First, I believe that the president's power as commander-in-chief of the military is very simple to understand. He has the power to give any (lawful) order to anyone in the military, and it must be obeyed. That includes things like ordering the military to blockade, bomb, or even invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran.
However, the definition of a lawful order is limited by both international law -- which means treaties that the U.S. has signed, and more importantly the "law of war" that says things like you're not allowed to harm, and in fact have a duty to protect, civilians, prisoners, and anyone else who doesn't try to harm you or disobey your orders.
Furthermore, lawful orders are restricted by the specific rules that the U.S. military follows, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that's set by Congress, as specified in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraphs 10-16 and especially Paragraph 14, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."
That means if Congress wants to specify that "No member of the armed forces of the United States shall enter Libya," they can do it. And they can certainly specify the various conditions listed in the War Powers Resolution.
That being said, I am all in favor of intervening in Libya as long as we do it good and hard. In fact, I'm in favor of intervening in Syria even better and harder, since Assad is worse than Qadaffi. And if Iranian Revolutionary Guard units are in Syria, that gives us a really good excuse to attack those units.
On the other hand, I will also repeat what I warned about before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, which is that we need to have a clear plan, including a clear objective. Glenn Reynolds is right: "Waging war halfheartedly, on the cheap, and by committee is not a formula for success."
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Good Question!
BRIAN LEITER ON BUDGET CUTS: “At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified.”
I'll tell you when they're justified: when they're against rich white establishment law professors like that guy. How much do you make a year, Brian Leiter? More than the working stiffs in the unions, I'll bet. A lot more!
Well, it's time for *you* to take a pay cut and distribute to the rest of us whatever you make above the national average. Power to the people.
We know where you live.
Up against the wall, m**********r!
(It's okay for me to attack his ethnic group, since it's my ethnic group as well -- although I'm a graduate student in economics, rather than a law professor. See 0:56 in the court scene in Woody Allen's Bananas.)
I'll tell you when they're justified: when they're against rich white establishment law professors like that guy. How much do you make a year, Brian Leiter? More than the working stiffs in the unions, I'll bet. A lot more!
Well, it's time for *you* to take a pay cut and distribute to the rest of us whatever you make above the national average. Power to the people.
We know where you live.
Up against the wall, m**********r!
(It's okay for me to attack his ethnic group, since it's my ethnic group as well -- although I'm a graduate student in economics, rather than a law professor. See 0:56 in the court scene in Woody Allen's Bananas.)
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
On Wisconsin!
As a good progressive, of course I support the State-employee unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere. (See the photo of me helping out at their protest!)
In fact, I urge them all to go out on strike for their rights immediately.
Even if this means shutting down all government schools and most other government agencies, it will be worth it!
Brothers and sisters, venceremos, we will be victorious!
In fact, I urge them all to go out on strike for their rights immediately.
Even if this means shutting down all government schools and most other government agencies, it will be worth it!
Brothers and sisters, venceremos, we will be victorious!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Viva Che'!
I am a democratic socialist and a follower of the ideals of Che!
Che was right, that there is no right to strike against the State. These striking teachers should be thrown into prison or even better put into labor camps to work for the public good. They could easily be replaced with teachers from so-called "private" schools or "parochial" schools (and drafting all those "private" teachers into government service, forcing them to work for the current low-wage contracts that government teachers have, would help shut down those corrupt capitalist schools).
I assume all other progressives who support Che will join me in supporting this modest proposal!
Venceremos, hermanos y hermanas!
Che was right, that there is no right to strike against the State. These striking teachers should be thrown into prison or even better put into labor camps to work for the public good. They could easily be replaced with teachers from so-called "private" schools or "parochial" schools (and drafting all those "private" teachers into government service, forcing them to work for the current low-wage contracts that government teachers have, would help shut down those corrupt capitalist schools).
I assume all other progressives who support Che will join me in supporting this modest proposal!
Venceremos, hermanos y hermanas!
