POLITICAL UPDATE--Government

This update focuses on government. Government threatens prosperity, civil liberties, and national sovereignty. More freedom is necessary.

Ron Paul: Pain at the Pump
Thomas Sowell: Political "Solutions"
Jed Babbin: Hawaii Five-0-Five
Wilton Alston: Living Under Surveillance
Gregory Hession: Behavior Worth Medicating?
Gary North: On Fixing Social Security
Ron Paul: Keeping Promises to Seniors
Terry Easton: Social Security, Ponzi Schemes and Moral Hazards
Terry Easton: Of Traveler’s Checks, Green Stamps, & Little Iron Men
Robert Rector: Are Our 37 Million Poor Really Poor?

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

Club for Growth: Huckabee a 'Big Government Republican'

This week, The Club for Growth began running this ad on tv attacking Huckabee's record on taxes. Our party (not to mention our nation and our pocketbooks) will be in a lot of trouble if we are supporting "big government Republicans" in 2008. For more on the Club for Growth's review of Huckabee click HERE

To the best of my knowledge this is the first attack ad being run on TV relating to the primary.

Living Wage Murdered!

From WMU News:

Trustees reject living wage proposal

KALAMAZOO--Acting at their meeting today, Western Michigan University trustees voted down a proposed policy mandating that contracts for work done on campus adhere to a "living wage" standard.

The motion to adopt the policy proposed by a student group was rejected by a vote of seven to one, with the sole vote for the policy cast by Trustee Larry Tolbert of Kalamazoo. Following the vote, four of the eight trustees, including Tolbert, spoke briefly about the reasons for their votes. All reiterated their commitment to fairness, but pointed to problems with the language, detail and breadth of the policy proposed. The trustees praised the students for working to raise awareness of the issue.

Custodians in WMU residence halls, who work for an independent contractor, are the only workers whose pay would have been affected under the living wage policy proposed. The proposed policy defined a living wage as $9.50 per hour with health insurance or $11.50 per hour without insurance.Before their vote, trustees were given results of a recently concluded survey of student opinion on living wage and WMU policy. The survey was conducted at the request of the trustees, following a presentation by student-proponents of a living wage at the board's October meeting.

About 75 percent of the more than 1,800 students who responded to the survey said they agreed the University should adopt a living wage policy. By a two-to-one majority, however, students disagreed with the idea that an estimated $100 in additional residence hall fees should be assessed to pay for a living wage policy.

Trustees also were apprised of a vote by the Western Student Association, WMU's student government body. By a vote of 20 to 19, the WSA passed a resolution in support of the policy Oct. 25.

Previous:
Survey Seeks Student Opinion on Living Wage
Waging War Update
The Coalition for Higher Tuition Returns
The Coalition for Higher Tuition

Potential Ballot Proposals

The Gazette lists some of the potential ballot proposals for 2008.

Whether to legalize marijuana use for medical reasons;

Whether to repeal the state ban on embryonic stem-cell research;

Whether to approve a constitutional mandate to ensure every Michigan resident has affordable, comprehensive health-care coverage;

Whether to give voters the power to repeal tax increases passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor;

Whether to get rid of the state's full-time Legislature and replace it with a part-time body, and repeal term limits; or, alternately

Whether to get rid of the state's full-time Legislature, replace it with a part-time body, but without repealing term limits.

There has also been talk of proposals involving the Fair Tax, right to work, taxpayers bill of rights (TABOR), immigration.

Smoking Ban?

The state House of Representatives recently passed a ban on smoking in workplaces. The bill isn't likely to pass, as it has been effectively killed in the state senate.

Smoking isn't good for your health, and it annoys many people. But it is none of government's business. Banning smoking is a violation of people's property rights. No one has to work for or patronize a business if they don't want to.

Once again, the Democrats think they know how to run people's lives better than they do. Whatever happened to freedom?

Jack for Senate?

From the Grand Rapids Press:

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

Hoogendyk may run against Levin

WASHINGTON -- Two Republicans are nearing a decision on whether they will challenge Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., next year despite long odds against the five-term senator.

