Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Stop the Climate Socialism Act

UPDATE: The bill was defeated for now. The vote was 48-36 against cloture.

It's one damn thing after another. The US Senate is now debating the Lieberman-Warner bill, a descendant of the McCain-Lieberman bill. The stated purpose of the bill is to fight the supposed threat of global warming. It is called the "Climate Security Act".

He who trades liberty for climate security...

The bill would impose a 'cap and trade' system to reduce carbon emissions that supposedly cause global warming. This means that the government would mandate a maximum amount of carbon emissions. This limit would gradually increase to 60% below current levels. The bill imposes a complicated scheme of regulations. Try to read this chart if you want to figure it out.

Various organizations that want to emit carbon would have to buy carbon credits from the government or each other. Even worse, the government gives away credits to various politically favored groups, resulting in a massive transfer of wealth.

This amounts to a tax. If supply is reduced, then price increases. Thus the price to emit carbon will increase. This means that the prices of energy and anything produced using energy will increase.

This will result in a massive increase in poverty. It would go a long way to wrecking the American economy. Energy prices would be much higher. If you don't like $4 gas, how about $6 or $8 gas?

There will also be massive job losses. Manufacturing in America would simply be too expensive. Millions of jobs would be shipped to China, India, and other countries that don't have such self-destructive rules.

Estimates of the specific effects of the big vary, but they are sure to be huge. The costs are estimated to be 1.7-4.8 trillion (!) dollars. There could four million job losses.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) estimates that Boxer-Warner-Lieberman will increase the cost of a gallon of gas by as much as $3.25 by 2030.

Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the bill will increase the cost of gas.

What's more, the EPA also estimates that Boxer-Warner-Lieberman will increase electricity prices by 44% by 2030.

See this Heritage Foundation produced chart for how far gas prices will rise under Boxer-Warner-Lieberman in your state.

And see this chart for estimated job losses in your state under the bill.
And all to fight a threat that doesn't exist.

Call your senators. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Socialism Act must be defeated.

Newt Gingrich: Stop the Green Pig: Defeat the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman Green Pork Bill Capping American Jobs and Trading America's Future
Robert Bluey: McCain’s Global-Warming Plan Upsets Conservatives
Ross Kamisky: Potential Costs to America From Cap-and-Trade
Heritage Foundation: Huge Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation

Monday, June 02, 2008

The Push for Poverty

Recently, there has been an increasing push to impoverish Americans. This has occurred under the guise of conservation.

The term 'conservation' is used in more than one way. If is means reducing waste, it is laudable. But people hardly need to be harangued to do this, since eliminating waste means saving money.

The other meaning of 'conservation' is using less. It's fine if people voluntarily chose to do this. But they should not be forced or guilt-tripped into doing so. This is exactly what is occurring in the name of protecting the environment, fighting global warming, and saving energy.

How dare you have an SUV? You should drive a tiny compact car! How dare you drive by yourself? You should carpool! How dare you have your own car? You should ride public transportation! Or bike! Or walk!

A recent 'public service' advertisement suggested that listeners "just turn out the lights". Do you have any idea how much toil and tribulation it took for mankind to turn on the lights? What a monumental achievement it was?

Now we're being told that "we'll never have two-dollar gas again". Why not? The historical trend has been for prices of goods and services to decline due to increases in productivity and new supplies. Why should energy be different?

If prices are increasing, there's a good chance that government is to blame. And so it is. We can have cheap energy again.

We're not running out of oil. Malthus and Ehrlich were wrong. The prices of resources decline over time due to new discoveries.

Whenever Congress discusses energy these days, its goal is to stop people from using it, rather than produce more.

Why? It's the influence of environmentalists. Their goal isn't to 'save the Earth', it's to impoverish, eliminate, or even kill as many people as possible. (Please read the linked quotes!)

The environmentalists should be rejected. There's nothing wrong with wanting to drive a big car, have lights in your house, and have whatever conveniences you can afford to buy. The price system rations people's desires.

Reject the push for poverty. Don't turn out the lights.

Delegate Dilemma

The democrats had their much-discussed meeting to decide the fate of the delegation from Michigan and Florida.

The problem began when Michigan and Florida decided to push up their presidential primaries to have more influence on deciding the nominee. This was in violation of democrat party rules. The democrat party denied delegates to a primary held in violation of its rules. To enforce this, the democrat candidates agreed not to campaign in Michigan and to take their names off the ballot. Except that Hillary Clinton "forgot" to do this. Oops!

Naturally, Hillary won a big victory over nobody in the Michigan primary, with "uncommitted" taking second place.

Everybody thought the issue would be resolved once a candidate wrapped up the nomination. But that ended up taking a lot longer than expected. So the democrats had a meeting to figure out what to do.

One proposal, favored by Hillary, was to give Hillary all the delegates she 'won' in her uncontested victory, with Obama getting all the 'uncommitted' delegates. But this isn't actually how people voted. Though many people voting for 'uncommitted' undoubtedly supported Obama, one cannot assume that all of them did.

A second proposal, favored by Obama, would split Michigan's delegates equally. Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the results of the primary.

More recently, a proposed compromise would split the difference between the two proposals. But the democrat committee still wanted to punish Michigan and Florida for breaking the rules, so it adopted the compromise proposal but only gave each delegate half a vote.

