August 31, 2007

Friday Funnies

Jay Leno, courtesy of Polical Diary:

"Speaking at a forum organized by Lance Armstrong on cancer research, Hillary Clinton told Chris Matthews if she is elected president, she will declare war on cancer, and then she will support the war on cancer for two years, and then she will be against it for a year, and then she will back out of it all together" -- Jay Leno, host of NBC's "Tonight Show."

Politics Posted by jk at 1:11 PM

Sen. Craig (R-- EW!)

I fear my beloved Republicans have learned the wrong lessons from recent history. Poor Senator Craig cannot find a friend in the Senate Cloakroom. Well, perhaps, that's for the best. But he cannot find a friend in the GOP leadership, and I am not sure that's right.

Really creepy? Yes. But I'd like to compare the Senior Senator from the last stall to members in the party’s Hall of Shame who enjoy their good standing.

  • Rep. Tom Foley -- he may be out of good standing now, but his is supposed to be the lesson learned. I suggest that Rep, Foley was propositioning minors and was using his position as a Congressman coercively. He should have been shut down early by leadership that suspected/knew of this behavior.

  • Sen. Ted Stevens (R - $$) -- no room in the party for a creepy queer, but crooks may hold leadership positions. Senator Stevens is a crook who stands against everything the party is supposed to embrace.

  • Rep Don Young -- see above, what is with these Alaska guys?

  • Rep. Jerry Lewis -- I will not call him a crook, but he's a poster child for purchasing incumbency with Federal largesse.


Creepy Craig was at least seeking something consensual with a grownup, and I suspect that he was going to pay out of his own pocket.

Politics Posted by jk at 11:53 AM

For This We Elect Republicans?

Where in the Constitution is the Executive Branch given responsibility for executive pay? Reading the Wall Street Journal (paid link) one can only assume that Senator Edwards has already won the 2008 election and has installed his SEC chief early:

Stepping up its campaign to shed light on the mysteries of executive pay, the Securities and Exchange Commission has sent letters to nearly 300 companies across America critiquing disclosures in this year's proxy statements and demanding more information.

The SEC's requests could set up a confrontation over details the agency wants that companies say are competitive and should remain secret. The federal securities regulator, for example, wants to know more about the targets and benchmarks companies use when they tie pay to performance.


Huh? What?


'bout that consensus

A good friend of this blog sends a link to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Specifically, Senator Inhofe’s EPW Press Blog. Looking at recent peer-reviewed research, Senator Inhofe’s staff doesn't quite see the consensus that a certain former Vice President claims.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.




August 30, 2007

Quick Election Thoughts

Two candidate (one from each party) were in the news today.

First, John Edwards:


WASHINGTON -- Last week in Hanover, N.H., John Edwards shot off a rhetorical signal flare. "I want to go one step further," he said. Something new was coming. This wasn't going to be just another stump speech about the "Two Americas" -- one for the rich and one for everyone else. He was about to attack his own party, the Democratic Party, which he likes to call "the party of the people."

"The choice for our party could not be any clearer," he continued. "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other."

Of course, he never named the fellow travelers targeted by his broadside. But he left plenty of clues, given Hillary Clinton's time in the White House and Barack Obama's record fundraising. "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale," he said, "the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House and the Senate."


There are usually two ways that a candidates runs for the primary. One can move as far to the fringe as possible and attack fellow party-members or one can run a centrist campaign and attack candidates from the other party. The Democrats, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, have been rather unique in that they have mostly moved to the left and run against President Bush. Given this pattern, the comments by Edwards seem to relfect the following:

  • The Edwards campaign has come to the realization that he must make some sort of change to improve his position within the party.

  • Hillary may be in trouble. The negative attacks are largely going to be aimed at her simply because she is the front runner and, quite frankly, there is more material. Elizabeth Edwards even stated that Hillary would do more to energize Republicans than any candidate with an "R" next to their name. Unfortunately for Edwards, this negative press aimed at Hillary likely helps Obama in the long run.


The second piece of news is that Fred (or Fred!) Thompson will announce his candidacy on September 6 on his website. The right-wing blogosphere is growing tired of Sen. Thompson because he is attempting "upstage" the fellow Republicans by appearing on Leno on the night of the Republican debate and the fact that he has delayed announcing his candidacy for so long. Nevertheless, I do not think any of the blogosphere's concerns are warranted. Here's why:

  • The blogosphere is filled with party activists and libertarian academics that are largely out of touch with the mainstream Americans (for better or for worse).

  • Thompson hasn't run a conventional campaign. I actually like this. Besides, more people will watch Leno than the R's debate.

  • Thompson has created the perception of being above the other candidates. He should try to maintain this as long as possible.

  • What purpose does it serve for Thompson to debate the likes of Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, and the other second tier candidates? There is plenty of time left before primary season.

  • Staying out of the race hasn't hurt him as much as the conservative pundits pretend. Thompson is still at or near the top of most polls.

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:50 PM | What do you think? [2]
But johngalt thinks:

You've hit on the most tantalizing aspect of the coming election cycle, HB. Despite being the frontrunner, both within her party and generally, Hillary's negatives are so high and her baggage so weighty that not just the Republicans want to run against her - the other Democrats would rather run against her than against Republicans. The tantalizing part? Despite every Democrat knowing this, odds are they're still going to nominate her!

And on a related note, GO FRED!

Posted by: johngalt at August 30, 2007 11:42 PM
But jk thinks:

I see a different dynamic. I think that Senator Clinton has now opened a commanding lead in the primary and is already positioning herself for the General. Her team sees that Senator Obama has fizzled as a candidate and that she is positioned to swamp Obama and Edwards in front-loaded, big-state, big-money primaries. She can tone down her pandering to the left and begin pandering to the center.

I agree that Sen. Thompson has not been hurt by staying out, blogosphere (including AlexC) be dammed. The possible drawback is his lack of organization. That may or may not bite him.

Posted by: jk at August 31, 2007 10:56 AM

StorageMarkets.com

Now, this is cool. The ThreeSources readership includes veterans of the Storage Industry, and predictive markets players and workers, (plus a couple other guys...)

I ran into an old friend and fellow storage warrior last weekend. He is involved with several projects, but one that really caught my fancy was StorageMarkets.com, a predictive market for the storage industry. Industry folk can wager virtual dollars on questions like "When the first 2TB 3.5” hard disk drive will be publicly announced" or "Which hardware implementation of encryption will have the highest market share by the end of 2008?" or "When will a majority of customers require storage systems that support both block and file I/O in the same system as evidenced by sales?"

Hey, there's a switch: the economists' eyes are glazing over!

It is a cool site and I am told that my (work) email address will get me a membership. I can beg for anybody else that is interested. Here is the site, or here is a blog that provides summaries and news items.

Technology Posted by jk at 7:16 PM

The Dems' Fox Debate

Something tells me that jk would love this:


I think that Fox should go ahead with the debate. Take that time you were going to allot for the Democratic Party Debate, and fill it with any empty stage with empty lecterns. Then every few minutes, put a title bar on the screen with different debate topics.

Such as:
"DEMOCRATS PRESENT IDEAS ON WINNING THE WAR" ...crickets...crickets...crickets...
"DEMOCRATS PRESENT IDEAS ON SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY" ...tumbleweeds...
"DEMOCRATS PRESENT IDEAS ON CUTTING PORK” ...cold wind...

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 5:03 PM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

I don't know why people would thing that I would appreciate a cheap, partisan trick. Like I am some kind of hack or something...(crickets...crickets...)

Posted by: jk at August 30, 2007 7:50 PM

Big Oil Collusion

Are you sure about that?

Big oil companies did not conspire to raise U.S. gasoline prices last summer, as it was high crude oil costs and supply problems that caused the spike in pump prices, government investigators said on Thursday.

The Federal Trade Commission said that about 75 percent of the rise in gasoline prices was due to a seasonal increase in summer driving, higher oil costs and more expensive ethanol that was blended into gasoline.

The other 25 percent of the price increase stemmed from lower gasoline production as refiners moved to using ethanol as the main clean-burning fuel additive and lingering damage from hurricanes Katrina and Rita that reduced refining capacity.


So what they're saying is that fluctuations in supply and demand cause prices to go up (and down?) Not some cabal of evil white men?

Get outta here.

But jk thinks:

They buried the lede: 25% was caused by ethanol mandates (government intrusion). It was evil white men, ac -- Sen Harkin, Sen Grassley, Sen Lugar, Sen Durbin...

Posted by: jk at August 30, 2007 4:09 PM
But johngalt thinks:

OK, I'll be your conspiracy theorist. Ever notice how gasoline prices rise quickly and fall slowly? My hypothesis is that the retail price rises immediately whenever the wholesale price goes up, but when the wholesale price drops the retailers only lower their price as much as they have to as dictated by their nearby competition.