Businessman Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski and state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk said they are leaning toward entering the Republican primary for U.S. Senate next year.

Hoogendyk, R-Kalamazoo, said he was leaning toward entering the race and would make his intentions known next month. He formed an exploratory committee a few weeks ago and is starting to receive contributions from supporters.

"I'm past the 50 percent point. I'm definitely leaning," he said. "With each passing day as I talk to more people I get more positive feedback."

...

Hoogendyk, who was first elected to the state legislature in 2004, cited the Republicans' historic takeover of Congress in 1994 as an example of the topsy-turvy nature of politics.

"I don't know that today anybody would say it's a seat ripe for the taking but the political winds change. Who would have predicted in December of 1993 what ended up happening in Congress in November of 1994?" he said.

College Republican Office Vandalized

The day of John Stossel's speech, the outside wall of the building outside the WMU College Republican office was vandalized with anti-capitalist spray-painted graffiti.

Doing work at home

Now I know many of us aren't originally from the Kalamazoo area. I'm personally from Southeast Michigan. So I think it's important for us to use the tools and knowledge we gain from the WMU College Republicans to help out in our home communities. Here's a great way to help out with that. Go to www.rightmichigan.com. Right on the left side, there's the Tax Hike Wall of Shame. There, you'll find a number of Congressmen who have helped raise taxes in Michigan. If your rep is on there, take note.

I looked under my rep, Kathy Angerer (Or as I call her, Kathy Angersme). There I found a boatload of ways she's helped raise taxes on the people of my community and in the whole district.

Now prior to this, I've mentioned to people around me, both conservatives and liberals, the tax hikes I've seen Jack Hoogendyk mention on his blog. They can't believe how our state is doing such things in our current economy. Well if I mention to them that their rep in the House is a big part in that, then that'll really help people out there realize that the Dems in the House are hurting our state with stupid tax hikes that scare away people and businesses.

So I suggest all of you do the same. If you see your rep on that list, take a look at the list of taxes they've helped put on you and your neighbors. And then spread the news. I think if more people knew what their reps were doing, they'd be less likely to support them the next time around.

Axis of Queers

Reading the Western Herald's front page Thursday was a surreal experience. The article in Monday's Herald, "Queer students say harassment has increased", has spurred controversy on campus.

The front page features an article about the controversy created by the previous article in the Herald. It seems that not everyone is cool with the q-word. The article quotes several people who were offended, including those who send this letter to the editor that appeared inside the paper. It offers a helpful guide to the proper newspeak, which will probably be out of date by the time you read it.

While some members do value the term "queer," it is still not universally accepted, even within the LBGT community. It is strongly urged that the term be avoided, unless quoting someone who self-identifies that way. In the case of the Nov. 26 article, that is exactly what the Western Herald was doing.

The term "queer" is not the only controversial term surrounding the LBGT community. The term "homosexual" has been adopted by anti-gay extremists to suggest that lesbians and gay men are diseased or psychologically disordered. Please use "lesbian" or "gay man" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex.

Try to avoid labeling an activity, emotion or relationship "gay," "lesbian," or "bisexual," unless you would call the same activity, emotion or relationship "straight." For example, instead of a "homosexual relationship," use "relationship"; instead of "homosexual couple" use "couple."

There is no single lesbian, gay or bisexual lifestyle. Instead of referring to something as a "gay lifestyle," please use lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

If that's not enough, the Herald also contains an editorial about the controversy. They offer this explanation.

This was, indeed, a choice made by the editors of the Herald. It was not a casual decision. The primary drive behind the use of the word was inclusiveness.

Mission accomplished!

But that's not all. Both the Western Student Association and the administration have jumped into action. The President of Outspoken introduced a resolution in the WSA "focusing on education and awareness concerning violence against lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender students".

Under questioning, she admitted that the "20 to 25" incidents of "verbal and physical attacks" include one exactly one alleged physical attack. She further admitted that she has no actual evidence that this alleged attack has anything to do with the victim being any of the above. It still isn't clear what constitutes "verbal assault", but it appears to be simply criticism.