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The Task Set Before Us
This is the task before us: to accept that we are dissidents and opponents. To accept that it is our duty to resist. To use art to express that resistance, the win intellectuals and people of ability to our side. To forge contacts with supporters in the outside world. To slowly expand our influence and never, ever stop laughing at the State.
And when it comes crashing, and I believe it will, we will be there, smiling and laughing.
[End of piece by anonymous author Albert, who identifies as a State Dept. employee in Europe].
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:
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.
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.
Reflections on CPAC
I posted this on Pajamas Media:
For those of us who can remember back that far, the 1990's were a time of Republican unity as well, during which the annoyance of being out of power was great enough for people to be willing to overlook minor differences over social policy in the hope of retaking the White House.
At the very least, when one is out of power the opposing party is the Great Satan while other factions within one's own party are the enemy of one's enemy.
I predict this unity, based around economic issues, will persist until we retake power -- and then we will have to deal with differences on social issues and foreign policy.
I'm a big-tent Republican, and I hope we can deal with those differences properly. And I'd like to remind my fellow-Christians that if government is allowed to enforce social values, it will almost always enforce values that we do *not* want. This will happen all the time when we do not control the federal government, and it will even happen most of the time that we do control it, because the both the government bureaucracy and the intellectual establishment are against us. (How much conservative social policy came out of the federal government during the last administration?)
So the best policy (pun intended) will be to get the government out of our lives in every respect. Once the government stops actively subsidizing sin (paying for abortions, and welfare, and blasphemous, poor-quality "art") and its practitioners are forced to pay for it themselves, it will disappear.
For those of us who can remember back that far, the 1990's were a time of Republican unity as well, during which the annoyance of being out of power was great enough for people to be willing to overlook minor differences over social policy in the hope of retaking the White House.
At the very least, when one is out of power the opposing party is the Great Satan while other factions within one's own party are the enemy of one's enemy.
I predict this unity, based around economic issues, will persist until we retake power -- and then we will have to deal with differences on social issues and foreign policy.
I'm a big-tent Republican, and I hope we can deal with those differences properly. And I'd like to remind my fellow-Christians that if government is allowed to enforce social values, it will almost always enforce values that we do *not* want. This will happen all the time when we do not control the federal government, and it will even happen most of the time that we do control it, because the both the government bureaucracy and the intellectual establishment are against us. (How much conservative social policy came out of the federal government during the last administration?)
So the best policy (pun intended) will be to get the government out of our lives in every respect. Once the government stops actively subsidizing sin (paying for abortions, and welfare, and blasphemous, poor-quality "art") and its practitioners are forced to pay for it themselves, it will disappear.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Back in Black?
School choice is a no-lose proposition for any politician outside of Maryland. Government-school teachers, and especially their union leaders and agitators, are now seen as the selfish monsters they are, who care only about their pay raises and outrageous pensions, and don't give a d--- about kids.
The GOP ought to bring back the DC school voucher program, with at least twice as many students to balance the fact that it was cut out before. In fact, our starting point (from which we will compromise) should be to make *every* poor and/or minority student in DC eligible for this. This will force the Democrats to choose between betraying the teachers' union or betraying the poor and minorities, so *someone* will hate them no matter what they do.
I am *all about* driving wedges between different parts of the traditional New Deal coalition. It's like a Frankenstein's monster, except that I have no sympathy for it. I want to see it ripped apart like the patchwork man in Britannia Hospital.
Another good idea is to require the DC government schools to follow the reforms recommended by Charles Murray in Losing Ground.
The GOP ought to bring back the DC school voucher program, with at least twice as many students to balance the fact that it was cut out before. In fact, our starting point (from which we will compromise) should be to make *every* poor and/or minority student in DC eligible for this. This will force the Democrats to choose between betraying the teachers' union or betraying the poor and minorities, so *someone* will hate them no matter what they do.