Not everyone plays this game, however. While 91 octane premium still commands 3.13 to 3.35 per gallon (north Denver metro) Costco gasoline has been selling their Sinclair wholesaled 91 octane for 2.99 for at least a month.

Posted by: johngalt at August 30, 2007 11:55 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:

JK,..I direct you to this piece on ethanol:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/pa/20070828_Kudos_to_kudzu_as_source_of_energy.html

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 1, 2007 1:05 PM
But jk thinks:

I liked it just fine until they suggested genetically modified kudzu. I'm no Luddite, but one can easily see GMK taking over and destroying all life on Earth.

I'm actually very keen on biomass energy and have long been intrigued with generating power from poultry offal and by-products. Just as long as it's neither subsidized nor mandated, sign me up.

Posted by: jk at September 1, 2007 5:36 PM

It was Only $100 Million

A union shell group raises and spends $100 million illegally, and the punishment is a fine of less than 1% -- I bet they spent more on coffee.

Yet another problem with government regulation of campaign finance -- besides its explicitly contravening the First Amendment -- is that the laws have no teeth. Like the mob, you just budget for some fines in your business plan. John Fund reports on the recent decision against "Americans Coming Together."

The Federal Election Commission has just found that Americans Coming Together, a top union group active in the 2004 presidential election, spent $100 million illegally on federal election activity that year. The agency imposed a fine of just $775,000 -- and not one dime will go back to the union workers who financed ACT's illegal activities with their forced payment of dues.

This is a textbook example of what's wrong with federal election laws. The FEC takes years to catch up with those who break the law, then administers a slap on the wrist on the grounds that ACT disbanded after the 2004 election and won't be engaging in further election activity.

In reality, such groups may disband but their supporters and personnel have every intention of remaining active in politics under another brand name. That perfectly describes the ACT shell game.

Its largest donor was the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically active labor unions. Its largest non-union donor was billionaire George Soros. And who was the group's president? None other than Harold Ickes, a long-time functionary of the Clinton machine who served as Bill Clinton's deputy White House chief of staff. Mr. Ickes is now a major player in the huge fundraising apparatus of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who unsurprisingly has run into her own campaign finance scandal this week. One of her top donors, Norman Hsu, was revealed to be a fugitive from justice and may have illegally laundered campaign contributions to the Clinton campaign through "straw" or fake donors.

It's clear the FEC can't be relied upon to report on the law-skirting by major political players before voters render their judgment at the polls in 2008. Nor are its sanctions much of a deterrent to those playing for big stakes on the presidential stage. Mrs. Clinton's latest scandal appears to be a near-replica of the 1996 Clinton fundraising scandals, in which 120 people either fled the country to avoid questioning, took the Fifth Amendment or otherwise failed to cooperate with investigators.

The FEC enforcement action against ACT came after a complaint three years ago by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Meanwhile, the news media resolutely ignored the story, insisting that looking into the modus operandi of the Clinton machine represented "old news." Here's hoping the press wakes up and realizes the time for vigilant reporting on the 2008 election excesses of all parties is before Americans vote, not years afterward.


I'm sure they'll start with the GOP, John.

Politics Posted by jk at 1:27 PM

Regulate Telecom!

To show the superiority of free markets, I frequently cite telecom (and, of course, the iPod) as examples. So does Mayor Giuliani. When Larry Kudlow asked him about health care he said "How did we make cell phones affordable? We let the market work."

I have to compliment my collectivist foes on strategy. If they can ruin the markets where the markets work, Classical Liberals will no longer have any examples. So, the FCC and a consumer group have decided it's time to regulate the most successful free market in my lifetime.

WSJ Ed Page (paid link):
In a hearing last month, the Consumers Union told Congress that "in Europe and Asia, wireless consumers have better choices" and that "instead of innovating, the wireless community has become a cozy cartel of a few dominant providers with limited device offerings." More recently, the FCC slapped "open access" requirements on a valuable block of spectrum to be auctioned off early next year. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin justified the move to "ensure that consumers benefit from innovation and technological advancements."

But consumers are doing just fine, according to an American Consumer Institute study released last week. Comparing U.S. and foreign telecom markets, it concluded that the U.S. market "offers more choice and is less concentrated than any Western country's wireless market." U.S. consumers have access to more wireless operators and more devices than consumers anywhere else in the world. And the top three wireless providers in the U.S. comprise a smaller share of the market than their counterparts in Europe and Asia.

Americans on average use more than four times as many wireless minutes per month as Europeans, according to the study, reflecting the fact that "U.S. wireless prices are the lowest in the world, with the exception of Hong Kong." This combination of higher usage at lower prices, it says, "presents compelling evidence that the overall consumer welfare derived from wireless service is higher in the U.S. than internationally." In short, calls for more telecom rules and regulations are a solution in search of a problem.


Now, if the Senate could dictate the size and cost of MP3 players...

Technology Posted by jk at 11:15 AM

August 29, 2007

Fidel's Endorsement

From Reuters:


HAVANA (Reuters) - Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.

Clinton leads Obama in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the November 2008 election, and Castro said they would make a winning combination.

"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate," he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.


Enough said.

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 12:46 PM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

Maybe Senator Edwards could still pull off a Robert Mugabe or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad endorsement to stem the bleeding.

Posted by: jk at August 29, 2007 2:13 PM

On Robber Barons

Hillsdale History Professor Burton W. Folsom, pens a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal today (paid link) and hits one of my favorite themes. Mexican telecom magnate Carlos Slim is derided as a robber baron. Folsom steps in to defend the robber barons:

Whoever satisfied the most customers would have the largest businesses. Only when Rockefeller sold cheap kerosene to tens of millions of Americans did he become the nation's first billionaire. "We must ever remember," Rockefeller told his partner, "we are refining oil for the poor man and he must have it cheap and good." Ironically, the price of Rockefeller's kerosene dropped to eight cents a gallon in 1885 from 26 cents in 1870 -- all the while he was viciously pilloried as a monopolist by the press, Congress and his competitors.

Ford, Walton and Mr. Gates also had to sell widely to masses of Americans at competitive rates before they rose to the top. Putting a car in every garage, not just the garages of the rich, was Ford's working motto. In serving the most customers, he reaped the largest reward. So did Bill Gates with computers. When America did deviate from free markets -- for example, by granting government subsidies to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads -- the economy suffered instabilities. But it recovered from the experience and learned a lesson. James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad with no federal subsidy -- and outperformed all other transcontinentals.


Rockefeller provided poor people with heat and light to earn his pejorative sobriquet. When people run him down, I always think of the old mining bumpersticker "Let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark!" Not only does Folsom honor the Robber Barons, but he tells Senor Slim: "I knew Robber Barons, Robber Barons were friends of mine, Son, you ain't no Robber Baron." Oh wait, that was Sen. Lloyd Bentsen.
His major opportunity came when President Carlos Salinas de Gortari decided to privatize some inefficient industries. Mr. Slim bought Telmex, the nation's phone company, in 1990 in a controversial auction which was decidedly less than transparent. With that purchase came a six-year monopoly guaranteed by the government. Although Mr. Slim was supposed to relinquish the monopoly in 1997, he used a variety of legal and political tools to maintain it, for example filing injunctions in court to block orders from the regulator to provide competitors fair access to his network. According to OECD figures, Mexican consumers and businesses still pay above market telephone rates. Fewer than one-fourth of Mexican homes have telephones.

With a near monopoly of fixed-line telephones and data access (the Internet), Mr. Slim has reaped windfall profits which, wisely invested, have propelled him to immense wealth. Meanwhile, Mr. Slim's newer ventures -- his construction company and his oil services company -- rely on government contracts for their major business. Recently President Felipe Calderón met with Mr. Slim and urged him to accept greater competition.


Mitt! on Larry! (UPDATED: Tonight Too)

The former Governor of the Commonwealth takes some licks for his health care plan(s) around here, but he will be able to defend himself in a one-on-one interview with Larry Kudlow tonight. CNBC 5:00PM Eastern. It is an exceptional venue to hear the candidates’ economic ideas.

UPDATE I: Part of the interview will be shown tonight (Aug 29), including the discussion of health care. I'm a Giuliani supporter, so discount my opinion as you see fit, but I'd have to say that he was unimpressive last night. He swung and missed at some softballs. "Do we need a SarbOx for lending?" Governor Romney said no, but conceded that there might be a place for Washington to make sure that customers understood their loans.

Hugh Hewitt always talks about how clear and in command of the facts Romney is, and that once people see him, they are really impressed. He did not come across as in control last night, and he won’t find a friendlier interview until he is on Hewitt’s show.

UPDATE II: Here is the video:

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

There will be only one GOP candidate who's principled enough to say we *don't* need federal regulations or other oversight for home loans. Three guesses as to his name, but you'll only need one. And here's a hint: even Fred Thompson, if pressed, will say the federal government needs to legislate and/or regulate.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 29, 2007 11:39 AM
But jk thinks:

Mayor Giuliani has already said no regulation and he said it on Kudlow & Co. I'll go out on a limb and say that Rep. Ron Paul would demur as well.

