Stossel coverage

Greed is useful Journalist Stossel makes a correction to title of his local talk
Thursday, November 29, 2007

BY ALISON BLACK

Special to the Gazette

KALAMAZOO -- John Stossel, an Emmy-winning consumer reporter, author and co-anchor of the ABC News show ``20/20,'' is a staunch supporter of free-market capitalism. But he's no Gordon Gecko.

Stossel opened his lecture to a packed house at Western Michigan University's Laura V. Shaw Theatre Wednesday by asserting that it wasn't his decision to bill the show as: ``Freedom and Its Enemies: Why Greed Is Good.''

``Greed is good? Give me a break,'' Stossel said, eschewing the Adam-Smith-run-amok motto made famous by the cunning capitalist Gecko, played by Michael Douglas in 1987's ``Wall Street.''

``I think I'd prefer `useful.'''

For over an hour, Stossel discussed hot-button topics like the unintended negative side effects of the U.S. drug war, the ``spider web of freedom-killing rules'' added to federal code since President Clinton heralded an end to ``the Era of Big Government,'' and global-warming science.

``Frankly, if it were a little warmer in Michigan, it would not be a catastrophe,'' he joked.

He expressed doubt that cars or swimming pools would exist were they introduced today -- because of over-regulation they'd cease to be practical. And he took the news media to task for doing an inadequate job of reporting risks in proportion to the danger they actually present, using a slide presentation to illustrate how plane crashes and terrorism pose far lesser risks to American safety than automobiles.

``If we scare (Americans) about every ant,'' he asked, ``how can we get them to pay attention when the elephant comes around? We're live at the scene and we'll keep telling you about what we don't know for hours.''

Stossel answered questions from the audience after the lecture, and signed copies of his books.

``He was able to say things that we don't hear from the mainstream media,'' said Bill Smith, of Portage. ``He also backs things up with facts. It was nice to see that.''

Kara Fassbender, 15, came to receive extra credit for a 10th-grade economics class at Mattawan High School.

``I liked his ideas,'' Fassbender said. ``The government is a little too controlling right now.''

``To me, he was pretty truthful,'' added Fassbender's mother, Julie Fassbender.

Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards for investigative journalism and has been honored for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club. He has authored several books.

His lecture was sponsored by the Western Michigan University's College Republicans.

More Stossel coverage

From Mlive:

WMU College Republicans sponsor visit by Stossel
Tuesday, November 27, 2007

BY PAULA M. DAVIS

pdavis@kalamazoogazette.com

388-8583

KALAMAZOO -- Broadcast journalist and author John Stossel is scheduled to speak at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Western Michigan University's Shaw Theatre.

Stossel's presentation, free and open to the public, is being sponsored by the WMU College Republicans. The group says Stossel's topic is ``Freedom and its Enemies: Why Greed is Good.''

``He has a message that is very in line with our group's goals,'' said WMU College Republican Chairwoman Megan Buwalda, noting that she expects his message to be pro-capitalist and pro-business.

``We thought it was about time a speaker like that came to Western,'' she said.

Co-anchor of ABC TV's ``20/20,'' Stossel has won numerous Emmy awards and written several books.

Following his talk, he's expected to answer audience questions and be available for book signing.

Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity

ABC News reporter John Stossel's second book is entitled Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong. Stossel is a consumer reporter who for many years has appeared on the ABC News program 20/20.

All too often, self-described "consumer reporters" and "consumer activists" are actually anti-capitalism activists. They attack business as greedy and heartless, imperiling and cheating consumers and mistreating its own employees. They promote government regulations and socialism to protect consumers from this supposed threat.

Stossel began his career as a conventional consumer reporter, not consciously seeking to promote liberalism, but basing his work on liberal assumptions about how the world works. Over time, however, he began to question the effectiveness of government regulations. He realized that government is a far bigger threat to consumers than business is. Stossel became a libertarian who recognizes that the free market protects consumers. Now, he exposes the effects of these government programs in addition to the typical work of a consumer reporter.

Myths, Lies, and Stupidity appears to be an edited compilation of Stossel's 20/20 reports. in particular, the chapter on education bears close resemblances to Stossel's special Stupid in America. The book covers more than a hundred topics, some closely related. It is organized into chapters on media, men and women, business, government, schools, business scams, lawsuits, experts, belief, health, parenting, and happiness.