Needless to say, the WSA passed the resolution. Only one courageous senator voted against it.

But that's still not all. Western's administration tripped all over itself rushing to fight this non-existent wave of hate crimes. The Office of Institutional Equity and LBGT Student Services office have rushed to offer their services.

The article helpfully points out that:

According to the Student Code, students have the right to free inquiry, expression and association. Students should be free from discrimination and harassment based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, color, national origin, religion, disability, marital status or family status.

So it's still OK to discriminate against and harass Republicans.

This article also helps to explain the origins of the original article.

Discussions of harassment at OUTspoken meetings and numerous unreported incidents on and off campus were cause to bring the recent events to the university's attention, seeking action, OUTspoken President Maggie Walters said.

"We know that things are going on because students are mentioning them at OUTspoken meetings," Walters said.

So this whole controversy started because people were whining about perceived slights, somebody decided to contact the Herald, and they wrote a story about it. Ironically, given the controversy and the circulation of the Herald, the biggest perpetrator of "verbal assault" and "harassment" on campus is Outspoken.

In case you lost count, that's five pieces in the Herald on the same subject on the same day. (In other front page news, the WSA debated what a fine is.)

On the off chance that it slipped your mind for a moment, Western Michigan University has over a hundred academic majors and hundreds of faculty members conducting groundbreaking research. Apparently, none of that was as newsworthy as the fifth piece on the 'queer' controversy.

Don't the Western Herald, WSA, Outspoken, and the above-mentioned university offices have anything better to do? Isn't there any real news on campus? These groups are pathetic. To be inclusive, just calls them the axis of queers.

How do you stop mass murderers?

It's not as complicated as you'd think: self defense.

POLITICAL UPDATE--Education

This update focuses on education. Government control and liberalism continue to damage education in both colleges and government schools. More freedom is needed.

Thomas Sowell: Expanding Opportunities
John Derbyshire: Diversity Boot Camp Closed At The University Of Delaware—But Big Brother Is Still Going Strong
Bob Unruh: University to students: 'All whites are racist'
Thomas Sowell: Prestige Versus Education
Walter Williams: Academic Cesspools
Phyllis Schlafly: Advice To College Students: Don't Major In English
Ann Coulter: Have You Hugged an Islamo-Fascist Today?

Lance Izumi: The Myth of the Middle-Class School
Michelle Malkin: Fuzzy Math: A Nationwide Epidemic
Walter Williams: Bitter Partisan Politics
John Stossel: Turning Kids into Sex Offenders

Learn more about education issues in Education Reporter.

The Race in Michigan

From Rasmussen Reports:

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

Mike Huckabee’s surging campaign has created a three-way toss-up in Michigan’s Republican Primary. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds Huckabee earning 21% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the son of a former Michigan Governor, attracts 20% support while former New York City Mayor is the top choice for 19% of Likely Republican Primary Voters.

Trailing the Michigan frontrunners are Fred Thompson at 9%, John McCain at 8% and Ron Paul at 7%. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter split 2% while 15% are not sure how they will vote. Michigan’s primary is scheduled for January 15, twelve days after the Iowa caucuses and a week after the New Hampshire Primary. Results from those earlier contests may have a significant impact on the Michigan results.

...

In Michigan, 37% of Likely Republican Primary Voters name the economy as the top voting issue. Twenty percent (20%) say immigration is the top priority while 17% say that the War on Terror is most important. Among those who name the economy as their highest priority, there is little differentiation between the leading candidates—21% prefer Giuliani, 20% favor Romney, and 15% support Huckabee.

KCTA Blog

The Kalamazoo County Taxpayers Association now has a blog at its website. It is written by the heroic Ray Wilson, the President of KCTA.

One item worth noting is a discussion of the situation surrounding the county jail currently at the bottom of the page.

Understanding Government: Regulation

One of the major activities undertaken by government is regulation. Regulations are government rules or laws that govern human activity. They can be distinguished from older laws, such as British Common Law, that proscribe offences against person and property. Regulations instead are usually justified to promote safety, protect the environment, or advance popular social goals.