Posted by: jk at August 29, 2007 11:45 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

He really did? I'm pleasantly surprised.

Unfortunately, American voters are probably stupid enough as a whole to make the issue into ammunition for Hillary. Just when we thought liberals had promised everything possible in previous campaigns...

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 30, 2007 4:04 PM
But jk thinks:

Be pleasantly surprised!

Posted by: jk at August 30, 2007 6:50 PM

August 28, 2007

Tang®, Yum!

TCSDaily carries an article I cannot agree with. I guess I'm going to have to send back my $500 buyoff from big oil this month.

But Jack Raia, a financial executive in New York, tries to defend NASA as a wealth creator.

Endless technologies were spawned at NASA that have improved the quality of life in the U.S. and in much of the world. Take the weather. Satellites orbit the earth and track storms, providing information to supercomputers on the Earth's surface that perform millions of calculations to arrive at the most likely outcome. Those satellites were placed in orbit by NASA and the computers performing the calculations are spin-offs of NASA programs.

The latest models of Airplanes produced by Boeing and Airbus are made of lighter, stronger materials that were developed for the space program.

In medicine, though a cure for Parkinson's has proven elusive, ultrasound scanners provide more vivid pictures of infants in the womb and greater ability to diagnose problems. Cat scans are an indispensable tool in the detection of many maladies. Though not yet curable, research on osteoporosis, diabetes and AIDS has led to innovations in treatments. All are spin-offs of NASA.


I'll take obvious fallacies for $200, Alex. If NASA did not exist, we would not have satellites? Nobody but the government could do this? Running shoes, light materials for Aerospace applications. Government only.

I grew up in the Apollo days and I'll defend NASA funding for research and exploration. But it's not worth it for Tang. I think Raia does a disservice to claim that the byproducts outweigh what private investment could have accomplished. To do so allows NASA to stray from its mission of discovery and exploration to fund soft, PR projects like the International Space Station and "The First Hispanic Zoroastrian Certified Public Accountant In Space (TFHZCPAIS)."

NASA missions and their funding should be decided on their value as research and exploration; people can then decide how much they wish to fund. It is specious to claim a few commercial by-products as justification.

Posted by jk at 12:05 PM | What do you think? [2]
But Jack Raia thinks:

Dear Mr. Kranz:

Thanks for your interest in my article.

One correction: I didn't claim the byproducts of NASA outweigh what private investment could have accomplished. I said the benefits derived from NASA outweigh the investment made by taxpayers.

Back in the early 1960's, the capital markets couldn't have funded a venture like NASA. The investment was too huge and the capital markets were not efficient enough. This free marketer is reluctant to admit that only the government could have made this investment at that time. While I was a tot at that time, I find it hard to imagine that investors were lining up then to fund exploration into space.

All The Best,

Jack Raia

Posted by: Jack Raia at August 30, 2007 3:37 PM
But jk thinks:

Thank you for your comments.

I agree -- and meant to concede -- that the NASA of the 1960s provided value. I guess I would look "at the margins" and ask whether the next fiscal year's NASA budget would not be better spent by the private sector were they allowed to keep the tax dollars that will fund missions of reducing commercial and exploratory importance.

Posted by: jk at August 30, 2007 3:59 PM

August 27, 2007

Luskin's Back

The summer just became a little less doldrumy. Don Luskin is back from vacation.

I suspect Paul Krugman will miss his absence. He takes down a Krugman column today where Krugman makes a perfect pitch for school choice. Only it's sarcastic. The idea of government's not running schools is so foreign to the ex-Princeton prof, he finds the idea humorous.

But Harrison Bergeron thinks:

This was simply one of those times when the big government liberal stands up and facetiously argues for the free market to work while we Hayekians simply chuckle at the preponderance of a government that would somehow be better.

The market as it currently stands (in health and education) is hardly free and thus less than ideal. However, I would never prefer a less-than-ideal government to a less-than-ideal market.

Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at August 27, 2007 12:57 PM

Unseen Effects of Regulation

Got to laugh to keep from crying. Volvo, highly revered in Boulder County, introduces a new efficiency concept car with a clean burning diesel engine and a new efficient transmission. It will lower emissions and improve fuel economy. But don't detail your Prius for trade-in value just yet:

Unfortunately, Volvo has no plans to introduce the Powershift or the diesel into the U.S. market. Apparently certifying the new engine for the U.S. market is too expensive at this point. And they’re unsure if there is enough customer support to back the effort. Too bad. We think both the transmission—and the diesel—would do quite well here.

Insty linked to this over the weekend and has also linked to 70+ MPG VW diesel cars. But none of them will be available here, because of our regulatory hurdles, designed (everybody now) to increase fuel economy and decrease emissions.

Frederic, call your office.

Posted by jk at 12:05 PM

Bastiat On Iraq

ThreeSources's friend Josh Hendrickson at Everyday Economist has a smart piece this morning. He takes on those who now think that more command-and-control would have helped the Iraqi economy and concomitantly impeded the insurgency.

The EE links to reports that claim a slavish devotion to free market ideology spoiled an opportunity to keep services and jobs active in state-owned enterprises. He then responds with Bastiat's "seen and the unseen."

Messengers Thoma and Holland fail to take account of what is not seen on more than one account.

Thoma and Holland behind the veil of what is seen, conclude that had the administration should have kept the infrastructure in place. It is easy in hindsight to make this call, but it ignores what is unseen. Suppose the infrastructure had been maintained and that the United States “put people to work doing something, anything.” Would this have improved the economic circumstances in Iraq? Bastiat certainly wouldn’t believe so:


I hate to tell people what to do, but I'd suggest one reads the whole thing.

Freedom on the March Posted by jk at 10:55 AM

WSJ Steals from Me

I'm not complaining. Without the good folks at Dow Jones, I would have posted less than a third over the years.

Today, the lead Editorial steals my headline, "RomneyCare 2.0," and my thesis (paid link).

So this is a step forward for Mr. Romney on health policy, largely because it doesn't take Massachusetts as its model. Though he still regards that state's 2006 "universal" health insurance program as one of his signal achievements as Governor, his new proposal drops the most coercive elements, such as the individual mandate and the "pay or play" sanctions on businesses. Perhaps this intellectual progress is due to the influence of new Romney advisers Glenn Hubbard and John Cogan, both respected health-care economists.
[...]
One key difference with Rudy Giuliani, who has also proposed similar changes to the tax code, is that the former New York Mayor would allow for interstate insurance and Mr. Romney would not. Mr. Romney says that the logistical difficulties would become a "camel's nose" for national insurance regulations. Maybe so, but that is always a risk with federalism. A far worse camel's nose is the "universal" plan Mr. Romney championed in Massachusetts. As Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards put it, "If universal health care was good enough for Massachusetts, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the country?"

It's not an unfair question. Mr. Romney's Bay State legacy is now praised by liberals as a prototype for national policy. That's done a great deal to set back the kind of tax reform that he now espouses. The issue for GOP primary voters to consider is why he went in such a different direction in Boston. Granted, a mere Governor couldn't restructure the federal tax code, and he was dealing with a far-left legislature. Yet his willingness to compromise in Massachusetts on core matters of principle, and then trumpet those statist policies as a "free-market" solution, raises questions about how far and easily he'd bend to a Democratic Congress.

Mr. Romney's conversion to free-market health-care thinking is nonetheless welcome -- assuming he believes it.


I hope they don't pick up my typographical errors...

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

I'm gonna be Billy Beck-style blunt here.

Romney, who the f*** are you to tell me that buying insurance from a company out-of-state has "logistical" problems? Where the f**** have you been for the last 12 years? Since the Internet really took off, it's proven that interstate commerce is as easy, if not easier, than driving down the street. I can use Esurance with far greater ease and speed than flipping through the Yellow Pages to find a new insurance agent (and wind up talking to some dumb rookie schmuck mangle my name).

Oh, that's right, Romney, the problem isn't for us, but for *you* and the rest of the government, because you just can't keep your grubby hands off our peaceful commerce. Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce, but that doesn't mean it *must* in every circumstance.

And why the f*** should we believe you, Romney, when you say you wouldn't coerce all Americans to buy health insurance, the same way you did to the people of Massachussetts?

And by the way, Romney, you can go f*** yourself, you goddamn maggot.

Also by the way, speaking of "logistical" problems in buying things across great distances: I'm waiting on two sizeable packages directly from Hong Kong. If I have any problems, I do returns via their Florida address. I could have easily spent three times what I did, yet I'm getting the same things. And to those who think I was "inefficient" or risked "logistical problems," they can shove it up their asses.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 28, 2007 2:03 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

I should clarify: if there *are* any "logistical" problems on my end with buying things from Hong Kong or buying insurance from someone in Pocatello, then I'm perfectly capable of dealing with such problems. By making the purchase, aren't I accepting any risks, by definition?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 28, 2007 2:06 PM
But jk thinks:

At the risk of being a little less colorful. I really do find it comports to the difference I see in the two candidates. Giuliani gets the free market thing. I know that's not a powerful campaign slogan but it works for me.

