Thoughts By Mitch

I'm Pissed

2010-03-26T08:45:00.004-04:00

I also find references to Network quite tired, so don't get your hopes up.

Edit: I admit it... I have no idea how to use trackbacks. I'm gonna figure this thing out...

A favorite economist of mine posts his thoughts here with a link through to an op-ed he wrote. Read it; its good and he sounds like he could use the encouragement :-)

This health-care boondoggle will be a disaster for this country. I'm not going to rehash the reasons here; they're well documented elsewhere. I would like to add one additional goal to Dr. Kling's list:

Eliminate deferred compensation for elected officials
Eliminate health benefits for elected officials

I'm not sure the deferred compensation (pensions, etc.) for elected officials is quite as lavish as many think, though I have no doubt it provides a comfortable existence. I suggest eliminating it to provide a strong disincentive for career politicians. This will force those who would deem themselves the "ruling class" to get REAL jobs, work for a living, and save enough for their own future before they go off to City Hall/Columbus (insert state capital here)/Washington D.C. and force their will over our lives. The change in incentives will be shocking.

To my second goal, the only way that the amount of money spent on medical care will be reduced will be if individuals are responsible for paying a greater share of the expense. Elected officials should be forced to take personal responsibility for these costs where it involves themselves and their families.
Also, by forcing elected officials into the individual market they will be confronted directly with the reasons WHY individual insurance is so expensive (coverage mandates, community rating, state limits of suppliers).

Notice the phrase I used above, "amount of money spent on medical care." I didn't call it "health care costs," "price of health care," or "health expenses." Those three things are all determined by market forces; none of them accurately identifies the "problem" that our Federal government is trying to "solve." In fact, when phrased accurately the "problem" looks a little ridiculous. Individuals spending money on a service is an individual choice; it only becomes a problem when tax dollars are in play. Maybe the real problem is spending tax dollars on something individuals should be responsible to purchase on their own.

Here Comes Wealth Confiscation

2009-11-08T11:18:00.002-05:00

Welcome to the return of American despotism. This time there's not even a war to hide behind. Late last night the House of Representatives passed something they call "Health Care Reform." It is a lie. There is no reform; the status quo is ossified by this bill. Either you keep the health insurance you have right now forever (that means if there's some new treatment that isn't covered today your plan can't ever cover it), or you get the government plan. But, they say, this is NOT a single-payer plan. Lies.

Here's a line in the sand: any one who supports this bill is an enemy of liberty. Weather they know everything in it and agree or are ignorant is irrelevant, as ignorance merely makes you a useful idiot. I have no doubt every liberal douche out there is celebrating. They're fools.

Now as to the topic of my post, I'll spell it out. There is absolutely no way this bill is "deficit neutral." If you believe that, I'd like to offer you some ocean-front property in Nevada as well as options on parcels on the Moon. This bill comes along with a boat-load of additional taxes to steal what is yours (and more importantly mine!) and still won't cover the expense in the end.

To everyone who thinks that the "rich" can pay for it all. First, you're a selfish asshole; get off your ass and work. Second, the "rich" will not be impacted by this. Taxes are based on income, not wealth (yet, there's also a millionaire tax in this bill) so only those that are becoming wealthy (that is, they have high incomes) will be taxed. Those who are already wealthy can very easily lower their incomes (or at least make it look that way on paper) without dramatic impact on their lifestyle.

So, good going America. You voted for the Democratic Party and screwed up everything.

Fry Polanski

2009-10-04T13:51:00.002-04:00

I think that pretty well captures my opinion. As with many others, I'm sickened by Roman Polanski's defenders in Hollywood. A good insiders perspective can be found here. Fortunately Hollywood was kind enough to provide us a list of perv defenders. Here's a link with the list of signers for the "Free Polanski" petition.

I'm now seriously considering a boycott of everyone on this list for at least a year. I'll post back when I have a final decision.

No you can't pay me back redux

2009-06-13T11:11:00.004-04:00

I had a more personal experience with paying off some debt this week that I must now vent. In 2007 we took out a loan to replace a car that I totaled in an accident (ask me later). With that loan we purchased our current car, a Toyota Matrix. Great car. Up until this week we've been very happy with the loan holder, originally RoadLoans.com which appears to have been later spun off by Triad Financial. When we got the loan I made sure that there were no prepayment penalties, because those are just plain evil.

Every month since the loan was started we have paid the minimum or more, some times much more. So much more, in fact, that our last statement had a due date of November 24, 2011. This is why I was very puzzled when my wife, Emily, received a phone call from Triad telling us we had $24.73 past due. It is simply impossible.

Emily spoke with the customer service representative trying to understand what she was talking about. She threw around several numbers, neither of which made sense. This customer service representative can only be described as "incoherent." At the end of the call Emily informed her that we had already sent in our final pay-off. To this, the CSR responded "Then what's the problem?" I don't know: YOU CALLED ME!

Friday morning I called to find out what the problem was. I think I spoke with the same lady, or someone equally idiotic, because she told me the same things Emily described to me. I calmly explained that there was no way we could have an amount past due because we had paid far more than expected at this point in the loan. This is when the CSR started talking about how the payments apply to the loan. Her words were "lump sums are broken up into payments." This contradicts what I'm seeing on my statement, which records my lump sum as all having been applied to the principal. Of course this still doesn't explain why there would be an amount past due.

Next, the CSR explained that the amount paid didn't carve out into even payments. This means that the last payment into which my large lump sum was sliced was incomplete and therefore there is an amount "past due." Clearly Triad Financial uses an alternative definition for "past due." I explained this several times to the CSR. She was dense as a lead vest. Eventually her "supervisor" broke into the call.