Once again, none of this has anything to do with any actual election result. Up until now, one could actually respect the democrats for enforcing their own rules. But this recent decision was totally made up, having nothing to do with the rules.

But with democrats, this is hardly a surprise.

It is worth noting that Senator Carl Levin was key to moving up Michigan's primary and creating this whole mess in the first place. The policies that he advocates are about as effective as his primary effort.

59th District Preview

The 59th district in the Michigan House of Representatives covers St. Joseph and most of Cass County. It is currently represented by Republican Rick Shaffer, who is term-limited. It is a safe Republican district.

There are three candidates for the Republican nomination, Monte Bordner, Matt Lori, and Rob Sisson.

Monte Bordner is a St. Joseph County Commissioner. He has held that position for eight years. He has a website. It contains generalities about advocating for farmers and supporting local control. He has raised about $1500.

Matt Lori is St. Joseph County Sheriff. He has held that position for twenty years. He has a website. It doesn't say anything about his positions on the issues. He endorsed John McCain before the primary. He has raised about $6000.

Rob Sisson is a member of Republicans for Environmental Protection, and has celebrated Earth Day. (Among other things, REP supports the "Climate Security Act", which is projected to cost America at least 1.7 trillion dollars). He does not appear to have a personal website. He has raised about $3000.

The democrat candidate will be Carol Higgins. Higgins is a public school teacher and union president. She has a website. She has filed that she does not expect to spend more that $1000. Democrat Richard Homan was disqualified after filing to run.

Sunday, June 01, 2008

POLITICAL UPDATE--Government

This update focuses on government. Government spending is out of control. Congress has passed a massive farm bill and is considering other major giveaways. Government regulations cause even more trouble.

Charles Scaliger: Rising Food Costs
Deroy Murdock: Housing Bailout: The Feds' Latest $300 Billion-Dollar Baby
Michael Rozeff: Thefts There Are – Safety Nets There Are Not
James Fulford: Civil Rights Law Doesn’t Care If You Die
Don Devine: Killing Local America
Ron Paul: The Double Trouble of Taxation
Thomas Sowell: Political Crusaders
Brian Darling: Congress Preparing for Another Spending Binge
Wayne Olson: Protect Talk Radio and Religious Broadcasting from Regulatory Repression
David John: The Inevitable Future of Entitlements
Deroy Murdock: Kill This Farm Bill
Ron Paul: Can Foreign Aid Save Africa?
John Stossel: Influence-Peddling
Thomas Sowell: Rescuing the Rust Belt

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

Oh, the Humanities!

This article from the Weekly Standard is an interesting look at Western and the annual Medieval Congress. It has a few minor errors (outskirts?), but it's a pretty interesting look at the state of an academic discipline.

A Dark Age for Medievalists

Kalamazoo
Standing before an audience of about 25 academics, all professors and graduate students specializing in the Middle Ages, in a chilly classroom on the vast campus of Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Jeff Persels, a lanky associate professor of French and director of European studies at the University of South Carolina, was reading aloud a scholarly paper at the 43rd International Congress on Medieval Studies. The paper's title was "The Wine in the Urine: Managing Human Waste in French Farce." The paper was about, well, the wine in the urine, or perhaps the urine in the wine. Its topic is a 15th-century farce, or lowlife comic drama, about an adulterous wife who uses a wine bottle as an impromptu chamber pot, with predictably gross results involving her husband and her lover.

Persels's paper didn't discuss the play simply as an example of Rabelaisian-style scatology, however. The perspective he used was the postmodernist discipline of "cultural studies," which means pushing works of literature (or movies or television shows or ad campaigns or whatever) through a Marxist cheesegrater as examples of the way society conditions its members to accept the views of a dominant class. In Persels's view, the wine-bottle farce marked a stage in the development of what he called the "bourgeois fecal habitus." Translated out of postmodern-ese into plain English, that means the tendency of uptight middle-class people not to want to talk in public about matters pertaining to the bathroom and to assume that those who do are kind of crude. "The excretory experience became associated with the proletariat," Persels explained. Although he seemed eager to demonstrate that he personally didn't share those uptight middle-class views, at least one of the academics in his audience remained unconvinced that a secret bourgeois habitus didn't lurk underneath his antinomian veneer. "Excretory?" she whispered to a fellow medievalist sitting next to her. "Why doesn't he just say s***?"
Read it all.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Election News

Kalamazoo Chamber of Commerce ends quest to eliminate term limits for state lawmakers
Note: This is the version of the part-time legislature proposal that tried to sneak through a repeal of term limits. There is another part-time legislature petition that is still ongoing.

Skubick: High court race waits

Foe promises Upton ‘all the debates he can handle’

Comstock to vote on trustee recall

Gravel mine issue prompts challenge to Alamo Township supervisor

K-Township leader to step down after long career

New Provost

Western has a new Provost.

Timothy Greene named WMU provost

KALAMAZOO--Western Michigan University President John M. Dunn announced today he will appoint Dr. Timothy J. Greene as WMU's new provost and vice president for academic affairs, effective Aug. 1.

Greene, dean of WMU's College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, was one of four finalists named in April in the national search to fill the position that is second in command to WMU's president. His appointment is subject to approval by the WMU Board of Trustees.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Partial Birth Battle

The Michigan House of Representatives finally held a vote on the partial birth abortion ban, after months of delay. Supposedly pro-life house speaker Andy Dillon had been holding the bill up.