Posted by: jk at August 28, 2007 3:08 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Thank NED for Perry. Our comments would be damned dry without him.

Now Perry, while you certainly have the right to *choose* to take risk in your life, all the other little comrade-Americans have the right to *choose* not to. After all, as I heard on NPR on this, the 2nd anniversary of the soon-to-be next federal holiday 'Katrina Day,' "Imagine how it must feel to be completely abandoned by *your own* government."

"It's *my* government, dammit! Take care of *me!*"

Posted by: johngalt at August 28, 2007 3:30 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Oh, I meant to say, I'm getting the same things as what could have been (in some cases, what used to be) domestically produced. Those amazing Chinese and their cheap electronics...

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 28, 2007 5:25 PM

August 26, 2007

Hard Economic Times

It's tough out west ya know.

The owner of a fast food joint in Montana's booming oil patch found himself outsourcing the drive-thru window to a Texas telemarketing firm, not because it's cheaper but because he can't find workers.

Record low unemployment across parts of the West has created tough working conditions for business owners, who in places are being forced to boost wages or be creative to fill their jobs.

John Francis, who owns the McDonald's in Sidney, Mont., said he tried advertising in the local newspaper and even offered up to $10 an hour to compete with higher-paying oil field jobs. Yet the only calls were from other business owners upset they would have to raise wages, too. Of course, Francis' current employees also wanted a pay hike.

"I don't know what the answer is," Francis said. "There's just nobody around that wants to work."

Unemployment rates have been as low as 2 percent this year in places like Montana, and nearly as low in neighboring states. Economists cite such factors as an aging work force and booming tourism economies for the tight labor market.


Whew... awful... starving babies in the streets, packs of dogs roaming... even a booming economy is bad news.

But jk thinks:

I almost posted this myself. My angle, mirabile non dictu, was going to be immigration. We are facing an EXTREME labor shortage in this country that threatens our capacity to grow.

Shutting down the borders will exacerbate this problem. Produce rotting in the fields.

Posted by: jk at August 26, 2007 1:38 PM
But Terri thinks:

Of course there is always shutting the borders AND increasing the yearly allotment of immigrants allowed in with papers. Not sure why that number is never re-legislated.

Posted by: Terri at August 28, 2007 8:50 AM
But jk thinks:

That could be part of comprehensive immigration reform if the pitchfork populists could take a Valium® and settle down.

Rep. Tancredo suggested, at the first GOP debate, a moratorium on legal immigration. I'm up for anything that provides our economy sufficient labor (though I find the status quo extremely cruel to the workers).

Posted by: jk at August 28, 2007 10:30 AM
But Terri thinks:

Comprehensive reform always seemed to include legalizing the illegals that are here vs increasing numbers of legalized people allowed.

(Rep. Tancredo is a bit out there on this issue. There are many more points on the spectrum)

Posted by: Terri at August 29, 2007 7:58 AM

Texas, On Messing With

Statement by Robert Black, spokesman for Texas Governor Rick Perry, concerning the European Union’s appeal that Texas enact a moratorium on the death penalty:

230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas.

Hat-tip: Insty

Posted by jk at 12:19 PM | What do you think? [2]
But AlexC thinks:

He should have finished his speech with "Don't Mess with Texas" and fired a few rounds in the air.

Posted by: AlexC at August 26, 2007 12:59 PM
But jk thinks:

It was just a spokesman. Had the Governor himself delivered the message...

Posted by: jk at August 26, 2007 1:35 PM

August 25, 2007

"Top Gear" on BBC America

Great news for satellite TV customers. BBC America is now showing the best show the BBC has ever aired: Top Gear with Jeremy Clarkson. I don't know how long they have been showing it, but they advertise a new episode Monday night at 8:00 Eastern and showed a couple of episodes this afternoon. It felt like connecting with an old and dear friend.

I used to watch this in the UK and have been amazed for years that they do not show it here. They have seen the error of their ways. If you have not seen this show and get the BBC America channel, give it a try.

Posted by jk at 5:33 PM

Review Corner

They talk about movie plots as "formulaic;" here's the formula.

Young, idealistic member of X, where X is an element of a disadvantaged racial group in the United States encounters disadvantaged youth and winds up sharing his love of Y, where Y is an element of a popular activity but is NOT an element of activities considered popular for members of racial group X. Youths show great promise in activity Y after initial skepticism and demonstrate level of competency Z. Z is contiguous over a wide domain of X and Y.

I tease but confess that I almost always like these films. One worth watching was "Pride," newly released on DVD. X=African-American, Y=swimming, and I can't give you Z because I don’t do spoilers.

Three and three-quarters stars. If you like these films.

Review Corner Posted by jk at 12:32 PM

August 24, 2007

The Universe is Wrong

There's a one billion lightyear wide hole in the universe.

Astronomers don't know why the hole is there.

"Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size," said researcher Lawrence Rudnick of the University of Minnesota.

Rudnick's colleague Liliya R. Williams also had not anticipated this finding.

"What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe," said Williams, also of the University of Minnesota.


No, it's perfectly normal... perhaps your computer simulations are wrong?

What happened to science? Computer modelling is not science!

Science Posted by AlexC at 11:54 AM | What do you think? [2]
But jk thinks:

Quite clearly, it's Bush's fault.

Posted by: jk at August 24, 2007 12:13 PM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Huh ... so in an infinitely large universe, they find it odd that and infinite small probability has manifested. I'm just an internet dork and even I understand the math of that.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 24, 2007 1:14 PM

Surrenderlicans

I wanted to say something about Senator Warner's attempt to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. But Scrappleface has done it sooner and better:

(2007-08-24) — Sen. John Warner, R-VA, yesterday called on President George Bush to start bringing troops home from Iraq “to show al Qaeda that the U.S. commitment to fighting Muslim terrorists overseas is not open-ended."

Hat-tip: Insty

But johngalt thinks:

Warner's laudable intent is to compel the Iraqi government, in the person of PM Maliki, to get its house in order and become a self-sufficent nation within 4 months. But even if Maliki had been elected "dictator for life," as Hugo Chavez apparently was, such an achievement would be nigh on impossible.

Internal pressures are one thing but Iraq's destablization is a part of the dominant global cold war between the US-EU-Australia-Japan allies and the Mideast-Sino-Russian axis (I include China reluctantly as JK has been effective in lauding their pro-freedom progress, yet they're still behind the Google Curtain.) NATO's cold war bases in Germany have effectively moved to "the land of the two rivers."

C'mon Senator Warner, you're smart enough to understand all this. Stop being a chicken hawk.

Posted by: johngalt at August 24, 2007 4:12 PM
But jk thinks:

I agree but take exception to your use of "laudable." This is the freely elected government of a sovereign nation. I don't find it laudable that a Republican Senator gives credence to the (let me be fair here: completely insane) talking points of the opposition party.

I don't think we need to "send them a message" that they should take over their country. I'd rather send al-Qaeda the message that we're playing to win.

If there is a body with less courage than the US Senate, I cannot think of it.

Posted by: jk at August 24, 2007 4:52 PM
But johngalt thinks:

You are right - I retract the word "laudable."

Posted by: johngalt at August 24, 2007 5:56 PM

RomneyCare 2.0

Governor Romney (Mitt! 'round these parts) is announcing his health care plan today. And it is thankfully not an expansion of the mandated insurance plan enacted under his watch in "the Commonwealth." It sounds closer to the Bush and Giuliani plans. From the news pages of the Wall Street Journal (paid link):

In a speech before the Florida Medical Association in Hollywood, Fla., Mr. Romney will present a program that won't include new government mandates for individuals or companies to buy coverage, policies long considered anathema by many conservatives -- and that were features of the program enacted in Massachusetts.

Instead, Mr. Romney plans to focus on tax breaks and streamlining regulations, policies his advisers say would essentially create a new, freer market for health insurance, driving down costs and providing incentives for individuals to buy their own plans. It is an approach President Bush and many Republican economists have embraced.

In today's speech, Mr. Romney will nod to his 2006 success in the Northeastern Democratic stronghold, aides say. But he will also aim to reassure conservatives by saying that a "one size fits all" solution isn't right for the 50 states. As for why he would use a different philosophy as president than as governor, they say he would have greater powers in the White House. "Massachusetts didn't have the federal tax code to play with," said Glenn Hubbard, a former Bush administration chief economist, now advising the Romney campaign.


We can all evolve. Seriously, this raises the Governor a few notches in my sights, though I will be interested to see how he rhetorically squares this with his previous plan.