Many of the issues covered. Stossel is of course a reliable supporter of free markets. Some of the topics aren't really ideological, they are just myths that caught on through repetition. Others are scams promoted by con artists and small-time crooks. Then there are cultural issues, where the application of Stossel's libertarianism is less straightforward. On such issues, Stossel often takes conservative positions, but not always.

There a few problems with the book. Specifically, Stossel seems sympathetic to polygamy, claims that it is impossible for homosexuals to change their "orientation", argues that violent video games are not a problem, and criticizes spanking. His arguments and evidence seem weak in these cases.

Still, the book is almost always correct and well-argued. Stossel performs a valuable service by exposing how government harms people. Stossel is not mindlessly pro-business; he recognizes that businesses sometimes cheat people, but that this is rare. Businesses cheat people most effectively when they can use government regulations. Stossel's job as a consumer reporter is a free-market mechanism to protect consumers.

Conservatives should be grateful for John Stossel. Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity is a profitable read.

A Chair is Something You Sit On

From WMU News:

20/20's John Stossel will speak at WMU

Nov. 21, 2007

KALAMAZOO--National newscaster and author John Stossel will speak in Shaw Theatre on the campus of Western Michigan University Wednesday, Nov. 28, at 7 p.m.

Stossel's presentation, "Freedom and its Enemies: Why Greed is Good," is sponsored by the WMU College Republicans and is free and open to the public. Following the speech, there will be a question-and-answer session, and Stossel will be available for book signing.

Stossel is the host of ABC TV's "20/20," and his reporting is highly acclaimed, having won 19 Emmy Awards and the George Foster Peabody Award, and being honored five times by the National Press Club. His books have been New York Times bestsellers.

"We expect to welcome a large turnout to Mr. Stossel's speech," says Megan Buwalda, WMU College Republicans chair. "We hope the speech exposes students and the community to a diversity of viewpoint and encourages civil discussion and debate."

Stossel to speak Wednesday on capitalism

Freedom and its Enemies: Why Greed is Good," is the message that television anchor John Stossel will bring to Western Michigan University this week.

Stossel, a journalist, author and co-anchor of ABC's "20/20" news program will be at Shaw Theatre at 7 p.m. on Wednesday. His speech will be free and open to the public and will be followed by a question and answer session and book signing.

"[Stossel] pushes a message of freedom that in a free market and free society you can become anything you want and don't need government holding you up, and by doing that everyone else becomes better off," said Matt Moss, WMU College Republicans vice chair.

Full article from the Western Herald by Kamry Bowman available HERE

Survey seeks student opinion on living wage

The WMU Department of Student Affairs has created a survey online regarding the controversial topic of living wage on campus. WMUGOP Vice Chairman Matt Moss has been very active in voicing opposition to the living wage, from putting up an amendment in the student senate and attending a meeting of the Board of Trustees regarding the matter. I'm confident that Moss will be able to mobilize voters in the poll seeing as he is a Ron Paul supporter, and we all know how much Ron Paul people love online polls.

Questions being asked:

Do you feel that WMU should require its contractors to pay a “living wage” ($9.50 per hour with health insurance; $11.50 without health insurance)?

If WMU adopted a policy requiring its contractors to pay their non-WMU employees a living wage as defined above, should it be funded by surcharging WMU residence hall occupants $100 per academic year?


For more information or to vote in the poll (you must have valid BroncoNet ID to vote) click HERE

Second Amendment Showdown

"In almost 14 years as prosecutor and as head of the Homicide Unit of the Wayne County (Detroit) Prosecutor's Office, I never saw anyone charged with murder who had a license to legally carry a concealed weapon. Most people who want to possess guns are law-abiding and present no threat to others."

Michigan's Attorney General Mike Cox in the Wall Street Journal

Full article available online HERE

POLITICAL UPDATE--United Nations

This update focuses on the United Nations. The UN promotes world government and socialism. The World Court seeks to overrule our courts in the case of Medellin v. Texas. The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would impose global taxes and restrict America's navy, passed the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

Phyllis Schlafly: Supreme Court Case Proves "LOST" Must Sink
Andy McCarthy: Medellin (and Bush) v. Texas
John Cornyn: National Sovereignty: Protecting It
Jeffrey Gayner: LOST is a Loss for the United States
Gun Owners of America: Senate Considering Treaty That Could Affect Gun Rights
Nile Gardiner: Happy UNday?
Jed Babbin: Is America's Sovereignty Obsolete?
William Jasper: French Socialist to Head IMF
Jack Langer: UNTolerance

More information:
Get US Out of the UN
Eagle Forum: United Nations

Is Rudy Giuliani Electable?