I am *all about* driving wedges between different parts of the traditional New Deal coalition. It's like a Frankenstein's monster, except that I have no sympathy for it. I want to see it ripped apart like the patchwork man in Britannia Hospital.
Another good idea is to require the DC government schools to follow the reforms recommended by Charles Murray in Losing Ground.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Clint Bolick got it perfectly:
Obviously there's an opportunity for the GOP (and the LP) to point this out and hit the administration at a vulnerable spot, forcing it to abandon either "progressives" or moderates. If the administration is really inept, it might even lose both.
Another opportunity, much less obvious, is for the GOP to hammer the Democrats on Social Security. Specifically, they can say (truthfully)
This forces the Democrats to either support cutting other programs -- and they would rather cut their own throats -- or cutting benefits (which is political suicide) -- or claiming there is nothing wrong with Social Security, which isn't political suicide yet, but can easily be made into it.
Obama gave two speeches, one to his liberal base and one to the middle. Lots of inconsistencies, such as "I'm going to cut domestic spending and veto earmarks," while we "invest" in myriad new things. But I don't think most people noticed.
Obviously there's an opportunity for the GOP (and the LP) to point this out and hit the administration at a vulnerable spot, forcing it to abandon either "progressives" or moderates. If the administration is really inept, it might even lose both.
Another opportunity, much less obvious, is for the GOP to hammer the Democrats on Social Security. Specifically, they can say (truthfully)
Social Security is bankrupt. It owes more than it has, and its debts are piling up faster than money is coming in. We have to either cut benefits, or cut spending on other programs, or do nothing until the entire Social Security program collapses. *We* favor cutting spending on other programs in order to save Social Security, but if you prefer one of the other options, vote for a Democrat.
This forces the Democrats to either support cutting other programs -- and they would rather cut their own throats -- or cutting benefits (which is political suicide) -- or claiming there is nothing wrong with Social Security, which isn't political suicide yet, but can easily be made into it.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
My Steampunk RPG Campaign
Perfidious Albion is a steampunk RPG campaign -- a Scientific Romance for ladies and gentlemen of good breeding (ahem), set in the late 19th Century in a well-developed alternate-history setting in which a peaceful compromise (Ben Franklin's "Albany Plan") prevented the American Revolution, the British Empire is the world's dominant power, and steam-powered supercomputers perform econometric calculations in mere minutes! (For those who really like trivia, there was an earlier point of divergence at the Putney Debates in 1648.)
For Perfidious Albion: A Scientific Romance, I recommend either GURPS Lite or FUDGE. Even more, I recommend any good steampunk fiction, such as The Difference Engine, Girl Genius, The Two Georges, and so forth.
Some good references for steampunk, and for the Victorian period in general, are:
* What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist -- The Facts of Daily Life in Nineteenth-Century England by Daniel Pool (available for cheap on Amazon.com);
* An Incomplete Education: 3,684 Things You Should Have Learned but Probably Didn't, specifically the section on English Literature, which discusses obscure details of nineteenth-century British life (likewise available for cheap on Amazon);
* GURPS Steampunk by my old friend Bill Stoddard (available for cheap as a PDF at Warehouse23.com), hands-down the single best reference source for the period, whether realistic historical or steampunk.;
* Forgotten Futures: The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game by the brilliant Phil Masters (available for free as shareware, he asks that you make a donation to charity, God bless him!)
* Comme Il Faut, a supplement for Castle Falkenstein on daily life and manners in the 19th Century.
(For what it's worth, I did graduate work in English literature and specialized in both sf/fantasy and Victorian/industrial revolution fiction.)
I prefer "system" games, because the system helps answer questions like "How far can I jump?" and "How long will it take to fix the engine?" I strongly believe in a good story rather than rolling dice, and I also believe in realism and balance.
Above all, I want to make sure that people who are interested in the genre and/or the setting, and are not familiar with the system, to join and play and learn the system as we go along.
