When Do We Call It 'Socialism'?

One of my favorite things to observe in the jubilant Left these days is an unwillingness to embrace the possibility that the first 100 days of Democratic rule might be socialism.

I think The Left knows well enough that socialism is not going to be broadly embraced, but I think it also knows that given bits and pieces of socialistic policy here and there, especially if dressed up with different words, like 'benefit', can make for broad enough an embrace.

My greatest fear is that we will be treated to socialized medicine in the first 100 days. If I learned anything from Mitch Daniels' first term, or Bill Clinton's, it's that you do the controversial things very early, and then you spend the next three years doing innocuous things. Well, it also helped that in both of these cases, the response to their first year was that they lost their parties' legislative majorities and returned to divided government.

When I mention this to my Obama-supporting friends, I get a heap of resistence, pooh-poohing the idea that there are any socialistic intents, just an improvement of benefits, or increasing access, or something, anything besides socialism.

I'd like to see how some of you would define socialized medicine.

Here's a definition I consider useful, from the Cato Institute, in a recent publication:

Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs. Notice that under this definition, it is irrelevant whether we describe medical resources (e.g.,hospitals, employees) as “public” or “private.” What matters—what determines real as opposed to nominal ownership—is who controls the resources. By that definition, America’s health sector is already more than half socialized, and Obama’s health care plan would socialize medicine even further.

There is one main reason I oppose socialized health care. I believe it inherently unjust to involuntarily cause one person pay for any good or service consumed by another person.

I've always been mystified by The Left's gigantic blind spot, willfully or otherwise, on this point. How can one oppose involuntary servitude, or involuntary conscription into the military, and yet accept involuntary responsibility for the cost of another's health care? In any of these cases, an individual is denied the full decision of the allocation of his resources. They are taken by the state, against the will of the individual, and given elsewhere, on the basis that the state has first claim, and knows best besides.

Interesting Take On Transparency

A few of my friends have recently been touting with excitement the Obama transition plans, as shown on the website change.gov. Isn't it nice to see exactly what's coming down the pike? No secrets, all there to see.

Well, my friend Michael Jarrell has been watching with interest as well. He notes that while things may be transparent, they aren't permanent.

Apparently Team Obama keeps a sharp eye on their opposition these days. It seems that they saw the many commentaries on their new plans for involuntary servitude and decided to attempt to memory hole them.

He lays out an interesting change. One day the website said this:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. (emphasis supplied)

The next day:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. (emphasis supplied)

The initial hope was to require the oxymoronic 'forced volunteerism'. When noticed, it became a 'goal', and now comes with a transfer of wealth.

That's all pretty shady, if you ask me. All of it.

What is hopeful in any of this?

What Goes Up Must Come Down

Oh, what's this? A nice rah-rah piece on Amtrak, that suck-hole of tax dollars and inept provider of passenger transportation, courtesy the Lafayette Journal-Courier:

Recent spikes in gasoline prices, airport congestion and environmental awareness are among the reasons why Amtrak is reporting record ridership for the 2008 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

Nationwide, Amtrak carried 28.7 million people this year, compared to 25.8 million in 2007. That was an 11 percent increase.

So, since the gasoline prices are now lower than when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, back in August 2005, ridership will certainly have already begun to tank, if it were such a factor in driving an increase in ridership. I love this quote from a rider:

"We're students and we're poor," she said with a chuckle, noting the train's comparatively cheap cost.

A round trip ticket between Lafayette and Chicago generally runs between $30 and $50 depending on the days, according to Amtrak's Web site.

Well, poor student, you aren't learning mathematics at Purdue, that's for sure. With gas now around $2/gallon, even if you drive a Hummer or some other beast that gets 10mpg, you can drive from Lafayette to Chicago for $25.20.

126 mi / 10 mpg = 12.6 gal x $2 = $25.20

You're going to be poor for a lifetime if you can't do the math. Amtrak isn't the solution. Oh? Riding for the environment? Ok, then calculate the ride in my Toyota Corolla:

126 mi / 40 mpg = 3.15 gal x $2 = $6.30

Seriously. What kind of stupid do you have to be to lap up what this article is offering?

Update: In response to the astute comment that caught where I didn't (shame on me!) that the Amtrak pricing is based on round trips, and my car pricing is based on a single leg, I decided to shore that up. Doubling my auto prices is the easy part:

252 mi / 10 mpg = 12.6 gal x $2 = $50.40
252 mi / 40 mpg = 3.15 gal x $2 = $12.60

I went to Amtrak's website to see the various prices. Turns out that the article is wrong. One cannot get a $30 round trip fare. It varies pretty significantly depending on the days of departure and arrival.

$36 - Depart Lafayette Nov 19 or 20, Return from Chicago Nov 24
$41 - Depart Lafayette Nov 19 or 20, Return from Chicago Nov 22 or 25
$52 - Depart Lafayette Nov 21, Return from Chicago Nov 23 or 26
$58 - Depart Lafayette Nov 19 or 20, Return from Chicago Nov 22 or 25
$67 - Depart Lafayette Nov 21, Return from Chicago Nov 23 or 26

So, the J-C's range of 'generally between $30 and $50 for a round trip' is misleading. You can't get a fare as low as $30, and most combinations are more than $50.

I guess we're both shoddy journalists, quick to make our points. In any case, my ride in the Corolla is still WAY cheap.

Doing The Math

Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw offers advice to President-Elect Obama. Here's the bit the struck me most:

during the campaign, you promised that you would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, that you would vastly expand health insurance coverage, and that you would never cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age. You will almost surely have to renege on some of these promises. As your economic team will often remind you, even if the laws of arithmetic are ignored during campaigns, they provide a real constraint when making actual policy.

One of the best criticisms of the Bush Administration offered by the Left was an attack of borrow-and-spend. So, if Obama is to try to deliver on his campaign promises, how can he do it but to borrow and spend?

btw, Mankiw's had some really good posts lately, including an analysis of the GOP's failure, with the remedy being to run more libertarian. FWIW, he authored the textbook I used in my MBA Econ class.

Glad The Barrier Is Broken

The major upside to the Obama victory is that now the color barrier is broken for the highest office in the land. Now The Man will be a black man. 

Well, it's about time. When the contest came down to a white man with bad ideas and a black man with bad ideas, it may as well have been the black man with bad ideas. At least then Black America can at last stop thinking of the country as a place run by racist redneck crackers. We can put the race card away for once and for all.

I would have been miles happier to vote for a black man with good ideas, but there wasn't one running for President. This year. Obama will have helped clear the way for the future.

Now For The Bad News

Ok, idealism aside, my practical take is that if Bob Barr can't win, my best hope for minimizing the growth of government at the federal level is for McCain to win.

I feel ill typing that. Going back over a year, John McCain was one of two (Hillary Clinton the other) candidates I felt I could be pursuaded to vote against. But, divided government can be more deliberative, even though they weren't with the bailouts. It can be more restrained, even though they weren't with the bailouts. Sigh.

I fully expect an Obama landslide. That means unfettered Democratic rule. From this, I expect Obama to be a rubber stamp for his party's Congressional leadership, just as George W. Bush was for his. I expect government to expand dramatically, which is the bad news.

The only upside is historical precedent. Any time either the Democrats or Republicans take a majority, they piss off the American people in short order. We saw what Republicans did with their recent majorities. When Bill Clinton was elected in November 1992, he came into a Democratic Congress. The result? They pissed off the American people to the extent that the Republicans stormed back in 1994. Government was restrained at that point as best as has been in my lifetime.

So, there is some potential good news. It would be better if the American people took notice that they are alienated every time one party rule grows government, and went for REAL CHANGE and voted to restrain it, not by switching back and forth between the two parties proven to grow government, but to the one committed to scaling back the growth, the Libertarian Party.

But, since I'm being realistic here and not idealistic, my hope is for a structural repeat of the Clinton era: Dems take over, Dems screw up, divided government rules the day once again.

