. Then a couple of other candidates managed to get two or three signs out. The two incumbents, each of whom garnered votes from about half of the ballots cast, didn’t bother to do any campaigning as far as I could tell.

The Standard Examiner published a short article with very brief info about each of the ten candidates a week and a half ago. I am grateful that the local Kiwanis club sponsored a meet the candidates night last Thursday. Unfortunately, I had other commitments and was unable to attend. In short, most of the candidates didn’t seem very passionate about their candidacy and North Ogden residents had little information upon which to base an informed selection.

Perhaps I had somewhat of an advantage over most residents, since I am personally acquainted with five of the ten candidates. All five of those people now advance to the final round, along with one individual that I do not know personally. I personally sought out some of these people and discussed issues with them, since I had so little other information to go on.

Knowing some candidates gave me some insights others might not have, but it still left me feeling unprepared to vote in an informed manner. Even politically active people do not feel good about voting blindly. I’m sure that this led to yesterday’s general voter apathy.

Another factor might be that for most voters, narrowing a field of ten to six isn’t very meaningful. They figure that the selection of any six of them will likely yield a field of at least three they could feel comfortable supporting in November. Since any grouping of six would be fine, why bother to vote, especially when there is so little information available?

Some pundits are extremely alarmed about our nation’s low voter turnout rates (although the rate has been trending higher for three decades in general elections). Others think that it’s just fine that only those that care enough to become informed actually vote. Why should we want election outcomes to depend of people that are ignorant of the issues?

But I believe that it is important for people to want to become informed enough to vote in an informed manner. This should be an integral part of what it means to be an American (as noted in a previous post). To preserve our liberties, it is simply not enough for people to be born Americans. Each citizen must become an American. And fulfilling our civic duties is part of that process.

WWJD — Really?

A common acronym used among Christian worshippers is WWJD, which stands for, “What would Jesus do?” As is common with anything Christians consider sacred, this acronym has been wielded as a cynical weapon by critics of religion and it has been mocked by comedians. But even Christians occasionally have fun at their own expense.

One of my favorite stories in this respect tells of a person standing in line behind an older man at a Christian bookstore. Near the register was a display of ball caps with the letters “WWJD” embroidered across the front. The older man was not familiar with the acronym, and asked what it meant. The clerk replied that it meant, “What would Jesus do?” The older fellow seemed thoughtful as he looked at the price tag, and then he said, “Well, I don’t think he’d pay $18.95 for that hat.”

Believers in Christ tend to embrace the WWJD acronym because they believe that doing what Jesus would do will yield eternal joy. But eternal joy does not always equate to earthly happiness. It seems to me that Christians sometimes lose sight of this fact.

Darla Isackson reminds us in this article that “Jesus wasn't always nice” and that he wasn’t always happy. “But,” writes Isackson, “He was always true to Himself and His high purposes. He was perfect in His integrity.”

Isackson discusses how she had spent a portion of her life confused about this. She thought that it was her duty as a Christian to be happy, and especially to be nice. But she eventually came to realize that she had sacrificed her integrity on the altar of niceness. She now advocates an approach that reminds me of the saying Ezra Taft Benson used to keep on the wall of his office (see here): “Be right, and then be easy to live with, if possible, but in that order.”

Since Christians believe that “God is love,” (see here) they believe that Jesus was the physical embodiment of love on this earth. A friend of mine experienced several exasperating years of conflict with her teenage daughter (as if that’s an uncommon thing). After studying Christian doctrine, she figured that if she only loved her daughter more that her daughter would treat her better. She spent several months withholding criticism, doting and fawning over her daughter, but her daughter’s behavior only became worse.

The problem was that my friend misunderstood what Christ taught about love and charity. Jesus loved Peter, his chief apostle. Yet on one occasion he roughly said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” If you’re Christian, you believe that Jesus loved even the guys that were profiteering in the temple, and yet he whipped them, dumped out their money, and drove them out of the place (see here). Although Jesus surely loved the scribes and Pharisees, he was often extremely harsh with them. Jesus even once suggested with racial overtones that a woman seeking his aid had about the same status as that of a dog (see here).

But Jesus also showed love by being mild. His careful action allowed a woman caught in the act of adultery to escape capital punishment (see here). He took time to bless little children (see here). He healed many that came to him seeking miracles. And, of course, Christians believe that Jesus, although he was God, humbled himself to be tortured to death so that our sins, pains, and burdens might be relieved in the eternities.

Jesus always loved, but he was not always fawning over people. He wanted the very best for each individual and he did what it took in each instance to work toward that end. When he was chastising Peter and when he was beating on moneychangers in the temple, he was fully in control and knew that what he was doing was for the best. That’s a lot different than when I get frustrated and yell at my kids.

Another lesson my friend had to learn with respect to her teenage daughter is that no matter how much you love someone, you cannot make them treat you nice. You may sacrifice a great deal for someone you love and they may still treat you badly. Christ loved those that crucified them and even asked his Father in Heaven to forgive them (see here). Yet his love did not stop them from killing him.

In Christian doctrine, you don’t love someone to get them to behave a certain way; you love them because it’s the right thing to do. And until you do that, you don’t really love them at all, because charity and manipulation are not very compatible. Sometimes love calls for social niceness. Other times it calls for somewhat anti-social behavior.

It’s also important to note that Jesus had periods of depression. But these instances seem to be more about his concern for others than about his own problems (see here and here). His sorrow seemed to be more about his foresight of the eternal problems that would be endured by people rather than about his personal challenges.

My point is that the answer to WWJD can only be understood when one understands how Jesus actually behaved. We sometimes glibly throw this acronym around as a way to make our point — as a way to suggest that Jesus agrees with our point of view on one matter or another. I’m not sure He appreciates our attempts to use Him in that way.

The question, “What would Jesus do?” is meant to be an introspective search that can only be properly answered when one has sufficient information to serve as a premise for formulating an appropriate answer. You can’t correctly answer the question without adequate study. WWJD is intended as a platform for a personal counseling session, and not as a cudgel for bashing others. Each of us should study and then privately ask ourself WWJD on a regular basis.

Sad, but Not Necessarily Necessary

I’m very grateful that family and friends of Camille Cleverley now have some closure (see D-News and SL-Trib articles). Those outside of Utah probably haven’t paid much attention to this story, although, it has made national news (see AP story). Although police are still investigating, surface appearances do not seem to indicate foul play. Rather, Cleverley appears to have fallen while climbing in the Bridal Veil Falls area. This whole sad affair might have been avoided had basic principles of outdoors activities been followed.

Cleverley was about to start her senior year at BYU in Provo, Utah. She was last seen riding her bike on Thursday, August 30. Records indicated that some sports drinks and donuts were purchased using Cleverley’s debit card on Friday, August 31 from a convenience store, and that her PIN was used to authorize that purchase. The store clerk remembered a young lady, but could not confirm whether it was Cleverley.

By the next day, Cleverley’s roommate had notified Cleverley’s family that she had not been to her apartment for a couple of days. A search was soon initiated. Police and volunteer searchers investigated every lead and the story became the headline in Utah news reports. Searchers looked in the area where Cleverley’s body was later found, but they apparently missed it because the area is very rugged and wooded.

This whole thing might have been solved days earlier had not some dirtbags stolen Cleverley’s bike from a bike rack at a trailhead near Bridal Veil Falls on Sunday, Sept. 2. Late last week the evildoers came forward with the bike, which police were able to verify belonged to Cleverley. Searchers concentrated their search in the area where the bike had been stolen. They were about to call it quits for the day yesterday when one team came upon Cleverley’s body in dense brush at the base of the cliff down which they were rappelling.

A question that has been on people’s minds has been whether the Aug. 31 purchases were made by Cleverley or by someone that had stolen her debit card. That question now seems to have been answered, since Cleverley’s debit card was found with her body, and her backpack contained some of the items purchased.

What now seems to have happened is that Cleverley engaged in a risky outdoor activity and ended up falling to her death. Not only do her family and friends have closure, but the entire BYU community and the Utah news viewing audience also have some closure.

