Michigan FairTax?

From the Gazette:

Group wants tax issue on 2008 ballot

LANSING -- Businesses in Michigan would pay no taxes and individuals would pay only property taxes and a higher sales tax under a proposal that could be on the November 2008 ballot.

Roger Buchholtz, director of the Michigan FairTax Association, said Friday during a taping of public television's ``Off the Record'' program that legislation is being drafted now that could put the matter before voters next year.

Two-thirds of the House and the Senate would have to approve the proposed constitutional amendment for it to go on the ballot. If the measure fails to pass the Legislature, the group plans to collect hundreds of thousands of voter signatures to place it on the ballot.

Buchholtz, a Kalamazoo businessman, said the change would boost Michigan's business climate by eliminating any tax on business, which he argues actually is paid by consumers. The plan would raise the same amount as current taxes raise for general and school aid funds -- around $20 billion annually.

Low-income residents would get monthly checks to shield them from paying much of the higher sales tax, which Buchholtz said would be roughly 2.5 cents more on the dollar than the current 6 cents.

More information available here.

Avijit Ghosh

Avihit Ghosh is the third candidate for President of Western to visit campus. From the Gazette:

On diversity and Michigan's ban on some forms of affirmative action: "Diversity is very important because one of the reasons we invite students in here to get an education is to become productive citizens, and learning about the views of the various cross-sections of society learning to appreciate those views is an integral aspect of the education we want to provide here. ... As far as Proposition 2 is concerned, I think a lot of the things we want to achieve can be achieved, whether there is a Proposition 2 or not. We need to a very actively try to tell our story to all the different groups of people, attract them to this institution and then provide them with a high-quality education.''

The Herald also reports on his visit.

Avijit Ghosh Profile
Curriculum Vita

Investigative Report: Scholarships Fall Short
Broken promises: Too many "jarheads" at Univ. of Illinois MBA program

Nice Work If You Can Get It

$136,800.

That's the the average total compensation of full professors at WMU.

Faculty salaries are a major reason for the high and increasing cost of college tuition.

Nice work if you can get it.

English for Dummies

The Herald recently ran a particularly absurd editorial on bilingual education. It might be the worst editorial yet under the current opinion editor, and that's saying a lot.

The editorial opens by attacking former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for stating a position that most Americans agree with, opposition to bilingual education and foreign language ballots.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently equated bilingual education with "the language of living in a ghetto" and mocked requirements that ballots be printed in multiple languages.

He believes that "we should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto."

With millions of Spanish-speaking individuals living in America and migrating here daily, and with the recent controversy over this migration, it is certainly not illogical to deduce that he is referring to Spanish.

Note how illegal immigration, which is a crime, is characterized as "migration". Foreign language ballots should be unnecessary, since all legal immigrants are required to be proficient in English. In addition to increasing costs, they also greatly increase the possibility of errors, since few people can read them.

Bilingual education is actually conducted in dozens of languages. Spanish is certainly one of them, but far from the only one.

Gingrich, along with his xenophobic counterparts, seems to believe that Spanish is somehow inferior to English, much like how Hitler believed that the Jews were inferior to the Aryans. However, there is certainly no evidence to suggest this nor would there ever be a way to prove the supposed "superiority" of a language.

What would a nutty editorial be without an illogical Nazi analogy. There is no "evidence to suggest" that Newt believes any such thing. Nobody has said that English is "superior", much less that it is "pure".

Certainly English itself is not a "pure" language. Originally, English was a diverse group of dialects representing varied origins of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of what is now known as England. It was influenced in the eighth and ninth centuries by a wave of Scandinavian settlers and again by the Normans, who spoke a variation of French, in the 11th century, finally becoming what we know as "modern" English with the great vowel shift of the 15th century. English, as we know it today, is a hodgepodge of words and roots from other languages.

To restrict the teaching of one language based on English's own purity or superiority is an act that rings of hypocrisy as well as both historical and modern ignorance.

Once again, the editorial attacks a point that no one made. Including a random accusation of hypocrisy is a nice touch.

For Gingrich to claim that Spanish is "the language of the ghetto," shows his supreme ignorance of reality. As of 1999, Spanish had more native speakers than English by almost 10 million people.

The only way that this could possibly be true is considering the entire world. But Newt isn't addressing policy for the entire world, he's addressing policy for America. In America, most people speak English. People who can't speak English in America are unable to interact with most Americans. In this case, they are essentially consigned to a "ghetto" of those with whom they can communicate.

The problem isn't that people can speak Spanish, it's that they can't speak English. If you want to succeed in Mexico, you need to speak Spanish; if you want to succeed in America, you need to speak English.

While it is true that many Spanish-speaking immigrants are clamoring to come into America, educating them in their own language certainly is no crime. It certainly seems unfair to require a newly arrived individual to learn the language in a single day and then be thrust into a classroom in which the only language spoken seems utterly alien. Even for Americans striving to learn Spanish or other languages, the classes are initially taught in English, to make learning easier for us.

Once again, legal immigrants are required to be proficient in English.

Teaching a student in his or her native language while they attempt to learn English only serves to make the education system stronger. It provides for the needs of students who would otherwise fall behind and would, as Gingrich believes, be destined to live in the ghetto. However, unlike Gingrich seems to believe, this inequality stems not from true inequality, but from unequal opportunities.

The editorial provides no evidence to support bilingual education, and no such evidence exists. Since California banned bilingual education in 1996, education has improved. A majority of Hispanic parents favored this proposal. The best way to learn a language is by immersion.

As Thomas Sowell documents in Inside American Education, minorities have often been put in bilingual education programs that were not even in their native languages. This includes black Americans whose native language is English.

The Herald editorial page has no use for evidence, reason, and truth.

Not So Bad After All

Back during the campaign season, the opponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative leveled every attack they could think of against the proposal. It was compared to hurricane Katrina, said to repeal civil rights, and bring back the Jim Crow South.

They weren't telling the truth.

The Herald has an article on the less than dire consequences of the MCRI.

"The projections are that Western won't get hit hard, if at all, because Western doesn't have a lot of programs that will be affected," Lipson said.

What about other universities?

Because of U of M's high competition for enrollment, it is likely that their numbers of minorities will drop, Lipson said. After Proposition 209 passed in California, minority enrollment dropped at some of its most elite universities, such as the University of California, University of California, Berkeley and University of California, Los Angeles.

Lipson said that drops in minority numbers at these elite universities actually caused an increase in minority numbers at less prestigious universities, such as the University of California, Riverside; the University of California, Irvine or the University of California, Santa Barbara.

"The two super elite ones, that highly ranked saw huge reductions in African American numbers, but the other ones have seen a substantial increase," he said.

Lipson said a similar phenomenon might happen in Michigan universities, a process called cascading.

"The other institutions, such as Western, Eastern [and] Wayne State may have more students of color," Lipson said.

Cascading is a good thing. Because minorities will be judged on merit, not race, they will be matched with universities where they have the best chance of success. This means that minority graduation rates will increase across the board. Take it to the bank. That's exactly what happened in California after they banned racial preferences.

Will liberals be glad that minority graduation rates increase, or upset that U of M is less "diverse"?

A number of plans have been proposed to "deal with" the MCRI. Greater minority recruitment is a good thing as long as everyone is judged by the same standards, as the MCRI requires.

Other plans would simply hide racial preferences behind other variables like location and generation of college attendance. Such standards ignore the fact that college admissions should seek to find the most qualified students. They would only misserve those who "benefit" from them by gaining admission to institutions above their qualifications.