THE COSTS OF REGULATIONS

Regulations have costs, but their costs are mostly not reflected in government spending. The costs of enforcing them are usually only a small part of total government spending. The major costs of regulations are borne by those affected by them.

In fact, regulation can be seen as a hidden form of government taxation and spending. A regulation mandates or prohibits some action. The mandated or allowed alternative way of achieving a goal must be more expensive, or else it would already be used without need of a regulation. But if some additional amount of money were given along with the mandated or allowed way, it would be more economical than the more efficient alternative.

Now imagine that this amount of money was taken from someone and then given back to him on the condition that uses the mandated or allowed alternative. But this is the same as if the regulation is simply mandated. Thus regulations can be looked at as a combination of taxation and spending. They have monetary costs.

This cost is hidden, and is far higher than most people realize. The Competitive Enterprise Institute issued a report entitled Ten Thousand Commandments which estimates the total cost of all federal government regulations in 2005 was 1.13 trillion dollars. This compares to total federal spending in 2007 of 2.78 trillion dollars. The list of all proposed and final federal regulations in 2005 was 73,870 pages long.

Actually, the costs are even higher because regulations often create perverse incentives that encourage wasteful actions.

SAFETY REGULATIONS

The most common justification for government regulations is to protect safety. This could be the safety of products, services, food, jobs, or anything else. The implication is that without government regulations, these things would be unsafe or less safe.

One problem with this argument is that there is no such thing as absolute safety in this world. There is always some risk. Something can be more safe or less safe than something else, but it can never be completely safe.

Are government regulations the best way to achieve "safety"? Presumably, consumers would not knowingly buy "unsafe" products. Would a business sell products that it knows to be dangerous? If it does, it is almost certain to be exposed. Its reputation would be significantly damaged, and it might well go out of business. Thus businesses have a significant incentive to make their products as safe as possible at a given price and quickly correct any mistakes that they make. Thus businesses often issue voluntary recalls of products.

Beyond this, businesses that knowingly sell defective products can be prosecuted. They can also be sued in civil courts. Both of these possibilities further encourage businesses to promote safety. But government regulations are different because they seek to dictate safer behaviors ahead of time.

What reason is there to believe that government knows better how to make products safe than private businesses do? Government may issue regulations that make products cost more but make no difference in terms of safety. The regulations it issues may actually make products less safe.

Government regulations may well make products more safe. But this is not necessarily a good thing irrespective of cost. Thinking of safety as categorical rather than relative tends to encourage regulators ignore the costs of regulations. But regulations must make products and services more expensive.

This can actually make people less safe. If some product is made more expensive by regulations, people may switch to an alternative that is less safe than the original product. Alternatively, the money that is spent on a more expensive product could be used to increase safety in some other way. Government regulations may also promote a false sense of security that can lead people to behave more dangerously.

Further, the money spent satisfying a regulation could be used to increase happiness in some other way. But government has no way to know how safe is safe enough. Only the free market can determine this.

DEADLY REGULATIONS

Government regulators face very different incentives than businesses. They are much less likely to suffer the consequences of making mistakes. The consequences of not regulating are often much more visible than the consequences of regulating. Thus many unnecessary and harmful regulations are created.

One particularly disastrous example of this is the Food and Drug Administration. Prescription drugs can save thousands of lives, but they sometimes have side effects that can hurt a few people. The FDA holds up approving drugs for many years, and thousands of people die needlessly.

Another example of government regulations in action is Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which seek to increase the gas mileage of cars. But government regulations cannot magically make cars more fuel efficient. Instead, they increase the price of larger cars and force more people into smaller, less safe cars. This increases the number of deaths in car crashes.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

Government also creates regulations with the stated goal of protecting the environment. Such regulations often infringe on property rights, discourage production, and increase poverty. Actually, this is often exactly what environmentalists want. One disastrous example of environmental regulations is government efforts to eliminate the use of DDT, which caused millions of needless malaria deaths in the third world.

