Congressional Corruption

One of my students writes in response to my recent post about Congress and corruption:

I share your sentiments Prof. Eubanks, the Actions of Congress can be quite discouraging. However, I do not quite agree that the assumption of rational ignorance is such a final word in the matter. While people’s tastes and preferences are quite consistent, they do have the habit of changing. Take for example people’s taste in sporting events.

In the first half of the twentieth century baseball was the sporting event of choice in the United States. In the years after though, football began to gain prominence until it has become the dominant sport in America. So what does this have to do with the Federal government (beyond monopoly rulings)? I suggest that this is a good example that peoples’ interests can shift and change in intensity. Could it be that Congress takes so much of American’s income because citizens no longer have the same intensity of interest in knowing what Congress spends it on?

Of course this could simply be a consequence of the increasing population; that people have less at stake that they use to. While I don’t deny this probably has an effect, I think that at the margin, the increase in population has little effect. For example if your vote one of five million instead of being one vote in one million would a person’s decision change all that much. I suggest that by the time one’s share in matters reaches the minute size of one millionth other incentives than their control of matters is at issue.

Or let us look at this in another way. We have allocated some of our scarce time in debating the actions of Congress. Have we done this because we believe that Congress will change their ways because they have read what we have to say? As much as I would like to think that our representatives listen to what a few of their constituents have to say, I doubt they do, and am very skeptical that and change would result. I think I can safely say our interest in politics extends beyond swaying political policy. It is this interest that gives me hope that we may one day have a Congress reigned in by the people.

When I hear about the latest spending by Congress I am discouraged, and when I hear others complain about Congress I share their feeling, but when I hear people speak that they will not forget the actions of Congress I am encouraged. We here are debating the actions of Congress, bringing to light those actions that they would rather us not think of come Election Day. We are taking more interest in the actions of the government simply, in my humble opinion, for the satisfaction knowing that Congress is listening to, and following, the will of the people. In this we are not alone, and that gives me courage the Lincoln’s remarks, “of the people, for the people, and by the people” may one day hold true again.

Best Wishes,
DeEon Warner

Congressional Earmark Corruption Continued

Congressional election politics last time around included "promises" to reform the practice of budget earmarking by members of Congress. While the issue and the "promises" seemed prominent in news and commentary then, one wonders what Congress has been up to in delivering on the "promises" to reform. There have actually been efforts to deliver on the promises, and the Club for Growth has been watching and keeping a scorecard. In the House there have apparently been 50 amendments offered that would strip earmark pork from appropriations bills. Unfortunately, 49 of those amendments FAILED. The Club for Growth's scorecard, along with notes of interest, can be found here. Two of the interesting notes are:

Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.

105 congressmen scored an embarrassing 0%, voting against every single amendment. The Pork Hall of Shame includes 81 Democrats and 24 Republicans.

Only 16 members of Congress voted in favor of all 50 anti-pork amendments, while 105 members of Congress voted against all the amendments aimed at removing the pork.

Let's consider some of the pork projects:

$300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft and Technician Training project

$150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium

$200,000 for the Corporation for Jefferson's Popular Forest

$2,000,000 for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service (Hmmm, guess we know who requested this one)

$628,843 for grape genetics research

$400,000 for the alternative uses of a tobacco grant

$489,000 for Ruminant Nutrition Consortium

$6,371,000 for the wood utilization grant

I think a list like this is troubling enough (just try to figure out which enumerated power in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution these spending projects fit under). But, a list may not help you understand why all this seems like corruption to me. So, consider this note by the Club for Growth:

$1 million to the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, requested by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). No congressional member could confirm the existence of the alleged Center. Amendment failed, 98-326.

What is a voter to think when 326 members of Congress vote to spend $1 million on something they don't know exists?

Oh, let's not forget, one of the 50 amendments to remove the pork did actually pass:

$129,000 for the "perfect Christmas tree" project.

I guess we can't look forward to a future with perfect Christmas trees. Well, good, this is probably as it should be.