The bill passed 74-32, and a series of pro-abortion amendments were easily rejected. However, the democrats tried to avoid voting on an essential companion bill that establishes penalties for violating the ban on partial birth abortion. Democrats have threatened to shut the house down over this.

Governor Granholm plans to veto the ban. She claims this is because it doesn't have a health exception, which would make it totally unenforceable. The bill passed by a veto-proof majority in the house, but was one vote short of a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Senate democrat leader Mark Schauer, who is running for Congress against Republican Tim Walberg, voted against the bill.

The ban is the same as the federal ban, which was previously held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. A state-level ban is also necessary because there is no chance that the federal ban will be enforced if democrats control the executive branch.

See RightMichigan's summary of the issue and Jack Hoogendyk's live-blogging of the debate.
House Dem obstruction on partial birth abortion ban threatens to shut down chamber!
Jack Hoogendyk's Live-blog (scroll down)

Bob Barr Wins Libertarian Nomination

The Libertarian Party held its national convention over the weekend. Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr won the nomination after six ballots. He defeated left-libertarian Mary Ruwart after third-place finisher Wayne Allyn Root endorsed Barr. Root won the vice-presidential nomination.

Barr served in Congress 1994-2002. He is best-known for being a leader in the fight to impeach President Clinton. He is pro-life and pro-gun, supports border security and civil liberties, and opposes the war in Iraq. He is on the boards of the National Rifle Association and American Conservative Union.

His campaign site is here: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

Monday, May 26, 2008

Blacklisted by History

Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies. By M. Stanton Evans.

M. Stanton Evans has written an impressive and compelling book. Blacklisted by History tells the real story of the much-maligned Senator Joe McCarthy and sets the historical record straight.

MASTERPIECE OF SCHOLARSHIP

The book is a masterpiece of scholarship. At over 600 pages, it isn't for the easily distracted, but it is well worth the effort. Evans has poured a significant chunk of his life into this book. He spent six years writing it, and spent decades before that researching McCarthy.

The extent of his research shows. The book is bursting with facts, some long-forgotten, others newly discovered. Evans' research makes use of recently declassified transcripts and reports, documents that became available after the collapse of the Soviet Union, papers stored in out-of the way places overlooked by others, and materials that were readily available but ignored by liberal journalists and academics. Some documents had mysteriously disappeared, only to turn up elsewhere.

COMMUNIST INFILTRATION

Evans uses the original sources to tell the real story of McCarthy and the McCarthy era. Here is a summary of the real story.

Before and during World War II, the United States government developed a very serious problem of communist infiltration. Back then, communism was seen by many on the left as the wave of the future, and many on both the left and right failed to understand the nature and severity of the threat.

Consequently, communists were readily hired into the newly-created New Deal agencies. The problem accelerated during the war, when the Soviet Union was America's "ally". They were hired into the temporary wartime agencies, and after the war they moved on to more established agencies. The State Department was a particular target, with communists also becoming staffers in many other cabinet agencies, the White House, some scientific labs, and some Army institutions. Literally hundreds of people who had sworn their allegiance to Moscow ended up on the government payroll.

EFFECTS OF SUBVERSION

All of this subversion had disastrous effects for America and the world. During the war, communists engaged in espionage of sensitive military plans. The worst of the many incidents of espionage was the theft of the plans for the nuclear bomb, achieved by the Rosenbergs and others. This dramatically strengthened the position of the communists in Russia, facilitating the slaughter and tyranny they committed. It also lead to the threat of nuclear war that continues to this day.

Communists also used political subversion to shape the course of World War II. They manipulated intelligence and State Department analysis to push America toward war with Japan, relieving the threat that Japan might go to war with Moscow. They fought against a plan to invade Europe through Italy, rather than France, as this would have imperiled the eventual Soviet control of Eastern Europe. Soviet agent Alger Hiss was a top advisor to Roosevelt at the Yalta conference that confirmed Soviet control of Eastern Europe, leading to forty years of tyranny and millions murdered in those countries.

Communists were also key in founding the post-war international agencies. Secret agent of Stalin Alger Hiss co-wrote the United Nations charter with a (known) Russian agent of Stalin. Hiss was the secretary general of the conference that founded the United Nations. Not surprisingly, the UN soon had American communists on its payroll, too.

Meanwhile, Soviet agent and deputy Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White participated in the Bretton Woods conference that founded the International Monetary Fund, and was then appointed by President Truman to head that agency.

Soviet influence of the intelligence received by the President and other key officials had significant effects on American actions that would decide control of nations. One example is Yugoslavia, where America was convinced to support communist Tito rather than anti-communist General Draja Mihailovich to fight Nazi control. With this aid, Tito seized control of the country after the war, and the usual slaughter of millions and decades of tyranny ensued.

A much larger example of the same phenomenon is China. Before the war, nationalist Chaing was fighting the Japanese forces occupying China, while communist Mao Tse-Tung maneuvered to take control of China himself. American officials, who were secretly Soviet agents, relentlessly attacked Chaing and praised Mao in their reports. Communists used front groups, including the Institute for Pacific Relations to crank out an endless stream of propaganda aiding the communist cause.