This is particularly important, because people expect college campuses to be relatively safe places for young adults. Colleges and universities depend on an image of safety to attract students. Since BYU is a religious university that restricts certain risky behaviors associated with moral teachings, parents anticipating sending their young adult children there seem to have a somewhat higher expectation for their safety. Rarely does a BYU student simply disappear without a trace. Police and searchers necessarily were required to consider the possibility of foul play with Cleverley’s disappearance.

However, this whole episode might have been avoided had basic rules for outdoor and back country activities been followed. The first rule is to be prepared for the type of activity in which you will be engaging. For example, hikers frequently find themselves in trouble when they fail to bring adequate water, food, or outerwear.

The second rule of outdoor activities is to let someone know your plan. You don’t have to kill off all spontaneity, but you should have a general plan that includes the general area into which you are headed, the types of activities in which you expect to engage, and a time range for when you expect to return. If you don’t have someone that lives close by with which you feel comfortable leaving this information, call a responsible friend or family member and let them know this information and tell them you will call when you return. That way, if you don’t call, they can assume you are in trouble.

If this second rule had been followed, Camille Cleverley’s disappearance might not have become a major news event, family and friends might have had closure eight days earlier, an entire university’s faculty and student body might not have unnecessarily have been put on alert, and a great deal of resources (law enforcement, volunteer, etc) might have been saved.

A final rule for outdoor activities is to implement proper risk management. This is closely related to the first rule of proper preparedness. But the point of this rule is to properly mitigate the risks of the activities in which you engage. For example, about the same time Cleverley went missing, a high school exchange student drowned in Causey Reservoir while trying to swim across the reservoir (see here). Signs posted in the area prohibit swimming there without a personal flotation device, however, nobody in the student’s group was using one. While free swimming might be perceived as more fun, no one would have drowned had the swimmers been wearing PFDs.

Many will say that no one should ever go hiking alone. While this would likely have mitigated much of the problem with Cleverley’s disappearance, I am reluctant to make this a hard and fast rule for everyone in every situation. Much depends on the terrain and remoteness of the area, as well as the training and preparedness of the hiker. I sometimes hike alone, but I follow the three rules stated above and I am careful to avoid unnecessary risks. Frankly, not many hikers are as gutsy and resourceful (and insane) as Aron Ralston, who amputated his own arm that was pinned by a boulder when he was hiking solo in 2003. After cutting off his arm with a dull pocketknife, Ralston rappelled down a slope and hiked out until he met rescuers. Valient? Yes. Unnecessary? Absolutely.

Utah County search and rescue teams are quite familiar with the Bridal Veil Falls area, since it is popular for hiking and climbing. It is not uncommon for them to be called out to rescue the victim of a climbing fall or to rescue someone stuck on a ledge.

Climbing can be a relatively safe sport if you follow safety precautions, such as climbing with a buddy, using proper gear and techniques, and avoiding climbs that are out of your league. Recent years have seen a rise in the popularity of free climbing. While free climbing does not preclude the use of safety ropes and equipment, many solo climbing enthusiasts avoid such for the exhilaration of pitting themselves against nature. This kind of thing might be exhilarating, but it is extremely unwise, especially when one is alone.

It’s great to have fun engaging in back country and outdoor activities. It can be done relatively safely. All you need to do is follow three simple rules: 1) Be prepared. 2) Have a plan, let a responsible person know what your plan is, and check in when you get back. 3) Properly manage risks.

For those of you in the “I don’t need no stinkin’ rules” crowd, please consider your family and friends. You might not care if you die, but someone else out there does. Don’t leave them in the lurch by your selfish actions. Even if you don’t care for your own safety, follow these simple rules so those that care about you can have peace of mind.

The Need for Speed

“There will be a constant pressure for [wireless networking] speed and it will never cease.” —M. Kursat Kimyacioglu of Philips Electronics NV

We have four computers in our home. One desktop is connected to the router by cable. The other desktop and the two laptops are connected to the router wirelessly. The wireless networking on the laptop that is in the same room as the router works at least as fast as the wired networking on the desktop. But the other two computers are three rooms away and half a level down. The wireless networking on the distant desktop is somewhat slow, despite a high gain antenna setup. The old laptop … well … it’s so slow (not just with respect to networking) that we hardly use it for anything. I probably should sanitize it and dispose of it.

My current home network setup was the stuff of futuristic fiction only a few years ago. We would have thought we were in paradise had we been able to wirelessly transfer relatively small files back in those archaic days of the late 20th Century. But, as has been the case with almost all computing technology, once users get a taste of something, they only want it to do more, and to do it better and faster.

I have seen this throughout my computer programming career. When I first started programming, everyone was using various 3GLs. The buzz was that 4GLs were going to revolutionize software development. Users would be able to develop their own solutions and developers would no longer be needed. But the 1990s found the developer world flocking to Java, which was another 3GL. 4GLs turned out not to be all they were cracked up to be. Most 3GL development requires trained programmers.

Various other developments over the years have promised to eliminate the need for programmers, allowing users to develop their own solutions. What has happened to all of these promises? Surprisingly enough, many of them have come true. How many non-programmers accomplish tasks today that were once solely the domain of programmers? How many people develop and use spreadsheets and simple database systems? These things have become ubiquitous.

Rather than eliminating the need for programmers, however, the advent of these tools has only created a more insatiable desire for increasingly complex solutions. However large the circle of capabilities available to users today, they continuously yearn for something just beyond the edge of that circle. And the development world continually works to cater to those desires. Thus, the only thing that remains truly static in computer development is the desire for more, better, and faster.

The same is true in the hardware world. Every couple of years I read an article claiming that we’re about to max out on the technological ability to provide yet faster processing. But the tech industry continually finds new breakthroughs that prove the pessimists wrong. Users want faster processing, and the tech world provides it.

In networking, the next great thing that users want is the ability to wirelessly and instantaneously transfer large files. Say, for example, movie files. Users have become used to downloading high quality audio files from remote locations and immediately using them. Many users do this with low quality video files as well, but it takes longer.

Why can’t we decide we want to buy a movie from an Internet site and be watching it on the big screen seconds later? Why do I even have to pull out a DVD and pop it into the DVD player? Why can’t I just have all of my video files on a central server in my home, where I can select them and watch them anytime I want from any video device in the house?

As one would expect, the tech world is working hard to turn these concepts into reality. This AP article reports on efforts to use extremely high radio frequencies for small wireless networks. They can already transfer an entire standard DVD movie file in about five seconds. Right now the technology is brittle, as “signals don't penetrate walls very well and are too easily disturbed by passing people and pets.” Developers hope to overcome these problems within a year. They figure that they have to get their chip down to $5 to be competitive in the market.

But if this effort ultimately doesn’t pan out, that’s no big deal, because there are others that are working on accomplishing the same thing using different technologies. If we end up with competing technologies, the market will ultimately sort out which one (or ones) will be most useful on a broad scale.

And once we get to this point, we’re going to be in permanent nirvana, right? Wrong. Once users have the capacity to wirelessly and instantaneously transfer large files, they will want the capacity to do something else that is just beyond the then-current scope of technology. As it does now, the tech world will be busy working to deliver.

To paraphrase the quote at the beginning of this article, there is a constant pressure for better technology, and it never ceases. And the tech world never ceases stepping up to the challenge of responding to that pressure.

Priceless

We were fortunate enough to spend a good portion of Labor Day with extended family members at a private swimming facility. It was a glorious day for swimming. At one point when I was working on helping clear away meal items, I looked up when my second-grader son called to me. He was standing on the diving board. He waved and excitedly yelled, “Hey, Dad, watch this!” He then ran and jumped off the board feet first into the water.

There was nothing particularly unusual about this action. He splashed into the water and swam to the side of the pool. But a feeling swelled in my heart that I find difficult to describe in words. This little boy was showing off for me. My attention was important to him because he knows that I love him. And this little episode also made it clear that he loves me.

It is impossible to describe in words the exchange that took place between my son and me in those few seconds. I know in my soul that it transcends the boundaries of this sphere. I suppose that it’s only something that a parent can comprehend. My son has likely already forgotten this incident. And yet there’s no worldly thing that could possibly equal the value of this event.

It’s little things like this that tumble together like sands falling through the narrow neck of an hourglass to create a conglomerate treasure that is beyond all the money, gold, power, and other baubles that this world has to offer. I am truly rich.