I'll take a side-bar here to explain why "supervisor" is quoted. For my first year out of college I worked in IT at a debt collection/investment company called Unifund. If you've heard of them you should probably be more careful to pay your credit cards. It was a small company and pretty much everyone was on friendly terms, so I spoke to folks in the customer service department frequently. There was an overall supervisor, but no one ever spoke to him. When you spoke with a "supervisor," you were simply transferred to another CSR. There's a good chance this happened with Triad.

Anyhow, this "supervisor" insisted on sending me a print-out of how my payments were being applied. She insisted that everything would make sense if I saw this print-out. I explained to her that I had with me right at that very moment every statement I had received from them. On each statement it explained what portion of my last payment was applied to the principal of the loan. Based on that I knew exactly how my payments were applied. Then she told me that the statement didn't tell me how THEY applied the payments.

Huh?

The "supervisor" explained that when a sum larger than the expected balance is applied it IS applied to the principal, but if a payment is skipped the next payment is taken from the lump sum. This, however, contradicts what Emily was told during her incoherent conversation the previous day. She was told that payments "didn't advance" and that a payment needed to be made every month. This statement is consistent with the wording of the disclosure form when we first started the loan, which indicated that payment was expected monthly. Of course, THIS statement is contradicted every month by the very statements we receive which, after we started paying amounts greater than the minimum, indicated payment due dates far in the future.

So which is it? But more importantly, HOW THE HELL DO I HAVE ANYTHING PAST DUE?

After extrapolating all this in my head, because I'm not sure either of the women in that conversation could actually understand the above paragraph, I stated, "So I don't actually have a past due balance but it looks like I do because of the way the payments are sliced up?" To which the "supervisor" replied, "Yes." Lovely. So why did we receive a call?

I never got a satisfactory answer to this. The original CSR was clueless and the "supervisor" gave me some line about the computer system using an autodialer based on some internal criteria of my large sum payment not slicing up evenly into expected payments.

Her explanation does not mesh with reality. This is the first call we have ever received from Triad Financial. For over a year now we have been paying more than the minimum payment and those payments never would have equaled a full minimum payment. Why were we not called previously? And since she eventually admitted that we did not, in fact, have an amount that was actually past due why were we called and told we did? And why did their website show that we did? None of this makes sense.

The sinister explanation is that they're attempting to bilk us out of more money. I don't know, but I expect had our response been passive the CSR would have happily allowed us to pay over the phone, thus squeezing a few more dollars out of us prior to our payment in full. This seems a little far-fetched.

The more charitable explanation is that they have a terrible defect in their software. The explanation that they use an autodialer is probably true. When I worked in telemarketing we used such a system. The autodialer system generated a pool of numbers and each station was given them as the user became available. The breakdown here seems to be in building the pool of numbers to call. If they are doing a first-notice phone call of everyone who has a past-due payment then their criteria for finding these numbers is faulty, possibly due to the way they are counting the payments. This would be consistent with their website's presentation of an amount past due (also false).

We'll see in a week or so which explanation is closer to the truth. If the title for the car does not arrive I suspect sinister shenanigans. If it does arrive, I'll know they have defective software.

No you can't pay me back...

2009-04-05T11:00:00.003-04:00

... then you wouldn't be my slave.

The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower {becomes} the lender's slave.
-- Proverbs 22:7, NASB

In the Wall Street Journal, Stuart Varney opines about the possible reasons behind the Obama administrations refusal of TARP repayment from a large and prominent bank. My comment, and that passage from Proverbs, sum up the article fairly well.

Since this whole TARP mess began there have been rumblings about the Treasury forcing (at the point of a figurative gun) banks to accept this bailout money. We now start to see the inevitable ex post facto strings being attached to these funds and many banks want out. This is fine for small banks, apparently, but not for large banks. Varney explains why in the article.

There have been some (I won't name names) with whom I've discussed this who when faced pronounced the forcing of TARP money to be bunk. Their smug response to this was, "Well, if they don't want it they can just give it back." The fact that there were no news reports about this confirmed that these banks really did need the money, and were therefore not forced to take it. Well, if you're reading, you're wrong. At least one prominent bank did not want the TARP money, was forced to accept it, and is not now permitted to return it even with interest.

Neither Varney nor Napolitano (see the article) are willing to reveal the name of the bank. This is wise, as this bank would likely face political retribution from the White House and Congress. I suspect it is Wells Fargo, but I don't know enough about the banking industry to have any real idea.

It's time to call this what it is: fascism. The state, without taking ownership of capital, is dictating its uses. We see this with TARP and with this auto bailout nonsense. This won't be the first American experiment in fascism, but I hope there is enough popular outrage to stop this one in its tracks.

Many of you know that I twice voted for George W. Bush. I don't regret either vote, considering the alternatives, but I was deeply disappointed by this bailout nonsense. Of course George W. Bush was no free-market fundamentalist, as he has been labeled by the ignorant media. President Bush's campaign in 2000 was "compassionate conservatism." This is, and always has been code for "big-government conservatism." Big government is antithetical to a free-market (and liberty, for that matter). I have recognized for a number of years that where George W. Bush departed from free-market and small-government principles he was acting exactly as he said he would during his campaigns. He in no way deceived anyone; he, along with Congress, abandoned the principles of the base of the Republican party, told us what they were doing, and got elected. Then they went and did what they said they would, and now we're mad at them.

All of that is to say this: for eight years there have been very few viable candidates to represent those who want less government. We've had to settle for those who want a government to grow a little slower. Its time for the people to pick up where Reagan left off and either find or build a party that will commit to shrinking the government. Even Newt Gingrich is speculating about a third party.