It's kind of like praying to have your breast bone brokem, because it's better than having your skull caved in.

Now, back to holding my little newborn guy!

An Appeal To My Friends In Ohio

You probably know that I ran for office in my 'new' home state of Indiana. Do you know why I didn't run in Ohio?

It was because the Republicans and Democrats erected great barriers against me from running as a Libertarian Party candidate. If I wanted to run I would have had to spend my time wastefully petitioning, rather than campaigning. This handicap is intentionally placed, discouraging third parties from participation. 

In America! Home of the free! 

Republicans and Democrats merely need to sign up to become candidates in Ohio. Libertarians can have this same kind of automatic ballot access, if Bob Barr gains 5% of the vote.

That's a tall order, as Ohio is a battleground state, and the Electoral Votes up for grabs could come down to anybody's vote. That's just as the Rs & Ds would have it. They set the bar that high because they believed it an impossible threshold.

I know that some of my friends are ardent partisan Rs or Ds. But for most of you, I know that the two parties only represent you to a point, that Rs & Ds don't match up very well, leaving you only to decide who to vote against, or whether sorting your sock drawer is a better option than casting a vote at all. Many of you would be partisan Libertarians, if you only had the choice.

This year, vote for Libertarian Bob Barr for president. Help the Libertarian Party of Ohio gain automatic ballot access so that Ohioans can begin to have broader ballot choices, in the interest of greater participation, and more choices that represent the broad spectrum of views found across the state.

Vote for Barr!

Vote Libertarian!

I am sending this appeal to any voter, but in particular, I want to urge the people who supported my 2006 campaign for Indiana Secretary of State to get out to the polls and cast votes for Libertarian Party candidates.

When I ran for that office, it wasn't just in seeking the office. It was to ensure continued automatic ballot access for all of Indiana's Libertarian party candidates. This is the day that effort was put forth for.

If you supported my campaign, with your effort, your time, your money- do yourself a favor and protect your investment. Make sure the showing is as strong as possible for our Libertarian candidates.

If you support libertarian policy, please do not be discouraged by the perceived likely results in the various races. Show up and cast your vote. When we score strongly, our ideas are taken seriously. If we don't? Well, why should anyone take us seriously?

But truly, we're running some strong races out there. Steve Keltner is running a fantastic campaign for Indiana Senate in District 30. Ed Angleton is also running strong, for Indiana House in District 100. Rex Bell scored 15% in his three-way 2006 run for Indiana House in District 54, and this time it's a two-way race. Rex could win! Dr. Eric Schansberg is running another strong campaign for US House in District 9. And on, and on.

Full list of Libertarian candidates on the ballot in Indiana.

Do it for me! Do it for yourself and your children. Just do it- vote Libertarian.

All Is Right With The World

How could it be otherwise?

It's A Boy!

Ame delivered a healthy, BIG (9lb, 11oz) baby boy at 7:02 this morning, on the back porch- the same spot Isabel was born 3+ years ago.

We haven't picked a first name out yet, but we're pretty set on Anders for a middle name, as a nod to Ame's Danish heritage. We'll post again when we arrive at a name.

This Redistribution of Wealth Is Trickier Than I Thought

To be fair, both Obama and McCain stand united in their belief, their faith, in the justice and value of the redistribution of wealth. I haven't seen anything from McCain to suggest otherwise. Of course, Obama has come out and said that he favors it.

Nobody seems to think himself wealthy. The blind spot here is that wealth is relative. Even if you are comfortably a recipient of redistribution today, what happens of the upper class begins to be eroded? Or, get this, if you earn a fat killing? Or, if there are just an awful lot of poor in greater need than you?

I love this personal experiment in wealth redistribution. It involves a businessman who sees a homeless man and a waiter with an Obama tie. Who needs the businessman's tip more? That's who gets it.

The waiter stammered a few "Why practice on me? I’m just a local college student!" retorts and then angrily stormed away from the table in a steaming huff of progressive self-righteous indignation.

Apparently, after experiencing firsthand the application of such socialistic governance from the perspective of the rightful wage earner, my young liberal-minded waiter was quickly convinced that income redistribution was much easier to support as a noble, magnanimous social policy than when his own hard-earned income was about to be redistributed, against his will, to another I deemed more needy.

Or, as Monty Python nailed it many years ago:



That clip only boils down to the punchline. The whole skit is a beauty, but long, spread out over Flying Circus Episode #37. Find it here.

(h/t Charleston Watch)

Meltdown Blame Game

I've been fairly astonished to see some of the vitriolic piling on against libertarianism with the meltdown of the derivative markets and subsequesnt bailouts.

Does anyone think Libertarians have been running the Federal Government? Really? Here's your reality check.

Ok, some point to Alan Greenspan, the erstwhile Ayn Rand devotee. You know- the same Greenspan that presided over the Fed during the entire Clinton Administration- that mythical period of time of milk & honey. I wouldn't call Greenspan a libertarian. Any libertarian running the Federal Reserve would have done anything in his power to return our dollars to specie-backed legitimacy. That certainly didn't happen. Link to Murray Ruthbard's libertarian critique of Greenspan.

Moreover, what made the trading in derivatives legal in the first place? A law signed by Congress, unanimously, in 2000. Catch 60 Minutes last night?

The vehicle for doing this was an obscure but critical piece of federal legislation called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. And the bill was a big favorite of the financial industry it would eventually help destroy.

It not only removed derivatives and credit default swaps from the purview of federal oversight, on page 262 of the legislation, Congress pre-empted the states from enforcing existing gambling and bucket shop laws against Wall Street.

"It makes it sound like they knew it was illegal," Kroft remarks.

"I would agree," Dinallo says. "They did know it was illegal. Or at least prosecutable."
In retrospect, giving Wall Street immunity from state gambling laws and legalizing activity that had been banned for most of the 20th century should have given lawmakers pause, but on the last day and the last vote of the lame duck 106th Congress, Wall Street got what it wanted when the Senate passed the bill unanimously.

So, at what point do we blame lawmakers. It seems pretty clear that they didn't even read what they voted on. Just like the Patriot Act. Just like John McCain and the proposal for the bailout when it was merely 3 pages long.

The bucket laws were good regulation. The bets on stocks without any skin in the game affects the stock price. It's not like a football game, where the bets do not affect the outcome of the game. (This leaves aside point shaving, NBA refs, the 1919 Black Sox, and other notorious interactions with gambling.)

Unfortunately, I believe that this one place is going to place America squarely in the pro-regulation camp for everything. It's kind of ironic, because the critics of deregulation and capitalism decry its' adherents as 'dogmatics' and 'idealogues' in the pejoritive, when they themselves as dogmatically and idealistically pro-government, pro-regulation, and anti-capitalist.

Buchanan Has It All Wrong

Pat Buchanan is whining about a double standard being applied to the candidates. He cites the treatment of Sarah Palin as his proof.

The media cannot get enough of the "Saturday Night Live" impersonations of Palin as a bubblehead. News shows pick up the Tina Fey clips and run them and run them to the merriment of all.

Can one imagine "Saturday Night Live" doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud" of my country, this "just downright mean" America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent?

I take it a different way. It says to me that women have come to treated be on par with men in the political arena. Well, white women. White women have come to be treated on par with white men.

After all, everybody knows that white men run this country. White men in high places have been subject to ridicule in media, and especially on SNL for years, thinking all the way back to Chevy Chase's bumbling Gerry Ford routine. White men in high places, and now white women in high places, are all subject to spoof, satire, send-up, and all manner of piss-taking the media is capable of- because it is safe to ridicule them.

When the New Yorker ran a cartoon of Michelle in an Angela-Davis afro with an AK-47 slung over her shoulder, New Yorker editors had to go on national television to swear they were not mocking Michelle, but the conservatives who have so caricatured Michelle and the Messiah.

Is there a media double standard? You betcha.