The MCRI will benefit minorities as long as liberals don't succeed in subverting it.

John Dunn

John Dunn, candidate for President of Western, visited WMU on Monday. The Gazette reports on his visit.

On diversity: "At SIU Carbondale, we have increased our (number of) students of color, specifically in the African-American community. ... We're doing well and we're working harder with the Hispanic community to make sure those opportunities are also there and conveyed appropriately to the respective communities. One of the things that is critical is, obviously, to recruit students, you need to have faculty, administrators and others that represent the diversity that we're trying to achieve.''

From the Herald:

Dunn also spoke about the importance of diversity, especially since Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 in November. He said he has been able to increase the number of African-Americans at SIU.

"I'm being more aware of Proposal 2 and trying to understand that," he said. The most important place to start, Dunn said, is with faculty."

You have to have faculty that represent the diversity you're trying to achieve," he said. "We became less of a screening community and more of a search community."

...

One audience question asked about extending benefits to same-sex partners.

"I know this is always a sensitive community conversation and discussion," Dunn said. At SIU, he was able to extend those benefits and set up a GLBT center.

"That goes to the fundamental question, 'are we inclusive?'" he said.

Interim Chancellor John M. Dunn
Biography
Curriculum Vitae

Very small tip of the hat to John Dunn
Pro Bono

Why Character Counts

In 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for President he was stung by allegations of infidelity. In response, his defenders made the argument that "character doesn't count".

His presidency showed just how wrong this was.

Around the time of Clinton's impeachment, some of his defenders argued that it didn't matter what he did on the side, because what was most important was having the most effective person in charge.

The problem with this argument is that if someone doesn't have character, how can you count on that person acting in your interest rather than his own?

Different people enter into politics for different reasons. Some sincerely want to do good. Others are only interested in promoting themselves.

Of course, people who want to do good can nonetheless do great harm. And self-interested people may do the right thing for the wrong reason. But people who enter politics only for themselves usually end up doing harm.

Sincere activists are willing to work with others. They readily advance the fortunes of others who share their values, since this aids the causes that they care about.

Self-interested politicians seek more power for themselves. They manipulate people to their own advantage. They seek to damage rivals for positions of power. They pursue a "rule or ruin" strategy to destroy organizations that they cannot control. This hurts whatever causes they claim to care about.

Such people use underhanded tactics and dirty tricks to get ahead. The influential book The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek contains a chapter entitled Why the Worst Get on Top. Hayek explains that bad people get ahead in politics by using tactics that good people shun. Good people often get fed up and leave politics because of such behavior.

How can we tell the sincere from the self-interested? A good indicator is their personal behavior. Those who are sincerely interested in helping people should act this out in their personal lives. Those who are only interested in themselves should exhibit this in their personal lives as well. Those who exhibit immoral and self-destructive behavior in their personal lives can be expected to do the same in politics.

Interestingly, the sincere seem to be much more likely to be religious than the self-interested. This shouldn't be surprising, since those who believe that they will be held accountable for their actions are much more likely to behave honorably in both politics and life.

People who wish to do good in politics would do well to beware of political climbers and resist their efforts to do harm.

The Victory of Reason

Anyone who wants to understand the development of Western Civilization should read The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Rodney Stark. Anyone who doesn't needs to read it.

Someone who examines the state of the world can hardly help but be struck by the huge differences between the West and the Third World. Prosperity abounds in the West, while poverty dominates the Third World.

What accounts for these differences? Some claim that they result from exploitation and theft. But poverty was once universal, so this cannot be right. Stark's book provides the correct answer.

Many have noted that capitalism produces prosperity. But why did it only take off in the West? Capitalism requires freedom from government restriction. It also requires scientific and technological advancements and a culture that values work. How is it that the necessary freedom, science, and culture only came to being in the West?

Stark shows that the answer is Christianity. Far from the modern canard that Christianity is an enemy of science, Christianity created science. While the Greeks made advancements in logic and mathematics, science did not exist in their society.

Science is based on the assumption that the world is ordered. That is, there are fixed rules that explain the natural world. Further, it is possible to discover them through experimentation. Though such a belief may seem obvious today, it is not inherently so. Stark shows that it follows directly from the Christian belief in a rational creator who established fixed, discoverable rules. This contrasts sharply with pagan mysticism, Eastern logical contradictions, and the Islamic belief that fixed rules bind God.

Another important Christian belief is the possibility and desirability of progress. Stark shatters the myth of the "Dark Ages" as a time of ignorance and backwardness brought on by Christianity. While the Roman Empire had some impressive achievements, it was built on slave labor and oppressive government. Its "decline and fall" likely improved the living conditions of average people. The Middle Ages were a time of great progress in technology, science, and the arts.

Stark also chronicles how Christianity led to the creation of freedom. Far from notions of a "universal desire for freedom", most non-western societies didn't even have a word for freedom. Christian theology provided a basis for the concept of freedom.

Slavery was mostly abolished in Europe in the Middle Ages because of Christianity. It reappeared much later in European colonies in the new world. Once again, Christians were the driving force to eliminate it.

Christianity also provided a basis for limiting government power. Non-western societies have certainly had plenty of innovative, productive people. But capitalism never took off in them because government would always intervene to put an end to economic success that threatened its political power. Only in the West was freedom maintained for long enough to allow the rise of capitalism.

It was nonetheless a great battle. Stark chronicles the rise of capitalism in Italian city-states in the Middle Ages. From there it spread to Flanders, the Netherlands, and England. It died out in Italy and Flanders, while surviving to the present day in England. Even in Europe, repressive governments in Spain and France prevented the rise of capitalism until modern times.

Stark shows that while the Spanish Empire was politically powerful, it was never economically successful. Spain remained poor throughout. It imperiled freedom in England and the Netherlands. The defeat of the Spanish Armada derived in part from superior English technology created by capitalism. The relative lack of success of former Spanish colonies in Latin America may stem from Spain's example.

The Victory of Reason resembles Thomas Woods' How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization in both its subject and thesis. Its specific content is mostly distinct, so readers can profit from both books. The Victory of Reason should inspire a renewed defence of Western Civilization.

POLITICAL UPDATE--Health Care

This update focuses on health care. Government regulations continue to damage health care. The Walter Reed scandal illustrates the folly of socialized medicine. Problems with American health care are the fault of regulation, not freedom.

John Stossel shows that government regulations cost lives.
Ann Coulter shows how civil service regulations hurt America.
Terry Jeffery shows socialism caused the Walter Reed scandal.
Phyllis Schlafly exposes Merck's HPV vaccine mandate.
John Stossel explains what's wrong with Arnold's insurance plan.
Walter Williams shows that socialism produces waiting lists.
Jane Orient explains what's wrong with government health care.

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

Understanding Economics: Trade

One of the most fundamental and contentious economic issues is trade.

The fundamentals of trade are simple enough. Because people value things differently, two people can both benefit by trading what they have.

A modern economy depends on trade. People who can only live on what they produce themselves are condemned to abject poverty. A modern economy requires specialization, which means that people produce more of something than they need themselves and trade for what they don't have.

The use of money greatly facilitates this process.

All else being equal, restrictions on trade can only serve to restrict economic activity and make society poorer. Barriers to trade are often justified in the name of protecting businesses and jobs. While such restrictions serve the interests of a few, they make society as a whole worse off.