For months now, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has led polls in the race for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Not a small number of those supporting him have expressed the sentiment that while he may not be the candidate who most closely shares their beliefs, he is the most electable Republican candidate.

Is this true?

The belief in Giuliani's electability stems from several factors. He generally leads nationwide polling for the Republican nomination. Some polls suggest that he does best against the likely democratic nominee. He was elected in liberal New York City. He holds many moderate or liberal positions that would supposedly attract voters that Republicans have not previously won.

Let's examine these factors. Whether Giuliani is actually most likely to get the nomination is questionable. Mitt Romney leads polls in key early states that affect perceptions in later states. Leading the race for a nomination implies a certain level of credibility, but it doesn't say much about electability. Bob Dole was always the frontrunner for the nomination in 1996, but that didn't make him the most electable candidate in the general election.

Early general election polls have been inconsistent. In any case, they cannot reliably predict the results of a campaign before it has been run. Such polls are mostly based on name recognition and superficial perceptions. During election campaigns, candidates debate issues, qualifications, and character. This debate is almost certain to change people's minds between the start and end of the race.

Giuliani was indeed elected in New York City, but under circumstances very different from the current campaign. New York was in dire straights, with crime and welfare spending out of control. Foreign policy and many social issues were not at issue. Today, crime and welfare are not major issues, and there are many different issues in play.

Finally, there are Giuliani's moderate or liberal positions on many issues. The media and some moderate Republicans have promoted the notion that these positions will help attract voters. But such positions will also repel some voters, who will vote for a third-party candidate or not vote at all.

The question that needs to be asked is what is the net effect. That is, will a given position attract more voters than it repels? Polls asking people's positions on the issue specifically are irrelevant, since the question is whether people will change their votes based on the issue.

Consider abortion. Studies have shown that significantly more people vote for a candidate because he is pro-life than because he is pro-abortion. Thus being pro-life is a significant net benefit to a candidate.

The same is true of gun rights. Far more people vote for a candidate because he is pro-gun than because he is anti-gun.

The same is true of marriage and "gay rights".

While there is less available evidence, there is good reason to believe that the same is true for immigration restriction.

Giuliani is on the wrong side of all these issues. Thus he would surrender the Republican Party's best issues, and the voters who can be won based on them. If these issues are off the table, the election will be fought more over education, health care, and social security, which are usually very strong issues for democrats.

Then there is the war in Iraq. Giuliani is strongly identified as a supporter of the war. This won't help him, and may hurt him so much that victory is impossible.

Another major factor in many elections is scandal. Nothing can sink a candidate faster than a scandal. Giuliani has significant problems on this front. His close associate Bernard Kerik, who Giuliani recommended to become Homeland Security Secretary, has been indicted on corruption charges and may be on trial for a good part of the election campaign. Giuliani also has a troubled personal life, including an affair and messy divorce while mayor of New York.

Giuliani does have some things in his favor. He did well as mayor of New York, and is charismatic and well-spoken. But there is no reason to think that he is more electable than the other Republican candidates, and good reason to think that he is less so.

None of this is intended as criticism of those who sincerely believe that Giuliani is the best choice to be the next President. It is intended to criticise the belief that Giuliani should be supported solely because he is the most electable candidate. Those who wish to cast their vote based on this criterion should at least avoid accepting the advice of the liberal media as to who is the most electable candidate.

Thanksgiving Reading

A few items to read on Thanksgiving:

John Stossel: The Tragedy of the Commons
Mike Franc: The Reality of Thanksgiving
James Fulford: The Thanksgiving Of A Grateful Nation—And The Ingratitude Of A Few

Others items of note:

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case on the Second Amendment. Republican Michigander shares thoughts. (Part I Part II)

The new book Blacklisted by History has been released. M. Stanton Evans Reveals the Truth About McCarthy

Ian Smith, former President of Rhodesia, has died. Ian Smith, RIP

A blast from the past: Pat Buchanan at WMU

Democrats versus illegal immigration? Immigrants Could Face Tighter Rules in Michigan

Understanding Government: Redistribution

The most common form of government spending is redistribution. Redistribution is taking money from some people and giving it to others.