The corruption in all of this is not that Congress spends money on such projects. It is inherent in the characteristics of legislatures to supply the rent seekers with such projects. The corruption in all this is that these projects become part of appropriations bills because individual members of Congress are allowed to put them there, and often the individual requests for such spending projects are made secretly because the members making the requests are not identified. It has even been the case in the past that such earmarks do not appear in the written language of the appropriations bills being passed by Congress.

I would certainly like to see our corrupt Congress reformed, but alas, I do not think this is very likely. I would certainly like to see Congress and the federal government in general significantly constrained in the powers it is allowed to exercise. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to have the heart for this either (although there was a time back in history when it did).

Maybe, though, people can come to see government as it is, and to see it's nature as James Madison (and his compatriots) told us long ago. But, given that I suggest to my students that they assume voters are rationally ignorant, there is not much hope for this idea either.

I'm kind of bummed now. Maybe I should think about joining the rationally ignorant.

[via Instapundit]

Surf and Tax

Don Surber:

Come next January when the top is up on my Mustang and I am shoveling my driveway, I will be warm in the knowledge that at least some of my federal tax dollars will be used to allow members of anti-alcohol groups to sun themselves at the Bahia Resort hotel in Mission Bay, Calif.

Anger always makes me warm.

Using a federal grant, the California Council on Alcohol Policy will hold a nice seminar for officials from tax-exempt groups that lobby the California legislature.

Ah, government, isn't it wonderful? Guess I feeling kind of warm myself.

Democratic Debate Spawns Weird Economics

James Pethokoukis notes several illustrations of weird economics. Here is one illustration:

"For every $1 billion we spend [on infrastructure], 40,000 jobs can be created in the United States of America." -- Sen. Christopher Dodd. I have no doubt that jobs can be created through government spending. But those billions must be taken from the private sector. Will those billions be used more wisely and efficiently and productively by federal bureaucrats than by private managers? If so, maybe the feds should guarantee a job for everyone who wants one. Using the Dodd formula, it would cost a mere $175 billion a year to employ all 7 million unemployed Americans.

Isn't this classic? It happens all the time with politicians and others in government. Apparently when a person enters, or is thinking of entering, government, it is normal to begin thinking that money grows on trees (and even that those trees don't have to be fed or watered). Just pluck the bills off the trees and spend that money and jobs will result. Of course, the trees with those bills are productive people who earn incomes. When those productive people spend their earned incomes, well, jobs are part of that equation as well. Of course, there is an opportunity cost in "lost jobs" that would be associated with those earned incomes being spent by the people who earned those incomes. This is just classic folk economics and nothing good results from believing it.

It is worth the time to look at the other illustrations as well.

Health Care Emerges?

Web Golinkin writes about the emergence of convenient care ($$$) health clinics:

"Convenient care clinics are small health-care facilities with new brand names like RediClinic, MinuteClinic, and Take Care Health Clinics. Most are located in high-traffic retail outlets with pharmacies, such as Wal-Mart, CVS and Walgreen stores. Regional health-care systems have also opened retail-based clinics in their service areas, either directly or in partnerships with independent operators. These clinics generally are staffed by certified nurse practitioners who diagnose, treat and prescribe medications for a limited set of common ailments, such as strep throat and ear infections. They also administer health screenings, medical tests, immunizations, basic physical exams and other preventive care.

Convenient care clinics have been embraced by consumers, who give them consistently high marks for patient satisfaction: 97% of the more than 4,000 RediClinic patients surveyed this year said they would recommend RediClinic to their relatives and friends. This is because the clinics are delivering something that is all too rare in our system -- convenient and affordable health care.

The quality of care at convenient care clinics stems from their use of nationally certified nurse practitioners, who are registered nurses with master's degrees or comparable advanced training. Research over the past 30 years has consistently shown that the primary care provided by nurse practitioners is comparable in quality to that provided by physicians, though nurse practitioners are still required to collaborate with local physicians in most states."