But johngalt thinks:

He squares it by saying, "I did the best I could in Massachusetts where I was working with the most liberal legislature in the nation. In the case of the US Congress there are actually a few members who don't hold collectivism as their highest ideal. We might get a complete half of a loaf with that bunch."

John Edwards slammed the new Romney proposal saying, "If universal health care was good enough for Massachusetts, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the country?" My response to that would be "If we do something good one time why settle for not doing better?"

Mitt! is putting daylight between himself and the dour Mayor G. If Thompson doesn't announce within 30 days I'll wager that the nomination will go to the former governor of the Red Sox, not the Yankees.

Posted by: johngalt at August 24, 2007 3:42 PM
But jk thinks:

I do appreciate a bold prediction, if not a pejorative description of my favored candidate. I admit it is early, but I feel the primary voters are not warming to the Gov. Today's FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll gives Hizzoner 28% against 11 for his Mittness.

I'm the pragmatist 'round these parts, but even I have to question whether a man who has changed positions as frequently as Governor Romney can be trusted to honor his philosophical commitments.

Posted by: jk at August 26, 2007 5:09 PM

August 23, 2007

Free Health Care

At least Canadians can go to Montana to avoid free health care. This poor woman lives in the UK.

So. We have a woman in hospital waiting for the procedure that will abort her baby, a child she had wanted to bear and raise. Not a pleasant situation at any time, but what followed next was disconcerting to read about even for those who have grown weary of NHS "war stories".

I first saw this in the Times (Baby's birth and death in lavatory of hospital with no trained staff), but there is a considerably more detailed account in This Is London (Mother forced to give birth alone in toilet of 'flagship' NHS hospital) (A very similar account appeared in the Daily Mail.)

Both headlines understate the peculiarly modern horror of what happened. The reader gets a picture of nurses trying to help, but out of their depth because Queen's Hospital did not at that time have a proper maternity unit.


Natalie Solent @ Samizdata, goes on to print accounts that nursing staff refused to help. Whether that is true or not, this is about as grisly a tale as you can hear. I'm no doctor but I cannot believe that this child would noy have had a good chance at being born alive in the US.

Remember this sad story anytime anybody says "Universal Heal..." but remember it when some Michael Moore claims our infant mortality rate is higher than Country X -- you can bet the price of next month's health care premium that Country X doesn't mind allowing a premature baby to die.

If Sicko is correct, this woman was refunded her transportation expenses as she left. I'm sure that was ameliorating.

Health Care Posted by jk at 6:21 PM

A Friendly Voice in the Crowd

The Glenn and Helen Show today interviews Law Professor Richard Epstein, about his new book Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation.

It's a 35:16 podcast on my favorite topic. It gives me hope that this issue is starting to get a little traction outside of the WSJ Ed Page. There's a long way to go but I look forward to the book.

Pharmaceuticals Posted by jk at 4:13 PM

August 22, 2007

We're Number Thirty-Seven!

John Stossel lays low a "2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May" which ranked the U. S. 37th in health care.

First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.

Even with all that, it strains credulity to hear that the U.S. ranks far from the top. Sick people come to the United States for treatment. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving this country to get medical care? The last famous case I can remember is Rock Hudson, who went to France in the 1980s to seek treatment for AIDS.

So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.


The US loses points for traffic accidents, lifestyle, violence and an "unfair" apportionment of health care. Stossel takes no prisoners (and scores points for invoking Friedman -- this is an ABC Journalist after all!)

Hat-tip: Mankiw

Health Care Posted by jk at 7:05 PM

T-N-RRRRRRRRR!

TNR has broken its silence on the Scott Beauchamp contretemps. Jonathan Chait writes a hit piece on William Kristol:

Kristol's sensibility is perfectly summed up in one representative passage from a recent issue. The topic was The New Republic's decision to publish an essay by Scott Beauchamp, an American soldier serving in Iraq, detailing some repugnant acts he said he and his comrades committed. Legitimate questions have been raised about this essay's veracity. (We've been publishing updates on our continuing efforts to get answers to them at tnr.com.) But Kristol rushed past these questions, immediately declaring the piece a "fiction." Offering up his interpretation of why tnr would publish such slanders, he concluded, in an editorial titled, "They Don't Really Support the Troops":

How dare he expose our making s**t up to advance our political agenda! Read the whole thing, if you can. It seems they were just "edifying their readers."

Media and Blogging Posted by jk at 1:43 PM

The Least Intelligent Member of the Senate

It's a great party game and I'd be the first to concede that many of my beloved Republicans are in the running. But Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan has a special place in my heart. I once saw Larry Kudlow interview her and she had no idea where he was coming from, did not understand the questions -- I'm not sure she knew where she was.

Today, ThreeSources' big-time-blogger-friend, Extreme Mortman, gives us a quote from the junior Senator:

“The expectations when we took control in January were so high, and we all feel it,” Stabenow told the Lansing State Journal editorial board last week. “We kind of feel like everybody thought the Democrats are now in control of the House and Senate, the war is going to end, we are going to have universal health care, everybody’s going to be able to go to college, no more global warming.”

The disappointment is palpable, Senator. I still have MS and the pop music of the day is jejune and unmelodic.

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Dammit. The Dems lied to me! I was TRICKED! I thought they would legalize stem cell research and I would get MY MS cured too. THEY PLAYED ON MY FEARS!


Ohhh, I'm going to SO impeach their asses!

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 23, 2007 12:13 AM
But Josh Hendrickson thinks:

I am embarrassed to even write this, but unfortunately, she is one of my Senators. If you think this is bad, you should see her campaign commercials. . .

Posted by: Josh Hendrickson at August 24, 2007 2:27 PM
But jk thinks:

Ah yes, Levin AND Stabenow. My condolances. But it's very pretty.

Posted by: jk at August 24, 2007 4:53 PM

No Acronym Left Behind

W shill that I am, I have provided some tepid support for No Child Left Behind on this blog. I always thought that President Bush got rolled by Senator Kennedy in his "fool me once" phase of his attempts to work across the aisle. The President was seeking accountability and the Senior Senator from the briny deep was seeking more Federal dollars to hand out.

Everyday Economist links to Cato's Andrew J. Coulson's take on yet another Federal Education Acronymed Restructuring (FEAR). This time it is America COMPETES. Colson points out that it includes no competition.

Just as with the NDEA, we should not be surprised by these [disappointing NCLB] results. Measures like NCLB, America COMPETES, and their fellow alphabetic travelers are the education policy analogues of perestroika — Mikhail Gorbachev’s attempt to “fix” Soviet socialism by tinkering around its edges. Gorbachev’s efforts failed, it is now widely acknowledged, because they omitted certain crucial elements of free markets: prices that are determined by supply and demand instead of by central planners, private instead of state ownership of enterprises – that sort of thing. America’s public school monopolies are like socialist economies in small; centrally planned, uncompetitive, state-owned. Just as Gorbachev’s piece-meal reforms couldn’t fix his system, neither can such half-measures fix ours.

I supported NCLB in the context of the "ownership society" because it seeked to inject some accountability. And, laugh if you will, but anything my Union Teacher Relatives (UTRs) loathed so much had to have some redeeming qualities.

I cannot stand up to Coulson. NCLB had a wisp of competition, but if the Feds cannot break down the union monopoly, they should stay the hell out.

Education Posted by jk at 12:36 PM

Rudy's Immigration Pander

The WSJ Ed Page (or, as Michelle Malkin would call them, the "Open Borders WSJ Ed Page") asks whether Mitt! and Rudy! are "competing for the Republican Presidential nomination, or for the job of vacation replacement for Lou Dobbs?"

GOP Immigration Meltdown (free link)

Both candidates, however, ignore the reality that more security measures will have limited effect if not paired with a guest worker program that gives foreign nationals more legal ways to access job offers in the U.S. The same goes for the Bush Administration's recently announced plans to step-up "interior" enforcement. Taking U.S. employers to the woodshed won't fix the illegal immigration problem, and it could do real economic harm.


Then again, maybe Hugh Hewitt is right. Trashing the economy and alienating the fastest voting block in the country really is the path to big Republican sweeps in 2008. Yaaay Team!

Immigration Posted by jk at 11:11 AM

Taranto Not Needed

WaPo email headline:
Politics Daily: CIA Finds Holes in Pre-9/11 Work

Ya think?

Posted by jk at 10:22 AM

August 21, 2007

Can You Watch HAMNation?

I don't know if it is Vista® or some other virus (just kidding I am the third-to-last Sharanskyite and the last guy who likes Vista®) but I have not been able to watch the video clips at TownHall in many months.

Granted most of them are just telling me how swell Governor Romney is and how bad "illegals" are, but I have always enjoyed Mary Katherine Ham's HamNation clips. I get the player up, I click, and then I get control buttons but nothing ever plays.

This work for you?