When the Japanese left Manchuria, the weapons and ammunition they left behind were turned over to Mao, not Chaing. Aid to Chaing was reduced, delayed, and eventually cut off. The State Department even hatched a plan (never implemented) to assassinate Chaing. Mao was victorious, and went on to slaughter seventy million Chinese. The threat from communist China continues to this day.

SECURITY STRUGGLES

We know of the communist infiltration for certain due the Venona transcripts, decoded Soviet communications naming many of their agents. But significant evidence of this communist infiltration came to light at the time.

Communist handlers Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley defected and told their stories to the government, each naming scores of communist agents. The FBI was busy for many years investigating communist subversion, identifying many communists and security risks. Various internal security divisions in the State Department and other agencies compiled documentation on communists and other security risks. And congressional committees like the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) also investigated subversion.

These efforts did succeed in getting some communists out of the government. But these efforts were often either ignored or resisted. The FBI sent a steady stream of reports exposing communists in the government to the White House, only to have them ignored by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. The efforts of internal security divisions often met with the same fate, particularly in the State Department and the Army. Bentley and Chambers were ruthlessly attacked when they testified publicly before the HCUA. Communists not surprisingly participated in these attacks, but many non-communist liberals were just as vitriolic. The Truman administration actually planned to indict Chambers rather than his nemesis Alger Hiss before public opinion and the weight of evidence forced them to reverse course.

One less-known but particularly egregious case is the Amerasia spy scandal. The FBI caught State Department official John Stewart Service handing reams of classified data to the communist-run magazine Amerasia. Service and the others involved were charged. But officials high in the Truman administration conspired to fix the case so that Service was found not guilty. The FBI caught them on tape.

Security practice at the State Department was particularly bad. The Department refused to act on many serious security risks, setting an almost impossible standard of proof for removal. When the evidence or political pressure became overwhelming, the suspect would be allowed to quietly resign rather than be fired, and so could get a job elsewhere in the government or at agencies like the UN.

Truman simply refused to do anything about the communists in the government.

MCCARTHY'S BATTLES

Senator Joe McCarthy entered the public eye in 1950 with his famous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia. The Senate quickly established a committee to examine the cases that McCarthy brought forward. But under the leadership of Senator Millard Tydings, the hearings quickly turned into an attack on McCarthy. Denials from the communist agents were accepted at face value, and the committee refused to examine the State Department security files. Tydings, the White House, and the State Department coordinated behind the scenes to attack McCarthy. The committee eventually issued a fraudulent report clearing everyone and attacking McCarthy.

McCarthy continued to hammer these issues in speeched before the Senate and elsewhere. During the 1951-1952 session, there were two more committees convened to attack McCarthy. The Truman administration still refused to remove communist agents from the government except when public pressure became overwhelming, but they showed no such reluctance in their pursuit of McCarthy's sources of information, whom they intended to fire posthaste.

These battles were largely won by McCarthy. Truman left office one of the most unpopular Presidents in American history, due to the security battles, the loss of China, and the bloody no-win war in Korea. A number of McCarthy's Senate foes were defeated for reelection. In 1952, General Dwight Eisenhower was elected President. Eisenhower ran as a Republican, though he had no history as a Republican and was very much a product of the Roosevelt/Truman administrations.

When Republicans won control of the Senate in 1952, McCarthy became chairman of the Senate Investigations Subcommittee. For a little over a year, McCarthy rooted out subversion and security problems in the State Department, Voice of America, and elsewhere. Many of these problems were corrected by the new administration.

One of his most famous cases, and the one that led to his downfall, was his investigation of the Army Signal Corps. The pattern here was very similar to what had happened in the State Department. Clearly identified communists were committing espionage, and would have been eliminated by internal security forces, but were saved by higher officials in the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, the Eisenhower administration became increasingly hostile to McCarthy. It invented the doctrine of "executive privilege" to refuse to allow McCarthy's committee to call the official on the Pentagon board responsible for clearing the communists. The Army filed spurious charges against McCarthy, leading to another committee to investigate McCarthy, followed by a committee investigating censure of McCarthy. McCarthy was finally censured for supposedly being insufficiently cooperative with the committees that attacked him. He died three years later, in 1957.

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK

Evans covers these issues in detail. The first section of the book contains introductory material on researching McCarthy, the standard historical treatment of McCarthy, McCarthy's biography, communists uncovered by McCarthy, the HCUA led by Rep. Martin Dies, and communist subversion in Britain and elsewhere.

The second section contains background information on communist subversion and tactics, subversion at the OWI and OSS leading to the loss of Yugoslavia, the disinformation in reports from China of American Soviet agents John Stewart Service and others, the Amerasia spy scandal and coverup, the revelations of Elizabeth Bentley, the reports from the FBI to President Truman, the security battles in the State Department, and congressional efforts to investigate security problems.

The third section covers the year 1950 and the Tyding Committee, specifically McCarthy's Wheeling speech, the subsequent speech before the Senate, the Tydings hearings, backstage efforts to attack McCarthy, the Tydings Committee report, the Lee list and McCarthy's sources, the "four committees" that previously investigated subversion, the State Department security files, State Department security standards, and McCarthy's sources of information.

The fourth section covers the specifics of many McCarthy cases and others, including the cases of Robert Oppenheimer, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, and others, anonymous McCarthy cases, public cases, the Amerasia spy case, the Institute of Pacific Relations, Professor Owen Lattimore, Phillip Jessup and Frederick Field, McCarthy's speech about General George Marshall, and McCarthy's battle with Senator William Benton.