The name redistribution is somewhat misleading. It implies that wealth was "distributed" in the first place, and that someone decided that some would have more than others. "Distribution" can also refer to a statistical distribution that describes what people have. The fact of a given statistical distribution does not imply how it came about.

CONSEQUENCES AND TYPES OF REDISTRIBUTION

What are the consequences of redistribution?

Redistribution necessarily means taking money from some people. This is accomplished through taxation, which is based on the threat of force, or violence. Redistribution makes these people poorer by the amount that is taken from them.

Beyond this, redistribution creates incentives that affect people's actions. Taxing the creation of wealth discourages the production of wealth. Thus redistribution makes those who pay for it poorer yet again. This makes the whole society poorer, since any innovation, investment, or production that is no longer profitable cannot provide new and cheaper goods to the public.

Redistribution also creates incentives for those who receive money. Unless money is given to everyone, there must be some standard to determine who receives money and who does not. Redistribution encourages people to act in such a way as to meet that standard, and discourages them from acting in such a way as to not meet that standard.

For example, redistribution is often supported to alleviate some hardship, such as poverty. However, giving people money on the condition that they be poor means that people will be encouraged to be poor and discouraged from ceasing to be poor. Thus redistribution intended to alleviate poverty will actually increase poverty.

When money is given to people in a certain country, it encourages people to move to that country. Thus redistribution encourages immigration, whether legal or illegal.

There are usually alternative ways of achieving a goal. Encouraging one of them will discourage the others. Giving out money will discourage other ways of making money. The way that most people increase their wealth is to get a job and work hard, get an education, get married, spend less, save more, and use their money wisely. Thus redistribution intended to alleviate poverty encourages unemployment, underemployment, laziness, ignorance, divorce, and foolish and wasteful spending, and discourages production, education, marriage, saving, frugality, and prudence. Thus redistribution encourages harmful behaviors and discourages beneficial behaviors.

The prospect that removing the consequences of bad behavior or lack of good behavior will encourage bad behavior and discourage bad behavior is known as moral hazard.

Another type of redistribution seeks to aid victims of calamities such as natural disasters or medical emergencies. These calamities themselves may be unavoidable, but that does not mean that people's preparation for or reaction to them is unchangeable. The management of risk can be accomplished in the free market through insurance. Purchasing insurance can best alleviate the harm caused in a catastrophe.

Further, insurance companies encourage behaviors that reduce risk. Government payments to victims of calamities encourage risky behaviors. For example, aid to people whose houses have been destroyed by hurricanes encourages people to live in areas more prone to hurricanes and makes such disasters more likely.

Another alternative means of dealing with hardship and calamity is charity. Thus people freely give to those in need. Aside from the fact that it is voluntary, the difference between charity and redistribution is that when people give their own money, they are better able to insure that it goes to those who are truly in need, and does not create moral hazard.

Redistribution discourages charity, both because people have less money to give and because people have less reason to give when they believe that the government is already addressing a problem. Thus more effective charity is displaced by less effective government aid, further harming the poor and needy.

While redistribution is often accomplished through a combination of taxation and spending, it can also be accomplished purely through the tax code. Thus some people can be charged more than the value of the services they receive, while others are charged less than the value of the services they receive. In America, so-called "progressive taxes" include the income tax and estate (death) tax.

DEMOCRACY AND REDISTRIBUTION

A simplistic analysis of redistribution in a democracy says that since there are more poor people than rich people, the poor will vote themselves government benefits at the expense of the rich. This is seen as good or bad depending on a person's politics. However, this analysis is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of democracy.

The fact that people have equal votes in a democracy does not mean that they have equal power. People's votes are based on information that comes from a small number of people. Accomplishing political goals requires organization, strategy, and hard work. The rich and the political class are disproportionately capable of these things, and so will have disproportionate political power.

If government is given a power, it may be used for other than its stated purpose. So it is with redistribution. If government has the power of redistribution, it cannot only take from the rich and give to the poor, but also take from the poor and give to the rich. Given the disproportionate political power of the rich, what reason do we have to think that this would not happen?