The fallacy of protectionism can be seen by taking it to a logical extreme. If restricting trade in and out of a country is good, shouldn't the same be true of trade in and out of a state? Why not "protect" businesses and jobs from competition from other states? Why not do the same with counties? Why not restrict trade between individuals? Because trade makes both parties better off.

The above discussion comes with the essential qualifier all else being equal. However, all else is not always equal. The above paragraphs explain the economics of trade. But trade also has political consequences, and they are not so straightforward.

One problem is that another country may suddenly cut off some or all trade. All else being equal, this would not be in its economic interest. However, it could be in its political interest. Another country may cut off some essential material during a war. This may sway the outcome of the war and allow the imposition of terms that create financial gain through government power rather than trade. The use or threat of trade sanctions may extract political concessions from a nation. This can benefit a government, whether or not it benefits a nation as a whole.

Trade sanctions aren't much of a threat when the good being traded isn't essential to a nation's economy. In time, a nation can respond to sanctions by developing its own industries. But intermittent sanctions may prevent this from happening, and during a war there may not be enough time. Some goods are essential. Thus restricting trade of such goods can make sense because of the political risks of trade.

Obviously, this argument can be abused to justify sanctions on goods that are not essential. But that doesn't mean that it never applies. One recent example is that during the war with Iraq, America ran low on a particular type of missile. Part of this missile was made in Switzerland, which opposed the war and threatened not to sell it to us.

Sanctions naturally threaten smaller nations more than America, since they have smaller, less diverse economies.

Another political problem with trade affects countries that have abundant natural resources. Some observers have noticed that countries in which oil makes up a substantial portion of the economy almost always have oppressive governments. (The only exception is Norway, which was already prosperous before oil became a substantial part of its economy.)

Most governments that want to spend a lot of money have to allow some economic freedom. Then their countries will be more prosperous and they will have a larger economic output to tax. But selling oil allows some governments to have large revenues without allowing more freedom. They could not take advantage of this wealth themselves without more advanced economies. But such economies in other countries make this possible. In this case, trade can actually make some people less free.

Another problem is the effect of trade on national sovereignty. Trade can better be conducted when government protects against theft and fraud. Different governments have different regulations and tax codes. When nations trade freely, multinational corporations develop. They constitute a powerful lobby for harmonization of such regulations and taxes. But this can only be enforced by a higher level of government. Thus free trade creates pressure for supranational government.

This may not be inevitable, but it is a real concern. A basic principle of government is that the larger and more distant it is, the less responsive and more oppressive it is. Creating supranational government creates a greater likelihood of oppressive taxes and regulations. Thus free trade may have a net result of less freedom. This is why Karl Marx advocated free trade--to tear down the barriers between nations.

The United States Constitution enforced a policy of free trade between the states. This helped to bind the states into one nation. This was likely beneficial, given the Constitution's strict limits on government power. But such limits are hardly an inevitable part of government.

Another problem is not with the principle of free trade, but its practice. The principal means of advocating free trade is through so-called "free trade agreements" between governments. While such agreements are sold as free trade, they actually contain thousands of pages of regulations of trade. They can better be described as government-managed trade.

This is true of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which created supranational courts to enforce it. It is true of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which is full of such regulations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a supranational government organization that has the power to strike down American laws.

The European Union was originally sold as a "free trade agreement", the European Coal and Steel Community. Over time, it was transformed into the European Economic Community and European Union. The EU was regularly justified with appeals to "free trade", but the real goal was always regional government. This story is told in The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

Not all of the political consequences of trade are bad. Trade can make war less likely due to economic and cultural ties between nations. It can also pressure countries with more restrictive economic policies to loosen them to compete.

Trade has both economic and political consequences. Analyzing trade proposals requires discretion. They should not be thoughtlessly supported or opposed.

Budget Crisis? Or spending crisis...

From the Detroit News:

An iPod for every kid? Are they !#$!ing idiots?

We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.

No cost estimate was attached to their hare-brained idea to "invest" in education. Details, we are promised, will follow.

The Democrats, led by their increasingly erratic speaker Andy Dillon of Redford Township, also pledge $100 million to make better downtowns.

Their plan goes beyond cluelessness. Democrats are either entirely indifferent to the idea that extreme hard times demand extreme belt tightening, or they are bone stupid. We lean toward the latter.

We say that because the House plan also keeps alive, again without specifics, the promise of tax hikes.

The range of options, according to Rep. Steve Tobocman, D-Detroit, includes raising the income tax, levying a 6 percent tax on some services, and taxing junk food and soda.

We wonder how financially strained Michigan residents will feel about paying higher taxes to buy someone else's kid an iPod.

That they would include such frivolity in a crisis budget plan indicates how tough it will be to bring real spending reform to Michigan.

Senate Republicans issued a plan a week ago that eliminates the deficit with hard spending cuts. Now their leader, Mike Bishop of Rochester Hills, is sounding wobbly, suggesting he might compromise on a tax hike.

We hope Bishop is reading the polls that say three-quarters of Michigan residents oppose higher taxes.

There are few things in the House budget outline from which to forge a compromise.

For example, Dillon says he would shift the burden of business taxes to companies that operate in Michigan, but don't have a facility here. The certain outcome of that plan is to drive even more businesses out of Michigan.

About all we see of merit is a call for government consolidation and a demand that state employees contribute more to their retirement benefits -- which is no more than House Democrats suggested for future state lawmakers a few weeks ago.

We find it ironic that the Democrats are proposing floating $5 billion in revenue bonds to pay for retiree health care, when Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed a nearly identical plan by Oakland County because it would cost the state money.

Instead of advocating cost-saving changes in public school teacher pension and health plans, Dillon suggests more study. There have been plenty of studies of the issue, with the conclusion being that hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved through reforms. Michigan needs action, not more study committees.

Dillon also proposes that the state cover 50 percent of the cost of catastrophic health insurance for everyone in the place, but once again doesn't specify a funding source.

Stop the stupidity. Michigan can't tax or spend its way out of this economic catastrophe.

The only responsible option is to bring spending in line with current revenues. The mission must be to expand the tax base, rather than to expand taxes, by crafting a budget that encourages growth.

We won't get there by wasting money on early Christmas presents for Michigan kids.

More reaction at the National Taxpayers Union. Those "two pennies" keep adding up...

In the name of Equality

After a long legal battle, Michigan high schools are being forced to change the seasons of girls' sports. Until now, many boys' and girls' sports were played in different semesters. The feminist group Communities for Equity sued, claiming that girls were hurt by this arrangement.

Carter-appointed federal judge Richard Enslen claimed the practice "violated the state constitution, the state's civil rights law, the 14th Amendment and Title IX". The Supreme Court eventually declined to hear the case.

The actual girls who play sports are less than thrilled. A poll some time back showed that a large majority of them oppose the changes.

Facilities and coaching are limited. Scheduling boys and girls during the same semester means that they will both have less time to practice and play. Parents, children, and fans will all encounter less ideal game times. Finding officials will be harder, so schools will have to pay more. Thus taxpayers will be hurt as well.

So basically, everyone will be worse off. But at least they'll be equal, right?

Ideology or Pathology?

The news from Europe regularly presents a disturbing picture of how liberalism affects society. One such story comes from Great Britain. It seems that some schools have dropped teaching about the Holocaust. The reason is a desire to avoid "offending" Muslims.

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government-backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

...

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

Liberals are notably less sympathetic to the concerns of Christians. It seems that liberals are always hysterical about the looming Christian theocracy. Michelle Malkin points out that several schools have had drills that portray Christians as terrorists.

Why the double standard?

John Folkins

UPDATE: The Gazette also covers his presentation.