This is very interesting because it seems that it may be an illustration of how people who are free to bear risk discover entrepreneurial opportunities to make a profit by supplying services others need. I suppose some might say this is "the market at work." Certainly it suggests to me that those who want to try to fix the problems many associate with our health care system today by turning to the government and its coercion may be looking in the wrong direction.

Are these convenient care clinics a good idea? One way to judge this question is simply to wait and see if they are sufficiently profitable to continue to be viable businesses.

But, is there a way to get some idea about the answer to this question without having to wait and see? Consider:

"There are about 400 such clinics today and could be several thousand more in the next few years, but their growth is being threatened by burdensome regulations in some states and opposition from some corners of organized medicine."

And, also:

"Some physician organizations, however, including ones in Illinois and Massachusetts, are pushing for new regulations that would impede the growth of convenient care clinics through expensive permitting requirements (which physician practices do not have to face), further limitations on the number of nurse practitioners that an individual physician can supervise, and prohibitions against advertising that compares the fees of convenient care clinics with those of physicians. This is exactly the kind of price transparency our health-care system needs. In addition, the American Medical Association passed resolutions at its recent annual meeting that push for government intervention, legislation and other measures that could curtail the expansion of convenient care clinics.

Opposition to convenient care from some parts of the medical community is made under the pretext of wanting to ensure quality and continuity of care, which is a legitimate but thus far unfounded concern. But the opposition is also about wanting to maintain the status quo even in the face of rapidly escalating costs and a growing shortage of primary-care physicians."

Ah, yes, this is familiar to me. Some people in the health care industry perceive these convenient care clinics as threats, and they are choosing to turn to government in order to use it's coercion and power maintain the status quo to their advantage. Instead of competing to supply a service to customers, they turn to the use of force which is found in government policy. This looks like yet another classic illustration of rent seeking, and it suggests to me that these emerging new clinics are likely to be a good idea.

More Earmark Corruption

Remember that not long ago one political party made heavy use of budget earmarks. If you haven't heard of this term yet an earmark means that one Senator or Congressman is allowed to decide specifically how to spend millions of taxpayer dollars. Often, in the past at least, such spending decisions of specific members of Congress were made secretly because the specific member of Congress making the earmark was not identified, and it was even quite frequently the case that the earmark was not even written into the language of the spending bill that the public could read and that all members of Congress voted on. Such a practice seems to me to clearly indicate there is signficant corruption in our Congress.

Remember also that not long ago the opposite political party made heavy use of being against earmarks in the rhetoric of a political campaign. This political party promised to significantly reform the practice of earmarks. While I personally don't see much to support in a campaign promise to reform Congressional corruption from being a lot of corruption to being less corruption, it is my sense that it was this promise that was a significant reason for this party being elected to control Congress at this time.

I have chosen not to use the names of the two political parties because it seems both parties act the same with respect to earmarks. It is not the case that one party or the other party is corrupt, but rather that Congress itself has become a government agency that is infected by the corruption we call budget earmarks. A WSJ commentary today (subscription required) makes this clear.

"As for Members restraining themselves, they once promised more transparency and limits for the pork-barrel projects known as "earmarks." These secret spending handouts have proliferated in recent years and in 2005 alone cost taxpayers some $27 billion. Worse, they are a kind of gateway drug used to buy votes for even greater spending. As the last unlamented Republican Congress showed all too well, earmarks are also major opportunities for corruption. The current investigation into Mr. Stevens, the long-time head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, centers on whether he may have directed millions in earmarks to benefit family, friends and business partners. (He says he has nothing to hide.)

Voters loathe this way of doing business, and Democrats did well last year campaigning to end the earmark status quo. The public embarrassment also allowed Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn to shame Majority Leader Harry Reid into agreeing to meaningful reform in January. Yet when the final reform emerged from Congressional backrooms last week, any serious reform had vanished. Mr. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proceeded to bring the bill to the floor in a fast-track procedure that has avoided most public scrutiny and limited the ability of reformers to offer amendments to restore the cuts."