In four years we'll be luck if we have any liberty remaining. We've already seen ex post facto laws proposed to confiscate income (not to mention the fact that it was also a writ of attainder). Remember: wealth confiscation. We're keep hearing about the return of the "fairness doctrine" with explicit references to taking shows like Rush Limbaugh's off the air. And we have the Deputy Solicitor General arguing that, under McCain-Feingold, the Federal government has the authority to censor any book or movie it likes. Remember: suppression of dissent.

Time is running out, and I hope we're not too late already.

Not Realistic At All

2009-03-02T12:55:00.006-05:00

Most who know me know that I have rather strong opinions about... well anything about which I have an opinion. When Briston Palin was quoted as saying the abstinence was unrealistic, this touched on one of my more strongly held opinions. To be fair to her, I'll quote her more fully: "everyone should be abstinent... but it's not realistic at all." She doesn't really give a detailed explanation as to why just that something is more accepted. She is not clear as to whether it is teen pregnancy or premarital sex that is accepted, but both are true. Whatever she happened to mean, her reasoning is faulty. I am of the (audacious) opinion that premarital abstinence is certainly realistic, and that those who insist it is not are either ignorant or evil.

I don't typically get this personal in blogging, but I'll state this: before getting married I did not have sex. Ever. Neither did my wife. Ever. I can state unequivocally that it is possible to abstain from sex until marriage because I did it. I made choices in high school and college with the intent of first having sex with my wife on our wedding night. And, hey! It happened! Do not tell me that abstinence is unrealistic because I know otherwise.

It has been my experience that the attitude of those of the "not realistic" opinion tend to think that "they're going to do it anyway" no matter what they are told. I find this insulting for two reasons:

I didn't
It treats todays youth as animals unable to withstand the force of their hormones.

Adolescents are not animals. Given the tools and opportunity, they can control the urges of their body. It seems, however, many would rather just teach them how to have sex without getting pregnant. I find that attitude very puzzling. Pop culture says that telling kids to not have sex doesn't work, and that it is better to teach them about various means of birth control. Of course, telling kids to not have sex only fails because these kids don't listen. What makes proponents of "comprehensive sex education" think that these same kids will listen when told about using birth control?

Perhaps the quality of "abstinence-only sex education" is problematic. I don't really know; I elected not to take a "sex education" course in high school. However, I know that other (specifically Christian) organizations actually give students strategies to avoid having sex. Its really not that difficult, and I can summarize them very briefly: avoid situations where people commonly have sex. How is that unrealistic?

Quick Predictions

2009-01-20T12:16:00.001-05:00

My two predictions for the Obama administration:

Supression of dissent
Wealth confiscation

That's all for now.

A Chilling Statement

2008-12-24T10:08:00.004-05:00

Yet the dictatorship, war, and Holocaust that we associate with the Nazi regime in retrospect was not on the ballot, or even on the horizon, of those who voted for Hitler in 1933. They were seeking a political savior in a chaotic and economically depressed time.
-- Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals

I shivered a bit when I read those words. Sowell goes on to state that because Germans were both law-abiding and relatively apathetic about politics, Hitler was readily able to seize power. It was far too late to stop his campaign of horror once most Germans realized what was going on.

Some out there might wish to argue with that and say that surely the German people knew of the Nazi's cruelty and aided its ascent. Read the book, research what it says, then come talk to me. For my part, I agree with Sowell. But that's not the point of this post.

In the United States of America, we have just elected an unknown to the office of President. We have no idea who Barack Obama is, and now the mainstream press has finally caught on to this fact. With his silver tongue and clever use of race Obama has charmed voters into electing him, all without revealing anything about himself.

Obama is not the first President elected on the promise of secular salvation. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected (four times) as such a savior from the Great Depression. He went on to recreate the War Socialism first seen under Woodrow Wilson and push our country to the brink of its own fascism.

We have an example of what happens in the United States when we elect a "savior," so for Americans interested in preserving what remains of their liberty the need to remain vigilant against excesses of power is greater than ever. We need to look at the events around us and ask what we must do. William F. Buckley once stood "athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" and now lovers of America must do the same.

I know action is needed, but I don't yet know what. And if I've learned anything from history it is often better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. Hopefully I'll remember to blog my conclusions on what action to take.

New Age Math

2008-12-05T22:11:00.004-05:00

In a recent fit of boredom, I decided to find an answer I had been passively hoping to find for quite some time. How long would it take to recoup the additional expense of purchasing a hybrid car vs. an all gas car? The question has bothered me ever since a coworker mentioned that he felt he had already recovered the eventual cost to replace the battery array in his hybrid Civic in fuel savings. I wondered, is that true?

After some research at Edmunds.com and hybridcars.com (see here, and here) I discovered that the battery replacement is likely a non-issue; Toyota has yet to actually replace one. Other maintenance costs are not significantly different from all gas cars.

This means that the only financial benefit to owning a hybrid car is in fuel cost savings. Comparing the purchase prices, hybrids are several thousand dollars more expensive than all gas cars. To find my answer, I compared the MSRP (for the 2009 model year, according to Kelly Blue Book) and estimated fuel economy (according to fueleconomy.gov) of the Honda Civic and Civic Hybrid to see how long I would need to own the hybrid in order to save in fuel cost what I paid up front. The Civic offers the easiest apples-to-apples comparison.

How Long?!?

At mid-range trim levels MSRP for the hybrid is $24,225.00 and $20,675.00 for the all gas. The hybrid gets an estimated 45 mpg highway, whereas the all gas gets 36 mpg. For the purposes of my calculations, I will drive 15,000 miles per year (1,250 miles per month) and will pay on average $1.70 per gallon of gas. Since maintenance costs are a wash, they will not be considered.