Posted by jk at 8:06 PM | What do you think? [2]
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

It did run for me, under Vista with Firefox. MKH doesn't seem as cute in this one as in others, don't you think? Or it might be because I'm getting pretty committed and try to keep my eyes only on a certain someone. Anyway, I run NoScript and had to give permission to townhall.com and a few other sites, but it worked.

My new Dell finally arrived yesterday (the huge volume of back-to-school orders has been giving them LCD supply problems, I was told). It's my first experience with Vista. Seems ok, and Vista SP1 is supposed to fix a lot, but until I see big improvements, my favorite Microsoft OS is still Windows 2000. Now that was a solid system, still a gig+ in required space, but I thought it ran the smoothest of all Microsoft's releases.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 23, 2007 1:37 AM
But jk thinks:

You'd fit in with our IS department, Perry, they all agree with you on Win2K. The support structure forces us to upgrade, but they all have Win2K desktop or server on their own machines.

Don't know if Ms. Ham has become less cute or your eyes are glazing -- I'll try Firefox.

Posted by: jk at August 23, 2007 11:10 AM

T-N-AAAAAAAAARGH!

False Dawn.
by the Editors.
Why the U.S. Must act in Darfur -- right now!

Well, something sure is false. Say, when TNR supported the liberation of Iraq.

I have complained before that it is disingenuous for them to demand action in Sudan when they have abandoned the effort in Iraq. That's old news and seeking consistency of reason from the left is a loser's game.

BUT! After l'Affaire Beauchamp, you'd think they'd be concerned about another brave generation of idealistic American soldiers, marines and airmen becoming ensconced in the depravity that is war. Why Beauchamp turned into a complete asshole in a staging base. Surely we can't subject innocent troops to this.

I linked to The Nation this morning and told my emailer that at least they were honestly whacked. TNR's fall defies description.

Media and Blogging Posted by jk at 3:57 PM

Mitt!

The Club for Growth issues it's Mitt Romney report.

"Governor Romney's economic record contains a mixture of pro-growth accomplishments and some troublesome positions that beg to be explained," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "While his record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature. His record on trade, school choice, regulations and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions. At the same time, Governor Romney's history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric."

Romney's strident opposition to the flat tax; his refusal to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003; his support for various minor tax hikes; and his once-radically bad views on campaign finance reform all cast some doubts on the extent and durability of his commitment to limited-government, pro-growth policies. His landmark steps in the healthcare arena also exhibit a mixture of desirable pro-free market efforts combined with a regrettable willingness to accept, if not embrace, a massive new regulatory regime.


Despite the reservations, they are OK with him as President.

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

RomneyCare is based on forcing certain people to buy a service they don't want. Call it socialism, call it fascism, but it's completely anathema to the free market.

Either something is free market, or it isn't. There is no in-between. Ask yourself this: is someone being coerced?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 21, 2007 1:30 PM
But jk thinks:

I'll crawl over broken glass to get him elected over any of the Democrats I have seen, but he is easily my least favorite of the top tier.

RomneyCare is as bad as McCain-Feingold and Senator McCain's personal style is far more attractive than Governor Romney's.

Posted by: jk at August 21, 2007 1:38 PM
But jk thinks:

Well said, Perry. When people ask me what bothers me I get into mandates and minutia, you've nailed the problem.

Somebody asked "isn't there anything in health care between socialism (HillaryCare) and Fascism (RomneyCare)?"

Rudy's got me on health care.

Posted by: jk at August 21, 2007 4:10 PM

The State of the Left

A good friend of this blog sends a pair of links to be enjoyed together.

In An Investment in Failure Thomas Sowell points out that, back to Karl Marx, the left has no interest in those rising out of poverty. Once you cease to be an object for their polity, you are -- if I may borrow a word from Senator Clinton -- invisible.

At one point, Marx wrote to his disciples: "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing."

Think about that. Millions of human beings mattered to him only in so far as they could serve as cannon fodder in his jihad against the existing society.

If they refused to be pawns in his ideological game, then they were "nothing."

No one on the left would say such things so plainly today, even to themselves. But their actions speak louder than words.


Over at The Nation, their words speak pretty loud as well. Barbara Ehrenreich cannot contain her glee that the subprime crisis is Smashing Capitalism but she is mad that it is not self directed. You really have to read this in full (it's blissfully short), but here's a taste:
The American poor, who are usually tactful enough to remain invisible to the multi-millionaire class, suddenly leaped onto the scene and started smashing the global financial system. Incredibly enough, this may be the first case in history in which the downtrodden manage to bring down an unfair economic system without going to the trouble of a revolution.

First they stopped paying their mortgages, a move in which they were joined by many financially stretched middle class folks, though the poor definitely led the way. All right, these were trick mortgages, many of them designed to be unaffordable within two years of signing the contract.


Like my disappointment at "The Glorious Revolution," however, the serendipity of it annoys her.
Personally, I prefer my revolutions to be a little more pro-active. There should be marches and rallies, banners and sit-ins, possibly a nice color theme like red or orange. Certainly, there should be a vision of what you intend to replace the bad old system with--European-style social democracy, Latin American-style socialism, or how about just American capitalism with some regulation thrown in?

Global capitalism will survive the current credit crisis; already, the government has rushed in to soothe the feverish markets. But in the long term, a system that depends on extracting every last cent from the poor cannot hope for a healthy prognosis. Who would have thought that foreclosures in Stockton and Cleveland would roil the markets of London and Shanghai? The poor have risen up and spoken; only it sounds less like a shout of protest than a low, strangled, cry of pain.


Capitalism will survive? Damn.

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

"European-style social democracy, Latin American-style socialism, or how about just American capitalism with some regulation thrown in?"

There's some stuff a bull left in a field. A Frenchman might call it merde, a Spaniard might call it mierda, and an American baby might call it caca. It doesn't matter what you call it: it doesn't change what it really is.

Ehrenreich is truly an idiot. If she thinks defaulting on a mortgage is a revolution, what will "mortage protestors" do when they want to take out a loan? Strike one: credit history. Strike two: higher interest rates, if they get approved. Strike three: banks will stop lending money to anyone below stellar credit. Yeah, that's great. Mortgage yourself to the stars, default intentionally to hurt those evil rich people, then lose your house and never own your own home again. Brilliant!

The poor don't borrow from other poor. They don't even borrow from the middle class. When you take out a $500K loan on a new house, from whom do you think you're borrowing? John Q. types who earn mid-five-figure annual salaries, or a single millionaire? All right, so several middle-class families could save enough between themselves to lend to one family. But in a new subdivision where everybody's a new homeowner, who are they borrowing from? Certainly not from each other.

The rich are actually the ones who are invisible these days. The rest of the people don't see how their very livelihoods and borrowing depend on how wealthy "the rich" are, and that raising taxes won't do a damn bit of good.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 21, 2007 1:45 PM
But jk thinks:

How many thousands of column inches do you bet The Nation has devoted to running down banks who would not take a chance on poor or minority borrowers?

Now, giving a loan to a guy who needs it is predatory lending. I hope they never see Jimmy Stewart in "It's A Wonderful Life."

Posted by: jk at August 21, 2007 4:15 PM

Bloomberg is correct

Truer words have never been spoken:


"Nobody's going to elect me president of the United States," [Michael Bloomberg] told Dan Rather for a program that will air Tuesday on cable's HDNet channel.

2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 11:00 AM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

I hope he shorted his Intrade contract before making that speech.

Posted by: jk at August 22, 2007 10:41 AM

Influential Democrat Senator calls for overthrow of elected leader

Pity the poor Iraqis. They are going to learn about democracy from the likes of Senator Carl Levin. One can question the competence or efficiency of PM Nouri al-Malaki, but he is the first freely elected Prime Minister under the new self-directed Constitution on a free Iraq. WaPo: Senator Calls for Malaki's Ouster

Levin is understandably cranky that the American troops are doing so well -- but it is still irresponsible of him to call for the ouster of an elected leader in a sovereign nation.

Declaring the government of Iraq "non-functional," the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday that Iraq's parliament should oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet if they are unable to forge a political compromise with rival factions in a matter of days.

"I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government," Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said after a three-day trip to Iraq and Jordan.


But the Democrats are conflicted. Is defeat their goal or should they be content to whack President Bush through any victory? We'll have to convene some focus groups, but in the meantime, there's division.
Still, Democrats have quietly begun to voice a view that Maliki must go; Durbin said he told White House national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley that last week. But they acknowledge that they do not know what would happen next. If it appeared that Maliki had been ousted at Washington's behest, his replacement would be seen as a U.S. puppet -- a "kiss of death" in the region, Durbin said.

And Democratic leaders might feel compelled to ease their antiwar position to allow a new government to take root.

"Imagine if we have to step in with a brand-new leader and a new government," Durbin said. "How many more months would we have to wait?"


I hate being such a partisan hack, but the conduct of the Democratic leadership is so much at odds with our nation's -- and the world's -- interest, I cannot ascribe any good motives.