Representative Rob Bishop Town Meeting 2007

Last year I reported on attending a town meeting held by my Congressional Representative, Rob Bishop (R-UT). Last night I attended another town meeting held by Rep. Bishop. This time I hauled my 9th grade son with me. The meeting was slated to last one hour. Due to other commitments, we had to leave about 40 minutes into the meeting.

This year’s meeting had about two-thirds the attendance of last year’s meeting. I think two factors probably contributed to this. Last year was an election year and this year’s meeting was held later in the evening than last year’s meeting. As with last year, I was among the younger attendees. The average age of the attendees was probably quite a bit higher than my age. There was one other youth beside my son in attendance.

As with last year’s meeting, Rep. Bishop started off talking for about 15 minutes, trying to hit the hot button issues. He also took a couple of jabs at the Senate, although, these were milder than last year. He said that the House has passed 12 of its 13 appropriation bills to fund the federal government for the next fiscal year, but that the Senate has passed only one. Bishop admitted that he had voted against all but two of the House’s appropriations bills because all of them, except for the defense bill, appropriated far more money than President Bush requested, and Bishop argued that the President’s requests were already way too high.

As far as the defense bill goes, Rep. Bishop expressed extreme displeasure with the House leadership in giving the Armed Services Committee, of which he is a member, far too little money. He praised committee chair Ike Skelton (D-MO) and several other committee members, both Democrat and Republican, for their honest hard work in developing a good bi-partisan bill. He was disappointed that they were forced to cut some programs and underfund others due to House leadership priorities.

When it came to the question and answer period, I was very gratified that the one rude lady that kept butting into others’ questions last year was not present. The first guy to ask a question was a feeble older gentleman that asked the exact same question as he asked last year, part of which was about the general Social Security program, and part of which applied to a small subgroup that has been griping for years that Social Security shorted them a couple of thousand Dollars years ago. Rep. Bishop answered the question pretty much the same way he answered it last year.

A number of citizens brought up immigration issues. It was obvious that some of these folks were pretty hot under the collar about illegal immigration. Some made what I would consider to be rather absurd statements. Rep. Bishop’s answers were balanced. He said that there is no way we could deport 12 million people, but that even if we could, it would make no difference unless we first secured the border. He favored passing legislation to address specific problems and actually implementing existing legislation, rather than attempting a huge compromise bill, such as the one that failed in the Senate a few weeks ago.

I don’t know how many of the people at the meeting realized it, but one older distinguished looking gentleman in attendance used to be a rather influential Democratic politician in Weber County. I knew some history here, and I knew that he and Rep. Bishop had been on opposite sides of the aisle in the Utah State House of Representatives years ago. (Bishop served as speaker of the Utah House for eight years.) I doubt many in the room realized it, but when this man asked a couple of questions meant to agitate in favor of universal health care and federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, he was having some fun with his former colleague.

In turn, Rep. Bishop had a little fun with his answers. This gentleman asked if Rep. Bishop had seen the movie Sicko. Rep. Bishop responded that he saw no need to watch what amounted to propaganda, which is Michael Moore’s stock and trade. This man said he wasn’t surprised because he hadn’t met a Republican that had seen the film. Rep. Bishop responded that he chose not to watch pornographic films either.

Up to this point in the meeting, the discussion had been fairly polite, even though, some citizens had made extreme statements. One guy never asked a question, but simply rambled on about how he had lived in Canada for 25 years, that the Canadian health care system wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be, and that his wife had obtained her U.S. citizenship legally, etc. But everyone had been rather subdued. When Rep. Bishop made the comment about pornographic films, a small number in the audience vocally protested, a few people acted clueless, and most of the audience laughed out loud. I had to leave at this point, so I didn’t get to see if the meeting got any juicier.

One thing I noted about both this town meeting and last year’s meeting is that no active local politicians attended either meeting. I am left to wonder why that is. Is there some agreement that local politicans don’t attend these kinds of events? Is there concern that they would taint themselves by appearing? Is there a concern that they might upstage the congressman? If they’re supposed to be leading by example, the example they are demonstrating is that attending a congressional representative’s town meeting is not very important. Can anyone shed more light on this?

Although I sat quietly at the meeting and didn’t say anything, I think that it’s good for our elected officials to occasionally come down from their ivory towers and directly interface with the unwashed masses. Rep. Bishop is in a secure district. That is, unless he does something really stupid, a la Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), he can probably be re-elected as often as he wants.

Rep. Bishop could probably get away with rarely having to talk with constituents in unscripted meetings. He could likely get away with treating constituents condescendingly. Although Rep. Bishop had some fun with a couple of questions, he treated each citizen with respect while being fairly forthright about his positions and where he disagreed with people. While people may have differing views, this kind of approach earns their respect.

Making Political Hay From Sub-Prime Loans

What lessons did we learn from the Savings and Loan crisis that came to a head during the 1980s? Please bear in mind that this whole fiasco directly cost us taxpayers about $125 billion. Other indirect costs, including funding of the resulting federal deficits of the 1990s pin the total cost at a much higher figure. But did we learn anything from it?

I hope the S&L crisis hasn’t dimmed or become fuzzy in the minds of Americans, because one of the lessons we should have learned is that government intervention to rescue lenders from poor business practices causes far more problems that it solves. The S&L crisis was made worse by several orders of magnitude by government meddling that prevented the market from appropriately responding. But it seems that today we are on the threshold of wanting to repeat some of the same mistakes that significantly contributed to the S&L crisis.

S&Ls had a long history of performing well in the mortgage industry for a century. During the 1960s more Americans bought homes than ever before, financing them at rates of 5% and less. Life was good. And then we experienced rampant inflation and skyrocketing interest rates in the 1970s. To be competitive with other investment instruments, S&Ls had to offer higher rates to their investors than they were receiving from their debtors.

It was obvious that in the long haul this business model was completely unsustainable. How did S&Ls end up in this situation? After WWII, the government implemented regulations intended to increase home ownership. While this produced many salutary effects, it also led to S&Ls being too deep in fixed low-rate assets, and therefore, insufficiently flexible to deal with market changes. In effect, S&Ls were encouraged to act as if the economic conditions of the late 50s and early 60s would go on unchanged forever. S&Ls ignored common business sense by accepting this wonderland scenario.

When interest rates went up in the 1970s, S&Ls started writing mortgage loans at the higher rate, but the bulk of their assets were locked up in 30-year mortgages written at much lower rates. Investors naturally expected to earn interest at the new market rates immediately. S&Ls could either figure out ways to keep investors on board or risk losing enough investors that they would go out of business. Either way, insolvency was going to be the end result. It was only a question of how much time would transpire before that happened.

Seeing the looming problem, politicians came to the rescue in an attempt to save the floundering S&Ls. Over the next few years, laws and regulations were passed that artificially kept failing S&Ls in business. Had the market been allowed to deal with the crisis early on, there would have been pain, but ultimately the market would have corrected itself. Politicians put off the pain — and made the crisis many times worse — by intervening and shielding S&Ls from natural market pressures.

But all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t stop the S&L Humpty-Dumpty from falling, nor could they put him back together again. By the time the S&L collapse could no longer be stopped by politicians, Humpty-Dumpty was much larger and sat much higher, so his fall was much greater. Once again, Congress rushed in to pick up the pieces and save the market from dealing with the natural consequences of bad business decisions, resulting in the taxpayers forking out many billions of Dollars. Players learned that if business mistakes are big enough, they will ultimately not have to bear the full cost. Thus, Congress ended up encouraging riskier business behavior.

Fast forward to 2007. In recent years, mortgage lenders have climbed over each other in an effort to attract increasing numbers of Americans to their loan products. Home builders have been in on the take as well, working hard to attract buyers that have marginal repayment capacity. This has led to a significant increase in sub-prime lending. But common business sense dictates that making high risk loans will inevitably lead to a high default rate. This all hit the fan recently, when there was a sharp rise in the number of foreclosures in the sub-prime mortgage market between 2006 and 2007, resulting in what is being called the 2007 sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Politicians, ever eager for votes and ever eager to expand power, are licking their chops and planning increased regulation that would have the effect of overreacting, punishing some, and shielding the market from the natural consequences of shoddy lending practices. As Jerry Bowyer reports in this NRO article, mortgage lenders are not lending at the moment because they fear the congressional backlash that is about to be unleashed, even as the market is effectively responding to correct the excesses that led to the “crisis.”