In fact, this is exactly what happens. Many programs redistribute from the relatively poor to the relatively rich. In America, these include corporate welfare, most government employment, Social Security, Medicare, college funding, art subsidies, farm subsidies, and foreign aid.

Similarly, many taxes are actually regressive, or fall more heavily on the disproportionately poor and less on the disproportionately rich. These include sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, income tax loopholes, monetary inflation, and cigarette taxes.

When there are many different redistribution programs, people are a part of many different groups, some of which are redistributed to, and some of which are redistributed from. Thus it is far from obvious whether someone actually gets more from redistribution than he pays in.

There are a few people such as government employees and those who live off welfare for whom we can say this. But this is not the same as saying that they benefit from redistribution. Redistribution is not a zero-sum game; it is actually a negative-sum game. This is due to the perverse incentives described above. Many of those who receive more than they pay could still do better in a system without redistribution. Thus very few people truly benefit from redistribution.

SUPPORT FOR REDISTRIBUTION

Redistribution programs are among the most popular government programs. They are also among the most destructive. What accounts for their popularity?

One reason is that people think they are getting more than they really are. Less visible methods of taxation tend to predominate, while more visible methods of spending tend to predominate. Thus the government can take money from someone, give some of it back to him, and make him think that he has come out ahead!

Another reason that redistribution is supported is egalitarian ideology. Many people want to help the poor and some also want to hurt the rich. But as shown above, redistribution hurts the poor rather than help them. And redistribution often goes to the rich, rather then from them.

Another powerful reason for the existence of redistribution programs is the desire of politicians to control people. Redistribution allows politicians to control people with their own money, because they can impose conditions that people must meet to receive money. Thus redistribution is a powerful tool of those who wish to impose their own agendas on society.

Many redistribution programs continue to exist even when few people support them. This is due the difference between concentrated and dispersed interests. When a small number of people benefit from a redistribution program, it is easier for them to organize support for it and more efficient to do so. In contrast, it is harder to organize opposition and more costly to do so.

DEBT AND BANKRUPTCY

The destructive consequences of redistribution described above take affect relatively quickly. But there another is another disastrous consequence that usually takes some time to appear.

Because of the dynamic of concentrated and dispersed interests described above, spending on redistribution programs will tend to increase and increase. People who forbear from receiving redistributed money must still pay the same amount in taxes. Thus they have an incentive to organize and create programs that redistribute money to them, or increase spending on such existing programs.

Politicians will tend to create entitlement programs, which promise guaranteed benefits far into the future. This will only accelerate out-of-control spending. The demand for spending on redistribution programs will outstrip people's ability to pay. Cutting spending will be politically dangerous, and directly raising taxes by the amount needed would be unpopular and unfeasible.

Most likely, they will borrow money. Redistribution practically guarantees that a huge government debt will be incurred. But government can only borrow money as long as people are willing to lend it. When the supply of lenders drys up, the most likely course of action will be massive monetary inflation, as the effects of printing more money can less readily be traced to politicians than spending cuts or direct tax increases.

But massive inflation robs people of the value of their money and guarantees massive price increases. This in turn leads to a painful economic collapse. This is exactly what happened in the Wiemar Republic in the 1930s and other countries at other times. This is an extraordinarily painful way to learn the lesson that you can't get something for nothing.

As Kipling put it in The Gods of the Copybook Headings,

In the Carboniferous Epoch
we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter
to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money,
there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings
said: "If you don't work you die."

CONCLUSION

Redistribution is an extraordinarily destructive type of government program. It depends on theft backed by government force. It discourages productive activity amongst both those from whom money is taken and to whom money is given. It encourages destructive personal behavior. It discourages private charity. It is often used by the rich at the expense of the poor. It empowers government and diminishes freedom. Finally, unless stopped, it will lead to bankruptcy and economic collapse. Thus government redistribution programs must be opposed.

Debating Ron Paul, Round Two

The Western Herald published two more letters responding to the letter attacking Ron Paul.

The original letter-writer wrote a second letter responding to one of the first responses. Both letters attack Paul for wanting to eliminate federal government funding for education. The author fails to understand that government subsidies of college are the reason why the cost of tuition is so high and increasing so fast.

Ironically, the author is a great example of the results of government control of education. For fun, let's proofread his latest letter.