But KYJurisDoctor thinks:

Should Bush not second the call for Al-Maliki's ouster by parliamentary means?

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/calls-start-to-mount-for-malikis-ouster.html#links

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor at August 21, 2007 10:29 PM
But jk thinks:

No sir. I am having a tough time opening your link (Google problems, I think the link is fine).

We pushed for Democracy in a land that has not seen much liberty. We cheered as they held purple fingers aloft. I cheered as they boycotted, yelled and walked in and out of legislative sessions as opposed to shooting each other.

PM Maliki is not, perhaps, the incarnation of Alexander Hamilton in our century. But he was FREELY ELECTED by free Iraqis under their own Constitution.

It sends a bad signal to have Senator Levin (and whomever is on your list) call for a supra-Constitutional "do over" because the PM is not popular in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

I wish Senator Levin were as interested in removing Assad in Syria or Ahmadinejad in Iran as he was the freely elected leader in-between them.

Posted by: jk at August 22, 2007 10:33 AM

August 20, 2007

How Are You Paying Yours?

The Onion brings us this informative graph.
statshotpayingmortgage.jpg


Hat-tip: The Big Picture

On the web Posted by jk at 5:03 PM

Bill Maher, Profile in Courage

Jonathan Last at Galley Slaves is extremely impressed. It seems that Bill Maher is releasing a movie called "Religious," next Easter. And Maher is going to risk Hollywood ostracism by actually criticizing religion. I hope he does not crack under the pressure. Last says “This is why we have artists--to speak truth to the powerful."

Anyway, Maher had this to say about the movie, "We talked to everybody. We went everywhere. We went to every place where there is religion. We went to Vatican City. We went to Jerusalem. We went to Salt Lake City. And I think I’ve insulted everybody!"

Christians, check. Jews, check. Mormons, check. Yup, that's everybody! There's no other important religious group worth mentioning that maybe deserves some fun-poking and that might react badly to being ridiculed. And thank goodness the film will be released around Easter and not some other holy period.

Nobody has seen the movie yet. And maybe Maher really is an equal-opportunity offender. But if he is, I'll be pretty surprised. After all, why go after a religion where offended believers really might kill you when you can get the same thrill beating up on people who never push back.


But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

For some time, I've wanted to organize a "Koran Pooper Scooper Day": when you walk your dog, bring a copy of the Koran and rip out a few pages as necessary. Personally, I'd love having a fatwa issued against me, but there would probably be a big backlash against me at my job. Not that any of my superiors are saying I can't express myself privately on my own time, but publicity may follow me to the office and interfere with my work.

Remember, some guy named Jesus offended a whole bunch of Sanhedrin, Pharisees and scribes. Considering the political power they wielded, they were more like mullahs.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 21, 2007 1:50 PM

Some of That Free Health Care

In 1934, Canada saw the arrival of five identical quintuplet sisters. In 2007, a woman starting labor with quadruplets was flown 325 miles to Great Falls Montana to avoid free health care.

There is a difference between health care and health insurance. In capitalistic America, the concentration is on health. In socialistic Canada, the emphasis is on paying the bills. The story ended with how much the American hospital charged. Looks like a quarter-million bucks for a 5-day stay. Given that it was the quadruple birth of 2-pound babies two months premature, I’d say it was a bargain.

This is not to piss all over Canada. Nice nation. Great people. I’m sure most Canadians like their health system. Just remember, though, that Canada’s backup system is in Montana. Americans spend 15% of their income on health care. That’s why Great Falls has enough neo-natal units to handle quadruple births — and a “universal health” nation doesn’t.


Don Surber also brings up the irony of being flown from Calgary, a modern metropolis with more than 1,000,000 people to Great Falls Montana (pop. 56,215).

Health Care Posted by jk at 1:31 PM

Sharanskyism, circa 2007

This blog was christened in the heady days of the Orange and Cedar revolutions. Secretary Rice and President Bush were photographed with Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy. The second inaugural address was a book report.

The WaPo carries a comprehensive and sobering look at Bush's goal to end tyranny. Peter Baker's piece is titled "As Democracy Push Falters, Bush Feels Like a 'Dissident'" The President says he wears the "dissident" label with pride but I don't think anybody can be satisfied with "falters."

The days after the speech were heady. Eight million Iraqis went to the polls to elect an interim parliament, their purple-stained fingers a global symbol of emerging democracy. A political assassination in Lebanon triggered demonstrations known as the Cedar Revolution that toppled a pro-Syrian government and forced Damascus to end a three-decade occupation. And protests over a stolen election in Kyrgyzstan ousted another entrenched leader in the Tulip Revolution.

"There was this sort of euphoria," recalled Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, which promotes democracy worldwide.

Bush and his team tried to demonstrate their commitment. The president met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovakia for a tense discussion about the Kremlin's crackdown on dissent. And when Egypt arrested opposition leader Ayman Nour, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled a trip to Cairo. Two weeks later, Egypt released Nour.


When the Iraq poll numbers were nose diving, I told people that I was the last Sharanskyite. Now that the ambition is being blasted from Senator Carl Levin and Rep Ron Paul, I read this blog's beloved tag line and affirm myself to the Case.

Some people I respect around here are comfortable with a Hobbsion bellum omnium contra omnes but I see American economic and security interests are well served by the propagation of liberal values. Today, totalitarian regimes -- maybe someday even the U.S. State Department.

It's going to take time. I would have been a little kinder than Sharansky:

Still, after an invigorating start in 2005, progress has been harder to find. Among those worried about the project is Sharansky, whose book so inspired Bush. "I give him an A for bringing the idea and maybe a C for implementation," said Sharansky, now chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center in Israel. "There is a gap between what he says and what the State Department does," and he is not consistent enough.

The challenge Bush faced, Sharansky added, was to bring Washington together behind his goal.

"It didn't happen," he said. "And that's the real tragedy."


Freedom on the March Posted by jk at 11:24 AM

Down, the Republican Party

"Immigration will be to the Republicans what Iraq withdrawal is to the Democrats," says Jeff Birnbaum on FOX NEWS's The Beltway Boys. It is August and the folks at FOX could not round up a liberal to fill Morton Kondracke's seat.





But both conservatives -- I emphasize the word "conservative;" these guys are both more conservative than I -- see the approaching electoral train wreck. They don't blame the other ThreeSourcers directly but...

UPDATE: YouTube is a great forum for nuanced debate. The comments I drew to my posting on Speaker Pelosi made we want to join her side. Today I get this:

The Beltway Boys are for Open Borders. Screw them!

But johngalt thinks:

I have NEVER found Jeff Birnbaum to be a conservative.

Posted by: johngalt at August 21, 2007 3:07 PM
But jk thinks:

Okay, Fred Barnes and Karl Marx say the GOP is in trouble from immigration. The point holds.

Posted by: jk at August 21, 2007 4:18 PM

August 19, 2007

NASA Scientist Lashes Out

Dave Price at Dean's World compares NASA Scientist James Hansen to Ann Coulter. He's dead on, although I bet she has better hair.

When you're working to advance science, the appropriate response when someone finds an error in your data or calculations is contrition (best expressed by an openness to further scrutiny and re-evaluation), and perhaps gratitude that truth has been served. James Hansen, on the other hand... well, read for yourself:

Do read it for yourself. Errors are discovered in his data set, so he calls those who found them "jesters" and impugns their motives. Our tax dollars at work. It is as polemical as Ms. Coulter but I never heard her sound quite so childish.

On the good side, I give Hansen points for using the word 'usufruct,' although he seems a couple of degrees off there as well.


August 18, 2007

More Media Nonsense

The media has absolutely nothing to say about anything -- at least not enough to maintain 24-hour news channels. First, Obama wasn't black enough. Then Hillary wasn't woman enough. Now, Fred doesn't know which shoes to wear. All this is apparently considered important information when choosing our next leader.

Politics Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 9:53 PM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

They should just stick to the important things, like how we're losing the war and the devastation of global warming.

Posted by: jk at August 19, 2007 11:45 AM

August 17, 2007

A Stand Up Economist

Hat-tip: N. Gregory Mankiw.

Posted by jk at 5:38 PM

The 08 Race

Zoinks... Senator Foot In Mouth is down by 30 points to Senator Former First Lady in California.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is expanding her lead in California as excitement for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is fading among Golden State voters, a new Field Poll revealed Thursday.

The New York senator held a commanding lead over the Democratic field, with 49 percent support to 19 percent for Obama and 10 percent for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

The survey of 418 Californians likely to vote in the Feb. 5 Democratic presidential primary showed Clinton leading -- and gaining support -- in every demographic category and California region measured.


On the GOP side, Mitt! won an Illinois straw poll.
Illinois state Republican party chairman, Andy McKenna, said Romney won the Illinois Straw poll at the Illinois State Fair. "Congratulations to Mitt Romney, whose strong showing today indicates he has begun to put together a strong statewide organization," McKenna said. "There's no question that Illinois' demographics closely match those of the United States and this could be an indication as to whom Illinois voters are leaning toward this coming February."