The ironic thing is that, as Bowyer notes here, this whole issue is really just a tempest in a teapot. He cites the fact that “only about 0.6 percent of U.S. mortgages are currently in foreclosure. That’s up a hair from roughly 0.5 percent last year.” But since these additional 35,000 foreclosures are ostensibly for lower cost homes, “the recent increase in sub-prime foreclosures amounts to 0.01 percent of net U.S. household wealth.”

In other words, the sub-prime “crisis” has been blown way out of proportion, making headlines in a slow news cycle. The market is already correcting the problem. But none of this will stop politicians from grandstanding on and trying to make political hay with this issue. And just about anything they are assaying to do will only make matters worse. Here’s hoping that Congress will take its most usual course of action and end up blathering a lot while doing nothing. Sometimes it’s good when politicians can’t accomplish anything.

The FairTax: It's Fair, but Is It Good?

My parents always told me that if it sounds too good to be true, it is. With very few exceptions, that advice has proven to be extremely valuable throughout my life. A few times I have ignored this advice, only to end up learning a lesson the hard way. The very few exceptions to this rule that I have seen are more like flukes; like someone winning the lottery.

Economist Bruce Bartlett makes a strong argument in this WSJ article that the FairTax is one of those things that is just too good to be true.

For those that are new to this debate, the FairTax is a type of flat tax proposal that would exchange the current federal income tax system for a national sales tax. Unlike value added tax (VAT), where taxes are levied at every exchange between initial producer and final consumer, the FairTax would be levied only at the final exchange. This is an important point, because VAT tends to hide taxes, while the FairTax would make taxation more transparent.

The main selling point of the FairTax is the claim that it would get rid of the IRS and government intrusion into the lives of individuals. Proponents argue that taxes would be collected through the same mechanisms that currently collect state and local sales taxes. They note that these organizations work directly with retailers and rarely directly interface with consumers.

While this sounds nice, Bartlett asserts, “Perhaps the biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits.” What is he talking about? He is talking about the fact that the FairTax is not, in fact, a flat tax, but is a progressive tax. The progressive nature of it is applied at the back end rather than at the front end, as occurs in our current system.

The whole argument behind progressive taxation is that a flat tax is not fair. A tax of 10% of a poor person’s income creates a much greater burden on that person than is created on a rich person by a tax of 10% of his/her income. The FairTax realizes this. Since everyone would pay the same percent of taxes on their purchases up front, the FairTax would send out monthly rebate checks to every household based on household income. In other words, some agency would still be collecting information — and performing audits — on personal income. FairTax proponents can argue that this agency would not be as intrusive as our current IRS, but there is simply no way they can prove this would be the case. The IRS by any other name ….

Bartlett goes to great length in his article to criticize the FairTax’s proposed 23% tax rate. He shows how this is a smoke and mirrors deception that hides the actual 30% tax rate. Bartlett demonstrates that the only way the proposed rate could work is for government spending to be simultaneously cut by a whopping 60%. I’m a small government type, so I think government spending should be cut. But does anyone reasonably think that cutting spending 60% is realistic?

The alternative is a tax rate of about 57%. Bartlett notes that it could be as high as 89% in a worst case scenario. He purposefully points this out because “public opinion polls have long shown that support for flat-rate tax reforms is extremely sensitive to the proposed rate, with support dropping off sharply at a rate higher than 23%.”

Bartlett includes a number of other criticisms, including the fact that the tax would be levied not only on goods, but also on services that have traditionally been exempt from sales tax. Imagine your medical bills immediately increasing by 30%. Bartlett discusses the fact that federal government would also pay the tax. FairTax proponents include in their calculations the revenue this would generate, but ignore the added expense to the government, as if it simply wouldn’t exist. Bartlett says that FairTax proponents ignore the costs of collecting the tax and distributing welfare checks to a huge percentage of the population.

FairTax proponents will say that Bartlett’s criticisms are over the top, fail to consider the economic growth that would result from the program, fail to consider the overall reductions in prices that would result from fewer taxing points, and/or ignore answers that have already been provided. That’s OK. They can say that. But frankly, their economic growth numbers are simply too good to be true.

Bartlett is not the first to point out shortcomings with the FairTax proposal, but I have yet to encounter cogent arguments that would satisfactorily counter all of the criticisms he raises. Perhaps more cogent posts will be forthcoming, but as of post time, the only FairTax proponent arguments I could find to specifically counter Bartlett’s contentions were devoid of substance but filled with ad hominem attacks. And many of these came from “esteemed” economists.

What we know for sure is that flat tax proposals play well with many audiences throughout America. Flat taxes play particularly well with conservative audiences. At least they play well at first blush. A broad swath of Americans also wants to make sure taxes are not too oppressive for those that can least afford it. Many people are in both camps. The FairTax seems to fit the desires of both camps — until you look under the covers and see all of the problems with the program.

FairTax proponents do not want to hear criticisms of the program. I’ve had too many discussions where proponents act like the three monkeys that can hear, see, and speak no evil of the proposal. They don’t care about the counter arguments; they simply feel that the FairTax should be enacted anyway. I suppose you’d call this faith-based legislation. That is not a good formula for creating national policy.

United We Stand, but Can We Stand United?

KGB-trained former Romanian intelligence officer Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa defected to the U.S. in 1978. It was a serious blow to the communist Romanian government, and particularly to President Nicolae Ceauşescu, to whom Pacepa had been serving as adviser for national security and technological development while simultaneously acting as deputy chief of the Romanian foreign intelligence service. Following his defection, Pacepa spent years with millions of Dollars in bounties on his head, sponsored by Ceauşescu, Yasser Arafat, and Muammar al-Qaddafi.

Pacepa writes of his gratitude for his adopted nation in this WSJ op-ed article. “During these years I have lived here under five presidents--some better than others--but I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive.”

But the gist of Pacepa’s article is the assertion that President Bush’s harsh critics are following the old KGB game plan for beating America, and that they are doing so very effectively. Pacepa is talking about “top political leaders [that] can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."” His basis for this claim is his observation that “international respect for America is directly proportional to America's own respect for its president.”

Let me point out that in our democratic republic, we are completely free to criticize our government and our political leaders. We encourage debate about the issues of the day as a way of working out acceptable courses of action. The idea that we should remain mum about perceived leadership deficiencies is … well … un-American.

But has the rhetoric gone too far? It’s interesting to read Pacepa’s recounting of various KGB-sponsored efforts to discredit whoever happened to be our president at a given time in order to discredit America. For example he notes with sorrow the communists’ success in using propaganda during the Vietnam War to convince millions of Americans “that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages.”

While Pacepa is enthusiastic about competition, he asserts that “unity in time of war has made America the leader of the world.” For example, he notes, “Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt's war policy [in 1944].” He parallels this with today’s situation:

“Now we are again at war. It is not the president's war. It is America's war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don't know either. But I do know that if America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: "We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West."”

While I believe that Gen. Pacepa’s observations are highly valuable, I can’t help but think that he’s comparing apples and oranges. We did not get directly involved in World War II until Congress formally declared war against Japan and Germany. It took a lot of sacrifice, but we won the war decisively. Since that time our nation has avoided direct declarations of war, opting instead for resolutions such as the one that authorized the president to use “necessary force” to combat terrorism that threatens the U.S. or its interests.

Oh, we’ve done alright in some small military actions, such as Grenada and Panama, but other larger actions haven’t been so successful. The Korean War ended in a draw. We allowed ourselves to be defeated in Vietnam. We won decisively in Gulf War I, but failed to eliminate the threat, resulting in a decade and a half of problems. A dozen years after starting to bomb, we’re still hanging around in Kosovo keeping people from killing each other. It’s not clear if we’re going to ultimately achieve a stable situation in Afghanistan or in Iraq.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX, current GOP presidential candidate) contends that the U.S. tends to win when it formally declares war and tends to lose when it takes military action without declaring war. (I’m not sure how he thinks the War of 1812 fits into this assertion.) While Paul was opposed to war in Iraq, he “introduced legislation in October 2002 for Congress to declare war on Iraq. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war.”