We'll call these calculations "Cost of Ownership":

Those of you who remember Algebra I should be with me so far. To figure out when the cost of my potential all gas purchase will surpass the cost of my hybrid purchase, I need to find the intersection of these two formulae. Remember intersections? Algebra I again:

Right? Which means:

All we need to do is solve for n. After that many months, I'm saving money with my hybrid purchase. Let's simplify (and remember to show your work ;-):

So 301 months after I purchase this hybrid, I will begin to save money on gas. That's 25 years, or 375,882 miles. Does anyone still keep a car that long?

How much?!?

You may object that I'm surely too optimistic in my calculations. Gas prices will no doubt rise well above $1.70 per gallon. Were hybrid owners saving money when gas was over $4 per gallon? Let's find out.

Were I to purchase a hybrid, I would want to know I was saving money on gas after 5 years, or 60 months. How much does gas need to cost for that to happen? Again, Algebra I has our answer:

Again, always show your work:

So, when gas averages over $8.52 per gallon you will save money in 5 years by buying a hybrid.

Now, granted, these calculations are based on averages. You may have a long commute, and we all know gas prices fluctuate. But change the numbers and run them. Do they add up yet?

Please check my work; I may have missed something. But I'm confident enough in these calculations to put them on the Internet (FWIW).

To sum up: if you bought a hybrid car because you expected to save money on gas you are bad at math. You should have paid much better attention in Algebra I, and you get an 'F' on this assignment.

If you bought a hybrid car to save the planet, well, you're a fool but I'm sure you made Al Gore proud.

Postscript

Now that you've made it through the math, I'll tell you this...

When Honda first came out with the Honda Insight I was very excited. I drove approximately 500 miles per week commuting to and from college. That's 26,000 miles a year, and gas prices were climbing. The Honda Insight achieved 70 mpg. 70!! That was nearly double my mileage. Unfortunately, the car was too small to haul my guitar gear and I didn't have enough money to buy a brand new car anyhow. But it gave me hope that early adopters would buy the car, it would make money, automakers would continue to improve the technology, and the price would come down to levels comparable to all gas engines.

That hasn't happened yet. Instead, smug douche bags started buying them to feel "green." Now whether its smug douche bags or early adopting gear heads buying the cars doesn't really matter (either way the investment is rewarded), but all this "green" nonsense irks me deeply. The accompanying hubris is troubling, and eventually real people are going to pay a very high price for the arrogance of these douche bags.

cough cough

2008-07-22T22:30:00.004-04:00

Digital dust... blech.

I must apologize for the long silence; I have no good excuse. In the mean time I've been making my peace with John McCain as the Republican nominee over the much preferred (by me) Fred Thompson. In spite of Senator McCain's manifold weakness, I think a positive case can be made for his election. I hope to post on that in the future, as I think it is important to point out that there is much in this election to vote FOR rather than AGAINST. Senator Obama provides much to vote AGAINST, but a mantra of "Anyone but..." is a losing slogan.

I have not forgotten my proposed list of blog topics, and it is a topic related to these about which I now post. Tonight I watched the movie Khartoum. It was months (perhaps even more than a year) ago when I first learned of the Siege of Khartoum, wherein a British general manned the defenses against an Islamist uprising. I found the narrative both fascinating and informative, and I wish I remembered my original source. Alas, I do not and must merely pay homage to some forgotten author.

In any case the move is one which is very relevant to the current waning conflict against radical practitioners of Islam. In 1881, a man named Muhammad Ahmad rose to power declaring himself to be the Mahdi (some sort of Muslim Messiah figure). He led a revolt and eventually conquered most of modern day Sudan, and in doing so established a Sharia state. The protagonist of Khartoum, General Charles Gordon, believed it was necessary to defeat the Mahdi and his army. To this end, he made a stand at the city of Khartoum.

The facts of the case are laid out in many sources, so I see no reason to reiterate them. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to gather them. My purpose here is first to recommend the movie. Khartoum is a reminder that what we fight is a radical ideology that is (1) barbaric and (2) merciless. While the United States was not involved in this specific conflict, it is another example of the West's continuing conflict with radical Islam.

My secondary purpose it to draw a conclusion from the presentation of events in the movie. While much is fictionalized, to be sure, the character of General Gordon appears to be consistent with the actual man as recorded by History (from my brief reading of other sources). In the movie, General Gordon seems convinced that he will achieve victory whether he lives and defeats the Mahdi's army or dies defending Khartoum. I believe that for General Gordon victory was not found in arms (though he certainly used them) but in staying true to his principals and fighting to defend them.

This lesson can also be drawn from our current battle in Iraq. We are victorious when we live up to the principals we profess. Conversely we lose when we abandon those principals. Michael Yon identifies those times when we have resorted to vengeance and torture as those times when we brought defeat upon ourselves (specifically he mentions Fallujah and Abu Grahb). It is his assessment (which can be found in his phenomenal book Moment of Truth in Iraq) that these incidents cost us precious credibility in the eyes of the Iraqi people because we abandoned our honor.

We are in a situation very different from that which General Gordon faced. We have overwhelming military force, yet we can still nearly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by abandoning our honor. Fortunately we were given another chance, and we have taken it. It is my great hope that we will do the same in Afghanistan that we have done in Iraq. Perhaps our soldiers will actually get some real support for that battle from those whose name is followed with a "D."

Michael Yon's book, Moment of Truth in Iraq, can be purchased from the publisher here. Read it.
Khartoum can be rented at your local video store (hopefully) or purchased here.

Updated: Stimulus

2008-01-25T23:23:00.000-05:00

Update: In my haste to post before I went off to sleep I overlooked two parts of my plan. Now they're present.

Also, any one who wants to turn this into a bill for submission to Congress has my blessing. In case you were wondering...