Nah. It just means that white women have made it. They are fair game for ridicule. No more kid gloves. And it isn't strictly partisan, because as we note with the first Tina Fey send-up of Palin, there was what? Yes, a matching send-up of Hilary Clinton. So, it isn't partisan at all. Sure, Biden's an idiot who lets loose with just as much absurdity as Palin. It's just that Tina Fey is a dead ringer and hilarious as Palin. Who's a dead ringer for Biden who would be funny? Besides, the media doesn't regard black politicians as being on par with white politicians. Obviously. Or they would send 'em up.

That will change soon, or should. After all, a black man is going to be running things pretty soon. I eagerly await the satire.

Deficit No Longer An Issue?

It was just a few weeks ago that a key part of the Democratic attack was that The Bush Administration has been guilty of fiscal irresponsibility, in its' borrow and spend ways. Quoth Barney Frank:

"I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, and
I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat."

So, in the interest of consistency, can some Democrats please attack Barney Frank?




This is foreshadowing. The Democrats feel they have won the election already, so they are letting everyone see what their governance will be- a different kind of fiscal irresponsibility. Borrow & spend & tax.

Voting McCain will only give you borrow & spend. Bob Barr will give you spending cuts, and end to borrowing, and an eventual lowering of taxes.

Choose accordingly.

No Wasting Votes!

(Warrenton, IN)- This year, there is no reason to play the game of Prisoner's Dilemma with your vote. The lesser of two evils isn't a factor, because it's already clear who will win the big races come November 4.

Per Rasmussen, Obama has been ahead of McCain or tied nationally for 33 straight days, and has Obama ahead in Electoral votes by a 286-174 count.

Don't like Rasmussen? Zogby has the Electoral count at 273-163, for Obama. That leaves 102 'unsure', but Indiana is among the unsure. If McCain can't take Indiana, he can't take much. Zogby also shows Obama leading for 14 straight days. It might have been more, but the report only shows 14 days.

If you are libertarian, pro-free market, pro-individualist, anti-tax, anti-socialism, there is nothing to gain in voting against Obama at this point. He's going to win, and besides, McCain hasn't proven himself to be libertarian, pro-free market, pro-individualist, anti-tax, or anti-socialist. Vote for Bob Barr! When you give your vote to a candidate who makes no promise to deliver for you what you want, you tell him and his party that they can safely take you for granted.

Likewise, the various polls for Indiana Governor show Mitch Daniels comfortably ahead of Jill Long Thompson. Pollster.com has an aggregate poll with Daniels up 51%-37.5%.

Daniels is going to win in a landslide. No worries about 'wasting your vote' here, either. Vote for Andy Horning and boost the numbers for the Libertarian agenda of constitutional government, smaller and less intrusive government, lower spending, and lower taxes. Even with Daniels claiming 51%, a Horning return of 13-14% will open eyes and make the other parties sure to co-opt some important parts of his message.

Those who fall for the Prisoner's Dilemma approach to voting are suckers, anyhow. Don't want socialism? Then why vote for candidates who bring to to you at a clip of 75% of what they other team will do? You're still getting the thing you don't want by voting for the lesser of two evils.

Decision Made

I just watched tonight's debate between Obama and McCain and found it affirming of my decision to vote for Bob Barr, which I did today, casting my absentee ballot at Noblesville this afternoon.

Obama's closing statement wrapped it up well for me. He spoke of the need to do something different, because the policies of the past few decades have resulted in an economy teetering on disaster.

Well! Different means increased spending on virtually everything? In what way is that different? It wasn't just  Obama promising more spending on everything being spoken of. McCain was promising more funding also, in every area possible. With what these guys are promising, I absolutely expect similar results.

Libertarian Bob Barr is the only one talking about cuts in spending. Barr is the only one talking about not rewarding bad decisions with borrowed or freshly printed dollars.

Make no mistake- If we are in a crisis, it was made by Republicans and Democrats. Hanging it strictly on today's President is intellectually dishonest. What have the Democrats done with their majorities in the Congress? They may as well be the brothers and sisters of George W Bush, because haven't been acting to cut spending, or to end borrowing or inflating the money supply either.

Obama's right. You aren't going to get any changes by sticking to the policies that got us here. Obama and McCain are mere retreads of all the losing policy that is bringing us to the brink of depression. Change is more than swapping one team for the other. It's breaking clean.

The only way to break clean is to vote for Bob Barr, and any Libertarian candidate you find on your ballots.

Obama's Inroads

I can tell that the Obama campaign is reaching people that the Democratic Party hasn't been reaching. I need look no further than my own neighbors, a firmly Republican stronghold. Look at the returns from my home precinct, Delaware #3, in 2004:

Bush = 65.7%
Kerry = 32.8%
Badnarik = 0.9%

Link to Presidential results for Delaware 3.

Daniels = 66.7%
Kernan = 32.5%
Gividen = 0.8%

Link to Gubernatorial results for Delaware 3.

Notice that the results were almost identical, as relating the presidential and gubernatorial results by each party's candidate. That's going to change.

Now, obviously no votes have been counted yet, but my visual clues are the yard signs. I like observing yard signs off the main drags, because the parties and campaigns fill the right-of-ways with the things. I prefer to look at the residences themselves, where the property owner paid the money to get the sign, and put it out there for the world to see.

I did a count of signs in my neighborhood today, because it seemed like I was seeing a lot more Obama signs than I saw of Kerry back in 2004. Here's the tally:

Obama sign only: 38
McCain sign only: 15
Thompson sign only: ZERO
Daniels sign only: 55
Obama & Thompson signs: ZERO
Daniels & McCain signs: 53
Obama & Daniels signs: 3
Barr signs: zero
Horning signs: zero
Weingarten: 1
Burton signs: 3

What to make of it? Certainly, the Jill Long Thompson campaign is completely moribund. Either nobody is supporting her, or her campaign hasn't gotten signs made or distributed yet. In any case, moribund.

But how about the Obama and Daniels signs together? In Fishers! I have to get some pictures of these.

I think this little survey shows that the Republican base is very satisfied with Mitch Daniels as governor, but I sense a lot of buyer's remorse on John McCain, or plain alienation by McCain. The man has no real ideology to speak of, just this 'maverick' thing, which seems to be on all non-military subjects little more than a panic button that screams, 'DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!'. That doesn't inspire anything but uneasiness, even for regular Republican voters.

If this is going on in a precinct that reliably goes 65% Republican (It also did in the 2006 Secretary of State race, Rokita 65.7%, Pearson 29.2%, Kole 5.1%), I can only imagine how precincts across America that have greater Democratic leanings are going to tilt greatly towards Obama on November 4.

The lack of anything but Obama signs shows that the Democratic organization is still very thin here. Now, that stands to change significantly. As the Obama campaign inspires people to work in his Fishers office and to put up his yard sign, surely it will yield future candidates.

As for the Libertarians, the Barr signs are available. I'll be getting one soon enough, as the Indianapolis area coordinator for the Barr campaign just got them in. I wish I had seen some anyhow.

Survivalist Instincts Kicking In

I've found myself doing things to live more simply and more frugally over the past 7-8 months. Business has been down about 60% for me this year, which isn't devastating, thanks to Ame's salary, and thank goodness. Toss that together with an economy that had been slumping badly in my opinion for a couple of years (start with the rash of foreclosures a couple years ago), and it made sense to me to begin to look after some measures that would keep my family secure should it get worse.

Of course, it has gotten worse, but I'm not feeling pinched yet. There were some steps we took:

Pay off debts.

Last year, we knocked out a ton of debt, from old college loans, to all credit card debt, to paying off a car loan early. It wasn't sexy, but it's been fantastic not having those payments hanging over us. We don't use the credit card for anything but convenience or travel, and we haven't carried a balance since. 

Live more simply.

I've actually enjoyed much of this. I went to great lengths to plant a functional garden, raising it up off the surface, within cedar walls. It drains well and has excellent topsoil. It even has a section of sandy soil for the cucumbers. The yields were great, and best of all, the food is delicious. It has been a real pleasure to eat organic carrots and tomatoes. They just burst with flavors lost in the process of shipping food great distances to our tables. 