Paul understood that declaring war requires more than a simple majority; it requires a relatively broad consensus. When a consensus of this nature exists, political leaders and citizens are willing to line up behind the effort and make the sacrifices necessary for success. When a declaration of war can be achieved, then the unity that Pacepa observes with respect to WWII is a natural result.

Congress would have voted overwhelmingly to declare war on Afghanistan. But does anyone think that it would have declared war on Iraq? Although 296 representatives and 76 senators effectively voted to allow the President to invade Iraq, this move afforded members of Congress that were lukewarm to the idea cover for their ambivalence. It gave them flexibility to be fluid in their support of the war. But the main point is that a declaration of war could not have been achieved because there was no broad consensus among the American people to do so.

When Ron Paul wanted an up or down vote on declaring war on Iraq, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) responded, “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them.” There are people on the other side of the aisle that also believe that some elements of the Constitution are outdated. They might disagree with Rep. Hyde on what those elements might be. But the point is that leaders in both major political parties are willing to toss the Constitution aside whenever its provisions seem inconvenient.

We have, for example, Senator Hatch (R-UT) who is willing to ignore constitutional provisions so that Washington, D.C. can have a full voting seat in the House of Representatives. He notes the injustice of the District’s plight, and makes convoluted arguments suggesting that the plan is actually constitutional. Like Rep. Hyde, he is willing to ignore the Constitution when its provisions seem inconvenient.

Constitutional injustices or inadequacies should be repaired per the provisions in the document. That is, the document should be amended. Yes, it’s almost impossible to amend the Constitution. The Founders purposefully set a very high bar for achieving amendments. That is one of the Constitution's great strengths, but only if we actually honor it in deed.

Back to Gen. Pacepa’s point. Regardless of how we ended up in Iraq, the fact of the matter is that we are there now. We have to deal with the situation we have rather than the situation we wish we had. Pacepa is surely correct when he opines that if political leaders from both sides of the aisle line up behind victory, we will win. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that we’re suddenly going to get the President’s opponents to stop their anti-Bush rhetoric. While their gnashing may diminish our nation’s stature abroad, the fact is that this is a natural result of going to war without sufficient consensus to achieve a formal declaration of war.

But we can’t go back to what should have been. Since we are now at war in Iraq, political leaders should ask themselves what outcome would truly be best for America. They should approach this question with a blind eye as to who controls the White House, because in a little over 16 months it will be somebody else and we will still likely be in Iraq. And then they should consider how to best achieve what is best for our nation. Is it too much to ask that politicians put the welfare of their nation ahead of their own political careers?

Lobbyist In Chief?

Fred Thompson campaigning in Iowa defends his tenure as a Washington, D.C. lobbyist (here). And he has a point. Lobbyists represent actual people. The inside workings of the political system would take these people years to learn. Lobbyists already know the ropes and can help these people get some traction on their issues. That’s admittedly a very solicitous view of the lobbying profession.

While Thompson has a point, Americans are going to ask themselves if they want a former lobbyist as president. My guess is that people that might not object to lobbying as a profession per se might balk at electing a lobbyist to be their president.

Outrageous Excuses

A week and a half ago I wrote about a gang shooting less than three miles from my home. Last Sunday the Standard Examiner included an article about a two-hour jailhouse interview with the 19-year old gang banger that is accused of being the shooter in that incident.

Reporter Tim Gurrister expertly includes statements from the interview that are intended to elicit an emotional response. Realizing that Gurrister’s 810-word article can only include a minute portion of the interview, I have waited a few days to write about this in order to hopefully achieve some objectivity. However, rather than becoming calmer about the gang banger’s statements, I find myself increasingly outraged.

Like almost all criminals, this 19-year-old waste of skin has his ‘story’ and blame casting techniques meant to justify his nefarious activities and to show that he has been incarcerated unjustly. But he stupidly tries to play both sides of the issue.

On one hand, “all he wanted to be was a gang member;” specifically a member of the same gang his father and grandfather belong to. Now, isn’t that special? Most Americans raise their kids to go to school, get a decent job, buy a home, and raise a family. Not these guys. They raise their kids to join gangs. Isn’t that sweet?

On the other hand, this creep blames the police for his gang involvement. When he was 13, his cousin was killed in a gang shooting that the police never solved. This injustice caused him to become more deeply involved in the gang. This is so screwed up on so many levels that it seems unnecessary to discuss it further.

Oh, and it’s also the fault of the police that gangs are using more guns rather than just fists and knives like they did in the good ol’ days. The creep asks, “Why don’t they do something to get all the guns off the streets?” It seems lost on our little banger that among the things they are doing is putting him behind bars. The police can’t turn off all the gangsta rap that idolizes gun violence.

But wait, he now says his confession was coerced and that he isn’t the real shooter. He admits he was in the car from which the shots were fired, but he says he didn’t pull the trigger. However, he’d rather go to prison than violate his gang’s code of silence by ratting out the real shooter. He is hoping to beat the rap and resume his regular life. I guess he’s never heard of being an accomplice to murder. Prosecutors feel confident enough of their case that they have filed aggravated murder charges, which could lead to the death penalty.

Of course, this dirt bag says the shooting would never have happened had not somebody at the post-wedding gathering insulted his gang. Naturally, this warranted spraying the crowd of 30+ people with bullets. The culture of honor that was once prevalent, particularly in the South and on the American frontier has been receding as a culture of law has taken precedence and society has come to understand the value of civil rights for all. But gangs relive this old culture of honor.

For example, it was once socially acceptable (and even socially demanded) that a man defend an insult to his family even to the death. Today, you can verbally insult my family and I will simply think you’re a jerk. I wouldn’t think about retaliating. If you do something illegal against my family, I will appeal to the legal system to resolve the issue. But I’m not going to shoot you. In gang culture, however, if someone says, “Your gang sucks,” you are obligated to kill him. What kind of screwed up culture is that?

Although he now wants to move away from the gang, the filthy little banger says that gang life is great. He touts his gang’s ethnic diversity. He makes it sound like a church, something one reader found quite objectionable (see here). His gang has family barbeques, for example. I enjoy taking my family to my local church cookouts, but I certainly don’t expect any of the attendees to be packing heat, nor am I worried that somebody from a rival church is going to drive by and start shooting at me and my kids.

This 19-year-old piece of human trash says that he has sired two children with his girlfriend of six years, and that they have a great life together. Perhaps copulating and creating a teen welfare queen has been this banger’s most significant income producing activity. Maybe second only to burglary. Are taxpayers subsidizing gang activity?

I realize that this guy needs to have his day in court and that it is imperative that appropriate legal standards be applied to his case. But this punk’s expressions are nothing short of outrageous. Prosecutors have told his defense attorneys that their client would do himself a favor by curtailing his public statements. In other words, get a clue, boy, and shut up. Besides, the guy is a gang member. How much of what he says publicly can be trusted?

Meanwhile, creep boy sits in jail, where he rubs shoulders with other gangstas and learns how to be a better filth bag. His homies on the outside, cruising around in their low riders with their guns in their waistbands hail him as a hero.

We cannot outlaw gangs. They have a constitutional right to gather and associate. But they have no right to perform illegal acts. Although they may have family picnics, crime is the main goal of gangs (see here). This warrants keeping an eye on them so they can be caught when they cross the line of legality.

Some experts argue that using a heavy hand against gangs has proven to be counterproductive because gangs thrive on rebellion. The more they feel the authorities push, the stronger they become and the more they push back. These same people cite studies showing that prisons are gang factories, where gangstas earn their badges of honor and become harsher criminals. These criticisms are perhaps well founded, but ignoring gang activity doesn’t work either.

The question is how to achieve a cultural shift. How do we make a culture of rebellion less enticing to those that currently go in for that kind of thing?

The Glass Is More Than Half Full

For five years in a row, polls have showed that 65% to 85% of Americans have thought we were in a recession or were about to enter a recession. For five years in a row, the American economy has grown at an unprecedented pace. Unemployment is low, wages are up, and wages for the lowest earners are up the most. Strangely, the percentage of Americans that presently think their personal financial situation is good, very good, or excellent is almost exactly the same as the percentage that think the economy is in the tank or is about to tank.