The fifth section covers the years 1953-1954, including the political landscape in 1953, the Voice of America investigation, books in US information centers, the nomination of Charles Bohlen as ambassador to Moscow, the smearing of J. B. Matthews as anti-protestant, security problems in the Army Signal Corps, the testimony of Generals Kirke Lawton and Ralph Zwicker, the case of Annie Lee Moss, the Army-McCarthy hearings, and side issues in those hearings.

The sixth section concludes with the Eisenhower "executive privilege" order, the censure hearings, and McCarthy's legacy.

THE CONTROVERSY OVER MCCARTHY

From beginning to end, McCarthy was relentlessly attacked. Five different Senate committees investigated him. The White House, State Department, Senate liberals, liberal interest groups, and much of the news media attacked him relentlessly.

The real issue in the McCarthy era was that the President and his top officials refused to remove known communists from key positions in the government. McCarthy worked relentlessly to expose this. The facts here were so explosive that they threatened to destroy the entire political establishment. That is why they worked to hard to destroy McCarthy. Why the establishment was so unwilling to remove communists from the government is a question that has never been adequately answered.

Evans uses original documents to show that McCarthy was right about his major charges and that his opponents lied shamelessly and repeatedly about the issues and McCarthy. He also shows how liberal historians have misstated and distorted the record. He deals with tangential charges from the Wheeling numbers to the "three Annie Lee Mosses". He reproduces many of the most significant original documents in making his case.

While McCarthy was ultimately politically defeated, he had significant successes. He drove many communists out of the government. He succeeded in getting various agencies to improve security standards. He defeated and discredited the Truman administration, at least at the time. He exposed the subversion of China policy and prevented similar betrayals from happening elsewhere. And he made anti-communism a major political issue for the rest of the cold war.

For this, he deserves to be remembered, and thanked.

McCarthysim: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies
Setting the McCarthy Record Straight
A Reputation Rescued

Saturday, May 24, 2008

POLITICAL UPDATE--Civil Liberties

This update focuses on civil liberties. Authorities in Texas recently seized over 400 children from a religious sect in Texas without evidence. An appeals court ruled that the seizure was illegal. The anniversary of the Waco massacre recently passed. Government threatens civil liberties in many ways.

Joseph Farah: Abuse of Power in Texas
Lew Rockwell: But What About the Children?
JH Huebert: Beware the Amtrak Security Scam
Ericka Anderson: States Bi-partisanly Oppose Real ID -- Still
Anthony Gregory: Why Waco Still Matters
Chuck Baldwin: There Must Never Be Another Waco!
James Bovard: The Martial Law Act of 2006
William Anderson: Obey Your Masters in All Things
Wilton Alston: Who’s Listening In on You?
Joseph D'Agostino: Children of the State

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.

Trouble in Texas

A state appeals court in Texas has ruled that the seizure of hundreds of children from a religious sect was illegal. This is a victory for liberty.

Texas seizure of polygamist-sect kids thrown out

The ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints was raided about a month ago by Texas authorities. The FLDS is a splinter Mormon group. It has some odd religious beliefs. But that hardly justifies what happened to them.

An anonymous tip, which has been shown to be fraudulent, led authorities to raid the ranch and take all of the hundreds of children away from their parents. The authorities made wild allegations of child abuse. But no one has been charged with a crime, nor has any evidence been brought forth to substantiate these allegations.

The FLDS is known to promote polygamy. Granted, this is not an ideal lifestyle. But taking children away from the only parents that they have ever known is hardly an improvement.

The foster care system is deeply flawed. Abuse occurs there too, sometimes children even die. It should be the absolute last resort. Taking children away from parents who love them, even flawed parents, might even be considered abuse.

The children taken away weren't just the teenage girls allegedly at risk of abuse. They were boys, babies, children of monogamous couples. All of them. Imagine if your neighbor hurt a child, so the authorities arrested everyone in the neighborhood and took their children away.

If there was any actual abuse, it should be prosecuted. As of now, there is no evidence that there was. Unfortunately, child "protective" agencies have broad powers to take away children whenever liberal social workers disapprove of the actions of parents.

The FLDS is an unpleasant group in many ways. But it isn't hard to imagine that the same thing that happened to them could happen to others of whom the government disapproves: fundamentalist Christians, homeschoolers, gun owners, etc. The principles of liberty must be defended even in the hard cases. That's why the judges' decision is commendable.

See this blog for more detail on the story.

Immigration Ups and Downs

Here are a few immigration-related items.

The AgJobs amnesty has been stopped, at least for now. It was stripped out of the Iraq War funding bill.
Total Victory in the Senate...But Don't Get Too Comfortable

John McCain is back to promising amnesty.
McCain Talking Up "Immigration Reform"
Shamnesty John McCain is back in full force: No, he never “got the message”

Kalamazoo Public Schools are planning to create a bilingual school. Aren't you glad they got all those tax increases?
Magnet proposal draws crowd

Friday, May 23, 2008

Carl Levin's Plan to Ban Guns

Michigan has long been a pro-gun state. The last half-dozen or so pro-gun measures voted on in the state legislature have passed overwhelmingly.