It wasn't big money saved in the garden up front, but just the process of making more soups and stews with lots of leftovers has meant more meals at home, which is a terrific savings. Plus, Isabel loves cooking with us, which is great fun.

I've looked for places to save money at every turn. Even business travel has been improved by crashing at friends' homes, with the obvious added bonus that I get to enjoy their company. When I do stay at motels, I stay within chains where I get points towards free stays. The Choice Hotels chain is great- reasonable rooms, plenty of promotions for points, easy redemption of free stays. 

Get out of the market.

With the inflation that has been going on, and with the foreclosures, I began sensing that having hard assets was going to be essential. Slowly, I moved the investments to gold. Wow, am I glad I did! I know this is regarded as kook stuff by so many in good times, but it's not so kooky now, is it? I urge my friends to do this now. Get out of the market. It isn't done sinking, because our government isn't done engaging in the problematic behavior that caused the problems in the first place. This bailout is going to mean a lot more inflation. Even if the price of gold doesn't go up any more (it will), the worst you will do is preserve your purchasing power as paper money buys less and less.

Still more to do.

I have been accumulating canned foods for emergency use, but I still don't have a full supply for a minimum three-month period, as I would like. Our house has storage issues, so this is a problem. I need to remove old junk to make the space. I would really love to get a freezer and perhaps even an extra fridge. I used to have the bonus fridge, and it was great, buying things that would keep in the fridge at low prices and storing them.

If we didn't have Ame's relatively recession-proof job (she delivers babies at Methodist Hospital), and we hadn't taken the steps to eliminate debt, I would probably be pretty worried right about now, with my own enterprise suffering. It's amazing to find out that you can still live pretty well even in trying circumstances, so long as the preparation is there. 

If you haven't altered the way you live towards preserving your family's security, I urge you to do it right away. Not like a Chicken Little thing here, but the news is getting worse, and I do expect some shortages in the near future. It will be temporary, no doubt. Hell- the Great Depression was temporary, if you catch my drift.

Governments And Prices

I've been blogging for five years about the relationship between taxes and the relative attractiveness of cities. Also, about how government officials don't get said relationship. I had the issues put clearly before me once again, but in a discussion about water policy, in a post title "BassAckWards":

Although I welcome this bit of news (higher prices!), both JN and I noticed the perverse order of things:

1. People use less water.

2. Prices rise.

As I have mentioned before, this order of events is terribly annoying to people. The reason it occurs so often in water is because most water utilities are run on a break-even basis, i.e.: if they sell less water, they have to raise prices to generate the same revenue.

Mainly, government officials never seem to understand the relationship between price and revenue. If the price goes up, consumption goes down. That's great for water consumption and for consumption of other natural resources, if conservation is your goal. It's disastrous in this example, because the city is trying to generate more revenue in response to lower usage. Their result is going to be even lower usage, hence, even lower revenues. (Still good for conservation, though.) If they wanted greater usage, they should lower the price. Well, government officials aren't to be confused with the sort of people who have a clue about economics.

Which brings me back to taxes. Cities that drive away businesses and people of means with their higher taxes tend to look at their falling tax revenues and conclude that to make up the shortfalls, they need to raise taxes. 

Well, duh! That's what drives people away! The revenues aren't going to rise. The population is going to fall. Just look at Cleveland, Detroit, and a host of other cities that have chased their tails, and their wealth away, by failing to understand the relationship between price and use.

As the man so named his post, most government officials are BassAckWards.

h/t Aguanomics

Short-Term Disaster

The Bush-McCain-Obama bailout isn't working in the here and now. The Dow is having its' worst week ever. That's a pity, because short-term success is the only success this train wreck could have achieved.  From CNN's early report:

Stock futures pointed to a dismal open Friday as markets around the world got hammered and General Electric reported quarterly results that were in line with Wall Street estimates.

and

US markets took a beating Thursday, with the Dow industrials plunging nearly 700 points to a five-year low, as panicked investors dumped stocks.

The unholy trinity of Bush, McCain, and Obama make Larry, Curly, and Moe look like Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Adam Smith. Heavy reliance on government solutions isn't breeding confidence in Americans. It seems the people have begun to get wise. Allowing the investment giants to fail would have actually generated greater confidence.

Better be out of the stock market and into gold. Libertarians have taken a lot of ridicule over the years for our economic outlooks, but everything that is happening now was predicted- by libertarian and free market economic analysts and policy wonks. Government isn't working. Maybe it's time to give up on what doesn't work, and to embrace the policy recommended by those who predicted this mess. 

Where Will We Defend Freedom?

(Fishers, IN)- If either John McCain or Barack Obama came out tomorrow and said that he had a plan that would eliminate about half of the newspapers in this country, and furthermore tell you which ones you could read, would you get behind that plan, or would you fight it? Would you say that there was a free market for newspapers in such a scenario? Or freedom of the press?

The Cato Institute's Michael Cannon so describes the Obama health care plan:

"He would let the Federal government dictate the content and the price of every private insurance plan in the United States."

and

"Imagine Barack Obama as President propose that he was going to have the government dictate the content of every news program in the United States, and eliminate half of the existing programs and newspapers that are out there. Would
you call that a government-dominated system? You certainly wouldn't call it a free press. And that's largely what Barack Obama wants to do with health care."

So says Tanner in the October 7, 2008 Cato Daily Podcast.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is both wilfull ignorance and deceptive talk among the backers of 'health care for all'. They tend to bristle at the word 'socialism', or the phrase 'socialized health care'. Well, what else would it be, then?

Oh! I know! Another drain on our ailing economy.

Gas Prices & Chicago Taxes

(Valparaiso, IN)- It's been interesting to note gas prices over the past two weeks, as they've been dropping. One thing that remains is that there is a huge difference between what you pay in Chicago and anywhere else. Here's what I've observed, and what I've paid for regular unleaded in the past two weeks:

9/18, Chicago: $4.60/gallon

9/21, Fishers, IN: $3.69/gal

9/22, Rock Island, IL: $3.74/gal

9/23, Prairie du Chien, WI: $3.56/gal

9/24, Viborg, SD: $3.29/gal

9/25, Western Nebraska: $3.14/gal

9/26, St. Louis, MO: $3.39/gal

9/27, Fishers, IN: $3.53/gal

10/1, Fishers, IN: $3.39/gal

10/4, Fishers, IN: $3.24/gal

10/5, Lebanon, IN: $3.18/gal

10/6, Joliet, IL: $3.79/gal

10/7, Blue Island, IL: $3.78/gal

10/7, Valparaiso, IN: $3.39/gal

Chicago and the adjacent small towns & cities are consistently 60 cents a gallon higher. I make it a point NEVER to buy gas in the Chicago area. Fill up by Merrillville at the latest when going up I-65, as a rule.

Cost of living is certainly one difference to explain it. I imagine taxes are another. What I can't explain is why Chicagoans are good with it.

Update: Three more prices to report from last night:

10/8, Joliet, IL: $3.79

10/8, Gary, IN: $3.36

10/8, Lebanon, IN: $3.07

Really- Why do Chicagoland residents accept being gouged so? It isn't merely on gas prices, but on all prices. I bought in Gary on the drive back. I ran the tank down pretty low to get the heck out of Illinois. At 43 cents/gal difference, on a 12-gallon fill-up, I saved $5.16. Imagine how many times per day this decision is made, and how the Illinois economy suffers, and the Indiana economy benefits accordingly.

Wide Market For Politcal Satire

One market that isn't collapsing is the one for political satire. SNL, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report are great, but you're missing out if you don't check out The Onion from time to time.


Obama Promises To Stop America's Shitty Jobs From Going Overseas

Bailout = Security, Huh?