Why this disparity? Why are Americans so incredibly gloomy about the economy when it is very robust and their personal economies are doing well? Brian Wesbury of First Trust Portfolios thinks he has at least part of the answer in this WSJ article.

In order to get bigger audiences, which translate to advertising income, broadcast economic discussions usually present both a bull and a bear view of the economy. Not only is this done in the name of fairness and balance, but as Wesbury points out, it creates a more lively broadcast that brings in a bigger audience. He opines that “having two economists debate about whether GDP will grow 2.1% this year or 2.4% is downright boring.”

The problem with the pro-con debate scenario, claims Wesbury, is that it “leaves an impression that the experts are split 50/50, when in reality it's more like 80/20, or 90/10.” He says that “if all the public sees is an endless stream of 50/50 debates, then it is really not that much of a surprise that people think the future is basically a coin toss. And a coin toss, especially in a time of war and terrorism, is not very good odds.”

This is a very interesting argument, and Wesbury certainly makes a valid point. He says that “people gather knowledge about the rest of the economy, the part they cannot see, from watching news.” So if the economic news comes across as gloomy, people tend to adopt that view themselves. But I am left to wonder how many Americans actually tune into the kind of programs Wesbury is talking about.

I get some economic news from radio programs. I rarely get news of any type from TV programming. I get most of my news through print media and online print media. Do the same economic debating tactics Wesbury describes appear in print media as well? Not so much in the stuff I read.

Perhaps Wesbury believes that the percentage of the population that does get their economic news from broadcast media become the opinion leaders which poison the opinions of the masses. There could be validity to this assertion, but I’d like to see some empirical data on it.

I’ve got to believe that there is more going on here than unbalanced broadcast economic reporting. If you go to Gallup Poll’s list of topics and start checking out recent polling results, you will find that Americans are pessimistic about a lot of things. In fact, just about any topic that is viewed through a nationwide lens has Americans seeing it pessimistically. The general mood of the country polled in July with 74% dissatisfied and only 27% satisfied.

It seems to me that what these polls show is that we are cranky and unhappy about anything that has to do with our nation as a whole. We are more prosperous than any nation that has ever existed in the history of the earth, but this brings us no joy. We are dour, ungrateful, and dissatisfied when it comes to our nation.

Certainly part of this could be the steady diet of bad news that we get 24x7x365 from more information sources than have ever existed. News purveyors know that we don’t pay much attention to good news, but that we love tabloid-style reporting.

It seems that we have come to lack faith in ourselves as a nation. Why is that? Does it have anything to do with the fact that we can’t seem to militarily and diplomatically manage and control a regional conflict? (Heaven forbid that we should have to face a major global conflict.) Perhaps. Or perhaps this is merely a symptom of our lack of national faith. We also seem to lack faith that our nation can effectively absorb immigrants that want to come here.

Richard Lyman Bushman described the two-pronged American dream in this Pew forum. He said that the individual American dream is “the promise that in America, everyone has a chance to prosper and to achieve respectability.” “But,” he says, “there also is a corporate dream, whether we like it or not, and that is of a righteous America, a people who are blessed of God” (corporate meaning the American people as a whole). “This corporate American dream includes a virtuous political leadership with the unselfish purpose of seeking, without regard for personal good, the public good – not just to manage the varying interests of society but to bless people.”

Bushman says that this corporate dream is not simply a relict of a bygone era; it exists today. He says, “Americans do hunger for an idealistic statement on the nation's purpose and destiny.” The panel of journalists interviewing Bushman agree with him. And I think he’s right. Most Americans hold a belief in their psyches that America should be a benevolent and good force in the world, or even the preeminent human-based source of good in the world.

We are prosperous, but I believe that the perception is widespread that we’re not living up to this ideal of the benevolent America. The individual part of the American dream is working, but the corporate part is dying (at least in the minds of the people). And yes, I believe that part of the cause is the constant barrage of news that makes us believe that America is bad, or at least isn’t as good as she should be. Like a bunch of gossip column readers, we’re ever prepared to snatch up the latest unsavory news and to believe the worst.

I’ve got several suggestions for revitalizing the corporate American dream. The first is to look around and count your blessings. Count your individual blessings. But also count the endless blessings that devolve upon our nation. Think about the blessings that are yours because you are an American. Think about the blessings your neighbors have because they are Americans.

My second suggestion is to squelch the bad news. I’m not saying that we ignore problems that we should work to resolve. I’m saying that we should place these issues in proper perspective. Exercise your freedom to switch off the radio, the tube, the print, or the Internet channels that equate to flowing troughs of anti-American sludge. What do you expect a steady diet of that stuff to yield? To paraphrase, “For as [a nation] thinketh in [her] heart, so is [she]” (Proverbs 23:7).

I believe it is imperative (see June post) that all Americans need to learn better what it means to be an American. Since our nation is founded on ideals rather than on atavisms, we must teach and learn those ideals much better than we do at present. Not only do we need to learn civics, we need to do our civic duties.

Finally, I would suggest that we follow Ronald Reagan’s old campaign slogan, and get to work making America great again. Start with doing what you can do yourself and then reach out to others. Moral equivalence practitioners will disagree with me, but I believe that America is more than simply a great country. I believe that the United States of America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth today. She isn’t perfect and she never will be. But she is great. Stand up and be proud to be an American. Let’s get to work making America an even greater nation than she is today.

Gassing to the Nines

Ever since I was a kid, I have wondered why gasoline prices always end in 9/10ths of a Cent. What’s up with that? Nobody is permitted to pay their bill in fractions of a Cent. Why are gasoline purveyors permitted to charge in tenths of a Cent?

Wisegeek explains here that despite all of the folklore (about price wars, taxes, etc.) behind this longstanding practice, the fact of the matter is that consumers are more psychologically disposed to spend more when a product’s price ends in the number nine. He says that raising a price from $9.99 to $10.00 causes a significant drop in sales, but that raising a price from $5.00 to $5.99 results in almost no change in sales volume.

Gee, are we really that gullible? Well, yes, apparently we are. This principle works for just about any kind of product or service. Wisegeek says, “Ads for the best laptop under $600 (sold for $599.99), or the best car under $10,000 (sold for $9,999), actually do fool consumers into thinking they're spending less money.”

Perhaps I’m less susceptible to the psychological impact of nines pricing because my first career was in accounting. The actual price of something means a whole lot more to me than the perceived price.

I’ve got to believe that the practice of 9/10ths of a Cent pricing probably benefited gasoline retailers more in the days when prices were 47.9 Cents per gallon than today when prices push over $3 per gallon. How many people would really pump less gasoline if the price was $2.72/gallon instead of $2.719/gallon?

Wisegeek includes a fun discussion of how much money gasoline retailers make by charging 9/10ths of a Cent on each gallon ($1.7 billion annually). But this presumes that the entire 9/10ths of a Cent is merely extra fluff that would otherwise not be charged. Given my understanding of economics and of the gasoline retail industry, I seriously doubt this would be the case. Retailers today would be more likely to charge the extra 1/10th of a Cent than to cut the price 9/10ths of a Cent.

Not that it will do any good, but for the record, I think that setting gasoline prices to end in 9/10ths of a Cent is completely ridiculous and is rather noisome. I wonder what would happen if one national chain made a big ad campaign out of dumping this practice and telling customers that they’re not going to insult their intelligence with silly pricing games. I figure that it wouldn’t be long before everyone else followed suit. I would like this scenario, but I’m not expecting it to happen in my lifetime.

Our Sports Culture

I didn’t care for sports as a kid. My oldest brother loved sports. The next brother in line seemed to enjoy sports as well. By the time I hit little league age, my parents assumed they had the pattern for boys all figured out. I was enrolled in baseball and then football. Somehow, I escaped basketball. Many homes in my neighborhood had driveway basketball standards. I pretty much avoided having anything to do with those things.

Unlike today, when kids can be involved in a very broad variety of sports, we had three sports available in my community: baseball in the spring-summer, football in the fall, and basketball in the winter. Everyone played baseball. If you didn’t play baseball, there was nobody to hang out with while all of the other boys were playing baseball.