The first of four candidates for President of Western visited campus Monday. John Folkins is the CEO at the Bowling Green State University Research Institute. From the Herald:

Folkins discussed diversity on campus and the issues of racism and sexism.

"It's not who you are; it's not the color of your skin; it's not your religion; but that adds to the debate."

Huh?

Finally, Folkins said that while the university must comply with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, diversity can still be promoted on campus.

"We need to understand what the dynamics are that went into that decision, and how to move forward," he said. The university must recruit and connect with the right people. All students must have a good experience, Folkins said, because WMU students are the best ambassadors to recruit other students.

Redistribution is not the answer

I just submitted this as a letter to the editor at the Herald:


I have complaints with the 4/3/07 article entitled "Upward mobility halted by social inequality." The assumption made is that the presence of someone with more wealth somehow prevents an individual from gaining wealth themselves. This is based primarily on the "fixed pie" fallacy; the myth that there is a limited amount of wealth and that in this zero-sum game if one has more it is at the expense of all others. This is incorrect. Wealth creation is not zero-sum.

Consider this analogy: my neighbor buys a brand new car. Her car is really nice, far better than mine. Does her having a nicer car than mine prevent me from buying a nice car too? Does it make my car any worse than it currently is? Does the existence of someone having a nicer car affect my car at all? This analogy fits perfectly with the rationale in the article: the false idea that someone being better off makes you worse off.

When someone becomes wealthy, take Bill Gates for instance, their wealth is not taken from others, but rather created. Windows has revolutionized the business world, allowing people to become more productive, to have their lives enriched and simplified, and many other bonuses. People benefit by owning it, Gates benefits by selling it, and both parties are marginally better off than before. Wealth is created, not taken at another’s expense, as in the case of taxation. The article complains about how "we pay more to corporate executives then we do to those who work to better our communities." However, are these mutually exclusive? I’d like to think Bill Gates has done more to improve our lives, creating more jobs, more opportunity, and more economic growth than almost anyone alive. How is this not working to better our community?

It is also argued that wealth should be "distributed among every race and class." This does not consider the unintended consequences of wealth redistribution. Free economies consistently outperform those regulated by government: simply compare Hong Kong and Singapore with China over the past 25 years. This is because of the distortion of incentives and deadweight loss taxation and wealth redistribution put on an economy.

What we need to do is not focus on making sure everyone is equal, but making sure that everyone is free to succeed. Equality of opportunity should be the goal, not equality of result.

Right On

Republican Michigander nails the 2008 Presidential race.

The April Fools joke on us is the attempted coronation by the media and establishments types of our next president about 3 months away from the Iowa Straw Poll, and 10 months before the first primary and caucuses.

If you listen to "conventional wisdom", the establishment, and "big media," the choices are as follows. If you are a Republican, "Maverick" John McCain, "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney (more in Michigan) with occasional talk of Newt Gingrich (who hasn't declared). If you are a democrat, "The inevitable nominee" Hillary Clinton and "Rock star" Barack Obama, with occasional talk of John Edwards. As most know, I'm not sold on any of them. The other candidates supposedly "can't win." Ronald Reagan couldn't win either in 1980. For that matter, John Kerry was "the electable" candidate, as was Bob Dole for that matter.

...

All those names I mentioned are getting screwed in coverage, especially by Big Media. I don't happen to care for a lot of the candidates I just listed mentioned on both sides, but they are also running, and are on as many ballots currently as the favored candidates. They should receive the same coverage as the favored candidates. One of the lesser known candidates I do like was Duncan Hunter who just came to Michigan. Trade issues are major here and he addressed those issues. Where was this covered? Only on a couple of blogs. His visit did not even get a blurb in the Oakland County area papers. The Howell Schools controversies received more coverage in the Detroit area papers than a visit by a presidential candidate.

The good news on this is that we now have the internet and do not need our news filtered by "Big media" as much as it used to be. The rest of the world is starting to catch up with us gun owners when it comes to internet political sauvy. There is plenty of coverage of Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and others on the net. The bad news is that "conventional wisdom", the establishment, and big media is still a major driving force in the pre-primaries. The worst thing a candidate can be tagged with is "can't win.", even if there is nothing (outside current funding) that can be said why the candidate "can't win."

Exactly. I've said much the same myself. The recent rise of Fred Thompson shows that early polls can change drastically over the course of a campaign.

More Tax Increases?

Government always wants more.

Rigoberta Menchu

Rigoberta Menchu spoke at Western Friday as part of the "Great Lakes PeaceJam Youth Conference". Menchu's name may not be recognizable to many students today. But she was the center of a major controversy in the 1980's and '90s on college campuses and elsewhere.

Menchu grew up in Guatemala in the 1970's. She fled the country's ongoing civil war and in 1982 she published the book that catapulted her to fame, I, Rigoberta Menchu.

The book describes how Menchu's family experienced the oppression of the poor by the rich landowners, the brutal atrocities of the government, the nobility of the rebels fighting it, and the progressive attitudes and Marxist class consciousness of the poor.

There was only one problem. It was a complete fraud.

There was no Marxist war between rich and poor. The Guatemalan peasants were more concerned with family disputes. Menchu used socialist jargon and described progressive attitudes that simply didn't exist in that society. She also invented a number of atrocities. One brother who was supposedly brutally tortured and burned alive actually died much less dramatically. Another brother whose death Menchu describes is actually alive and well. The communist rebels are described as gently reeducating enemies rather than killing them.

It is undoubtedly true that Guatemala's government was corrupt and autocratic, like most governments, particularly those in the third world. About 180,000 people died in Guatemala's 36-year civil war. But the war wouldn't have happened at all if the communist rebels hadn't been trying to overthrow the government. The rebels were hardly interested in freedom. They were supported by Fidel Castro and extorted the poor of Guatemala. Had they succeeded, they would have imposed tyranny on Guatemala like that of every other communist country.

It should be unnecessary to point out that communism is bad. Really bad. Over the past century, communists murdered 150 million people.

Menchu's book was propaganda for communism. So how did liberals react? They made it a bestseller. It became a staple on college campuses. Reportedly, more than 15,000 theses have been written on it. What's more, they kept right on teaching it after it was exposed as a fraud. It was supposedly representative of the "larger truth", as opposed to the actual truth. They attacked the people who exposed Menchu and made excuses for her work.

In 1992, Menchu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This made as much sense as giving it to terrorist mastermind Yassar Arafat, who won it two years later.

Menchu was not for peace. She was for war. She supported the communist war to destroy freedom and impose tyranny on the world.

These facts raise many questions.

What does all of this say about "PeaceJam", the organization that brought her to speak at Western? What sort of "peace" are they promoting?

Menchu recently announced that she will be a candidate for President of Guatemala. Will she receive support from Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, who has supported many communist candidates across Latin America?

How did all of this happen? If liberals are patriotic Americans who love America too, how did Menchu become an icon? Why wasn't she destroyed when her fraud was exposed?

How will liberals who hear this information for the first time react? Will they condemn Menchu--or those who expose her?

--------------

News coverage in the Gazette.

Articles:
David Horowitz: I, Rigoberta Menchu, Liar
Dinesh D'Souza: Fraudulent Storyteller Still Praised

POLITICAL UPDATE--Conservatism

This update focuses on conservatism. The 2008 Presidential race is well underway. Conservatives debate what candidate to support. Conservatives need to promote conservative culture and policies, not just focus on elections.