So much for the transfer of wealth from earners to bad decision-makers ending up as some kind of immediate safeguard. It was supposed to make investors and markets here and around the world secure and stable, right? From an early AP report today:

Wall Street tumbled Monday, joining a selloff around the world, as fears grew
that the financial crisis will cascade through economies globally despite
bailout efforts by the U.S. and other governments. The credit market remained
under strain, and investors piled into government bonds. The Dow Jones
industrials skidded more than 200 points.

and

Over the weekend, governments across Europe rushed to prop up failing banks. The German government and financial industry agreed on a $68 billion bailout for commercial-property lender Hypo Real Estate Holding AG, while France's BNP Paribas agreed to acquire a 75 percent stake in Fortis's Belgium bank after a government rescue failed.

Would have been better just to let the bad actors fail. If you believe in the common good, you cannot accept that it was best to give bad actors a gigantic infusion of cash at the short-term and long-term expense of everybody. We are getting hit with tomorrow's taxes because of the bailout. We are getting hit with a weakened dollar because we will borrow to 'afford' the bailout. And our markets are not stabilizing. They are crashing. Way to go, geniuses.

Punish those who voted for the bailout. Vote against McBama. Vote against Andre Carson.

Stick With What You Know

Sometimes sportswriters try to get cute and prove they have some depth, so they trot out a story that reaches into politics or everyday life. Bob Ley and "Outside The Lines" are notable exceptions, in that they can pull it off. They have the depth, because they are in touch with people.

Bob Kravits showed that he is out of touch, and out of his depth, when he posed this question in Sunday's Indy Star column:

When Michael Vick was led toward a federal courthouse, weighted down by handcuffs, leg shackles and several charges involving the depraved sport of dogfighting, protesters and unaffiliated citizens stood on the sidewalk and hurled invective at the doomed NFL quarterback.

When Helio Castroneves was led toward a federal courthouse Friday in Miami, also weighted down by handcuffs, leg shackles and felony charges of tax evasion, curious onlookers and IndyCar fans around the country prayed that the charges were false, and that Castroneves would eventually be found guilty of nothing more than ignorance.

So where's the righteous rage this time?

Real simple, Bob-O. America found what Vick did to dogs heinous and loathsome. America similarly finds paying taxes heinous and loathsome. I know that even if Castroneves is guilty of tax evasion, I'm rooting for him, because I believe it's his money. I have no soft spot for a guy like Vick who bred dogs to fight and electrocuted dogs that didn't do it well enough.

Kravits tried to make it racial. Load of Crapola. Must not have been paying attention the last five or so years to Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, or any of the other modern Know Nothings, who have demonized anyone with darker skin and a Hispanic sounding name.

Time To Talk About The Federal Reserve

It's rare that circumstances make it such that Americans take an interest in monetary policy and the Federal Reserve. Usually, such talk is the kind of thing that gets 'tinfoil hat' comments. However, we are living under such circumstances, and people are beginning to see that printing money without backing by assets is dangerous business, and is the business of our Treasury.

Here's a link to a debate about the Fed that is already underway. A shame place for comments wasn't made available. I am at your service.

I find it instructive to look back on the Federal Government's recent actions against NorFed and the Liberty Dollar. Mainly, it shows a deep commitment to valueless paper money and to inflationary policy.

Idiots

The House has now joined the Senate in passing the stupid bailout, and President Bush signed it. A few days ago, I cheered the House. Today, they are back to being regarded as assholes. Here's the House vote:

Democrats: 172 yeas, 63 nays
Republicans: 91 yeas, 108 nays

So good that the Democrats can see so clearly eye-to-eye with the President they regard as stupid. Looks like Andre Carson was one of the turncoats that changed his vote to stand with the President. Well, they're in league now. Can't wait for the days of 'change' coming ahead.

These are the days you vote Libertarian. These are the days we need 'None of the Above' on the ballot.

Bob Barr To Visit NW Indiana

Of all times for me to be working in the home office and not up north! Bob Barr will stop in Valparaiso tomorrow. From the Libertarian Party of Indiana:

"We're very excited," noted Law Libertarians of Valparaiso University president Jonathan Morris. "We've been working hard to bring Bob Barr to this area since his nomination in May. More people need to be exposed to his common sense approach to government. We're pleased that our efforts are assisting with getting that message out."

Barr's on-campus remarks to students, faculty and the public will be followed by a Meet and Greet with the candidate at Pesto's Italian Restaurant in Valparaiso.

WHAT: Barr Address at Valparaiso University
SPONSOR: Law School Libertarians at Valparaiso University
TIME: 6:30 p.m. (CT)

Go see Barr if you have the chance. He will sound vastly different than McBama. Presidential, even.

It Had To End

That was a nice run of good news there- two in a row! With trends in this country being what they've been, I knew it had to end. The Senate, predictably, tweaked the bailout to make it a little worse than it already was, thereby making it more palatable to our Senators, including McBama. The House gets to take its' vote tomorrow. From CNN:

The legislation, if passed by the House, would usher in one of the most far-reaching interventions in the economy since the Great Depression.

Advocates say the plan is crucial to government efforts to attack a credit crisis that threatens the economy and would free up banks to lend more. Opponents say it rewards bad decisions by Wall Street, puts taxpayers at risk and fails to address the real economic problems facing Americans.

CNN got my opposition right, that's for sure. So, under the Bush Administration, yet another bureaucracy stands to be born:

the Senate version would set up two oversight committees. A Financial Stability
Board would include the Federal Reserve chairman, the Securities and Exchange
Commission chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency director, the Housing and
Urban Development secretary and the Treasury secretary.

Financial Stability Board? What next? An 'Equalization of Outcomes Bureau'? A 'Forgiveness of Stupidity Department'?

I don't know about you, but for me, this doesn't inspire confidence. It terrifies. Glad I got out of the market when I did, and got into gold, silver, and oil. Best decisions ever. CNN covers some reactions by random Americans, none of them speak of confidence. Best advice there: Live within your means, and plan now for your future.

A Parade Of Good News

I was angered to read about the case of Robert McNally, who upon finding a man in his daughter's bedroom, had confronted the attacker, who died as a result of the confrontation. I was putting myself, a man with a daughter, in his shoes and dreading some unsane, unjust set of charges being leveled against the hero- such is our world these days.

But no! Sanity prevails twice this week! The Marion County Prosecutor will not bring charges against McNally's successful defense of his daughter! From the Indy Star:

A Northwestside man who killed a would-be rapist in his home last weekend was justified in his actions, Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi announced today.

Robert McNally will not face criminal charges in the death of David Meyers, Brizzi said in a statement.

Two great outcomes in a mere three-day span? I can hardly stand it! What next? A cutting of the federal budget by half? Eliminating the property tax? Come on! Hit me while I'm weak!

Random Road Trip Photos



Here are some more.

Dubuque, IA, along the Mississippi. The locals try to cash in on the riverboat past, but only to a point. This one isn't going anywhere. There are dozens of 'riverboat' casinos, but only one plies the River, and then for only two hours a day. Mark Twain spins in his grave.

Prairie du Chien, WI. Now on the eastern bank of the Mississippi, you know you are in Wisconsin when the gas stations let you know they sell cheese AND food.

Not Worried About Short Term Effects

The most irritating comments I hear about the financial crisis are along the lines of 'having to do something', or 'needing to minimize the pain'. I'm seeing through that rhetoric for what it is, and calling it out as dangerous.

Needing to minimize whose pain? I have come to believe that for the President and lawmakers like Barney Frank, John McCain, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Dick Lugar, it's all about not having a deep recession happen on their immediate watch. That's exactly the problem. Forestalling what needs to happen only will beget a bigger problem- later.

These bad loans are nearly worthless assets. They have been overvalued for far too long. They should be valued as worthless or nearly worthless. Those who gave out these loans should be losing their asses. Those who took loans they couldn't pay back should be losing their homes. Politicians who encouraged the Federal Reserve to endlessly print money or borrow severly from China and Russia deserve to have a crash happen on their watch. This is actual economic and social justice. Prolonging the necessary means that it will be worse later. Want a depression? Promote a new bailout package.