I spent three seasons playing baseball. I didn’t much care for it. I was always placed in right field, because few little leaguers hit balls out there; thus, my chances of harming the team were minimized. I was bored out of my skull. At practices and at games I’d stand (or even sit) in right field and swat at gnats, daydream, pick dandelions and clover, imagine shapes in the clouds, and other similar activities to pass time. And time seemed to pass so slowly. I was rarely aware of the score. I frankly didn’t care much.

Then we’d line up to bat. I paid attention to where I came in the batting order. During my three-season little league baseball career, I occasionally managed to get on base. Usually that was when a bad pitcher walked me. On a few rare occasions I managed to accidentally hit a ball.

I think my experience as fourth string right offensive guard when I was eight years old pretty much assured that I would never play little league football again. I never missed a practice or a game. Yet I only played in a single game during the season: four plays in the last five minutes of the last game of the season. My dad was sitting in the car in the parking lot overlooking the field. But he had fallen asleep and hadn’t seen me play.

My lack of athletic acumen as a child didn’t stop with league sports. Throughout my school years I was consistently one of the last picked for playground or gym games of dodge ball, kick ball, and even four square. To this day, I have nothing but contempt for dodge ball. What is the positive purpose of a ridiculous game that is designed to injure and humiliate people?

My experience as a kid left me pretty bitter about sports. I could definitely agree with Orson Scott Card’s assertion in this article that team sports are a “system of establishing hierarchies based on your degree of skill in a meaningless pursuit.” I’m not sure if I failed to excel in sports because I could see no value in doing so or if I found no value in sports because I failed to excel at them. Perhaps each fed into the other.

Card takes exception with the idea that some important life lessons can be learned only through sports. Teamwork? Card suggests trying to put on a play, or joining an orchestra or a chorus. Learning that enduring hard work pays off? Card says, “I suggest the clarinet or violin. Or poetry.” Sportsmanship? Try Monopoly. “Strategy? Chess. Eye-hand coordination? Videogames.”

You can sense Card’s bitterness about sports when he writes, “You want to spend your later life crippled by injuries you got in grade school or high school or college? Well, I guess sports beats all the other activities.”

By the time I was a young adult, I would have been happy to never have anything to do with sports for the rest of my life. And then I got married and we started having children. Oh, how perspectives change. My kids started showing an interest in sports. Regardless of my feelings about sports, I didn’t want to deprive my kids of opportunities they desired.

So when my oldest son turned five, we signed him up for AYSO soccer. He made it two seasons, and then decided it wasn’t for him. He played baseball for a few seasons and did OK, but he eventually dropped that as well. In fact, he’s pretty much sworn off team sports of any kind. He has become excellent at pencil drawings. I marvel at his art, especially since I’ve always been lousy at that kind of thing.

My second son found that he rather enjoyed soccer. But he excels in so many other arenas as well, including academics and music (he plays a number of instruments and composes music). Unwilling to limit some of his other pursuits, he has avoided competition leagues. He still plays AYSO soccer. He’s never been a star player, but he is always a very strong member of his team. He dropped baseball a couple of years ago.

My third son tried soccer twice, but decided it wasn’t for him. Basketball was fun one season, but he didn’t want to sign up the following year. He has played baseball for a number of seasons, and he’s OK at it. But he has a sportsmanship problem. He acts badly when his team is losing. He tells me baseball is the sport he dislikes least. He’s pretty good at drawing for his age. He also just composed his own piano recital piece.

All three older boys did karate for a while. We dropped that program when their interest diminished as progressive levels became increasingly demanding.

My fourth son quit soccer just as I thought he was starting to get the hang of it. Practices were OK, but it turned out that games always conflicted with Saturday morning cartoons, which is a sacrosanct ritual for him. He has played baseball for a couple of seasons. He’s not very good, but he’s not the worst kid on the team either.

My daughter has been too young to start in formal sports. (Many families start their kids younger; we don’t.) But she seems very athletic, especially when matched up with other girls her age in the neighborhood. I’m guessing that she will enjoy team sports, but only time will tell.

I’m glad that my children have had the sports opportunities they have had. I am a die-hard supporter of my kids’ sports efforts and I attend most of their games, but I still don’t like engaging in sports myself. My wife is the one that plays catch with the kids.

While Orson Scott Card thinks non-organized sports are fine, he writes, “I don’t think Little League is playing. It’s work. It’s a job. Maybe you like your job, but you’re answerable to a boss and you can lose your job — your position — if you don’t compete and win.” He has a point. But much the same can be said for taking part in a play or joining a musical group. And learning that kind of thing at an early age is not all bad.

Card is particularly unhappy with the status that high achieving athletes are accorded in our society. “[W]hat I hate about sports [is that] these physical games get treated, by kids and adults, as if they mattered more than activities that are just as valid, just as competitive, just as rewarding — and maybe more so.” He continues, “For every kid whose life is saved by sports there’s a kid whose life is damaged by the way we handle sports in our culture.”

I don’t know that this cultural tendency is going to change anytime soon. Professional (and collegiate) sports demand a huge following. They obviously offer a significant entertainment value to a lot of consumers. It’s a massive industry. The effects of this cultural valuation filter all the way down to the little leagues.

Being somewhat of a sports agnostic, I’m not eager to push my kids into organized sports or to pressure them to excel at it. I’m happy to be supportive. But I’m equally happy to be supportive of other efforts that can help teach important life lessons. Different people have different talents. They excel at different things. Our approach has been to give our kids varied opportunities so that they can find where they have interest and talent, and then to encourage and help them pursue the areas they find most fulfilling. Sometimes that includes sports; sometimes not.

Having experienced little league sports as a parent, I am not as negative about it as I once was. While I might have agreed completely with Card two decades ago, today his article seems a bit over-the-top. Sports can be a valuable part of a child’s development, but they don’t have to be. I’ll never pressure a child of mine to play a sport, but I will support him/her if they choose to do so.

Gang Violence Close to Home

In the wee hours of the morning on Sunday, I was resting peacefully in bed, as were my family members. 14 blocks away about 30 people were having a post-wedding party in front of a house. They were taking it easy, listening to music, socializing, and drinking beer when a car drove up. Suddenly shots rang out as occupants of the vehicle fired a number of .22 caliber rounds into the crowd.

A few hours later, some of my family members got up, folded newspapers, and delivered them throughout our neighborhood and some adjoining neighborhoods. We got cleaned up, went to church, and returned home; unaware that 14 blocks away two people had been shot dead and two others had gone to the hospital with gunshot wounds.

The police say that the crime is gang related. They are still looking for the assailants (see here). Residents of the neighborhood where the crime occurred are understandably freaked out. Parents are not letting their kids out to play in the yards. But this is not the first time gang violence has erupted in the neighborhood.

My parents moved into a home another couple of miles away from where I now live when I was a toddler. That neighborhood is still a respectable middle class setting. Many of the homes in the violence riddled neighborhood a few short miles away were built in the same era as was my parents’ home; some in the decade before that. They are all single-family units rather than apartment complexes.

Yet even when I was a child, the area was not considered a good place. The homes were built deliberately small with lower-cost materials. As long as I have been alive, the area has been a haven for lower income residents. Even when I was a kid, the neighborhood had a reputation for being a very rough place. We avoided it like the plague. Everyone in my high school knew that it was unwise to drive through the area after dark.

Residents reeling from Sunday morning’s violence say that there was a significant amount of gang violence in the neighborhood about a decade ago (see here). Some say that activists got a neighborhood watch group going, and that this significantly improved the situation. But as people have moved away, the watch group has become inactive. Perhaps the group’s leaders were able to improve their lots in life and have moved to nicer neighborhoods. It’s time to get residents involved in neighborhood watch once again.

I have frankly been very blessed in life. I grew up in a decent middle class neighborhood. Most of the homes there still have single carports instead of double or triple garages. It was a great place to live. There were lots of other kids in my age range. There were hoards of busy adults (with jobs and young families) that sacrificed their time to provide constructive activities for the kids in the neighborhood. We felt safe. We spent the summer months in the saddles of our bicycles riding around the neighborhoods and even in the nearby foothills (which are covered with subdivisions today). People cared for and watched out for each other.

I’ve lived in my current home for about 19 years. Our subdivision is a decent middle class neighborhood where all houses have two-car garages. Most homes have lots of aluminum siding. There are still plenty of younger kids, but there aren’t nearly as many as there were in the early years of our residency in the area. We only hand out about half of the amount of Halloween treats as we used to. We are far more restrictive of our kids’ activities than were my parents and the parents of my friends. But kids wander quite freely and safely through the neighborhood. People care about and watch out for each other.