Dan Flynn says conservatives should ask who should win.
Ken Connor says that conservatives should produce candidates.
Tom VanDyke lists what conservatives got right over fifty years.
Phyllis Schlafly lists what questions to ask 2008 candidates.
Paul Weyrich says conservatives must unite around a candidate.
Donald Devine examines the state of the conservative movement.

"You see, winning in November with a big-government, pro-choice, open-borders Republican isn't really winning. It's losing. Sure, the Democrats will have lost. But the raison d'etre of the conservative movement isn't to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans. It's to make conservative ideas governing ideas."
-Dan Flynn

America First Day

It seems like so long ago.

What does 'X' stand for?

Previous: Happy America First Day!

Presidential Candidates to Visit Western

...candidates for President of Western, that is.

The Presidential Search Committee has announced four finalists. They are all scheduled to visit Western in April.

--------------------

WMU names four finalists for presidency

One sitting university leader, one interim university leader, a business college dean and the head of a university research institute are finalists for Western Michigan University's presidency.

The four candidates, all men from Midwestern universities, will be on campus over the next two weeks.

First up is John William Folkins, chief executive officer of the Bowling Green State University Research Institute in Ohio.

Folkins holds degrees, including a doctorate, from speech departments at more than one university.

There will be a public forum with Folkins from 5:15 to 6:30 p.m. Monday in the Bernhard Center ballroom on main campus.

He's expected to be in Kalamazoo Sunday through Tuesday, meeting with various groups on campus.

The other finalists are:

John Dunn, interim chancellor at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Bruce Shepard, chancellor, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

Avijit Ghosh, dean, College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Among the qualities WMU is looking for in a leader is one who can refocus the university's sense of mission, build undergraduate, graduate and international student enrollment, and increase state financial support of the institution.

--------------------

Four WMU president finalists

John Dunn

Job and institution: Interim chancellor, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Age: 62.

Education: Bachelor's degree and master's degree in physical education, Northern Illinois University, 1967 and 1969, respectively; doctorate in physical education, Brigham Young University, 1972; post-doctoral work at Temple University, summer 1973.

Career: Physical-education professor at Oregon State University; assistant dean of research and graduate studies for Oregon State's College of Health and Human Performance; assistant provost at Oregon State; dean of University of Utah's College of Health; provost and vice chancellor at Southern Illinois since 2002.

Visit to WMU: April 8-10.

John Folkins

Job and institution: Chief executive officer, Bowling Green State University Research Institute.

Age: 59.

Education: Bachelor's degree and master's degree in speech, University of Redlands, 1970 and 1971, respectively; doctorate in speech and hearing sciences, University of Washington, 1976; post-doctoral research, Department of Orthodontics and Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington.

Career: Chairman of speech pathology department at University of Iowa; Iowa's associate provost for academic review and academic support services; Iowa's associate provost for undergraduate education; provost at Bowling Green from 2000-07; started as Bowling Green CEO in January.

Visit to WMU: Sunday-Tuesday; public forum is 5:15-6:30 p.m. Monday in the Western's Bernhard Center ballroom.

Avijit Ghosh

Job and institution: Dean, College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Age: 56.

Education: Bachelor's degree in chemistry, University of Calcutta, 1970; graduate program in management and marketing, Xavier University in India, 1972-75; master's degree and doctorate in geography, University of Iowa, 1977 and 1979, respectively.

Career: Market research analyst for Clarion McCain Advertising Services; project director for Food Market Institute at Xavier Institute; assistant professor of marketing at University of Iowa; marketing professor at New York University; Illinois business dean since 2001.

Visit to WMU: April 12-14.

Bruce Shepard

Job and institution:

Chancellor, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.

Age: N/A.

Education: Bachelor's degree, master's degree and doctorate in political science from University of California Riverside, 1969, 1970 and 1972, respectively.

Career: Assistant and then associate professor of political science, Oregon State University; special assistant to the provost, Oregon State; provost, Eastern Oregon University; chancellor at University of Wisconsin-Green Bay since 2001.

Visit to WMU: April 10-12.

--------------------

Kalamazoo County Treasurer Sharon Cubitt has retired abruptly due to the pending changes in retirement formulas.

Spot the error in this article.

A Casualty of Government

Diane Rehm, the NPR host originally scheduled to speak the same day as John Ashcroft, has postponed her speech for the second time.

Her absence is due to an unusual injury.

In traveling to Oklahoma City for a speech, Rehm put saline solution for eye contacts into a 3-ounce bottle, and put her perfume into another identical 3-ounce bottle. Rehm confused the two bottles, and soaked her contacts in her perfume. Once she put her perfume-coated contacts on, it is estimated that 90 percent of her eyes were burned, according Sommerfeldt. In the eye-healing process, she came down with pneumonia.

Ouch.

So basically what happened here is that a government regulation meant to protect us ended up hurting someone. Such unintended consequences should be considered when government programs are proposed.

Duncan Hunter Event

Presidential Candidate
DUNCAN HUNTER
is coming to Troy!

WHEN: Friday, March 30th, 7:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
WHERE: Troy Community Center, 3179 Livernois Rd.
(North of Big Beaver, Room #402 – enter through North doors)

Rep. Hunter is a Vietnam Veteran and bronze star recipient, serving in the U.S. House since 1980. He’s currently the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee and served as Chairman for the past four years.

Rep. Hunter’s support of pro-life and traditional marriage, fair trade, strict border enforcement and a strong national defense, will be real factors in our presidential primary.

Bring your questions and arrive early as seating is limited for this fun and informative evening with a great American and presidential candidate! Find out more at: www.GoHunter08.com.

“Meet a candidate you can say you agree with”

STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE

ENFORCEABLE BORDERS

A TWO WAY STREET ON TRADE

WSA Passes Alternatives Resolution

Last Wednesday, by a vote of 37-9-1, the Western Student Association passed the following resolution.

-----------------

WHEREAS, the WSA is the voice of the student body, and

WHEREAS, the WSA and the entire university community is committed to ideals such as free speech, including fostering a open campus debate on public issues including health and wellness concerns, and

WHEREAS, according to the Michigan Department of Community Health there were 42,804 live births to mothers aged 15-24 in Michigan in 2005 which accounted for 33.5% of all live births, and

WHEREAS, according to the American Social Health Association, about half of all new STIs in 2000 occurred among youth ages 15 to 24. The total estimated costs of these nine million new cases of these STIs was $6.5 billion, with HIV and HPV accounting for 90% of the total costs, and

WHEREAS, Alternatives Women’s Care Center provides free pregnancy testing and free HIV screenings, and other reproductive health services including maternity and baby clothing, Lamaze training, parenting classes, and counseling, and

WHEREAS, Alternatives Women’s Care Center’s request to be discussed as a health care option to Sindecuse patients has been denied including advertising, and

WHEREAS, One of Sindecuse Health Center’s patient rights is “to be given a comprehensive explanation of the need for, and alternatives to, being referred or transferred to another health care facility if it is medically appropriate,” and

WHEREAS, One of Western Michigan University’s institutional goals is “to foster a safe, civil, and healthy University community,”

RESOLVED, that the WSA Senate requests Sindecuse Health Center allow the same basic advertising rights to any organization that provides legitimate and safe health services, and

RESOLVED, that the WSA Executive Branch further research means for the Alternatives Women’s Care Center to be advertised in Sindecuse Health Center in the manner of other health services, and to encourage all involved university officials to take the necessary actions to allow the advertising.

POLITICAL UPDATE--Government

This update focuses on government. Government takes our freedom. Spending and debt are out of control, and cannot be sustained. The government devalues our money by printing more of it.