For more information about the game, or if you wish to join, please contact the Management of the game via electronic mail for any questions about the setting, or for the Approval of Characters.
Excerpted from a survey report by the Infinity Corporation:
PERFIDIOUS ALBION (BRITANNICA-8), 1877
CURRENT GLOBAL SITUATION: A libertarian British Empire (including America) vs. the Holy Alliance (France, Spain, Austria, Russia) and Ottoman Caliphate.
DIVERGENCE POINTS:
1648: The Levellers win the Putney Debates to decide the new government after the English Civil War.
1765: Ben Franklin's "Albany Plan of Union" is accepted by the Whig government of Britain.
MAJOR CULTURES: Western (multipolar), Chinese (empire), Islamic (empire).
GREAT POWERS: British Empire (feudal technocracy, CR2), France (dictatorship, CR5), Spain (dictatorship, CR5), Austria (dictatorship, CR5), Russia (dictatorship, CR6), Prussia (dictatorship, CR4).
MINOR POWERS: Ottoman Empire (dictatorship, CR5), Manchu Empire (dictatorship, CR5), Sweden (democracy, CR4), Japan (feudal technocracy, CR 5).
WORLDLINE DATA:
Technological Level: 5+2 (except TL5 weapons/armor)
Mana Level: low
Quantum: 7
Infinity Class: P1
Centrum Zone:YELLOW
KNOWN ADVENTURES:
"A Series of Tubes"
"Can You Get Sound On That Thing?"
"First Contacts"
"Hearts of Steel"
"League of Extraordinary Ladies & Gentlemen"
"Sphereland"
For Perfidious Albion: A Scientific Romance, I recommend either GURPS Lite or FUDGE. Even more, I recommend any good steampunk fiction, such as The Difference Engine, Girl Genius, The Two Georges, and so forth.
Some good references for steampunk, and for the Victorian period in general, are:
* What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist -- The Facts of Daily Life in Nineteenth-Century England by Daniel Pool (available for cheap on Amazon.com);
* An Incomplete Education: 3,684 Things You Should Have Learned but Probably Didn't, specifically the section on English Literature, which discusses obscure details of nineteenth-century British life (likewise available for cheap on Amazon);
* GURPS Steampunk by my old friend Bill Stoddard (available for cheap as a PDF at Warehouse23.com), hands-down the single best reference source for the period, whether realistic historical or steampunk.;
* Forgotten Futures: The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game by the brilliant Phil Masters (available for free as shareware, he asks that you make a donation to charity, God bless him!)
* Comme Il Faut, a supplement for Castle Falkenstein on daily life and manners in the 19th Century.
(For what it's worth, I did graduate work in English literature and specialized in both sf/fantasy and Victorian/industrial revolution fiction.)
I prefer "system" games, because the system helps answer questions like "How far can I jump?" and "How long will it take to fix the engine?" I strongly believe in a good story rather than rolling dice, and I also believe in realism and balance.
Above all, I want to make sure that people who are interested in the genre and/or the setting, and are not familiar with the system, to join and play and learn the system as we go along.
For more information about the game, or if you wish to join, please contact the Management of the game via electronic mail for any questions about the setting, or for the Approval of Characters.
Excerpted from a survey report by the Infinity Corporation:
1648: The Levellers win the Putney Debates to decide the new government after the English Civil War.
1765: Ben Franklin's "Albany Plan of Union" is accepted by the Whig government of Britain.
Technological Level: 5+2 (except TL5 weapons/armor)
Mana Level: low
Quantum: 7
Infinity Class: P1
Centrum Zone:
"A Series of Tubes"
"Can You Get Sound On That Thing?"
"First Contacts"
"Hearts of Steel"
"League of Extraordinary Ladies & Gentlemen"
"Sphereland"
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Which Parents, When Their Child Asks for Bread, Give a Stone Instead? Amy Chua!