The market is making correction- as it should. Propping up prices means artificially making things appear to be worth more than they are. That's what Bush, Frank, et al want us to do. This is why I am so pleased that so many members of the House voted against the bailout. It's senseless. It does not have to happen. It is sane that it does not.

Excellent News!

I cannot believe it. The Bush Bailout plan is dead in the water, thanks to the House of Representatives! From CNN:

The measure needs 218 votes for passage, but it came up 13 votes short of that target, as the final vote was 228 to 205 against. About 60% of Democrats voted for the measure, but less than a third of Republicans backed it.

President Bush is "very disappointed" by the House vote, his spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Good. President Bush deserves to be disappointed. In fact, he deserves to be desperately distraut, and flat out depressed. Well, he'll have the rest of his lifetime for that, upon reflection on his legacy.

Let's give credit and thanks to 40% of the House Democrats, and about 2/3 of the House Republicans for killing this. I liked Mike Pence's reasons. I don't care about the others' too much right now, although I probably will soon enough, when the next bailout is proposed.

Interesting to see a greater percentage of House Dems lining up with George W. Bush. I should like to see this allignment spun against their re-election efforts in the way their party leader Barrack Obama is assailing his opponent with the 'He voted with George Bush' lines in his ads. What's good for the goose, right?

Random Road Trip Pics

Here's the pride of Blue Earth, MN. Yes, it's the Jolly Green Giant- 55 feet of concrete. Kinda weird in that it isn't on the main highway or in the center of town. It was the pure dumb luck of the 'what the hell, go that way' road trip ethos.

Jolly!

Oh Shit! Steve 'cowers' under the Giant's shadow.

Pence Has It Right

(Fishers, IN)- Here's something positive to note, in the dim bleakness that is our political landscape, from an AP article:

Indiana Rep. Mike Pence said Sunday that he opposed the financial industry rescue plan that the House is expected to vote on today.

"We now have a deal that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?" the Columbus Republican wrote in a statement to his colleagues Sunday. "Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free-market economy."

It isn't just nationalization that is worrisome. It's that we can count on getting more of anything that is subsidized. We know that to be true by watching the subsidization of corn and ethanol. What are we subidizing with this bailout? Bad decision-making. If we prop it up, we tell lenders they don't have to be careful with extending credit. We tell borrowers they don't have to afford their mortgage payments. We tell all that someone else will deal with their messes. It's rotten policy.

So, freedom to fail is important. Bad decisions should fail. They shouldn't be rewarded.

Kudos and thanks to Mike Pence. Nice to see some rational thought eminating from our state every now and again.

Update: Doug Masson offers what he calls 'cynicism' in a comment, not believing that his stand is principled. I find this cynicism wholly reasonable, what with the general absense of principle in the Congress. Besides, news stories don't always pick up the whole thing, so I went to Pence's site for the whole statement. Here's what's pertinent for me:

Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it.

Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principles.

If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions.

Now I like Pence's statement even more. Sure, we'll never know what kind of horse trading takes place behind closed doors, but what the man put in black & white is exactly what I want to see and hear. Link to Pence's statement.

Democrats can oppose this bailout in accordance with their own stated principles as well. I'd really like to see it from one of Indiana's Congressional Democrats.

Old Rockin' Friends

(St. Louis, MO)- It was a great moment when Steve & I surprised our fellow ex-Clevelander friends Doug Enkler and Robert Griffin with our attendance, at a show in their hometown of St. Louis. Prisonshake played at a place called the Bluebird, in celebration of the release of their new double album, "Dirty Moons", that was some 15 years in the making. It was my guess that I hadn't seen either of them in at least that long.

Doug Enkler at center stage.

Robert Griffin playing the Les Paul. That was a new wrinkle. He played the same Stratocaster as he had in Cleveland all those years, but added the Les Paul for songs with a harder edge.

It was fascinating for me to hear Robert's guitar again. Although most of the songs were new to me, (They did play "Carthage Burns", and "It Seemed a Brilliant Idea") his intonation was distinctly his own. I really enjoyed hearing, and seeing, the guys once again.

Road Trip Denouement

(Omaha, NE)- As we wind down the trip and head towards home, we have an 'itinerary' light on stops, but big on miles. Stop 1: The Union Pacific RR Museum across the Missouri River in Council Bluffs, IA. Stop 2: The Bluebird in St. Louis, to see Prisonshake- a band led by two ex-Clevelanders, Robert Griffin and Doug Enkler. Griffin runs Scat Records, an outfit Steve worked for, and I 'interned' (volunteered?) for, back in the early 90s.

Yesterday's stops included a small town barber shop/western store north of Omaha, in a town called Tekamah, NE. Steve had wanted to stop at some 'Floyd The Barber' kinda shop, and we found it. The northern two-thirds of the building had recently sustained heavy fire damage, and was closed off. As we walked in, we could see the western store as being the larger part of the store, with the barber just in the frontage. The western store folks all got real attentive, but then relaxed with disappointment when they saw that we were just there for ear-lowering.

Steve sat down for the #1 clipper, and engaged in the kind of small talk that got it known that we were just passing through on a road trip. Talk then got to agriculture. "Are they harvesting up north yet?" We talked about soybeans, corn, the absence of anything of any other crop, and the harvesting we had seen. Five minutes, and the buzz-cutting was done, and everybody had the farm report.

We had tried to drive parallel to the Missouri River as much as we could, in Iowa and Nebraska, but found that there was very little access. Dug the signs that said, 'No trespassing. You will be shot". Unlike the Mississippi, which has rails and byways running alongside it, the Missouri only has occasional runs of a mile or so beside it. These are 'Minimum Maintenance Roads', per the signs. In plain English, some have some gravel. Many are just topsoil roads, which are very soft. Steve wasn't happy about driving my Toyota in such conditions, and when he asked if it had front wheel or rear wheel drive, we knew it was time to switch.

We ended up in Omaha, which is the biggest city we've been in on the trip thus far. The suburban setting feels out of place, but with the end near, and more than 450 miles to St. Louis, the backroad action is likely done- at least for today.

Road Trip

(Sioux Falls, SD)- I'm on the road with my buddy Steve Wainstead, doing a circle tour of Iowa. Yes, I know how that sounds, but Steve's a New Yorker, and farm country is a great foil for him, a great un-city, and I just like it anyhow. Ame told me, back in April, "Get in one last trip. There won't be one for a while". I love being urged to take a road trip by my wife!

Highlight so far- The drive north along the Mississippi River, beginning at the Quad Cities, at Rock Island, up to Winona, MN. Here are some pics from Rock Island:

Lock & Dam #15. There is a packet of barges in the lock, as the water fills to bring it up to level. Rock Island is wholly a military installation. You stop at the gate and show ID. We got there at 4:50, and the tourist items close at 5pm. The guard looked at Steve's ID, saw his real Polish last name, commented on it and told us that he was German. Steve told him that he is one-quarter German. The man's eyes lit up, he crouched towards the car and told us to go right through, but don't tell anyone he said we could!

There is a Confederate cemetery on Rock Island, with more than 2,000 graves, almost all of which were low-ranking men.

This one was most intriguing. "Freeman"? Does this indicate a former slave who fought on the side of the Confederacy?

Some Thoughts

(Sioux Falls, SD)- OK, here's something I hadn't shared, that sits deep at the core of my discontent: Ame & I are having baby, due in early November.

Preparing for this baby is obviously my Number One Priority. But, we still have lives, and still do things that make us, hopefully, rounded human beings. Talking politics had been one of those things.

As the due date nears, I continually experience a cognitive dissonance. And some guilt. As I posted day after day, I kept showing how this country is going downhill. Day after day, post after post, I could only find bad news. Truly, I don't go looking for it. I made a point to post good news where I could find it. Trouble was, good news just wasn't forthcoming. 