Ron Paul explains that the national debt is fifty trillion dollars.
Walter Williams explains what's wrong with democracy.
Jeremy Lott writes that government takes our freedom.
Mike Franc writes that spending is out of control.
Carrie Lukas shows that Social Security spends too much.
Ron Paul explains the problem with political power.
J. H. Huebert explains what's wrong with NASA.
Ron Paul explains what's wrong with the dollar.
Donald Devine explains the need for limited government.
Chris Martenson shows that the government is bankrupt.
Jerome Corsi documents the decline of the dollar.
Ron Paul writes that Congress makes foreign policy.
Richard Allen explains Reagan's foreign policy.

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

In the Herald

Assorted leftists protest Ashcroft.

An unintentionally hilarious column. Some people just don't get a joke. Interestingly, it contradicts the claims of other liberals:

For instance, when the group of people protesting had stood up and turned their backs to him after he began speaking and began filing out of the auditorium, Mr. Ashcroft kept speaking as if nothing was happening. Even when one of the people wearing the orange jumpsuits stood at attention and gave the fascist salute Mr. Ashcroft kept his cool and compared the person in orange and the rest of the protesters to people with mental handicaps and as children who didn't have proper bladder control.

An editorial on the Patriot Act.

A liberal column on global warming. What was most despicable about the column was the smearing of global warming skeptics as akin to Holocaust deniers. The claim is absurd on its face, as the Holocaust is historical fact, while the supposed disastrous effects of global warming would occur in the future. Beyond this, this claim trivializes the Holocaust. It is another example of how liberals try to silence debate. It should be denounced by all people of good will.

Two bus routes will be cut. Where is all the money from the bus tax increase that was passed last November? The mention of apartment complexes paying for bus service is intriguing. Given the poor quality of bus service, why not just privatize the entire system? Let the free market decide where bus service is really necessary.

Making mathematics history. Sounds like a good way to spend a Saturday.

Oops!

Kalamazoo County lost six million dollars in an accounting bungle.

Remember this the next time they try to raise taxes.

A Congressman for DC?

Mac Johnson in Human Events pulls no punches on the idea of giving the District of Columbia a vote in Congress:

----------------

The District of Columbia was created specifically so that the federal government could sit on a tiny patch of neutral territory -- a territory without a delegation in Congress that might attempt to use its special position as the seat of the government to win an unfair advantage in Congress. During the drafting of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers had to face the issue of where to locate the capital of the newly formed United States. It was obvious to all that whatever city became the capital would enjoy a huge new influence over the politics of the nation and could use that influence to enrich itself with the dutiful help of its home state’s representatives in Congress. Because of this danger, and after a few nasty incidents of locals trying to bully the Congress in its temporary home in Philadelphia, it was decided that no state should hold the capital of all the United States.

The solution was the District of Columbia, a tiny parcel of land given to the new nation by Maryland and Virginia (Virginia’s portion was not used and was later reclaimed) that would serve as neutral ground, and would be run directly by Congress so as to avoid undue influence of the Congress by local government officials. It was the Founders’ intention to create a district without its own selfish voice in Congress -- a non-state, without a state’s rights to elect congressmen and senators. H.R. 328 seeks to undo this clever compromise and turn the nation’s common capital into a partisan mini-state less than 1/20th the size of Rhode Island.

The second problem with the D.C. power grab is that, since it was the intention of the Founders to create a voteless non-state to host the capital, the Constitution clearly prohibits giving D.C. any vote in Congress. The district is defined as a possession of Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says the Congress shall have power:

“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States,”

The district is thus entitled to none of the rights of a state -- for example, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution does not apply to the district. (Of course, the individuals living in the district are entitled to all the individual rights of any American, just as an American living in other non-state territories such as Samoa or Guam would be, but the district cannot claim the rights of a state any more than Guam can.)

This means the federal district must not have a representative in either house of Congress, since the Constitution says that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state,” (Article 1, section 3) and that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature” (Article 1, section 2).

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The environmentalists don't want you to see this.

Evaluating the Candidates

The 2008 Presidential race is already well underway. With all the claims and counterclaims, endorsements and shifting positions, how can you know who to support?

Here are a few principles to help aid your decision.

Don't base your vote on a few well-turned phrases. Most candidates can give speeches that appeal to their audiences. Research their statements to see if they have been consistent over time.

More important than what they say is what they do. Research their voting records. Legislators have long records, most of which they won't publicize. Beyond just how they vote, look at what legislation they have advocated, and what they have actively opposed. The links below should be very helpful in analyzing candidates' records.

Don't pay too much attention to endorsements from politicians and party officials. Their endorsements tend to reflect their own situations, rather than who is really the best candidate. Candidates raise money and campaign for other politicians so that they can get their endorsements. Politicians can suffer repercussions in their own elections, fundraising, and political efforts if they endorse the "wrong" person.

Instead, examine the endorsements made by issue groups. Groups that advocate a particular agenda can best determine who would best aid that agenda.

Look at the down sides of potential candidates as well. Some negatives are widely known, but many others are not. Before the end of the campaign, the opposition is likely to publicize such things.

"Electability" is an important concern, but it is difficult to evaluate. Polls conducted before a race has been run are certainly not a reliable measure of it.

Taking this advice to heart will lead to a more informed decision.

Voting Records:
American Conservative Union
American Conservative Union-Presidential
On The Issues
National Right to Life Committee
Gun Owners of America-Senate
Gun Owners of America-House
Gun Owners of America-Presidential
Americans for Better Immigration
Americans for Better Immigration-Presidential
Eagle Forum
Club for Growth
Club for Growth-Presidential (At Right)
National Taxpayers Union
Americans for Tax Reform
Americans for Tax Reform-Presidential
Cato Institute-Governors

Politically Incorrect Quotes

Vin Suprynowicz:
"Liberals" don’t realize they’re dangerous statist zombies whose minds have been imprinted with socialist sound bites, of course, any more than fish realize they’re wet. They just think they’re normal, average, middle-of-the-road folks, and that anyone who disagrees with "what all reasonable people know" is some escaped lunatic who was probably raised in a cellar by those troglodytes in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Ann Coulter:
And yet despite the vast privilege, untold wealth and bright shiny whiteness of the defendants, they are still under criminal indictment in this case. Three of the players face up to 30 years in prison for a crime every sane person knows they did not commit. Ah, the life of the privileged!

Pat Buchanan:
Meyerson is particularly upset that Pope John Paul’s “Orthodox International” – Israeli rabbis, Christian and Islamic clergy – came forward to “bury ancient enmities and to jointly condemn a gay pride festival” in Jerusalem. Yet one need not be a raging homophobe to think it probably not a good idea – in the middle of a Muslim intifada that may lead to a war of civilizations between Islam and the West – not to have 100,000 Sodomites cavorting in the Holy City.

Thomas Sowell:
Activists are creating displays in which a small American flag is planted for every death in Iraq. For some of these activists, it may be the first time they have ever touched an American flag, unless they were burning it.

Which one is most "offensive"?

POLITICAL UPDATE--Education

This update focuses on education. Government wastes money and fails to educate students. Liberals promotes bad ideas and indoctrination. More freedom would mean better education.

Pat Buchanan argues that government education is a failure.
Bob Unruh shows Germany enforces a Nazi ban on homeschooling.
Phyllis Schlafly explains the danger of "mental health screening".
Dan Lips explains what's wrong with federal education spending.
Phyllis Schlafly reports a new plan to centralize education.
Ann Coulter explains the truth about the Duke non-rape case.
Vin Suprynowicz explains the real history of government schools.
Elizabeth Kantor explains how English professors distort literature.