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

Ron Paul candidacy offers little substance

While I certainly respect Derek Getman's opinion in response to my opposition to the Ron Paul candidacy, I challenge him to explain to me exactly how a Paul presidency would expand our nation's intellectual horizons or make the lives of average Americans even marginally better? [This is a statement, not a question. It shouldn't end with a question mark.] It is true that I look upon the Paul candidacy the way one looks upon a kindergartner's finger painting, respecting the effort but not fully understanding the principle [Can anyone understand this analogy?] and it's also true that I identify Rep. Paul as a lunatic and radical only for the lack of more foolish words. [This is a run-on sentence.] ["Foolish words" means that the person who writes them is a fool. Oops.]

Getman cites the Constitution as Rep. Paul's ideological centerpiece, [centerpiece?] but his platform strays from the document somewhere between "we the people" and "more perfect union." I view the Constitution as a timeless document not meant to be strictly followed to the T, but in a way many look at the Bible or other historic documents - as guidelines to be applied to the times. [It doesn't matter what you think. The Constitution is the law.] Our willingness to apply progressive principals [School principals? Or does he mean principles?] to the Constitution in order to deal with the troubles of the day is why we are the greatest county to ever serve humankind. [Really?]

The destruction [DESTRUCTION!] of the Department of Education and termination of Pell Grants and Stafford Loans would dramatically decline [decrease] enrollment in institutions of higher education and severely inflate prices for those still able to attend. [Learn some economics.] How exactly is that going to help our country? Paul's strict constitutionalism [As opposed to lenient constitutionalism?] would fast track [!] us back to the economy of 1776 and effectively put most college graduates on the same social level as high school dropouts. [social level?]

While it is true that government spending is out of control, we need only to look to the sitting president and his "fiscal conservatism" to put things in perspective. [what perspective?] Ron Paul's platform lacks substance [Could he be more wrong?] and practicality and will ultimately shine just enough light on the congressman from Texas to get him ousted from his house seat in 2008. [Care to bet?] Ideas are good, [always?] but in the Oval Office you don't get points just for trying - that's why students need to get over Paul candidacy. [Can anyone follow this?]

Jacob Smith
WMU student

Socialism in America

From Cato.org:

Treating Successful Taxpayers Like Piñatas

New data from the Internal Revenue Service confirm that the so-called rich are paying a huge share of the tax burden. As Richard Rahn explains in the Washington Times, “The IRS just released the numbers for 2005, and they show the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid almost 40 percent of the nation’s total income tax bill, and that the top 5 percent paid 60 percent of the taxes.” This is normally considered an economic issue since people on the left argue that higher tax rates on the rich are a never-ending source of money for politicians, while people on the right explain that low tax rates encourage productive behavior and boost growth. But the disproportionate tax burden on successful taxpayers, combined with the fact that a huge share of the population does not pay any income tax, also is a moral or philosophical issue. As Walter Williams writes:

The fact that there are so many American earners who have little or no financial stake in our country poses a serious political problem. The Tax Foundation estimates that…”When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans — 44 percent of the U.S. population — who are outside of the federal income tax system.” These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?

Jonah Goldberg also is concerned about this development. In his Townhall.com column, he explicitly warns that the nation’s social capital will be eroded if a large share of the population learn that the tax system is nothing more than a way to confiscate other people’s money:

…our politics seem to be suffering from a “rich people curse.” We treat the rich like a constantly regenerating pinata, as if they will never change their behavior no matter how many times they get whacked by taxes. And we think everyone can live well off the treats that will fall to the ground forever. … Democrats keep telling the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that America’s problems would be solved if only the rich people would pay “their fair share” of income taxes. Not only is this patently untrue and a siren song toward a welfare state, it amounts to covetousness as fiscal policy. … it’s unhealthy for a democracy when the majority of citizens don’t see government as a service they’re reluctantly paying for but as an extortionist that cuts them in for a share of the loot.

These concerns may be somewhat overstated because there is still considerable income mobility in the United States, so many people who today are not paying tax presumably envision that they will be swept in the tax net in the future. But there probably is a tipping point, a level of taxation and redistribution that results in a permanent economic sclerosis. Indeed, some speculate that nations such as Italy are now incapable of reform because the electorate is dominated by people who have concluded that they have a right to live off the income of others.