Romney secured an overwhelming victory with 40.35 percent of the vote. Former Senator Fred Thompson, who is expected to formally enter the race for the GOP nomination next month, came in second with 19.96 percent of the vote.


Rudy! came in fourth, seven point behind Ron Paul, of all people.

The other day, a friend told me that he thinks Fred! Thompson wouldn't be entering the race... certainly I'm getting tired of waiting. Though I will probably support the GOP ticket no matter what, I would be favorably disposed to a Romney/Thompson ticket, if he doesn't run, or a Thompson/Romney ticket if he wins.

If Hillary! trounces the rest of the field, does that adversely impact her choosing a VP from the also-rans? John Edwards toughed it out with John Kerry well into the primary season, possibly helping him secure the nod. (Being a southerner didn't hurt either)

But jk thinks:

After watching the Democratic debates, I cannot imagine a GOP ticket I would not support. Senator Clinton is a formidable candidate and I'm not sure she wants another big name on the ticket. I'm thinking of Little Richard firing Jimi Hendrix. The Clinonistas will want to own the message and the messenger.

Richardson is an FOB, but I don't see Obama or Edwards on the ticket. Better to grab an Evan Bayh or even a DLC type that can run more moderately in the general.

Do me a favor and watch the Kudlow-Giuliani interview. See if you cannot forgive him for a few differences.

Posted by: jk at August 17, 2007 5:27 PM

Who is John Galt....

...and where the heck has he been for the last month? I'm sure that everyone's missed my polite rectitude and insightful wit as I've been too busy to post, comment, or even read the blog. Here's why:

This is the "hot box" facility within dagny's new indoor riding arena and horse barn. It's comin' along...

But jk thinks:

I know Dagny's good, but I think you're going to have a hell of a time getting the horses up on those ladders.

Posted by: jk at August 17, 2007 4:25 PM
But AlexC thinks:

For horses, or Gitmo relocation?

Please ensure the toilets are of suffient "book flushing" size.

Posted by: AlexC at August 17, 2007 5:14 PM
But johngalt thinks:

The septic system contractor starts work in 2 weeks. I'll be sure to add "Koran compatible" to the specification sheet. Thanks for the reminder.

Geez, I've missed you guys!

Posted by: johngalt at August 17, 2007 6:09 PM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Heh ... that facility looks awfully like a dot com sweatshop I worked in once, but we did not get 5000 calories a day with rice pilaf or sugar cubes ... just chants 'arbeit macht frei' and the looming fear that while they rode us to death, they might just not pay us at the end of the month!

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 17, 2007 9:35 PM

Karl Rove

Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson pens a nice piece about "the architect."

But in several years as a colleague, I found Rove to be the most unusual political operative I have ever known; so exceptional he doesn't belong in the category. His most passionate, obsessive love -- after his wife -- is American history. He visits its shrines and collects its scraps -- carefully archived pictures of President William McKinley's funeral, original ballots from the 1860 election. And from American history Rove knows: Events are not moved primarily by techniques; they are moved by ideas.

Rove's main influence on the Republican Party has not been a series of tactical innovations but a series of strategic arguments. In this way, Rove is the opposite of a cynical political operator. He is not only a partisan for George W. Bush but the most serious, tireless advocate of Bushism.


Netroots

Harrison Bergeron's post last week on "Kos" highlighted what a negative impact the Netroots' tactics will have on their own preferred candidates. Today Kim Strassel interviews a moderate Democrat who survived a Kos-inspired primary challenge: Henry Cuellar (free link).

Yet a lively midweek chat with Mr. Cuellar suggests that this campaign of threats isn't necessarily having the intended effect. If anything, it might be backfiring. "They win when they intimidate people," says Mr. Cuellar. "I've taken everything they've thrown, plus their kitchen sink, and I still stand proud as a moderate-conservative Democrat." He says his triumph over blogger fire has only strengthened his conviction that his party will only win elections if it continues to be a "big tent" open to all views. "To make that tent smaller, to force people--not to persuade, but to force, because these are threats--to quiet down, that's destructive in the long term and the short term."

Though we have different limits around here, I think we all agree that politics is a balance of enlarging the tent for electoral victory and maintaining ideas to make it meaningful.

Kos seems to be bent on creating the smallest Democratic tent and, as hb exposed, not bothering to tie it to any ideas or policy of consequence.

Politics Posted by jk at 11:40 AM

August 16, 2007

Rudy! Immigration!

I can't sit on bad news. John Fund writes a troubling item in Wednesday's Political Diary:

Rudy Giuliani has decided to become very tough on immigration. Stung by criticism from Mitt Romney that he presided over a "sanctuary city" in the 1990s when New York refused to report the immigration status of illegal aliens, Mr. Giuliani gave a speech in South Carolina yesterday in which he announced: "We can end illegal immigration. I promise you we can end illegal immigration."

The former New York mayor backed up his words by announcing he would push for a "national database of foreigners," an increase of 20,000 border patrol agents to deport illegal immigrant felons, and the erection of a fence along the U.S. border.

All this tough talk amuses anti-immigration forces, which have been critical of Mr. Giuliani ever since he opposed the 1996 welfare reform bill in large part because of its treatment of illegal immigrants. "It sounds like an effort by Giuliani to make himself seem like a hawk on immigration when, in fact, he's been a dove all along," Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies told the New York Sun.

Advocates for immigrants are appalled at Mr. Giuliani's new tack. They point out that while mayor he created the mayor's office of immigrant affairs and also sued the federal government for trying to allow city employees to turn in illegal immigrants who applied for government help.

Indeed, in 1996 Mr. Giuliani gave a speech at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in which he declared: "The reality is, people will always get in. And the reality is, the federal government does not deport them... So illegal and undocumented immigrants are going to remain, and even increase. And nothing that is now being proposed in Washington would realistically change that very much."

Everyone is allowed to alter his or her position on issues, and Mr. Giuliani says he remains firmly committed to more legal immigration than is now allowed. But nonetheless his current attempt to remake himself into a "Border Patrol" champion is one of the more dramatic and surprising transformations of the presidential race so far. It is further proof of just how much the politics of immigration have changed in recent years.


I'm still on board, but this is easily the most disappointing thing I have read about Giuliani. His position has "evolved" from right to wrong.

But sugarchuck thinks:

You expected, perhaps, a pro illegal immigrant speech? Your assessment of Rudy's evolution is, in a nutshell, the reason you and Bush and Ted Kennedy can't get any support on the this issue; you don't want border security, legal immigration or an honest guest worker program. You want open borders, a legalized version of the chaos we have now. You cover yourself with rhetorical fig leaves but they fall to the ground when you equate a desire to end illegal immigration with a move from "right to wrong".

Posted by: sugarchuck at August 17, 2007 9:33 AM
But jk thinks:

No, I was talking to Senator Kennedy the other night, making big plans for the future, and he said...

Seriously, I begged for a guest worker program for years around here. The rough riders of talk radio rose up in a populist revolt and killed it.

Mayor Giuliani was eloquent in the FOX News GOP debate when Rep, Tancredo was suggesting a moratorium on legal immigration. I'd say the 1996 described above is about right: admit the exigencies of a lengthy border and open society and seek a more political solution. Fair point on the pro-illegal speech, but Giuliani has pushed free market, classical liberal ideas on heath care, regulation, and taxation. I'd have loved him to propose something a little more nuanced than a fence.

Lastly, my concern is not just immigration. This is the first time I see (my) candidate choosing politics over principle. That never ends well.

Posted by: jk at August 17, 2007 11:14 AM
But Terri thinks:

If you're saying that "right" is all the illegal immigration that is possible and "wrong" is increasing the numbers of legal immigrants allowed, then I'd say you have it wrong.

Posted by: Terri at August 17, 2007 11:19 AM
But sugarchuck thinks:

The guest worker program you begged for years ago, without a muscular enforcement of our borders, would be that fig leaf I was talking about. You can't have one without the other, and enforcement has got to come first. As to Rudy picking the political over the principal, isn't that precisely the kind of pragmatism he'll have to embrace if he wants to save us from Hillary? Just askin'....

Posted by: sugarchuck at August 17, 2007 11:52 AM
But jk thinks:

Right is having enough free labor to expand our economy and create wealth. I want to do that in a legal context where we know who is here and can keep out those who do not abide by our laws.

I do not join my blog brothers to say that an illegal border crossing under the current circumstance is enough of an infraction to call someone illegal. That would be like Barney Fife putting everybody in jail if they drive five mph over the speed limit.

Millions came here to freely trade their labor and create contract with employers who require them. It is insane that we force people to pay criminals and risk their lives.

Posted by: jk at August 17, 2007 12:41 PM
But jk thinks:

I have always held that enforcement and a guest worker program are com