@cp puts it perfectly:
Matthew 7:9
Luke 11:11
How many Yale law professors would want to allow terror suspects to be denied access to food and water?I'm sorry, I consider Amy Chua's parenting methods to be dead to me. I strongly recommend the methods suggested by The One-Minute Mother and The One-Minute Father.
Matthew 7:9
Luke 11:11
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Giants in the Earth
I'm a born-again Christian and I've always said that God wants us to play Dungeons & Dragons (and other roleplaying games).
Furthermore, those who claim that "unicorn" is a mistranslation of "rhinoceros," or that "dragon" is a mistranslation of "crocodile," are as mistaken as those who claim that "day" in Genesis is a mistranslation of "time period." Obviously we need to take the King James Version literally (in the simplest and most obvious sense); if Shakespearean English was good enough for Christ Himself to speak, then it is good enough for the rest of us. Thus, "unicorn" means "horse with a horn on its forehead" and "dragon" means "giant lizard that breathes fire."
It's all in the Bible, and the Monster Manual. King James Version, and OGL -- none of this modernized scripture for me, and no 4th Edition D&D either!
Furthermore, those who claim that "unicorn" is a mistranslation of "rhinoceros," or that "dragon" is a mistranslation of "crocodile," are as mistaken as those who claim that "day" in Genesis is a mistranslation of "time period." Obviously we need to take the King James Version literally (in the simplest and most obvious sense); if Shakespearean English was good enough for Christ Himself to speak, then it is good enough for the rest of us. Thus, "unicorn" means "horse with a horn on its forehead" and "dragon" means "giant lizard that breathes fire."
It's all in the Bible, and the Monster Manual. King James Version, and OGL -- none of this modernized scripture for me, and no 4th Edition D&D either!
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Cloward-Piven: Bring It On
Maybe I'm overlooking something here; if so, please let me know!
The Cloward-Piven strategy was to overwhelm the system with a massive amount of both protests (possibly violent) and also welfare recipients; this was supposed to cause a breakdown of both public discourse and also of public finance.
The idea was that the status quo in both politics and public programs would not be able to handle the new situation and would have to be replaced by something else.
According to Piven, the activism of the 1960s and 1970s was this strategy in action.
As I understand it, those are her claims -- and I completely agree with them so far. Her mistake is believing that the response of the system would be to give in to the demands of the activists and welfare applicants, and replace capitalism with democratic socialism.
Instead, in the 1980s and 1990s the system -- I hesitate to say "Silent Majority" -- responded by voting for right-wing Republicans and moderate Democrats, and by pushing for welfare reform.
The reasons why her strategy failed are that the number of producers must be greater than the number of parasites (or else the entire society collapses into chaos) and also that the producers tend to vote and otherwise participate in politics more than the average parasite. (There are other reasons as well, such as the fact that free-market capitalism allows upward mobility for those who are willing to work, so a temporarily-unemployed producer is on the side of the producers, rather than the parasites.)
As a hard-core political activist I'd like to encourage Ms Piven to agitate as much as possible, because I look forward to the results of her tactics. Bring it on, baby! As Lenin said, "The worse, the better."
As William F. Buckley, Jr., remarked, there may be a million violent rioters; there are a million and one lampposts.
The Cloward-Piven strategy was to overwhelm the system with a massive amount of both protests (possibly violent) and also welfare recipients; this was supposed to cause a breakdown of both public discourse and also of public finance.
The idea was that the status quo in both politics and public programs would not be able to handle the new situation and would have to be replaced by something else.
According to Piven, the activism of the 1960s and 1970s was this strategy in action.
As I understand it, those are her claims -- and I completely agree with them so far. Her mistake is believing that the response of the system would be to give in to the demands of the activists and welfare applicants, and replace capitalism with democratic socialism.
Instead, in the 1980s and 1990s the system -- I hesitate to say "Silent Majority" -- responded by voting for right-wing Republicans and moderate Democrats, and by pushing for welfare reform.
