Fat, Mean, and Stupid Is No Way To Go Through Life

Bradley Long takes an "ideological Turing test" and shows that while he is fatter than I am, he is also less intelligent, which is pretty sad, since we're both supposedly in the same field. (Actually, the chances are that I will be practicing law instead of economics, but that's another story.)

Been Ladin

Ron Paul has been getting a lot of flak for saying he wouldn't have ordered the SEAL raid that killed OBL. Well, retired US Army Ranger John T. Reed (one of my heroes) also would not have ordered the raid, for several reasons; instead, he said it should have been done by the Air Force with three 2,000-pound bombs spaced 30 seconds apart. A "SWAT-type" raid (as he aptly describes it) was irresponsible grandstanding by our Incompetent-in-Chief.

The SWAT approach was simply too risky—again, assuming the fix was not in with the Pakistan Air Force and that the U.S. knew there were only three guys protecting Obama and they were not well armed and booby trapped and all that.
If I were in the military now and were offered the chance to be on or command this operation, I would have said, "No way. This is totally unnecessary. It’s strictly an Air Force operation."
Bin Laden was a symbolic military mission, not a valid military target like, say, Adolf Hitler would have been during World War II. Bin Laden was a financier and leader back in the day, but lately he seems to have evolved into a sort of elder statesman/philosopher with a Just-For-Men colored beard and an intermittent, lame TV show on al Jazeera. You do not risk men’s lives to kill such a person. If the chain of command wanted not only me but also my men to go on this mission, I would have gone to war with my chain of command fighting all the way to the president if necessary and resigning my commission in protest. I went to war with my chain of command over a lot less when it came to mistreating my men when I was an officer.

Politics is Not About Policy

Robin Hanson famously said that "Politics is not about policy, it is not even about power, it is about status." I concur.

An anonymous poster on Unqualified Reservations said:

*talk matters*.

Clinton talked left, and acted right. Clinton was an amazing president in many ways. Black incarceration rates tripled under Clinton (www.finalcall.com/national/incarceration03-06-2001.htm), one of the main reasons behind the drop in crime in the 1990's. Clinton pushed deregulation and capitalism.

Bush talks right and acts left. That's why the left hates him, even as he gives them NCLB and illegal aliens and Medicare spending and "the government is here to help".

Therefore, whatever you want to do in politics, you can (and possibly should) talk in whatever way appeals to the majority (i.e. the median voter), specifically by saying good things toward groups and behaviors they want to be high-status and bad things toward groups and behaviors they want to be low-status. And especially you should say things toward groups whose status the majority hopes will change.

You can also tailor this message toward a particular audience, depending on where you are speaking.

And then govern whatever way you want, or at least push the envelope as far as you can in the direction you want it to go.

On the other hand, this doesn't always work. It worked fine for Clinton and Reagan, and and even for Junior Bush (since because of his rhetoric and personal style he is still hated by leftists and respected by some conservatives, despite all his left-wing policies) and it seems to not be working at all for Obama. So there has to be some finesse in the execution. Of course, if you come up with garbage policies like the PPACA (a/k/a "Obamacare") you will get despised no matter what. You know, for some supposedly bright guys, they came up with some dumb policies -- and speaking as a bright guy who also considers himself pretty good at politics as well as policy, I don't buy the "We had to compromise in order to get it passed" excuse, on that piece of . . . legislation. Or on anything else.

Investing in America

Frank Wolf (R-VA 10) has introduced a bill called the "Bring Jobs Back to America Act."

Jobs are a top priority and Frank Wolf's bill will actually make things worse.

Here are some concerns that his bill does not address:

1. It provides a subsidy of $71,000 per job, but there is no provision in the bill for how long the jobs have to last.
In other words, a company could set up a factory with jobs that pay $20,000 and operate it for one year before shutting it down, and still receive $71,000 per job, which means they are tricking the government -- or the taxpayers -- out of $51,000 per job.

Frank Wolf is apparently either an idiot (if he didn't think this part through) or corrupt (if he did).

2. This bill rewards companies for bringing jobs back that were already outsourced. So a company that already did its patriotic duty by keeping jobs here gets no benefit.
In other words, it's like a version of affirmative action that only helps former criminals, and doesn't give anything to law-abiding citizens.

Again, Frank Wolf is apparently either an idiot (if he didn't think this part through) or corrupt (if he did).

I am a loyal Republican but Frank Wolf embarrasses me. I look forward to his NOT being in Congress after 2012. He is already past the Biblical three score and ten years old, and it's probably long past his time to retire. Perhaps someone should run against him in the 2012 primary. Not me, though -- I've already got *my* sights on Gerry Connolly's seat!

I have no problems with any proposed tax cut, including credits and deductions, with three minor, common-sense conditions.
First, the cuts should be fair, i.e. equal, rather than being "targeted" to only certain specific firms or industries. "Targeted" cuts are both unfair and also wasteful.
Second, there should be no *subsidies* or other benefits which are greater than the cost of the action; otherwise we are paying for businesses to do things that waste money.
Third, any business -- or other organization -- which receives more money from the government than it pays in taxes should be prohibited from lobbying or making political contributions, even indirect "issue advertising."
(I also think that any individual who receives more from the government than *they* pay in taxes should not be allowed to vote -- not my idea, it goes back at least 150 years to John Stuart Mill.)

As far as immigration policy goes, I want to have a policy which encourages smart, honest, hard-working people to emigrate to America, and which discourages stupid, dishonest, and lazy people from coming (or staying) here.

One policy that would do that is to prohibit any government benefits (such as welfare, Social Security, education, or health care) to anyone except U.S. citizens.
Since naturalization requires being in the country for at least five years, this means they would have to support themselves for five years in a row.
I think that's a pretty good indication that they didn't want to come here to leech off our welfare system.
Of course anyone who tried to get benefits should have to prove citizenship, and be deported if they couldn't.
This means that someone who needed emergency medical care would receive it, but be deported as soon as it was medically safe.
I'm also in favor of *increasing* immigration of skilled, educated workers, i.e. those with a graduate or professional degree.
I'm also in favor of requiring each immigrant to post a bond which would cover the cost of a return ticket and other expenses for deportation.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?

"The Risk of Post-Election Republican Betrayal and What We Should Do about It."

I am a "public choice" economist, i.e. someone who analyzes politics using the theories and techniques of economics.

Bottom line: I believe that we get whatever policies the average voter wants, or rather whatever policies that special interests want and the average voter is willing to put up with.