So, what on earth am I doing bringing another child into this world? Have I no sense of decency? How could I?

So, maybe not looking at it would help. Or, at least not talking about it, or blogging it. 

When we get right down to it, politics affects us very little in many meaningful ways. I've moved freely between Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota in the past three days. Nobody said, "Your papers, sir". I listened to music, read books, pumped gas at $3.25 (yep, it's cheap in Iowa and SD).

Sure, the economics is where I am most affected, and it's why I rail on about it most. But even there, I take home a better percentage in 2008 than I did in 2002 or 1995. Well leaving Ohio helped a lot on that count. This bailout situation is at least making people look at economics for once. Too bad it takes a disaster, but better than not at all. We'll note that my having talked about economics for five years really hadn't helped make anyone aware of any looming problems.

So-we don't know whether the baby will be a girl or a boy. I like to tease Ame, saying that the day of birth isn't exciting enough- we need a surprise to liven the occasion. On that day, I will forget everything political, and all will be right with the world. I've just had a hard struggle as we've approached that day, because I just want to do right.

I'm a Cool, Damp Clay

Because I believe in markets, it's impossible to ignore the pointlessness of carrying on with the ol' Kole Hard Facts. My message is freedom, and nobody's buying. What's worse is that the viewer doesn't even have to buy. And yet, 30 hits a day? Forget it.

It's been extremely discouraging to watch 2008 sink into the political abyss. One of my most recent posts captured it all, via a Reason column, pointing out that freedom was no part of the major party conventions. Only more and more government. And the people? They love it. They lap it up. 

Well, that is, when they even bother with policy. I found it hellish enough when it was all about the horse race. Now it's worse.  We have this tiresome game of 'gotcha', where a gaffe, or even a non-gaffe, or something someone associated with a candidate did is exploded and extrapolated into having the finger on the nuclear arsenal's button and dying to fire. Even my two favorite Hoosier non-libertarian blogs, Advance Indiana and Masson's Blog, have not spared us the dregs of the rancid vat of partisan slime. Both have become unreadable to me, and are indicative of most political blogs out there, whether statewide or nationally. Sadly enough, their hits have soared as the stench has wafted higher. So, I just find it pointless to continue in this climate.

The market has spoken. Mainly, there is no market for the Kole Hard Facts. Thank goodness there is a market for an effective right-of-way agent. 

See you near the equipment cabinets, or at the rink.

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Campaign Money Trail

(Carmel, IN)- Scanning the readers while in a waiting room, I found a blog post that helps me understand half of why John McCain (Maverick-AZ) and Barack Obama (Change-IL) are devoid of outrage and otherwise silent about the absurd bailout of the irresponsible lenders.

As always, follow the money. From OpenSecrets.org:

Both companies have poured money into lobbying and campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties and committees as a general tactic, but they've also directed those contributions strategically. In the 2006 election cycle, Fannie Mae was giving 53 percent of its total $1.3 million in contributions to Republicans, who controlled Congress at that time. This cycle, with Democrats in control, they've reversed course, giving the party 56 percent of their total $1.1 million in contributions. Similarly, Freddie Mac has given 53 percent of its $555,700 in contributions to Democrats this cycle, compared to the 44 percent it gave during 2006.

Well, Democrats took over the Congress after the 2006 elections. This all makes sense to the a) cynic, and/or b) astute observer. Here's the surprise:

1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499

I truly expected John McCain to be here with Obama.

Now, before anyone gets excited and wishes to point to this as some example of me finding fault with Obama and not McCain, let me offer a sharp skewer for the alleged maverick.

If it isn't the lobbying money that keeps you silent on the absurdity of this, what possible explanation can there be? Come on! You don't really have to be all that wise in the ways of economics to know this is stupid and damaging to the economy besides!

I get why Obama, the guy currently running ads about how McCain is tied to lobbyists, is silent on this. So, why is Bob Barr the only candidate issuing statements and condemnations? Anyone?

Link to Barr's recent statement.

I Am Channelled

I don't know how Steve Chapman got inside my brain and wrote the words that were in my mind, but he's pulled it off. Here is my November of Discontent:

This year's Republican National Convention had a different theme for each day. Monday was "Serving a Cause Greater than Self." Tuesday was "Service," Wednesday was "Reform," and Thursday was "Peace."

So what was missing? Only what used to be held up as the central ideal of the party. The heirs of Goldwater couldn't spare a day for freedom.

Neither could the Democrats. Their daily topics this year were "One Nation," "Renewing America's Promise," and "Securing America's Future." The party proclaimed "an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights." Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much.

It's an excellent opinion. Read the whole thing here.

The Right Thing To Cut

In a time when budgets are tight, cuts must be made. You hear that a lot, but I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter whether the budget is tight or not. Some things just shouldn't be purchased, no matter how flush you are with cash, because they aren't proper for you to buy.

I don't buy Russian language books. Even though I have a friend who is from Russia and could read them, I leave it to her to buy the Russian language books for herself.

So, I am thrilled that Indianapolis' mayor is putting the city's arts budget on the chopping block. From the Indy Star:

Mayor Greg Ballard's plan to cut public funding for the arts by a third, to $1 million, next year dominated the discussion by about 25 speakers in front of a crowd of roughly 100. The council is scheduled to vote on the budget Sept. 22 and is not expected to make major changes.

It's a shame the cut is only going to be around 33%, and not 100%. Socialized art is not a proper function of government. Public safety is. Courts are. Infrastructure is. These things should be fully funded before anything else is even considered. It seems this Mayor gets it, at least by a third, that public safety affects everyone, and that the arts are a private concern, because not only do they not affect everyone, but art is so specific to taste, that it really only benefits a few.

Is that what we want? Public policy that benefits the select few?

What was interesting about a previous outcry about the proposed cuts was to see the line of representatives of local museums at the podium. That told me a lot about the nature of the funding. Mainly, it isn't going to starving artists. It's going to well-funded institutions as a corporate welfare.

Is that what we want? Public policy that benefits corporations?

No, cutting the arts is the right thing to do. Our federal government could take note here.

Update: Indiana Barrister has the list of recipients of arts funding largesse.

Consolidation of Executive Power

(Fishers, IN)- I was thinking about the Bush presidency, and the correct complaints coming from the Bush critics, that the Executive Branch was acquiring too much power. They were also complaining that Bush is just, well, stupid.

So, Should Barack Obama could win the presidency for the Democrats, can I have my 'audacity of hope' that perhaps the Democrats will scale back Executive power, or, is it more a case of 'our team knows best what to do with wrong-headed power- especially since this is a 'smarter' man?

Penn Gillette's recent CNN.com column, while very funny, addresses the concerns of widespread Executive power, and a 'smarter' President on the way.

The idea, especially from the Democrats that I know, is, we just get a smarter guy in the White House, and all the problems will go away. We'll have smart speeches, smart high gas prices, smart bad economy, smart war on terrorism, smart war on drugs, smart hurricanes, smart global warming, smart war in Georgia -- smart, smart, smart.

Barack Obama is way smarter than Bush -- so way, way smarter than me. Obama is way more charismatic than me. He did his big speech for about 80,000 people; I'll do my show tonight in Vegas for about 1,000 people. He's more ambitious than I; he's going to be the next president of the United States, and I couldn't even get to week three of "Dancing with the Stars."

Link to full article.

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

(Broadview Heights, OH)- Bob Barr is an inch from being kicked off the Pennsylvania ballot. Why? He did the same thing Obama and McCain did in Texas- file post-deadline, because his party's convention nominated him post-deadline. Shane Cory of the Barr Campaign comments:

It's been clear that if you are running for office as a Republican or a Democrat, you are somehow above the law.

If you are a Libertarian or independent, you not only have to abide by the letter of the law but you have to be prepared when the law is twisted and turned to be used against you. (emphasis supplied, -ed)

Didn't McCain just encourage people to run for office? Isn't Obama's campaign about inclusion

How about both of them step up to the plate and show that their words have some meaning. McCain can be the maverick he purports to be. Obama can be the agent of change he purports to be. Playing the game of duopoly collusion is pure status quo.