But Michigan has a Senator who doesn't vote for gun rights: Carl Levin.

Levin has a long anti-gun voting record. He voted against protecting gun manufacturers against lawsuits designed to bankrupt them. He voted to impose more regulations on guns shows. He opposed prohibiting government from confiscating guns. Levin offered an amendment to make it impossible for gun manufacturers to file for bankruptcy. Levin supported the ban on so-called "assault weapons". He has F ratings for both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.

But perhaps Levin's most outrageous attack on gun rights is not widely known.

The issue was a provision of the 2001 defense authorization bill passed shortly after 9/11. This provision involved the "demilitarization" of former military weapons. An NRA alert explains the issue.

This week, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1438, the Department of Defense (DoD) annual authorization bill, which contains a provision that is of grave concern to hunters and sport shooters. Section 1062 of this bill provides the Secretary of Defense with the authority to require "demilitarization" of any "significant military equipment" that has ever been owned by the DoD. This would include all firearms (such as the venerable M1, M1 Carbine, and Model 1911, as well as all Civilian Marksmanship Program rifles, even "sporterized" surplus bolt-action Springfields!), firearm barrels, ammunition, and gun powder. "Demilitarization" is the term for rendering such items permanently inoperable, and Sec. 1062 allows for this action to be carried out either by the owner or a third party, with the owner paying the cost, or by the DoD. However, if the DoD determines it should perform the demilitarization, it can also determine that the cost of returning the demilled item is prohibitive, then simply keep the item, and reimburse the owner only for the fair market scrap value of the item.

Furthermore, this new authority would require private citizens to determine for themselves if an item they own is subject to demilitarization, and face criminal penalties for non-compliance. The DoD would be under no obligation to notify law-abiding citizens that items they have lawfully owned for years, and perhaps that their families have owned for generations, are suddenly subject to forced demilitarization. This becomes extremely significant when one considers that U.S. military surplus has been regularly—and legally—bought, sold, and traded for centuries. Countless Americans own items that could be subject to Sec. 1062. It is likely millions of law-abiding Americans would be affected, and could unknowingly become criminals overnight without having done anything or having ever been informed.
The provision was passed by the Senate, then under democrat control, but was stripped out of the corresponding bill in the House, which was under Republican control. Then, as now, Michigan Senator Carl Levin was Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was one of the negotiators in the conference committee to iron out the differences between the two bills.

Levin fought to protect the provision and offered several "compromises" attempting to preserve it. A GOA alert relates that

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, wants this confiscation provision in the bill. Because of gun owners like you have raised a fuss about this provision, Levin has been forced to offer compromise language.

BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS COMPROMISE WILL STILL LET THE GOVERNMENT CONFISCATE PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS!!!

Thus, it is imperative that you contact Sen. Warner again and let him know that the anti-gun Levin compromise is just that -- it is anti-gun!

Sen. Levin has inserted some "exceptions" into his language in order to assuage conservatives and make them think that private gun owners will be protected. But the exceptions are VERY limited and will not cover all the different ways that individuals have acquired surplus firearms and militaria.
The provision was eventually stripped out of the bill. A later GOA alert concludes

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) made several attempts to keep the provision by offering compromise after compromise, but the loud outcry from grassroots activists strengthened the bargaining position of pro-gun legislators.
Make no mistake. Carl Levin fought hard to give government the authority the confiscate and destroy millions of privately owned firearms. These firearms were based on military designs, but are no more dangerous than any other civilian firearms. They include some of the hunting rifles that democrats claim to like so much. Adding insult to injury, this provision, which Carl Levin fought so hard to protect, was almost smuggled through shortly after the attacks of 9/11.

It is clear from his actions that Carl Levin is no friend of gun owners. Gun owners shouldn't reward Carl Levin with another term in office.

On the Issues: Carl Levin on Gun Control
Jim Zumbo: Jim Zumbo Letter to the U.S. Senate Opposing a Ban on "Assault Weapons"
National Rifle Association: Congress Considers "Demilitarization" Requirement
The Washington Times: Bill provision has military collectors up in arms
Gun Owners of America: Sen. Warner Still Holds the Key to Stopping Confiscation of Firearms
Gun Owners of America: Sen. Smith Announces Victory on Gun "Demil" Provision
Gun Owners of America: Backdoor Gun Control To Be Voted On In The Senate

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Jase Bolger for State Representative

Calhoun County Commissioner Jase Bolger is a candidate for State Representative in the 63rd district. The 63rd district covers the eastern half of Kalamazoo County and part of Calhoun County north and east of Battle Creek, including Marshall.

Bolger is unopposed in the Republican primary. Former State Rep. Jerry VanderRoest had filed for election but he dropped out of the race. At least two other candidates who considered running for this seat decided not to. This will be a change from the previous two cycles, when the district saw bitter primaries between VanderRoest and Representative Lorence Wenke, who is term-limited.

Bolger is a graduate of Western Michigan University. He is a resident of Marshall in Calhoun County who works in Kalamazoo County. He founded and owns a small business. He was elected to the Calhoun County commission in 2004 and reelected in 2006.

Bolger appears reasonably conservative. His website says the right things about taxes and spending, life and guns. Not all of his views are known.

Bolger has enjoyed strong fundraising. He raised about $41,000, including a $24,000 loan from himself. As of the end of 2007, he had about $40,000 in the bank.