Learn more about education issues in Education Reporter.

Media on Ashcroft

The media has coverage of John Ashcroft's speech. Here are articles from the Western Herald and the Kalamazoo Gazette.

WKZO radio reported that the crowd in attendance was 900 people, which seems like a relatively accurate estimate. The number reported in the Herald was a misprint.

John Ashcroft

John Ashcroft

Today

7 PM

Miller Auditorium

Be There!

Understanding Economics: Competition

One of the essential features of a free-market economy is the existence of competition. The concept of competition necessarily goes together with the concept of choice.

The freedom to choose amongst whatever options exist for a given good or service is part of economic freedom. Competition means that everyone is equally free to produce some good or service.

When there is more than one producer, consumers can choose between more than one option. Sometimes different choices are preferred by different people, so people's desires are better satisfied by having more options. Other times, one product is clearly preferable to another for most consumers. In any case, more options mean equal or better satisfaction of customers' needs.

What incentives does competition create? Producers cannot depend on the business of those who seek the product they produce. If they wish to survive, they must continually strive to produce a product or service that many or all consumers find to be the best value. Thus the products available must continually improve. The improvement can be higher quality, more or better features, lower price, or some combination of the three.

This is exactly what has happened in real life. An amazing array of products have been created by businesses and entrepreneurs seeking profits. While they benefit by making profits, these profits are temporary, since someone else can always make a better product. But the consumers always win, since they keep getting better and better choices.

The opposite of competition is monopoly. This term is used to mean two very different things. One is simply that in a free market there happens to be only one provider of a given product or service. Others are equally free to enter the market if they so choose.

There is nothing terrible about this kind of monopoly. Any time some new product is invented, its inventor has a monopoly. Such monopolies do not usually last very long, as others will typically enter the market to seek the profits that are temporarily going to only one producer.

In rare cases, one company will be the only producer for some time. Even then, competition still exists because there is the potential for others to enter the market. This producer cannot afford to fail to serve the consumer, for then others will intervene and provide a better product.

Companies are often said to "control" a certain share of the market, when in reality whatever percentage of business comes their way is the result of free choices of consumers.

The other type of monopoly is a legal prohibition on competition. This type of monopoly can only be enforced by government through the threat of violence. Some businesses are all too happy to lobby government for restriction of their competition. Without the possibility of competition, they can charge higher prices and make larger profits over long periods. They don't need to innovate and serve their consumers to survive.

The US Postal Service is a legal monopoly, though it manages to be unprofitable due to unions and government subsidies.

Restrictions on competition are not usually quite so obvious. Government-enforced cartels restrict entry into a field with more than one producer. Private efforts to limit competition by having all producers charge the same price are certainly possible. But they usually fail since someone cheats. It takes government enforcement of such deals to make them effective.

Sometimes such schemes are sold as "stabilizing" prices, as if that's a good thing. Other times, they occur in the form of government "licencing". This is presented as protecting consumers, when often it simply restricts their choices. Government controls the licencing, so it can disallow certain competitors and allow other politically favored ones.

Producer competition and consumer choice are an essential part of the free market that greatly benefits society. They must be protected from government restrictions.

POLITICAL UPDATE--The Culture War

This update focuses on the culture war. Culture is the unconscious habits of society. One aspect of culture is how much people reproduce. Reproduction rates determine whether societies will survive.

The culture war is a liberal attempt to subvert traditional Western culture. Judges impose liberalism by fiat.

Joseph D'Agostino explains that abortion means fewer girls.
Mac Johnson says that Christians need to reproduce.
Joseph D'Agostino shows Europe is not reproducing.
Janice Crouse explains why abortion has declined.
John West explains the cultural impact of Darwinism.
Janice Crouse explains the need to win the culture war.
Mac Johnson asks whether the West has lost its will to survive.

Phyllis Schlafly shows that judges impose liberalism.
Thomas Sowell writes that judges engage in social engineering.
Jan LaRue criticizes Sandra O'Connor's thinking.
Phyllis Schlafly says judges affect education, sports, and property.

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

Another Tax Increase?

Unbelievable. Government never consumes enough. From the Gazette:

KRESA asks voters to pass $30M bond

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Gazette Staff Reports

Kalamazoo County voters will be asked in May to approve a $30 million bond for a new school for the Kalamazoo Regional Educational Service Agency.

The proposal calls for construction of a replacement for Croyden Avenue School on property already owned by KRESA, the renovation of the current Croyden building to house early-childhood programs and the Young Adult program, and renovation of the main Service Center.

Voters will be asked to approve an increase of 0.39 mills for 12 years. A homeowner in Kalamazoo owning a home valued at $134,000 with a taxable value of $67,500 would see an increase of $27 annually on its property taxes, according to KRESA.

Increases in student enrollment at Croyden Avenue School and the Young Adult Program have created space issues at both sites, the agency said in a news release.

The Service Center is to be renovated to increase and improve facilities for countywide teacher training and technology services.

KRESA last proposed a 1.5-mill property-tax increase over three years in May 2005, which voters approved. The revenues of that millage were distributed among the agency's nine school districts based on enrollment.

WSJ on Granholm's tax hikes

From the Wall St Journal:

MoveOnOutofMichigan.org
High taxes lead businesses to flee the Wolverine State.

Comerica Inc. was founded in 1849 in Detroit and the Detroit Tigers play in Comerica Park, but this week the bank holding company announced it is moving its headquarters to Dallas--where, it said, the bigger growth opportunities are. Consider it one more vote of confidence in the state the national expansion forgot, and especially in Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm's economic agenda.

Re-elected last year, Ms. Granholm recently rewarded the voters by announcing some $1 billion in new fees and tax increases. The plan would charge Michigan residents higher levies for almost every activity inside the state with a moving part. She would tax trucking, shopping, smoking, hunting, fishing, drinking beer and liquor, using a cell phone and, yes, even dying.

Her plan does complete the phase-out of the state's hated "single business tax," which the Tax Foundation has called one of the most anti-growth business taxes in the nation. She should have stopped right there. Instead the Governor wants to create a new corporate income tax as well as a new 2% excise tax on upwards of 100 business services. The net effect would be to raise Michigan's overall business tax burden. She'd also impose a 5% death tax on estates valued at more than $2 million--which is a sure way to encourage even more Michigan retirees to relocate to Florida.

The Governor says all of this is essential to close an $860 million budget deficit, but the levies are part of what has become a vicious cycle for Michigan: Poor growth causes lower revenues, so raise taxes, which leads to even poorer growth, so raise taxes again. The state has lost some 362,000 jobs since 2000 and the jobless rate in December was 7.1%, second highest in the country after Katrina-ravaged Mississippi's 7.5%. The national rate is 4.6%.

A new analysis by economist David Littman of the Mackinac Center reveals that the per capita income in the state fell to its lowest level in 75 years in 2005, relative to the national average. (See the recent trend in the nearby chart.) All of this is in contrast to the growth Michigan experienced in the 1990s, under former Governor John Engler, who succeeded in cutting income-tax rates and the welfare rolls.

It's true that some of Michigan's current woes are due to the secular decline of the U.S. auto makers and their unionized lack of competitiveness. In essence, the U.S. auto industry has been gradually relocating to more hospitable, right-to-work states. But that's all the more reason for Michigan to improve the business climate for other industries, though this is exactly the opposite of what Ms. Granholm plans.

