Politics, Government & Public Policy: June 2004 Archives
I hadn't planned to write more about John Kerry's divorce, but it looks like it's suddenly becoming a major campaign issue. As always, I'm ahead of the curve.
Recent calls for greater civility among legislators ring hollow in my ears. The politicians call for more "bipartisanship" and less hostility, but it appears to me that these public rows aren't themselves the problem: they're just the visible symptoms of the underlying animosity that's building in our country -- perhaps more strongly among our representatives than among ourselves, I can only hope.
Vice President Cheney's recent suggestion that Senatory Leahy "fuck off" wasn't made because the VP forgot how to be civil, but because Senator Leahy has spent the last few weeks accusing the VP of serious felonies and then expected that the two would still be on friendly terms.
Cheney said yesterday he was in no mood to exchange pleasantries with Leahy because Leahy had "challenged my integrity" by making charges of cronyism between Cheney and his former firm, Halliburton Co. Leahy on Monday had a conference call to kick off the Democratic National Committee's "Halliburton Week" focusing on Cheney, the company, "and the millions of dollars they've cost taxpayers," the party said.Civility is for opponents, not for enemies. Everyone reading this knows I'm biased against the Democrats in general, but that bias isn't "prejudice" because there's plenty of evidence available on which to base judgement. It should be clear to everyone that the political tactics the Democrats are using as the minority party are far dirtier than anything the Republicans did when they were out of power. Beyond all the "minor" issues like their attempts to block judicial appointments and to talk down the economy, the Democrats are purposefully undermining the War on Terror for their own political gain."I didn't like the fact that after he had done so, then he wanted to act like, you know, everything's peaches and cream," Cheney said. "And I informed him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms. And as I say, I felt better afterwards."
Do you doubt it? Well here's anecdotal evidence! Lileks notes the following among his friends (and I've noticed the same among mine):
I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated. (They’re quick to insist that they’d want Kerry to get bin Laden ASAP. Although the details are sketchy.) Of course this doesn't mean they're unpatriotic, etc., obligatory disclaimers, et cetera. But let's be honest.Isn't that sentiment the very definition of putting politics above country?
Many on the anti-war left actually are anti-American, can that be denied? And they uniformly support the Democrats. Can anyone then argue that Democrat politicians aren't influenced by their anti-American donors and constituents? You'd have to be naive, or think the rest of us are.
Some on the left actually are enemies of America, and when leftist politicians do their bidding to undermine the War on Terror, they become enemies of America as well. I think the Vice President's advice to them is right on target.
Update:
There appears to be some confusion over the exact phrasing, if that is of interest to you.
Update 2:
And here's some civility from the left. Losers.
"Rent-seeking" is a technical economic term that doesn't mean what most laymen might expect, but that when understood can illuminate a large portion of our political and economic system.
The political left is generally more fond of empowering the government than the right; most people are willing to admit this, no matter what their own political persuasion, but they see the effects of it differently. Someone on the left will think a powerful government is important because it allows the public to care for the needs of the poor and to provide for the public good. A leftist generally won't understand why anyone on the right would think this to be a bad or scary prospect, but an explanation of "rent-seeking" may reveal the bogeyman those on the right are afraid of.
Simply put, rent-seeking -- in the negative sense -- is the use of political power to force others to pay you rent for the use of something that doesn't belong to you -- imagine me setting up a toll booth on the Golden Gate Bridge. This would naturally be illegal, but the problem with large and powerful governments is that lobbyists push for (and get) laws enabling them to do exactly this sort of thing.
For instance, when the government pays subsidies to domestic sugar producers and imposes high tariffs on sugar imports, sugar consumers end up getting ripped off -- we pay not just for the subsidies (through taxes), but we pay more for the sugar itself because of reduced competition. The government essentially allows the sugar industry to set up a toll booth on our borders, and charges us for the privilege. (And the rent-seeking hurts poor foreign sugar producers even more.)