The reasons why her strategy failed are that the number of producers must be greater than the number of parasites (or else the entire society collapses into chaos) and also that the producers tend to vote and otherwise participate in politics more than the average parasite. (There are other reasons as well, such as the fact that free-market capitalism allows upward mobility for those who are willing to work, so a temporarily-unemployed producer is on the side of the producers, rather than the parasites.)
As a hard-core political activist I'd like to encourage Ms Piven to agitate as much as possible, because I look forward to the results of her tactics. Bring it on, baby! As Lenin said, "The worse, the better."
As William F. Buckley, Jr., remarked, there may be a million violent rioters; there are a million and one lampposts.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
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.
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.
Red State Diary
I just posted the following at RedState:
I am a financial conservative. I agree that this is an issue that 70% of the voters will support. Regardless of how you feel about social issues, it is a good idea for all of us to work together on economic issues. Even in the worst possible case, wouldn't you rather succeed on only one set of issues than not succeed on anything at all?
I am also a social conservative, and I think we can find common ground on social issues as well. Even the most libertine libertarian agrees that we should not have welfare benefits for drug addicts, unwed mothers, or lazy hippies (or anyone else). Without such programs there would be no need to have laws to protect the family or punish promiscuity -- it will happen naturally, as those who behave badly end up homeless and starving, or turning to churches for charity.
Libertarians also want no anti-discrimination laws or other special privileges for homosexuals (or anyone else). So even if you spurn Christ's teachings (1 Corinthians 5:12, Matthew 7, Matthew 9:10-13, Matthew 13:27-30) and think it's a good idea to have laws against homosexuality, and against heterosexual adultery and fornication, and against divorce . . . on a practical level those are not going to happen. So I suggest settling for a "level playing field" and letting God sort things out.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Modest Proposals: Agenda for the 112th Congress
Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Interest, Welfare, Education, Other.
Useful links:
"A Modest Agenda for a New GOP Congress" by David H. Horwich
"How the New Congress Can Roll Back Obama’s Agenda"
"Republicans won the midterm elections. Now can they survive?"
"Top 10 challenges John Boehner will face as Speaker of the House"
By Bob Cusack
Thousands of Democrats to be jobless in Washington
By Al Kamen
"The Six Arguments You Meet in Political Hell"
"How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget"
"What Republicans Need to Do Now"
"Conservatives Treat a Foe Like a Foe"
"The Globe discovers that Massachusetts has shot itself in the foot…AGAIN"
http://datechguy.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/the-globe-discovers-that-massachusetts-has-shot-itself-in-the-foot-again/
1. Replace the current tax system with either a flat-rate income tax or a national sales tax, or some combination. This should replace both individual and corporate income tax, capital gains tax, and the Alternative Minimum Tax. A possible tax rate would be 20% or 25%.
It's not necessary to make this revenue-neutral because "starving the beast" doesn't work, and apparently raising taxes makes people more opposed to government spending!
2. Eliminate all earmarks, and all discretionary spending. The first targets should be corporate welfare and the very next targets should be all spending in "blue" areas, i.e. those which voted Democrat. Once that happens, we can expect bipartisan support for eliminating all spending in "red" areas.
Perhaps we can start by using "reverse earmarking": bills will specify that no funds for their programs can be spent in certain areas. When Democrats are faced with a choice between eliminating a program, or keeping it but having it only go to Republican areas, I expect they will see the light.
We can certainly keep government programs such as interstate highways and other transportation, national parks, the United States Postal Service, PBS and anything else, simply by making them self-supporting. Highways will have to be funded by tolls, license fees, and gasoline taxes; parks will be funded by ticket sales and donations; the USPS and PBS will simply have their subsidies eliminated.
3. Replace all current welfare and other social programs (other than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) with a flat-rate demogrant of, say, $10,000 per person per year.