Meanwhile, her budget would increase spending by 2.2% and pay off the teachers unions that support her with a new $178 per pupil spending increase, most of which would be absorbed by the bureaucracy and never see a classroom. This continues the state's lack of spending restraint; between 1995 and 2007 Michigan spent an aggregate $14 billion above the rate of inflation and state population growth, according to a Mackinac study.

Public-employee unions are especially powerful in the state, and Ms. Granholm bows to their every wish. One result is that, according to the Governor's own Financial Advisory Panel, the state has amassed a $35 billion unfunded liability in its public-school health and retirement benefits. The state spends a whopping $1,200 per student per year on teacher and administrator benefits.

Republicans lost the state House last fall, but they still control the Senate and are vowing to fight the Governor's tax increases. We hope they succeed lest the state continue to lose taxpayers and business to more favorable climes.

State of Emergency

Few political activists have been following the issue of immigration longer than Pat Buchanan. None are more qualified to survey the scope of the problem. That's just what Buchanan does in State of Emergency.

Buchanan's latest book is packed with well-documented information. It alternately enrages, shocks, infuriates, surprises, depresses, enlightens, and inspires. No review can adequately inform the reader of all its contents. It should suffice to say that a reader who wishes to understand the immigration issue would do well to start by reading this book.

As much for motivation as information, here are some summarized selections from the book.

America faces an unprecedented illegal immigrant invasion. One twelfth of illegal immigrants are criminals (not including the obvious). The border is not secure. Illegals who are caught in America are usually released. Businesses that hire illegals are not prosecuted.

The brutal MS-13 gang has 100,000 members in America. Many cities are "sanctuary cities" that prevent enforcement of immigration laws. Many diseases are spreading in America due to illegal immigration. Americans will work any jobs for the right wages. Illegal immigration discourages modernization. Immigrants consume perhaps $400 billion in government benefits.

Immigration is leading to an increasingly divided society. There is a significant racial gap in educational performance. The success or failure of immigrants varies greatly by national origin. Los Angeles is increasingly divided between blacks and Hispanics. California epitomizes the future of America.

New immigrants consistently vote Democratic, with the rare exception being refugees from communist countries. Immigration reform proposals continue to succeed at the polls. More Hispanics voted for Arizona's Prop 200 (47%) than voted for President Bush in 2004.

Most elites oppose securing the border. Many are transnationalists who no longer want America to be independent. Radicals are seeking to overwhelm the America populace with immigrants.

The Southwest was briefly under the political control of Mexico. It was overwhelmed by American immigrants. Mexican schools teach that this land is rightfully theirs. Mexico has historical grudges against the United States.

The Mexican government and radical groups in America are promoting reconquista (reconquest) of the Southwest.

Liberals and neoconservatives have promoted a vision of America as based only on an idea. This vision of a "creedal nation" is not historically valid, as the nation preceded the creed.

People all over the world continue to identify based on nationality, not abstract ideas. Liberals proclaim that "diversity is our strength" and promote multiculturalism. Literally dozens of nations have experienced secession, civil war, ethnic strife, and political fighting based on nationality. Identity politics is on the rise in America.

Europe has similar immigration problems. Enoch Powell and Jean Raspail predicted these problems. France has faced rioting by immigrants. Spain and the Netherlands have experienced terrorism by immigrants. Reproduction rates all across Europe are well below replacement levels.

We are not a "nation of immigrants" except in the same sense as every other nation. Immigration to America has been intermittent and restricted based on national origin. In the past, Americans of all political stripes demanded that immigrants assimilate to America.

We need to secure the border, pause legal immigration, end government benefits for immigrants, end "birthright citizenship", end "chain migration", reject amnesty and guest worker programs, and use attrition to reduce the number of existing illegals.

Court Affirms Second Amendment

A panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the Washington DC gun ban. From SAF:

---------------------

D.C. APPEALS COURT RULING HOLDS SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS ‘INDIVIDUAL RIGHT’

For Immediate Release: 3/9/2007

BELLEVUE, WA – A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down the District’s 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is “a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The ruling holds that the District’s long-standing ban on carrying a pistol in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an amicus brief in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”

“This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shreds the so-called ‘collective right theory’ of gun control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen’s right to have a firearm for personal defense.”

Judge Silberman’s ruling notes that the Second Amendment “acknowledges…a right that pre-existed the Constitution like ‘the freedom of speech’.”

“Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,” Judge Silberman wrote, “the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Silberman’s ruling also observed, “The right of self-preservation…was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

“Judge Silberman’s ruling,” Gottlieb said, “reverses 31 years of unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in their own homes. This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump political correctness.”

What Environmentalists Want

When evaluating the demands of the environmentalist movement, it is essential to consider its ultimate goals. In this case, no inference is necessary. The leaders of the environmentalist movement have stated directly what they want.

-----------------

Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: "It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."

John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: "I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."

Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: "We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal."

David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."

David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: "It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."

John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: "Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!"

Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: "A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."

------------------

"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?" Maurice Strong, Chairman of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

"We reject the idea of private property." Peter Berle, President, National Audubon Society.

Free enterprise really means rich people getting richer.they have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…Capitalism is destroying the earth." Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Pet ownership is slavery. Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or be entertained by." Ingrid Newkirk, Founder of People for the ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA).

"The only really good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation levied by an elitist species upon the rest of the natural world." Friends of the Earth.

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing…This is not to say that the rise in human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that is will be much of a help to the world in the long run." Editorial in the ‘Economist.’

"If you give the idea a chance, you might agree that the extinction of homo sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions of other earth-dwelling species." Wild Earth Magazine

"Among environmentalists sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once again have a chance." Richard Conniff, Audubon Magazine

-------------------

Sources here and here.

Will any liberals either defend or repudiate these statements?

Inconvenient Truths About Global Warming

It turns out that Mars is also experiencing "global warming". The martian polar ice caps are melting. How will liberals blame this on humans?

Liberals have been claiming scientific "consensus" based on the number of scientists listed on the IPCC report. But not all of the scientists listed agree with the report's conclusions. French scientist Paul Reiter was listed even though he rejects its conclusions. This is not the first time that this has happened. How many other scientists haven't spoken out because they don't want to be smeared as "holocaust deniers"?

Ashcroft in the Herald

The Herald reports on our John Ashcroft event:

John Ashcroft, former United States attorney general and a proponent of the controversial U.S. Patriot Act, will give a speech on leadership and politics Tuesday, March 13.

The WMU College Republicans are hosting the event. The College Republicans hope to attract 2,000 people - the number of people who attended last year's Ann Coulter speech, according to Tom Barrett, chairman of the College Republicans.

"A lot of people demonize him, and it will be good to hear his point of view," Barrett, senior majoring in political science said.

POLITICAL UPDATE--North American Union

This update focuses on North American Union (NAU). More information continues to emerge about the NAU. A number of resolutions have been introduced in state legislatures opposing the NAU, and the Utah House passed one.

Phyllis Schlafly explains what's wrong with globalization.
Joseph Farah provides details about the Banff forum.
WorldNetDaily shows that regulations are being harmonized.
Jerome Corsi provides more evidence about the NAU.
Bob Unruh explains who supports the NAU.
Joseph Farah responds to Michael Medved's attacks.
Jerome Corsi provides evidence in response to Michael Medved.
Jerome Corsi interviews Robert Pastor on the NAU.
Jerome Corsi writes that the dollar is in trouble.

Eagle Forum provides more information on the NAU.