Some environmental regulations are necessary. For example, pollution can infringe on the rights of others. But even in this case, stricter regulations are not always better. At some point, the cost of stricter regulations will outweigh the benefits.

RESTRICTING COMPETITION

Why are regulations of business so widespread? Concerns about safety and a bias toward government are only part of the answer. A major explanation is that businesses often support government regulations. They support regulations that will damage their competitors and not themselves, or damage their competitors more than themselves, or prevent new competitors from forming. With less competition, businesses can make larger profits. However, such regulations hurt consumers.

A common phenomenon is 'capturing', in which a panel or agency that regulates some industry becomes captured by that industry. This happens because the industry in question has the largest interest in the contents of the regulations, and so works hardest to influence the agency. When an agency has been captured, regulations can be neutralized, or written to benefit the industry, or to punish competitors.

One particular form of regulation that restricts competition is licensing. This is presented as necessary for safety. But it is a restriction of competition that increases prices for consumers.

CONCLUSION

Regulations are also used by government politicians and bureaucrats to control people. They take away freedom and give government more power over people's lives.

Regulation is a major activity of government and is usually destructive. It depends on the threat of force or violence. It is a hidden form of taxation and spending, and it costs far more than most people realize. The free market can better promote safety than government regulations. Regulations can be used by business to restrict competition and increase prices. Most government regulations should be eliminated.

More women pack heat

From the Detroit News:

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

More women pack heat

Safety fears spark jump in concealed weapons permits

CANTON TOWNSHIP -- These days, Kirby Bunch packs more than credit cards in her purse.
Bunch carries a gun. In an age of increased awareness about violence, it makes her feel powerful.
"The first time I shot a gun was in February. I was a practicing at a firing range and I felt empowered when I held it in my hand and fired," said Bunch, 24, of Canton Township, who added her father was a military man so she was always familiar with guns.

"In that instant, I knew carrying a gun was something I wanted to do. I decided to get a personal weapon because of all the craziness going on today. My mother has been armed for many years and because of the times, it's more of a necessity."

Bunch has plenty of company who are locked, loaded and ready to fire. Fueled by crime fears and fading stereotypes about gun owners, she and other women increasingly are opting to carry concealed weapons six years after Michigan reformed laws making it easier to do so.

POLITICAL UPDATE--Gun Rights

This update focuses on gun rights. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear DC vs Heller, a case on the Second Amendment. Gun control continues to cost lives.

Republican Michigander: SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment ruling (DC v Heller Preview) (Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5)
Jed Babbin: The Second Amendment Wedge
Mike Cox: Second Amendment Showdown
Andrew Fischer: Guns and Frogs
Larry Elder: Do "Gun-Free" Zones Encourage School Shootings?
John Lott: Guns Don't Kill Kids, Irresponsible Adults With Guns Do
John Lott: D.C.'s Flawed Reasoning

Daily gun news is available at NRA-ILA and Keep and Bear Arms.

"Queer students say harassment has increased"

The Western Herald Monday published an article with the following headline.

Queer students say harassment has increased

The article begins:

A recent string of queer bashing incidents on Western Michigan University's campus has left some students wondering how welcome they are.

The number of verbal and physical attacks on the gay community have increased this semester compared to previous years, said Maggie Walters, president of OUTspoken.

"A lot of people know we're a gay-friendly university," Walters said. "We're known for being really open."

Walters knows of 20 to 25 students who have been verbally or physically assaulted this semester, none of which have resulted in an arrest. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are more prominent on campus and gays are feeling more comfortable coming out, which could be a reason for the increase in gay bashing incidents, Walters said.

This article raises many questions.

Does this article count as verbal harassment?

Is there some sort of continuously updated website that we can check to see what words constitute 'hate speech' and which are harmless 'terms of endearment'?

What is "verbal assault"? Yelling at someone? Saying you don't like her outfit?

Should "verbal assault" and "physical assault" really be in the same category? How many of the 20 to 25 incidents are actually physical assaults?