4. Replace Medicare and Medicaid with a comprehensive universal system that gives each person a voucher for whatever it would cost the government to give them basic health care plus catastrophic health insurance from Medicare/Medicaid, but allow people to use the voucher for private insurance, including HSAs that can roll over instead of being literally stolen at the end of each year. To clarify, people with preexisting conditions or other issues which cost more will get bigger vouchers, because the amount of the voucher will be whatever it would cost the government to provide Medicare/Medicaid for that particular person.
This could be funded out of the $10,000 per person demogrant.
5. Replace
http://www.johntreed.com/growth.html
http://www.johntreed.com/Reedhealthcare.html
Useful links:
"A Modest Agenda for a New GOP Congress" by David H. Horwich
"How the New Congress Can Roll Back Obama’s Agenda"
"Republicans won the midterm elections. Now can they survive?"
"Top 10 challenges John Boehner will face as Speaker of the House"
By Bob Cusack
Thousands of Democrats to be jobless in Washington
By Al Kamen
"The Six Arguments You Meet in Political Hell"
"How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget"
"What Republicans Need to Do Now"
"Conservatives Treat a Foe Like a Foe"
"The Globe discovers that Massachusetts has shot itself in the foot…AGAIN"
http://datechguy.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/the-globe-discovers-that-massachusetts-has-shot-itself-in-the-foot-again/
1. Replace the current tax system with either a flat-rate income tax or a national sales tax, or some combination. This should replace both individual and corporate income tax, capital gains tax, and the Alternative Minimum Tax. A possible tax rate would be 20% or 25%.
It's not necessary to make this revenue-neutral because "starving the beast" doesn't work, and apparently raising taxes makes people more opposed to government spending!
2. Eliminate all earmarks, and all discretionary spending. The first targets should be corporate welfare and the very next targets should be all spending in "blue" areas, i.e. those which voted Democrat. Once that happens, we can expect bipartisan support for eliminating all spending in "red" areas.
Perhaps we can start by using "reverse earmarking": bills will specify that no funds for their programs can be spent in certain areas. When Democrats are faced with a choice between eliminating a program, or keeping it but having it only go to Republican areas, I expect they will see the light.
We can certainly keep government programs such as interstate highways and other transportation, national parks, the United States Postal Service, PBS and anything else, simply by making them self-supporting. Highways will have to be funded by tolls, license fees, and gasoline taxes; parks will be funded by ticket sales and donations; the USPS and PBS will simply have their subsidies eliminated.
3. Replace all current welfare and other social programs (other than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) with a flat-rate demogrant of, say, $10,000 per person per year.
4. Replace Medicare and Medicaid with a comprehensive universal system that gives each person a voucher for whatever it would cost the government to give them basic health care plus catastrophic health insurance from Medicare/Medicaid, but allow people to use the voucher for private insurance, including HSAs that can roll over instead of being literally stolen at the end of each year. To clarify, people with preexisting conditions or other issues which cost more will get bigger vouchers, because the amount of the voucher will be whatever it would cost the government to provide Medicare/Medicaid for that particular person.
This could be funded out of the $10,000 per person demogrant.
5. Replace
http://www.johntreed.com/growth.html
http://www.johntreed.com/Reedhealthcare.html
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Nothing But Class
I just filled out a survey on NBC.com. When asked what I disliked about their website, I replied, truthfully, that
It is very difficult to find a specific clip or episode. Your "filing system" is a horrible mess. Many times I have clicked on a link for a clip or episode, or something else related to a show (such as cast biography), and gotten something completely different. Sometimes I clicked on the link for a show and been taken to a completely different show. This happened so frequently that I COMPLETELY QUIT USING YOUR WEBSITE EXCEPT WHEN I WAS DIRECTED TO IT FROM AN OUTSIDE LINK. THIS IS A BAD THING FOR NBC. BAD JOB! I never go to your website except on the rare occasions when there is a link to it within an article that I read -- and even when there is a link to your site, I usually don't bother to click on it if I see it goes to NBC.com. By the way, since I no longer use a regular television set, this means the only time I ever see any of your shows is on Hulu. Congratulations: from my perspective it would be hard to do a worse job if you were actually trying to do badly. In fact, it seems to be happening right now with the clip that I want to see, which is the link to "Saturday Night Live - Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-two-underlying-reasons-keith-olbermann-was-suspended-now/
Sunday, October 24, 2010
"Morals" Laws are Immoral
I mean laws against *vices* (a/k/a victimless crimes, a/k/a “morals laws”) such as intoxication (alcohol and/or drugs), masturbation, fornication, sodomy, and gluttony.