Kelley L. Ross wrote an excellent essay called "Rent-Seeking, Public Choice, and The Prisoner's Dilemma" which opens with the quote: "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you've already got half the vote. -- Aegyptophilus." That's why rightists fear an unlimited government that isn't restricted in what it can do. "With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money." Money is used to buy votes, and those votes are used to transfer more money to the people who vote the "right way".
No matter who runs the government, Republicans or Democrats, the system will be abused. It's immoral, but it's inevitable. Power corrupts. The way to reduce the corruption in government is to reduce the power of government. As is becoming increasingly clear to those who didn't believe it at first, so-called Campaign Finance Reform is entirely useless. It isn't reducing the amount of money being spent, and it isn't even limiting how and when ads are used. Michael Moore's stupid new movie is one giant attack ad against President Bush, and it's completely outside the scope of CFR. Do we need yet another law to cover movies? Then what, a law against newspapers? Blogs? It's absurd.
Reduce government power, and you reduce the incentive for people to lie, cheat, and steal to get their hands on that power.
I'm no "animal lover", although I certainly like animals... for eating! Haha, anyway, Governor Arnold is proposing to save money by allowing animal shelters to kill strays sooner than they can now. Current law requires shelters to keep an animal for at least six days, and the new law would ease that to three days.
Schwarzenegger has told the state Legislature that the changes could save local governments that operate shelters up to $14 million. ...And that's the key. The new law doesn't require animals to be killed after three days, it just allows the ones who won't be adopted to be killed. Many of these unadoptable animals are probably old, and have diseases or injuries.The waiting period has caused overcrowding and forced some shelters to kill off animals simply to make room for new ones, said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance.
"Because of space limitations, the shelters are being forced to euthanize animals who are otherwise highly adoptable immediately after the holding time," Palmer said.
"There is no organized constituency of cats and dogs, but certainly the pet owners of America will find this reprehensible," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento.Uh, what? Only crazy people prefer their pets to other humans. Pets are property. I like my car and my house, and some people like their dogs and cats. Fine. Rationally, they're the same exact thing."Cats and dogs are like mom and apple pie," she said. "Don't mess with the pets. Most people prefer them to other people."
What do these supposed "most people" want to happen? Do they want to maintain the status quo, where adoptable animals are killed to make room for others? Or would they prefer animal shelter budgets to be expanded by billions of dollars, and for all these stray animals to be raised by the government? Or what? I just don't see how this poposed change is worse than what we've got now, from any perspective. These same "most people" would probably object to feeding the disposed-of animals to the homeless!
Update:
Then again, I don't condone throwing kittens out of moving vehicles. (HT: Dean Esmay.)
I've said it before (somewhere) and I'll say it again: anyone who complains about budget deficits but isn't willing to radically reform social security is a hypocrite. The system simply isn't sustainable, as the numbers continually prove.
Simply, even using CBO's more optimistic technical assumptions, Social Security remains unsustainable: unable to pay promised future benefits given current levels of tax revenue. The report concludes that "unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies are likely to result in an ever growing burden of federal debt." ...The types of benefits that Cass Sunstein thinks of as "rights" can only be realized by those in the present if they're willing to finance them on the backs of their children. As I've written before, I find the behavior of many members of America's older generations irresponsible and despicable.On top of that, the CBO achieves much of its savings by assuming lower benefit payouts in the future. That is, the CBO expects Social Security to become an even worse deal for younger workers in the future. Imagine what would have happened if some politician had suggested that we could buy a few more years of actuarial solvency by slashing Social Security benefits. Would Matsui or Kennelly be celebrating?
The report does not address Social Security's many non-financial issues: unfairness to working women and minorities, the lack of property rights, or the drain on national savings -- all of which provide further arguments for reform. In fact, in the end, the biggest reason for reforming Social Security is not a question of getting the lines to cross on a budget chart. It's about giving Americans ownership and control over their own money.