I found this article to be absolutely stunning. The top 5% of the income earners are now paying 60% of the total taxes and the Democrats still want to hose them with more! It's enough to make you sick.

The Democrats are building a society where the majority has a mindset of dependency and entitlement that their needs be satisfied not by their own efforts, but by leeching off the productivity of others. Not only is this type of mentality perverse in its implications (that individuals are working not for themselves, but for society), but leaves all members of the system worse off in the long run.

Boudreaux on Progresives

From Cafe Hayek:

Here's a letter that I sent today to the Baltimore Sun:

Although de rigueur among "progressives," Jim Salvucci is mistaken to describe bourgeois values as "empty" and consumerism as "mindless" (Letters, November 17). Bourgeois values encourage the substantive and mindful traits of hard work, sobriety, thrift, honesty, and self-reliance - all which earn their practitioners the ability over time to enjoy greater material comforts and amusements.

What is truly empty is the value that counsels A to live off of the wealth given to him by B and which B confiscated from C. And what is truly mindless is the notion that society progresses as greater numbers of us live as A's or as B's, and all the while thinking of C's as being nothing more than contemptible cows to be milked for the "general good."

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Boudreaux does an articulate job attacking the realities of the policies that progressives promote. Do we want to build a society of dependence or of responsibility? Do we want to build a society that promotes productivity or that promotes being the most effective free rider?

At the heart of progressive policies is the insistence that individuals become less self-reliant and more dependent on government to run their lives. Progressives want you to become an "A" or "B," and scorn the "C's." Republicans want more productive, responsible individuals and create policies that promote people's abilities to produce for themselves.

Republicans lead Western Herald poll

Republicans currently claim the top spot in the Western Herald's presidential poll, asking the question, "Which candidate do you hope wins the presidency?" The GOP in aggregate has well over a majority of the vote.

Sadly, "Giuliani" is misspelled "Guiliani." Not all the Republican candidates are listed (no Thompson, Huckabee, Tancredo, or Hunter) despite their polling higher than some of the other candidates who were listed. Regardless, everyone should vote for your favorite candidate and cheer on the GOP to victory!

POLITICAL UPDATE--Liberalism

This update focuses on liberalism. The ugly truth about liberalism is hidden beneath noble rhetoric. Liberal organizations advocate perverse policies.

Ann Coulter: McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies
Thomas Sowell: An Investment in Failure
David Limbaugh: The Liberal Compassion Mirage
Ann Coulter: Another Liberal Noose-ance

Ann Coulter: How Long Before the ADL Kicks Out All its Jews?
Robert Spencer: CAIR plays defense
Robert Bluey: Liberals Target Labor-Union Watchdog
John Gizzi: Foundations of Betrayal: How the Super-Rich Undermine America

Much information on liberal individuals and organizations can be found at David Horowitz's Discover the Network site.

Phyllis Schlafly Speech

This past week, Phyllis Schlafly spoke at Kalamazoo College. Schlafly has been a leading figure in the conservative movement for over fifty years.

She has been a delegate to numerous Republican conventions. She wrote many books on topics including education, feminism, national defense, and judicial activism; her total sales are several million. She led the movement to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, the chief goal of the feminist movement. She founded and still leads Eagle Forum, a conservative organization focusing on national sovereignty, immigration reform, education, and traditional values. Schlafly writes a weekly column and a monthly newsletter.

Her topic for the speech was feminism. She discussed its ideas, history, goals.

Feminism promotes the belief that there are no differences between men and women, except for a few trivial biological differences that have no practical importance. Feminism then promotes policies to impose equality of outcome and suppress the differences between men and women. These policies often hurt women, rather than help.

Schlafly discussed numerous differences between men and women. One that got an unusual reaction from the audience was that 45% of women can't throw a hand grenade far enough to avoid killing themselves.

Schlafly discussed the Equal Rights Amendment. The amendment promised "equal rights" for women, but in many cases this would actually hurt women. The most prominent argument against the ERA was that it would have subjected women to the military draft, which existed at that time. One fact that Schlafly did not mention in her speech (but did mention in her book Feminist Fantasies) is that feminists actually tried to force women to be subjected to the draft. They took a case all the way to the Supreme Court, where they thankfully lost.