Update 2: Why did Reuters think the stimulus package would only cost $2 billion when I checked? Now its up to $150 billion. Inflation already...

The proposed economic stimulus package is projected to cost $150 billion. That's a lot more money that the government doesn't actually have. There are three ways to finance government:

Taxes
Debt
Inflation

Presidential candidates whose names are followed with a "D" are recommending option #1. Not that they aren't into #2 and #3 also, they just want to stick #1 to the "rich" so that they "pay their fair share." Or something, I digress...

The theory behind this "stimulus" bill is Keynesian economics. In Keynesian economics, economic growth is driven by consumer spending. Since everyone wants the economy to grow, the solution is to give people more money to spend. Insert money: grow.
There are two problems with this. First, there is no guarantee that the money people are given will be spent on new stuff. People could save or invest the money, they could spend it on new stuff, or they could pay down some of the substantial consumer debt we have.
Second, Keynesian economics is wrong. It confuses cause with effect. When an economy is growing, people spend.
An alternative way to encourage growth (that is more sound than this spending theory) is capital investment. If only the government were sitting on a large sum of capital. Oh wait! It is!

The so-called Social Security Trust fund had a surplus of $2 trillion at the end of 2006. That surplus was still growing through 2007 and is expected to continue growing for several more years. Here we have $2 trillion sitting on its butt and the President (R) and Congressional leaders (D) want to borrow or inflate to "stimulate" the economy?

I have a better idea: invest one third of the Social Security surplus. That's well over $600 billion, which is 4x greater than the "stimulus" bill. No additional borrowing will be necessary nor will "free" money need to be printed (that would be inflation). As a side benefit, there will be a sizable return on that $600 billion to be reinvested and shore up Social Security.

To expand on this idea, I'm going to present to the world (for the first time ever) the Mitch Oliver Plan to Save America's Economy. It is amazingly uncomplicated.

Eliminate entitlement programs

Anyone currently receiving benefits will continue to receive them. Any budgetary shortfall will be recovered from the General fund.
Anyone not yet receiving benefits but aged 50 and over can opt out of Social Security and Medicare. They forfeit any prior withholdings but no further withholdings will be taken.
No one under the age of 50 will be eligible for Social Security. All prior withholdings are forfeited.
Raise the "retirement age" to 75. Anyone currently receiving benefits will not lose theirs.
No additional Welfare or Medicaid applicants will be accepted. Current recipients will be phased off the program.

Enact the Fair Tax

This gives consumers direct control over how much tax they pay.
This also gives consumers incentives to enhance their own wealth and to enhance the economy. Spending is taxed, while saving and investing is not.

Cut non-defense spending

We need neither a Department of Education nor a Department of Energy, not to mention Agriculture, Housing, and a myriad of other departments.

Budget a surplus

We have trillions of dollars in debts to pay off.
Even after the national debt is paid in full it is always wise to have a rainy day fund, even for governments.

Cut "foreign aid"

Drastically reduce the amount of aid we give to foreign governments and causes.

Time and again history has shown that government just gets in the way of prosperity and growth. It simply cannot keep up with the pace of change in the economy. New technologies replace old one; firms become redundant. Entire industries become obsolete. The government is designed to prevent change, yet change is the very thing that yields growth.

The answer is simple: less government yields a better economy.

In Response To Matthew

2007-12-20T18:51:00.000-05:00

Matthew Whipple posted an excellent comment to my previous post (Learning From Horror), so good in fact that it inspired this post in response. I've broken out his post into what I felt were key quotes and written a response that follows it. Of course, Matt, if you disagree with my editorial decisions or my response feel free to clarify.

So without further ado...

[O]ne of the few tasks specifically enumerated in the Constitution is to "provide for the common defense," and, I might add, to "ensure domestic tranquility."... it seems to me that a perfectly reasonable construction of the Constitution would allow the government to protect from terrorists by providing security in airports...

Both "common defense" and "domestic tranquility" are listed as reasons for having a federal government. It is reasonable to interpret that the government has the authority to provide for these, but it is limited in its means to provide them. For example, no one can be forced to house soldiers.
My primary opposition to airport security is simply one of practicality. The TSA has failed numerous tests (weapons have been snuck through security in audits) while simultaneously inconveniencing every air traveler. The bureaucratic squeamishness towards racial profiling has brought about random checks rather than focused checks. An organization that is more concerned with the political implications of their policies than the real world results will not effectively enhance security.

I might also point out that... the militias were essentially worthless in the Revolutionary War... People certainly have the right to own guns, but untrained fighters can't adequately protect themselves, let alone a country... So the idea that we "protect ourselves" on anything but the most basic level (i.e. shooting a robber) doesn't really work...

I absolutely agree, nor would I suggest that our primary national defense take the form of militias. However the government has not treated the threat of terrorism as a military matter, rather it is treated as a criminal manner (hence the involvement of the FBI rather than the Pentagon). The current administration has, in my opinion, been wise to label this the "Global War on Terror" as a clear statement of military involvement. Unfortunately it still appears to be treated primarily as a criminal matter. I'll save the discussion of a paradigm for dealing with terrorism for another post (as I've planned), but treating terrorism as criminal reinforces the necessity of self-protection.
Interestingly (to me anyhow) the role of militias at the founding of our nation has come up in the current debate surrounding the Second Amendment. Glenn Reynolds brings is up here. I find this interesting because I have argued since Junior High that an armed populace is a fourth branch of the government with regard to checks and balances.

It's perhaps true that government does not have the same incentives as the private sector, but that's not to say the government has NO incentives. Private corporations incentives are making profit, and that profit may best be found in China or Iraq. They don't care about national interests, they care about their interests. Democratically elected government officials, however, are directly accountable to the interests of the nation...at least, in the abstract...