Bolger's general election opponent will be democrat Phyllis Smith. She also ran in 2006 and lost to Rep. Wenke. She has not reported any fundraising yet and does not appear to have a website.

See Jase Bolger's website: http://www.electbolger.com/

62nd District Preview

The 62nd district in the Michigan House of Representatives covers the majority of Calhoun County, including Battle Creek and Albion. It is currently represented by Republican Mike Nofs, who is term-limited. It is a politically competitive district that could be won by either party.

There are two candidates for the Republican nomination, Susan Baldwin and Gregory Moore.

Susan Baldwin is a Battle Creek city commissioner. She is serving her third term. She has a website. Her lists lists generalities on economics and education, and does not mention social issues. She has raised about $33,000, including a $30,000 loan from herself.

Gregory Moore is a Calhoun County Commissioner. Less than half of his district overlaps the 62nd house district. He does not appear to have a website yet. He has not reported any fundraising yet.

There are two candidates for the democrat nomination, Kate Segal and Tim Nendorf.

Kate Segal is a Calhoun County Commissioner. She has a website. She has raised about $25,000. Examining her list of contributors makes it clear that she is the candidate of the democrat party establishment. Her website has generalities about economics and education. She has received $5000 from MI LIST, the state affiliate of Emily's List, a radical pro-abortion organization.

Tim Nendorf is a former intern for State Senator Mark Schauer. He was involved in the Western Michigan University student government, where he supported a scholarship for illegal aliens. He has a website. He is not very specific, but he appears to promise more government spending. He has raised about $6000, including a $1700 loan from himself.

Walberg News

Here's a couple interesting columns on the race between Tim Walberg and Mark Schauer.

MI-7: A Joe Schwarz run is a nightmare for Mark Schauer

MI-7: Tim Walberg has advantage over Mark Schauer

Previous:
Walberg most Fiscally Conservative
The Phony Walberg/Schauer Poll

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Understanding Government: Bureaucracy

Implementing any government program requires government employees. Analyzing the incentives facing bureaucrats is essential to understanding government.

GOVERNMENT VERSUS THE FREE MARKET

The critical distinction between government and private organizations is that government can use force to fund itself, while private organizations cannot. Thus private organizations must be funded through contributions or mutually beneficial trade, while government funds itself through involuntary taxation.

Thus private organizations must be responsible for their finances in a way that government need not. Private organizations can waste money, but only to the extent that they have it. If they waste too much, they will go bankrupt. In contrast, the government can continue to waste money as long it can continue to extract money from taxpayers, which is pretty much forever. Thus the consequences for government misexpenditures of money are less certain or severe for those spending the money. The consequences are primarily felt by the taxpayers.

This is specifically true with respect to bureaucracy. Practically any government program requires hiring employees, spending money, and establishing rules. But employees can be unnecessary or incompetent, money can be wasted, and rules can be unnecessary or counterproductive. For a program to be effective, there must be some means of making these things work properly.

In the free market, this mechanism is the profit and loss system. Businesses are rewarded for succeeding, and punished for failing. No similar mechanism exists for government. Politics is at best only intermittently effective at producing good results, and is often counterproductive. This explains why government programs so rarely succeed at their stated goals.

PERVERSE INCENTIVES

Consider the different incentives facing government and private organizations regarding problem solving. A private organization must solve a problem to be rewarded. If it does not, it will not be patronized again.

In contrast, if the government solves a problem, it will not receive any more funding for that problem. But it if fails to solve a problem, it will most likely continue to be funded to "keep trying" to solve it. It may even receive more funding the worse the problem gets, providing a perverse incentive to exacerbate the problem. Government can thus prosper through failure. The best sort of problems for government are those that can never be solved, but must be fought forever.

Employees within a bureaucracy face their own perverse incentives. In the free market, money and prestige comes from a person's value at a solving problems. But in government, there is no way to determine how valuable someone's labor actually is. Instead, what usually happens is that a manager's compensation and status is primarily determined by how many people he has working for him, as it would seem untoward to have an employee making more than his boss. Thus managers have an incentive to increase the number of employees working for them as much as possible. This instinct exists in the private sector as well, but it is tempered by the need to make a profit. Of course, no such need exists in government.

Conversely, bureaucrats fight efforts to cut their funding. One common stratagem when cuts are proposed is the "Washington Monument strategy". That is, rather than cut waste, unnecessary spending, or employee salaries, threaten to cut valuable or popular services. This often succeeds in deterring any cuts.

Another common feature of bureaucracies is that they usually do not cooperate well with each other and often fight each other for jurisdiction. This too can be explained in terms of incentives. Bureaucracies have little incentive to assist other bureaucracies, since they are all competing for funding. Being helpful and cooperative would aid another agency at your own expense, while hoarding information and being unhelpful makes it more likely that only you are capable of addressing a problem, and hence that you will get more funding. The larger jurisdiction an agency has, the more problems it is tasked to solve, the more funding it is likely to receive. In contrast, private organizations compete, but they also cooperate when it is mutually beneficial.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNIONS

Because government does not face the same constraints as a private organization, its employees are likely to be less capable than those in the private sector. This is because government does not need to make a profit and does not benefit from solving problems. More capable, enterprising people are more likely to seek private sector employment and be rewarded for their efforts. In contrast, less capable, less enterprising employees are more likely to seek government employment, as this work is likely to be more secure and less demanding.