The ERA also contained ambiguous language that would have made it easy for liberal judges to mandate government funding for abortion and "gay marriage".

Schlafly debunked the nonsense that women are discriminated against in pay. This statistic is arrived at by adding up everything that women make and everything that men make. But women work fewer years than men, work less full time, work less dangerous and less physically demanding jobs. In similar circumstances, discrimination is almost nonexistent.

The feminist scenario makes no economic sense, as companies would have a huge advantage if they could get the same work done for 24% less pay. Such a huge gap would have to disappear through competition.

One questioner asked what Schlafly what she thought of Hillary Clinton. Schlafly pointed out that "Hillary got her power the old-fashioned way, by marrying it."

Another questioner asked why he couldn't stay home and look after the kids while a women was employed. Schlafly had written a column about this very question that appeared in Feminist Fantasies. She pointed out that he didn't need her permission, he just needed to find a woman willing to agree to such an arrangement.

The audience at Kalamazoo College was mostly hostile, but relatively respectful. Schlafly's speech was very successful.

Cleaning the Constitution?

The Michigan Senate recently passed a proposed amendment to the Michigan Constitution. This amendment was proposed by a student at Central Michigan University. The amendment is billed as cleaning up the Michigan constitution, or making benign technical corrections. But is that what the amendment actually does?

The provisions of the Michigan Constitution that this amendment would repeal have the common feature that they are seen as being unconstitutional. That is, contrary to the federal Constitution.

In one case, this is certainly true. The power to vote may not be denied to those over 18 based on age. This change came about through a federal constitutional amendment passed by Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states. Changing the Michigan Constitution to make it consistent with this provision is certainly appropriate.

However, most of the provisions in question were not nullified by constitutional amendment, but rather were declared "unconstitutional" by federal judges.

Thus the amendment amounts to a surrender to judicial activism. It isn't immediately clear whether the policies found unconstitutional actually are. The brief descriptions in the linked articles raise questions as to the validity of these decisions.

But in any case, the federal courts have no legitimate power to overturn state constitutional provisions. This power was simply asserted in the 1819 Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland.

Whether or not the court is correct on the underlying merits of the provision in question, allowing it to have the final power of decision centralizes power in Washington. This violates the principle of federalism. Centralization of power will lead to worse outcomes on average than decentralization of power.

The proposed amendment would have no immediate impact, as the provisions in question are not currently being enforced. Thus there is no particular need for it. But if the court decisions in question were overturned, the relevant provisions would come back into force.

The proposed constitutional clean-up should be changed substantially so that it does not surrender to judicial activism. If it is not, it should be defeated.

Primary Maneuvers

A state judge recently declared unconstitutional the law that created Michigan's January 15 presidential primary. The rationale for this decision was suspect. It had something to do with who would have access to the list of who voted in the election. But the result is probably good for conservatives.

The national democratic party punished Michigan for moving the primary up so far, leading many of the candidates to withdraw and refuse to campaign in Michigan. It also appears that Hillary Clinton will have a fairly easy time securing the democratic nomination (though this could change).

This means that democrats would see less reason to vote in their own primary. Thus they will be free to cause mischief in the Republican primary. This is hardly a theoretical concern, as a widespread campaign amongst democrats succeeded in winning Michigan for John McCain in 2000. Democrat involvement in the 2008 primary would likely benefit Rudy Giuliani.

The Republican back-up plan is a state convention. This would benefit candidates who have strong grassroots support and eliminate the possibility of democrats interfering in the Republican nomination campaign.

The judge's decision has been met with complaints that the decision will harm Michigan. But an early primary mainly benefits the political class, not the state at large.

Previous: Primary Obsession

A Bridge to Poverty

One of the lesser controversies in Lansing recently involves plans to replace the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor. The Ambassador Bridge is a privately owned toll bridge. It is aging, so the company that owns it announced plans to build a new bridge nearby. But the government wants to build a bridge of its own.

The private bridge would cost one billion dollars. The government bridge would cost three billion dollars. Thus the government bridge would cost three times as much, which sounds about right for a government project.

But some democrats want the bridge to be government owned, even though it would cost so much more. This is pure statism, the preference for government over freedom.

Private ownership of roads appears impractical due to the need for efficient routes and the difficulty with payment. But bridges don't have these problems. The ambassador bridge is a good example of private management in action.