Democratically elected officials ought to be accountable to the interests of the nation, however the incentives that are presently in place do not make them so. Our elected officials have incentives to get reelected. This is especially true for career politicians. When the interest of the nation align with their interests in getting reelected, they will work in favor of the interests of the nation. When they conflict, most will work in favor of their interests in getting reelected.
That said, a private corporations interest are in profit. Depending on the industry that profit may be maximized by producing in China. However at the end of the day a company has to sell its product to the consumer in order to profit. If the consumer doesn't like what is being sold or if he feels the price of the item outweighs the benefit, he won't buy.
In the specific example of airlines, getting groped by TSA officials is too high a price to pay for the benefit of getting from Cincinnati to St. Louis for many customers. In this case, the customer will choose an alternative, like driving. Were the airline responsible for its own security, it would see the lost sale and have the power to modify its security protocols to retain or reacquire future sales. An airplane being used as a guided missle also tends to deter customers, giving them an incentive to enhance security. The tension between these two requirements is where the innovation available to private business has its greatest benefit. Here also is the role for competition. Different airlines will have slightly different security protocols. Customers who are more tolerant to searches, or are less risk averse, will choose an airline with tighter security. Customers who don't want a stranger's hands on themselves will choose an airline with looser security. Also, there will likely be price differences between the various airlines.
There may be a role for government in setting minimum standards, but those would most likely be unnecessary. If an airline were constantly getting hijacked, who would fly it?

One of the main problems that causes government incompetence is the beauracracy that is not accountable to the voter. These people occupy the worst of all possible worlds -- no electoral accountability and no private sector competition. The problem isn't that government, as a first principle, isn't capable of certain functions (like defense). It's that, as structured, it fails. In many instances, the private sector is superior. But not in the case of the common defense, where national interests cannot be sacrificed. I'll certainly grant there are inefficiencies and downright idiocy in many places, but those problems can be improved...

Here again, I don't suggest we abandon our military in favor of private security contractors (as some have). The military is key to our common defense, but it works best against clearly defined enemies. Our military is adapting well to insurgent warfare; this can be clearly seen in Iraq. Because the sole purpose of the military is to be concerned with national defense it has the incentives necessary to adapt to changing threats. There are two problems, however, with relying on a military solution to the problem of terrorism as we face it today:

While the military adapts its structure and strategy to better confront the threats we face as a nation it does so slowly. Even today our military structure is best equipped to fight other nations, not nongovernmental/transnational amoeba-like organizations like al-Quida.
Our government treats terrorism as a criminal matter rather than a military matter. In doing so it rules out military intervention.

In my previous post, I concluded that lesson #1 was that government is incapable of effectively protecting us. I stand by that conclusion. At present, our military is organized to provide defense against invasion from foreign nations but the threat we face is from a decentralized entity. In response to this threat, the government has deployed bureaucracies to deal with our enemies as criminals.

Behind my conclusion is a first principle of self-reliance. This is a trait that has been pushed out of the forefront of American life, but historically was a distinctive trait. Americans looked first to themselves and their families, then to their neighbors but last to their government. Nothing could be further from reality today.
When disaster strikes today we hear cries for more government intervention. The individuals are still there to help; indeed they flocked in droves to the Gulf coast following Katrina. All our media and loud-mouthed politicians could see was insufficient government. Political point-scoring aside they missed the real show.
Thankfully individual initiative isn't dead yet. I'd like to see some more of it.

Learning from Horror

2007-12-05T18:45:00.000-05:00

On September 11, 2001 I awoke expecting the usual antics of the WEBN "Dawn Patrol." Instead I heard a somber voice saying "Hey guys, it looks like a plane just crashed into the World Trade Center." I forewent my usual morning routine of hitting the snooze button and went to check the news. There, to my horror, I watched as a second plane flew into the other tower of the World Trade Center.
Four cross-country flights were hijacked simultaneously to be used as guided, suicide missiles. Three struck their targets (both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) and the fourth was brought down in Pennsylvania. The message could not be clearer: "America, you are not safe." The widespread response was also crystal clear: "Fuck you."

It has been over six years now and loud voices are obscuring the clear response we had on that day, but its still there. But what, if anything, have we learned in these six years?

Every event affects the world in uncountable ways. The events of 9/11 have had an impact on foreign policy, air-travel security, mail screening, political discourse, news reporting and who can say how much else. As much as some try to pretend that nothing has changed, things have.

It seems to me that the most important lesson has gone unlearned, however; and that is that the government is incapable of providing 100% protection, 100% of the time.

Full Coverage

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to finance a common defense. Nothing in our Constitution guarantees that our Federal government will succeed in protecting us, nor that they are required to do so. 9/11 showed the nation and the world that it is impossible to provide perfect protection.
For years air travelers have been subjected to baggage screening. Our bags were X-rayed and our persons metal-detected. All because fanatical Muslims in the 1980's decided that blowing up airplanes was a good statement. Now the screening is even tighter. Because another group of fanatical Muslims decided to turn airplanes into missiles we are now not permitted to carry even finger-nail clippers on airplanes. This is supposed to protect us.
The insanity of airport security is well documented, so I will not repeat it here. I am concerned now with the question of "why?" Why is this process so asinine?
The answer is simply because the government is involved. Bureaucracies are inherently stupid. This is a feature, not a bug. Bureaucracies are designed to prevent change. There is no appropriate interface for innovation. Bureaucracies are also insulated from normal incentives. Bureaucrats are not accountable to customers, they're accountable to other bureaucrats. This, ostensibly, allows them to do what is right free of popular pressure or the base drive for profits. What it actually does is create an incentive structure to encourage personal benefit at the expense of others. Bureaucrats are not rewarded for helping the customer; on the contrary they are normally rewarded for things like cutting a budget. There is often little reward for hard work or long hours, creating a perverse incentive to slack. These are the people responsible for airport and airline security.
Security threats, whatever form they take, develop quickly and change rapidly. The modern terrorist network is decentralized. As anyone familiar with the Internet knows, decentralized networks can change rapidly. There are fewer dependencies to hold them back. How can an organization whose primary feature is change-resistance hope to adapt to such threats?
Our military faces similar challenges, but they seem to be adapting accordingly. The incentive structure of the military is beyond the scope of my understanding, so I will defer to those who are more familiar with it, but from a home observer of the Iraq war the counterinsurgancy strategy works. A noble and brilliant man put his legacy on the line and it has paid of marvelously. But I digress...