This is not only another reason why government is likely to be less effective than the private sector. It is also a reason for government employees to be particularly tied to their jobs, since they are unlikely to find jobs that are as well-paying elsewhere.

Thus government employees have a strong incentive to organize a union. If this is not allowed, they have a strong incentive to lobby so that it is allowed. It is all but certain that they will lobby for "civil service rules" that make it difficult, if not impossible, to fire an employee. Politicians and government managers have much weaker incentives to resist such demands, since they are not spending their own money. Thus such rules will tend to be approved, and government will become even less effective at solving problems.

The government employees union will also certainly lobby for higher pay and benefits for government employees. It will tend to succeed, since as before politicians are not spending their own money. Of course, private sector unions also lobby for higher wages and benefits. But private businesses are constrained by the need to make a profit. Also, there is competition is the private sector to weed out any companies made too inefficient by unions. But this does not occur in government. Thus government employees will tend to make more than they could in the private sector, with their pay coming from taxpayers.

Government employee unions will also fight tooth and nail against any attempt to cut government spending, no matter how modest or reasonable. Those attempting to cut government spending, whether principled or pragmatic, do not have the same incentive. Thus government programs are rarely ever cut, and many programs that are clearly outdated or anachronistic continue by inertia.

Further, when bureaucracy gets large, in a democracy, government employees can form a significant voting block. They will almost certainly be better organized than taxpayers. Thus any politician who attempts to cut government spending or amend civil service rules risks losing office in the next election.

RED TAPE

Another common characteristic of bureaucracy is the proliferation of rules and regulations, commonly known as red tape. Any significant organization will have rules and procedures, but government has no profit motive to keep them in check.

Further, government employees have to do something with their time to maintain the impression of value. One of the safest things to do is to develop more rules and regulations. These can always be excused as necessary to preserve safety, document spending, etc., whether or not they do any such thing. These rules are all too likely to be counterproductive, since government employees have little incentive to make them work well. Thus more bureaucracy tends to make problems worse. Thus spending more money on a problem will often make it worse, not better.

Bureaucracy is practically synonymous with being unhelpful. Once again, incentives explain the situation, though the reason for this may not be obvious initially. In this article by Gary North, a bureaucrat explains how this works.

A woman who was reputed to be the longest-serving bureaucrat in Washington was about to retire. This appeared to be an ideal human interest story, so a reporter from the "Washington Star" – R.I.P. – was sent to interview her.

Inevitably, the reporter got to the standard question asked of any long-term survivor of anything. "How did you last so long in this department?" Because she was about to retire, she decided to reveal the fundamental secret of survival that has governed every bureaucracy since the era of the Middle Kingdom Pharaohs.

"No matter what anyone from outside the department asked me if he was allowed to do, my answer was always 'no.' "

The reporter, not realizing that he was close to the philosopher's stone of bureaucratic management, asked why. Her answer will ring true down through the ages. It will still be recognized as the central operational principle of all government bureaucracies on the day that the four horsemen of the apocalypse mount their stallions and ride. She said:

"I said 'no' initially because, if I was later forced by the rules retreat to 'yes,' I made a friend. But if I was forced to retreat to 'no' after having said 'yes,' I made an enemy. Around here, you don't want to make needless enemies."
PROSPECTS FOR REFORM

Politicians perennially talk of reforming government, making government work, streamlining bureaucracy, cutting waste, etc. However, this is unlikely. To be sure, it is possible for a particularly forceful and effective administrator to cut through bureaucracy and make government more effective. There are some rare examples of this occurring.

But the relevant question is not whether this is possible but whether it is likely. For all the reasons listed above, including the difference between government and the free market, perverse incentives, and government employee unions, it is unlikely that such people will be in charge of government agencies most of the time.

For these reasons, bureaucracy is pretty much unreformable. Individual cases of waste can be exposed, and government agencies can sometimes be pressured into making some reforms, but these victories are always temporary. This does not make exposing bureaucracy a pointless cause, but it means that the effect of such efforts is limited.

The only real options are either to accept bureaucracy or to abolish it. Any proposal to use government to address a problem should consider the cost of bureaucracy and the problems associated with it. Bureaucracy is one of several significant reasons why the free market is likely to be more effective in solving problems. Anyone who wishes to solve problems should work to minimize government power as much as possible.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Stop the AgJobs Amnesty

Congress is once again scheming to pass amnesty. While debating the war supplemental bill, the Senate appropriations committee inserted the AgJobs amnesty as an amendment. (What, don't you see the connection?)

Amnesty alert: Tracking the Feinstein/Craig illegal alien farmworker amendment

This provision was not debated in committee, and the public was not aware that there would be a vote ahead of time. Liberals in Congress are trying to sneak this through, just like they tried to sneak through the amnesty bill last year with no committee hearings. The amendment is sponsored by liberal democrat Diane Feinstien and disgraced Republican Larry Craig.

The AgJobs bill would allow millions of foreigners to take jobs from Americans and lower wages. It would give legal status to millions of illegals.

Isn't unemployment high enough in Michigan? Do we really need more foreigners to take our jobs and lower wages?

Will Michigan senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow vote with Michigan workers or illegal aliens?