Murder, theft, assault and trespass are all examples of real crimes. They are not examples of *subjective* or “personal” morality because literally no one wants to be the victim of such acts — even those criminals who want to commit them on others. Therefore, enforcing those laws is legitimate.
Murder, theft, assault and trespass are all examples of real crimes. They are not examples of *subjective* or “personal” morality because literally no one wants to be the victim of such acts — even those criminals who want to commit them on others. Therefore, enforcing those laws is legitimate.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Modest Proposals: A Gentlemen's Agreement on the Supreme Court
[Dogbert has been nominated to the Supreme Court:]
Senator: Do you have any opinions on the right to privacy?
Dogbert: No. In fact, I never formed an important opinion in my entire life.
Senator: You must think we're idiots!
Dogbert: Okay, I've formed one opinion, but that's all.
I personally would refuse to confirm a nominee who didn't give clear answers on how they would rule in various hypothetical cases. Furthermore, I would specifically point out their evasive answers meant they were either dishonest or incompetent, probably the former, and that's why I didn't consider them qualified.
On the other hand, I would not have any problem confirming a nominee whose opinions I disagreed with. Like many of the posters on The Volokh Conspiracy I believe that the Senate should give deference to the President's nominees.
One way of handling this would be to have a rule -- not a law but a "gentlemen's agreement" -- that each President is entitled to nominate one new justice to the Supreme Court. In other words, rather than a lifetime appointment, being a justice of the Supreme Court should be the equivalent of a 36-year term.
Like other "constitutional bargains" -- this is something we study in economics, specifically in my favorite field, public choice -- the idea behind it is that it treats both sides equally and neither of them knows whether they will be benefited or harmed by it.
If this were the case, i.e. if each of the last nine presidents had appointed one justice, it would be:
Obama (D)
Bush (R)
Bush (R)
Clinton (D)
Clinton (D)
Bush (R)
Reagan (R)
Reagan (R)
Carter (D)
In other words, the court would be divided between five Republican justices and four Democratic ones.
Senator: Do you have any opinions on the right to privacy?
Dogbert: No. In fact, I never formed an important opinion in my entire life.
Senator: You must think we're idiots!
Dogbert: Okay, I've formed one opinion, but that's all.
I personally would refuse to confirm a nominee who didn't give clear answers on how they would rule in various hypothetical cases. Furthermore, I would specifically point out their evasive answers meant they were either dishonest or incompetent, probably the former, and that's why I didn't consider them qualified.
On the other hand, I would not have any problem confirming a nominee whose opinions I disagreed with. Like many of the posters on The Volokh Conspiracy I believe that the Senate should give deference to the President's nominees.
One way of handling this would be to have a rule -- not a law but a "gentlemen's agreement" -- that each President is entitled to nominate one new justice to the Supreme Court. In other words, rather than a lifetime appointment, being a justice of the Supreme Court should be the equivalent of a 36-year term.
Like other "constitutional bargains" -- this is something we study in economics, specifically in my favorite field, public choice -- the idea behind it is that it treats both sides equally and neither of them knows whether they will be benefited or harmed by it.
If this were the case, i.e. if each of the last nine presidents had appointed one justice, it would be:
Obama (D)
Bush (R)
Bush (R)
Clinton (D)
Clinton (D)
Bush (R)
Reagan (R)
Reagan (R)
Carter (D)
In other words, the court would be divided between five Republican justices and four Democratic ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