Less than three miles away, families live in fear that a stray gang banger bullet might fly through the windows of their homes. And it’s pretty much been that way to one degree or another for decades.

We sit in our relatively safe enclaves and read about or hear about the gang violence not far away. The pictures we see and the associated names often denote cultural backgrounds that differ from ours. We figure that as long as the bad guys are injuring and killing each other, there’s not much we can do about it. As long as the violence doesn’t impact us, we’re pretty apathetic about it.

But this is an issue that we cannot afford to ignore or treat with aloofness. In our democratic republic, improper infringements on the liberties of any citizen harm the entire republic and diminish the overall freedom of our society. A crime against a single citizen is a crime against all. Gang violence and other nefarious gang activity needs to be dealt with decisively. It seems that police agencies increasingly throw up their hands at the futility of attacking the expanding problem. What is required is citizen involvement.

It may seem unfair, but the residents of crime ridden communities must necessarily bear the lion’s share of this burden. Not only are they the ones most impacted by the problem, but they are also the ones most capable of attacking the problem. Neighborhood watch programs have proven to effectively deter gang problems in neighborhoods. Police agencies feel that their resources are better and more effectively used when area citizens are engaged in working to remedy the problem.

Does that mean that those that live in relatively safe communities have no responsibilities? Police agencies can only do so much. They can lock up those they catch that have committed crimes, but they cannot keep kids from joining gangs. Many areas with serious gang problems have found that simply having and strictly enforcing a curfew on teenagers suppresses a surprising amount of gang activity.

But it needs to go beyond this. Kids at risk — potential gang members — need viable alternatives to gang membership. Scout groups, church youth groups, and sports programs can appeal to and help some. These don’t often offer the level of excitement and appearance of ease that gang membership offers, but they can satisfy the need to belong. Kids often become at risk for joining gangs when their family situation is failing. Helping dysfunctional families, helping single mothers, and helping parents strengthen their marriages can improve home environments so that kids find less need to seek rebellious outlets for solidifying their identity.

My church calls empty nester couples to spend time in these rough neighborhoods to help people in just this way. The church provides resources and training for at-risk families. This is admittedly insufficient to help the broad array of families in these areas with problems, but every little bit helps.

A side effect of this, however, is that those that improve their lots in life tend to move out of the crime riddled areas and into better environments. There seems to be an unending supply of people with problems to backfill behind those that move out of these neighborhoods. Thus, efforts must be ongoing.

We cannot force people to choose a good path in life. But by a coordinated effort, we can make bad paths seem less appealing and less viable by helping people see the viability and desirability of choosing a good path. It takes caring enough to spend your own time and resources helping people at risk.

Did Earmarking Cause the Bridge Collapse?

There are many unknowns about the collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minnesota, but some things are absolutely certain. One of them is that Congress will rush to spend more money on road projects. But what if Congress’ road funding habits actually contributed to the bridge’s demise?

Here’s an interesting question. What has increased 63,710% in 14 years? Nope, it’s not federal highway spending. It’s earmarks in federal highway spending bills. The 1981 highway funding bill included 10 earmarks. As stated in this WSJ article, “A decade later there were 1,850, and by 2005 the earmarks had multiplied to 6,371, or nearly 10% of total spending.”

Of course, the 2005 bill occurred under GOP control. Now that Congress is controlled by Democrats, those earmarks are all going away, right? Well, no. At first, Democrats “got rid of earmarks” by simply calling them something else. That worked until people caught on. At present there are more than 32,000 earmark requests pending in legislation under consideration. As noted in this Standard Examiner editorial, Congress “went soft on earmarks” when it negotiated last week’s ethics reform bill.

Let’s first clarify what an earmark is. The basic budget process is for Congress to determine the amount that will be allotted to a given department to accomplish its mandated tasks. In this case, we’re talking about the Transportation Department. But this leaves all of that money in the hands of whichever administration is in the White House. Legislators have sought to control some of the ways the money is spent by adding earmarks to spending bills. Earmarks mandate that specific amounts be spent on specific projects.

Now this might sound like a fair give and take between the legislative and executive branches of government. But let’s further consider the methodology behind earmarking. Earmarks are never directly discussed or debated during the legislative process. Members work behind the scenes with appropriators to include earmarks. Earmarks are usually intended to benefit a specific congressional district and are used chiefly to buy votes for certain measures. We can thank Democrats for passing a rule that legislators must attach their names to earmarks and must state that they have no financial interests in the provisions (as if such was not already illegal).

But the real problem is that, as the SE Editors note, the earmarking process is “disgusting…. [Earmarks] crave privacy, preferring no notice of their odious presence.” The SE Editors go so far as to state, “The practice is filthy and corrupt to the core. If legislators want pork for their districts, they should put it to a vote, not attach it, parasite-like, to another piece of legislation.” In other words, it’s not the legislative spending directive they deplore; it’s the entire earmarking process, which is employed as the currency for purchasing influence.

But what has Congress wrought with the earmarking process, at least as far as transportation? According to WSJ Editors, “A main problem with these earmarks is that they often supersede the more urgent repair and replacement needs identified by state and local officials.” You see, politicians just don’t believe that maintenance projects will garner as many votes as new construction or pet projects that satisfy a core of well heeled donor constituents.

WSJ Editors also note that most earmarks require some matching funds from the state. Earmarked projects are often low priorities for state governments, so states end up not even taking advantage of the funds. As states scramble to figure out how to maintain the transportation infrastructure they’ve got, more than half of all federally earmarked transportation funds go unclaimed and unspent. Federal legislators get the best of both worlds. They happily report to donors and constituents that they have secured federal funding for pet projects, and then the federal government doesn’t ever have to cough up the money for them.

I might hasten to add that state and local governments don’t help the matter much either. They often hire lobbyists that practically guarantee a federal earmark that will fund some project they desire. That’s why some of the earmarked spending actually does get spent. Voters get in on the game by thinking that Representative X or Senator Y deserves our vote because he/she secured federal funds for some project at home.

And lest you think that the executive branch is a hapless victim of this process, consider the fact that when the media reports that the administration is twisting arms on Capitol Hill, it means that promises are being made for funding of a legislator’s pet projects. Besides, a president that really didn't like earmarks could bring the whole process to a halt simply by vetoing every bill that includes earmarks.

It seems that the basic problem is the struggle between the legislative and executive branches over who gets to direct how budgeted money is spent. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The real problem is that earmarking is nothing more than peddling and purchasing of influence. The problem would not be so severe if we demanded that the federal government stick to its constitutionally enumerated responsibilities. A small central government would not control the vast amounts of money it does at present, so the impacts of influence peddling would be less.

The WSJ Editors assert that “more local spending, less cynically allocated, combined with private investment, is far more likely than current habits to replace bridges before they collapse.” (Here is an interesting article on how private investment could help our ailing transportation infrastructure.) While the WSJ Editor’s claim is surely true, the likelihood of their suggestion coming about anytime soon is approximately nil.

But perhaps other factors play into this mess as well. In this WSJ article, John Fund discusses the current dysfunction in Congress, noting specifically the extreme problems in the House of Representatives. But what he describes sounds more like a long-term systemic issue. He cites, for example, “gerrymandered districts that have led to the election of more fierce partisans and fewer centrists.” Only a small fraction of congressional districts are truly competitive, in part, thanks to gerrymandering that purposefully disenfranchises some voters to ensure desired partisan outcomes.

I would like to see a drastically smaller federal government. I would like to see earmarking and legislative micromanagement diminish substantially. I would like to see any remaining legislative spending directives voted on specifically, rather than buried and used as a tool for buying votes. But all of that is very idealistic and utopian.

Since utopia is not going to happen as long as imperfect humans are in charge of the government, we need to be concerned enough to demand that the marvelous disinfectant of sunlight be shined on every nook and cranny of every earmark. Americans have a right to know about every single dark backroom vote purchasing deal. Over time, this would bring a different kind of politician to Washington. But since federal legislators are not about to vote to cut their own power, pressure to do so will have to come from grassroots efforts.