Imaginary headline: "Huge increase in number of prank calls and car bombings"

If there are physical assaults, why haven't they been prosecuted? Is Walters saying that "verbal assault", aka free speech, should be prosecuted?

Can the, um, students in question document anything like the vandalism on the College Republican office, destruction of thousands of flyers advertising our events, and attack on a previous speaker of ours?

I personally know 20 to 25 Republicans who have been criticized and/or murdered on campus. Will the Herald do a story on that?

WSA Update

The Western Student Association, WMU's student government, continues to be a good example of what's wrong with government.

The WSA Judicial Council convicted the Speaker of the Senate of violating the WSA constitution. He unconstitutionally allowed members of organizations that were not registered student organizations to vote in the Senate.

The Judicial Council docked his pay by $300. Contrary to the Herald article, he was not fined. A fine would require him to pay money.

He was not convicted of one charge due to a provision in the WSA Constitution that allows officials to "take action that the Student Senate deems necessary and proper to accomplish the goals of the WSA." It seems the WSA Constitution has an 'elastic clause'. Thanks for that provision presumably go to City Commissioner Sean McCann, who wrote the WSA Constitution when he was a student at Western.

Stossel Wrap-up

John Stossel spoke on campus Wednesday night. The event got media coverage in the Kalamazoo Gazette and the Western Herald.

The Herald article isn't terribly well-written, but this is understandable, given the short deadline.

Shaw Theater was full; the audience was about 55o people.

Stossel delivered his speech very well. The event was well-run.

In addition to the topics mentioned in the articles, Stossel also discussed the destructive effects of government regulations such as waiting periods imposed by the Food and Drug Administration and the ban on DDT.

Toward the end, Stossel conducted an ambush interview with two members of the audience. He asked whether they would ban a gas that killed twenty people each year. He was referring to natural gas.

There was a strong contingent of Ron Paul supporters in the audience. This was reflected in questions concerning the Patriot Act, RFID chips, the North American Union, and privatizing the police.

One questioner asked a question that Stossel liked. After his answer, Stossel threw his copy of the Declaration of Independence/Constitution toward the questioner. It wasn't a very good throw; the booklet, being fairly light, curved off into the audience, either hitting someone or nearly doing so. We've had a member of the audience throw something at a speaker before, but we've never had a speaker throw something at the audience!

Overall, it was a good event.

Want to pay more taxes?

Often in tax debates, I get to a point where the fundamental premise that individuals inherently prefer paying less in taxes to more is questioned. I often get told, "I don't mind paying taxes, and would rather pay more!" Never mind that they're policies would force many others, who may not be so financially forgiving of government's sickening waste and excess, to do the same.

Turns out ex-President Clinton has joined the bandwagon of people that think our government is doing such a great job with our money that it needs more! Unfortunately for Bill, however, the government won't take enough of his money. (*Terrified gasp*). If only the Bush tax cuts were abolished, he could get back to paying the taxes he wishes he could. Luckily for our sake, the National Taxpayers Union has put together a resource for both Bill and anyone out there who thinks the programs our government funds need more of our actually-earned money:

An Offer for President Clinton
Posted by Demian Brady - November 28, 2007

Former President Bill Clinton complained to Iowans yesterday that he doesn't pay enough in taxes:

"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," Clinton said. He said he "should not have gotten" the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner."

It is odd that someone with so many resources and connections needs to be "given the opportunity" to support the troops. But I will step up and, as he requested, ask him to support the troops and provide him with some opportunities to do so:

1) Cut a check to the government:
Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

This will free up federal resources to support the troops.

2) Contribute directly to organization that supports soldiers and veterans.
The Pentagon has a web site, http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/help.html, with lots of ideas for President Clinton.

He could donate frequent flier miles (he might want to also suggest this to his globe-trotting pal, Al Gore), donate computers, write letters, support service aid societies and more.

3) Give up your taxpayer subsidized perks.
Taxpayers pay for rent and expenses for Clinton's Harlem-based office, including a $75 thousand phone bill in 2006.