But, ok ok. If the law is the law, very well. If the law is the law, then Obama and McCain are off the Texas ballot, because like Barr in PA, those two failed to file on time. Same law, same failure to comply. Same results? Here's some interesting stuff from a New York Times blog:

I am confident that the two parties will find a way around this problem, and that Texans will be able to vote for either major candidate. The polls show Senator McCain well ahead in Texas.

That's the typical commentary for this. McCain and Obama will 'find a way around this problem'. Barr will not.

Why should they get around it? Didn't Republicans and Democrats write election laws in this country? And, in Texas? Shouldn't they, as exemplars of fairness, abide by their own stinking laws?

I don't know how anybody supporting McCain or Obama, who has INTEGRITY, can know that their candidate's campaigns will do anything they can with regards to the law, to make sure it doesn't apply to them, but does apply to everyone else. How can you simply gloss over it, if you have any idealism, and consistency, any integrity, AT ALL, about you?

Or, is winning the only thing. The means be damned, the end is all that matters.

If that's what it's about, be scared if your side loses, because you can expect the victor to run roughshod over you when it becomes expedient to do so.

Oh, Smaller Government?

(Broadview Hts, OH)- As I listened to the Palin speech, and the Giuliani speech last night, the biggest thing that caught my attention were statements that this Republican ticket would result in smaller government, lower spending, and lower taxes.

Now, why should that be believed?

Sure, the Democratic ticket is going to increase spending, increase the size of government, and raise taxes. But, is that any reason to believe that Republicans won't do the same? It is what was done under the Bush Administration. While in the Senate, John McCain was writing legislation like McCain-Feingold, not legislation that would eliminate a bureaucracy or department, not legislation that would cap spending, not legislation that would significantly cut taxes.

It galls me endlessly that Republicans campaign like fiscal libertarians, and then govern like pale Democrats- except in the last eight years, where Republicans made Democrats look like a collection of Friedmans and von Miseses. Last night's speeches did nothing to reverse this. 

So, Sarah Palin's a bulldog. That's nice. Dennis Kucinich is a bulldog, and gives one hell of a speech. So what? It's about policy, and I just couldn't find it convincing.

Libertarians On Palin

(Fishers, IN)- Now, for the libertarian take on Sarah Palin. My own is that this was a cynical ploy by McCain, simply selecting due to identity politics. I don't care about identity. I care about policy. So, from that standpoint, it's unlikely to be a great pick, and that says something to me about McCain and his 'leadership' and executive methodology.

From Cato-At-Liberty:

Comparing her experience to Biden borders on ridiculous. Since when do libertarians find encouragement in government, much less someone who has spent 36 years in Washington funding programs like Amtrak and prosecuting the drug war? Link.

And, in another post:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has a mixed record on taxes and spending. She’s clearly erred on a few fiscal decisions during her tenure as mayor of Wasilla and as governor. Palin seems to operate from a small government mindset, which makes her few heresies on economic issues puzzling.

Palin has come under fire for supporting the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Ketchikan before she was against it. Aides said the cost of the bridge soared from $223 million to almost $400 million, prompting her to consider alternatives. Link.

From Radley Balko:

By far the best thing Palin’s done thus far is get the usual suspects to don the others’ clothes. That is, the left’s screaming “affirmative action!” while the right’s screaming “sexism!” And both are doing it with a straight face. Makes it fun to be a libertarian.

and

Yes, Palin’s political resume is thin. That’s a plus in my book. “Experience” tends to mean “knows the ways of Washington,” which generally means more of the same old crap. If David Broder has praised you in one of his columns, you’re probably part of the problem. Frankly, I wish Obama had picked someone less “experienced” than Joe Biden, a guy that embodies everything loathesome about Washington. I also like that Palin’s not a career politician, and doesn’t genuflect before powerful interests. On the other hand, it doesn’t bode well that she has a history of also applying that same kick-ass-and-take-names style of governance to, for example, trying to ban books from the public library that she finds offensive.

From Reason's Matt Welch:

Sarah Palin is many interesting things, but she is decidedly not anyone who has done a single thing in her life indicating preparation to lead any kind of "transcendent" foreign policy challenge. In an election that will be fought over the issue of war, where McCain has noisily accused Barack Obama of putting politics before country on the issue of most import, it is McCain who is guilty of just that charge with the selection of perhaps the least-qualified candidate for vice-commander in chief in modern U.S. history. Choosing Palin makes for potentially great politics, but it makes a mockery of McCain's claim to be the national security adult in this race, especially considering that if he's elected, he'll be the oldest first-term president in American history.

Would John McCain, a genuine American hero, place his own political ambitions ahead of the good of the country? Indeed he has, at least according to an authority as knowledgeable on the subject as John McCain. In all five of his books he repeatedly warns us of precisely that tendency. "The worst decisions I have made, not just in politics but over the course of my entire life," he writes in Hard Call, "have been those I made to seek an advantage primarily or solely for myself."

There was initial excitement for some libertarians (not me), as Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA, but the more we learn, the more we find that she's a Republican, and not a Libertarian, for meaningful reasons. The commitment to smaller government only goes so far.

Extend the Evacuation

(Broadview Heights, OH)- Since the disaster of Hurricane Katrina some three years ago, the failures have been pinned squarely on government, generally upon two targets: FEMA, and the President. The has always struck me as odd, since New Orleans has a municipal government, and Louisiana a state government, and somehow they went relatively blameless. The argument usually goes that a disaster on that scale requires federal response. OK, so, should the National Guard have been sent to contain New Orleans' looters? Or, should the fleeing New Orleans police have borne some responsibility?

But, I digress into particulars.

In very few quarters were calls for personal responsibility tolerated. The poor people of New Orleans were just innocents facing the wrath of Mother Nature.

I once always thought that people should be permitted to live anywhere they want. If they choose to live below sea level, they can accept the responsibility of their choice.

No more. Americans have spoken. They do not believe in self-responsibility. They do not believe that they should accept the consequences of their choices.

Very well. If I, as a resident of Indiana, have to constantly see my tax dollars going towards the rebuilding of infrastructure for people who make incredibly dumb choices, such as living in an area that's going to be pounded by hurricanes every three years or so, as Gustave now illustrates, it's time to become practical and to adjust.

It's time for the federal government to ban all occupancy below sea level.

It just doesn't make any sense to be an idealist on the issue any longer. I'm all for liberty in tandem with self-responsibility. But liberty in tandem with collectivism is dangerous. We all have to pay for bad choices? What kind of stupidity is that? No, let's reduce the stupidity. Let's extend the evacuation of New Orleans through forever. No more living below sea level, or in flood plains- unless and until those who live in such places bear 100% full responsibility for such a choice.

Quick Thoughts on the Palin Pick

(Broadview Heights, OH)- The first thing I thought was, "Oh, come on. Michael Palin is British". But, I could get behind a Python for elected office. At the very least, he would be funny, and the satire of what a governing Python finds would be every bit as enlightening as it would be made hilarious.

This pick isn't funny. It's cynical. I know- all is fair in love, war, and politics, and this is a strategic pick just as sure as picking Biden was strategic in shoring up Obama's foreign policy shortcomings. But picking a candidate just because she's female and attractive? That's an abandoning of policy and worse- for some, it makes the election to come to this: Shall I vote based on the color of one candidate's skin, or, upon the gender of another?

Is that progress? No more than a sharp stick in the eye promotes long-range vision.

I observed quick hits on Palin's lack of experience. Well, nothing really prepares one for being President. CEO of a multinational corporation comes closest, for my money. But McCain, Obama, and Biden all have 100% less experience as an executive- because they have none. Palin does at least have executive branch experience, even if it can be counted the way an infant's life span is counted- in months.

I'll have a Libertarian round-up on Palin, just as I had for Biden.