9/11 Lesson #1: The government is incapable of effectively protecting us.

Who then protects us? The answer is obvious, and encoded in both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution: we protect ourselves. We are responsible for ourselves; the government is not responsible for looking after us. That is why our founding documents mention things like militia and why the Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. Stripped of these we are incapable of self-defense.
Movies, books, internet rumors, conspiracy theories all portray the government as all powerful and all knowing. That is dumb. Our government cannot, with great certainty, even tell us how much we owe in taxes, yet we are to believe that they are sufficiently powerful and intelligent to concoct and accomplish the most brilliant and diabolical schemes imaginable.
That is, in a word, retarded. The government's powers are vast (too vast) but they cannot control or see everything.
From this we all must learn to protect ourselves. We face a fanatical enemy and it has infiltrated our nation. Many teachings of the Koran are being used to encourage large and small scale violence against innocents. Protecting ourselves from this systematic violence is daunting. How do we love our neighbors, yet mistrust those of Middle Eastern descent? I don't have the answer to that question.
I suspect the answer comes when we engage our neighbors. We cannot love our neighbors from a distance; we cannot know their needs if we never make contact with them. In the parable of The Good Samaritan those whom the crowd expected to help avoided the ambushed man. It was the undesirable who helped. We cannot do likewise, as Jesus instructed, if we are distant from our neighbors. How can we aid them if we know not their needs?
The willingness to embrace and influence our neighbors is a great weapon that we have left unfired. We have built our homes into fortresses to keep the world at bay, our island of civilization, but in doing so we have abandoned the battlefield. We need to gird ourselves for battle, open the draw bridge and venture into battle.

Future Topics

2007-10-18T22:04:00.000-04:00

If ever someone devises a means by which one can package and sell time, he will be rich. As it stands, time is a commodity in short supply in my life. However, I have a number of topics on which I intend to post:

The lessons of 9/11
A paradigm for considering terrorism as it occurs today
Effective counter-terrorism
Waging war against an NGO

The astute out there will have already noticed a theme. September 11, 2001 was a pivotal day in history. Lee Harris refers to it as a world-historical event in his book Civilization and Its Enemies. Much has been said about that day and its effects, but what have we learned? And what do we need to remember? Perhaps most importantly, what do we do now?
In the past six years I've thought a great deal about these things, so I hope that my conclusions are helpful. Some of these topics will require more research, so there could be a significant delay before anything appears about them; and with an election coming up there is a good chance current events will intrude on my musings on the past and future.
I am, of course, open to suggestions for other topics. Feel free to comment thusly. I won't promise to post on anything else, but if a topic ignites an interest I may be unable to stop myself. You have been warned.

Punctuation catastrophe

2007-10-09T15:56:00.000-04:00

I had to change my blog title. The apostrophe was screwing up the subject line for my post notification emails. Actually, that wouldn't have been so bad, but after said apostrophe gets replaced with an ampersand field code (ask an HTML monkey, he/she'll explain it) I can't filter on the indicator in gmail. Apparently searching on "&" is a no go and it was quicker to change my Blog title than figure out how to search for "&".

One Ring to Rule Them All...

2007-10-08T22:07:00.000-04:00

With apologies to Christopher Tolkien (and many heart-felt thanks to his father, J. R. R. Tolkien), I followed my train of thought from my email to Hannity a little further. The Lord of the Rings was not written as an allegory; Tolkien did not force a single interpretation on his readers. But its story can be seen as a metaphor for many situations. I believe we are living through one such situation.

Half a century ago, certain politicians forged the Federal Government into the One Ring. Continuing to this day, our elected officials continue to concentrate more and more power in this Ring and its strength is now vast. And now there are great contests to obtain and wield this power.
Those on the political Left have long taken a great interest in this Ring; it was they who first forged it among the ashes of the Great Depression (I'm well aware that this is a simplification, however many of the powers that the Federal Government now wields were consolidated and expanded under the Roosevelt administration with the New Deal). Later more power was added to the Ring with the "Great Society" so that Johnson could wage an endless "War on Poverty."
Sauron and his minions on the Left continue to demand more and more of our productivity through taxes to enthrall larger and larger segments of the population under the Ring's sway. They promise hand outs, not unlike the Seven rings given to the Dwarves and the Nine rings given to Men. Of course the result is the same: a part of the One Ring's power to wield over their fellow man in exchange for lifelong (and longer) servitude.
Eventually, those on the political Right caught on and began to resist. Ronald Regan came to power amidst great hope of liberty but even under his administration entitlement spending grew, and with it the power of the Ring. In the 1990's, when it seemed all hope was lost (as government controlled health care loomed) the Contract With America was forged and hope shone anew.
But hope soon faded. Rather than destroy the Ring, the Republican Congress slowly fell under its spell. They dressed it up with phrases like "Compassionate Conservatism," but it meant more spending and less liberty. Some (derisively referred to as RINOs) took the path of Saruman and are often indistinguishable from Sauron's other minions.

And so we stand today, in 2007. 2008 will see the election of a new president, new Representatives and Senators. The Ring is more powerful today than ever before, and it sits as a prize.

The Ring has not fallen, by happy chance, to a humble Hobbit. It is there for the taking. But this Ring, as with Tolkien's, should not be used. It should be destroyed.

We have Dr. James Dobson taking the role of Denethor, advising us to take hold of the Ring and wield it as a weapon for our devices. There are many who, as Boromir, would heed that advice. They would use the Ring to smite Sauron and his minions and as the master of the Ring bring goodness and wholesomeness to our nation.
Have they not seen what this Ring does to those who wield it? It is not a weapon that brings Liberty, but serfdom. By using the Ring, they would add yet more power to the Federal Government. Certainly it would be the power to do what THEY want, but what happens when they no longer control the Ring?

Many roles in this metaphor are not yet revealed. Who has the wisdom to guard us on the journey? Who will cut wasteful spending, and stand to oppose further entitlement expansion? Who will secure the borders of our nation? Who is Gandalf?
Who has the strength, wisdom, and authority to lead us and to take the throne? Who can challenge Sauron, in secret to wrench the Palantir from his control and openly in battle? Who is Aragorn?
Most importantly, who will take the Ring to Mordor? Who will dismantle the entitlement programs that have grown like ivy? Who is Frodo?

In the end, the Ring must be destroyed. The Federal Government has grown far too large. The programs that promised to lift the poor from their poverty have failed, and now they steal our productivity and our prosperity.

Those, like Dr. Dobson, who would throw their influence behind a third-party candidate who would wield the Ring for their purposes would divide what remaining strength the Right has. In the end, they will yield the Ring to Sauron.
This country cannot afford four years of any of the Democratic candidates, much less eight years. At this moment in history we need a leader who is committed to the destruction of the Ring, not one who promises to wield it for good.
Third-party candidates have a critical role to play in this: they must guard the path. Congressional Republicans are deserving of shame for their role in out-of-control spending and entitlement expansion. They rob us of our Liberty and our prosperity. They have betrayed us to the Ring, and usurped our Power.

The American People want to live in peace. We do not want our paychecks, estates, and inheritance plundered by the Federal Government. We want our Liberty back.

Much like the Council of Elrond, the Republican Party has long been a coalition party. There are many competing interests, but many long thought there was a common bond to reduce the size of the Federal Government. When we chose our Aragorn, we must preserve that coalition. But those in Congress who have betrayed our common bond must be dealt with. Those Representatives and Senators who will stand for fiscal restraint, limited government, and defending our nation must be supported. Those who stand in the way of these principles must be thrust aside.

This means no more earmarked spending. No more entitlements. And no more Federal control over State and local matters. Who can answer this call?

"I will take the Ring to Mordor... though I do not know the way."

Inspiration

2007-10-08T20:24:00.000-04:00

It has been years since I've posted anything on the Internet, but today I was inspired.
My inspiration came while listening to the Sean Hannity show. A fellow Cincinnatian (named Sarah) called in to support Dr. James Dobson's advocacy of a third-party presidential candidate should either Rudy Guilliani, Fred Thompson, or John McCain get the Republican nomination. As a HUGE believer in Federalism and a supporter of Fred Thompson I... disagree. This inspired me to send the following email to Sean's show.

Sean,
For the past few years I've become very concerned about the state of conservatism in this country. It seems that, more and more, those who label themselves "conservative" have taken to nationalizing issues over which the federal government has no legitimate authority. Many among us have forgotten about the Separation of Powers, not among the three branches of government but between the States, the People and the Federal government. Where has the principle of Federalism gone?
The candidate I have heard most clearly state and most visibly demonstrate his commitment to Federalism is Senator Fred Thompson. While I disagree with some of the positions he has taken (specifically campaign finance reform and tort reform) I have no doubt of his commitment to stripping the power that the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court has absconded from the States over the decades.
I have had great respect for Dr. James Dobson for many years. His writing was of great help to me through adolescence and into college. But his present demand to "win" on issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage at the national level further cements our path towards centralized power. I find it no exaggeration to say that this will end only in tyranny.
In taking this stand Dr. Dobson is fighting the good fight in the worst way. Those who would call themselves "conservative" would aid their cause best by fighting to restore these issues to the States. The more we, as conservatives, fight to "win" nationally the easier it is to accept Federal control in other areas, like health care. And the more liberty we lose to the Congress and the Federal beauracracy.
Christians especially should take care not to create a Leviathan to "defeat" their enemies nationally. Do we truly believe that we can maintain control of such a beast? We cannot, and we will not. Once created, how long will it be until the Leviathan is turned on us in the name of "diversity" or "tolerance"? We've fought these things on a small scale and out of fear we try to control the beast for our favor. We must slay the beast, and to do that we need leaders who have demonstrated that they will fight against the beast.
Dr. Dobson and those of like mind want to control the beast for the good of this nation. As you have stated on air, the polls show that by supporting a third-party control of the beast will pass to the Democratic Party.
The American people are weary of this beast of a Federal government we have. While Dr. Dobson searches for a candidate to weild the beast as a great weapon, I have found in Senator Thompson a candidate who can slay the beast. I can only hope and pray that Dr. Dobson sees the folly in his pursuit of a fabled hero to tame the beast and joins the fight to slay it.

I do hope that you will share these thoughts on air, as I think the American people (particularly your listeners) need to hear them. For too long the right has fought for control when it should have fought to dismantle. It is time to tear down the huge Federal ediface we have constructed and return the Power to the People (to borrow Laura Ingrahm's line).

Mitch Oliver