Perhaps there are several things to emphasize in these paragraphs, but let me just point out two. First, note that the party leaders in each house "proceeded to bring the bill to the floor in a fast-track procedure that has avoided most public scrutiny and limited the ability of reformers to offer amendments to restore the cuts." Should we suggest that not only does Congress seem characterized by corruption these days, but in addition, at least the leadership (if not the Congressional membership in general) seems to have contempt for the public and perhaps for the basic principles that many people would say are the foundation of our republican form of government. Second, consider the figure for total earmarks in 2005, i.e., $27 billion. Since there are 535 members of Congress, this figure suggests that on average each member of Congress was allowed in 2005 to secretly spend about $50.5 million on projects and on people of their own personal choosing. Of course, that is an average and that means while many members of Congress were not participating in the practice of earmarks, perhaps by choice or perhaps because the Congressional leadership did not allow participation by each Congressional member, there are members of Congress who secretly spent much more than $50 million on their own personal pet projects. Of course, to me, all this seems quite corrupt, and that is just in terms of thinking members of Congress buy support for reelection by paying back people who give dollars to their Congressional reelection campaigns. It is often the case that the corruption is worse than this because often the earmarked monies are spent in ways that provide income for members of the family of the Congressman secretly spending the taxpayer's money.

What else can we learn from this WSJ commentary? Well things like:

"What remains is a sham of a reform. A prohibition on allowing Members to trade earmarks for votes? Gone. A restriction on allowing Members and their staff from promoting earmarks from which they or their families would receive a direct financial benefit? All but gone. The original reform required earmarks to be listed on the Internet and searchable 48 hours before consideration of legislation; the new bill says this is only required if it is "technically feasible." Here's betting Congress finds other urgent uses for its tech staff during Appropriations season.

Our favorite switcheroo: Under the previous Senate reform, the Senate parliamentarian would have determined whether a bill complied with earmark disclosure rules. Under Mr. Reid's new version, the current Majority Leader, that is Mr. Reid himself, will decide if a bill is in compliance. When was the last time a Majority Party Leader declared one of his own bills out of order?"

So, regardless of party, our Congress seems simply to be a corrupt political institution these days. But, perhaps there is another way of looking at all of this. Perhaps this "corruption" is just inherent in the very nature of any legislative body. Perhaps we can't expect members of Congress to behave differently in general because this is just the way legislatures act. If so, then perhaps this reality can't be changed; can't be "reformed."

Perhaps the best answer then to actions such as these that seem to clearly abuse political power is simply to make greater efforts to constrain Congress to a much smaller realm of power. Our Constitution was framed on the concept of enumerated powers which made explicit just those things Congress was supposed to have the power to do. Over the decades the Supreme Court has allowed this idea of enumerated powers to be so significantly eroded that, for the most part, Congress is now allowed the power to intervene in nearly every aspect of our system of political economy, and this means there are few significant meaningful constraints on Congressional action. It seems to me difficult to constrain members of Congress from abusing the legislative power when there are few real constaints on Congressional actions at all. Perhaps the only possible way to reduce government's abuse of power is to have a judicial branch of government that recognizes it's role is to constrain and limit government; not to facilitate and enable government to extend it's powers beyond those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

21st Century Safety Net?

The Washington Post reports on a Congressional bill to expand something called the Trade Adjustment Assistance program:

As part of their campaign to soothe an anxious middle class, congressional Democrats are preparing legislation that would significantly expand federal aid to the most obvious victims of the global economy: workers whose jobs move offshore or are lost to foreign imports.

Under a Senate bill to be introduced today, computer programmers, call-center staffers and other service-sector workers who make up the vast majority of the nation's workforce would for the first time be eligible for a generous package of income, health and retraining benefits currently reserved for manufacturing workers who lose their jobs to international trade.

Democrats say the expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program would begin to reweave the social safety net for the 21st century, as advances permit more industries to take advantage of cheap foreign labor -- even for skilled, white-collar work. By providing special compensation to more of globalization's losers and retraining them for stable jobs at home, they say, an expanded program could begin to ease the resentment and insecurity arising from the new economy.

Greg Mankiw asks 2 questions that seem to me must be considered crucial in evaluating whether the proposal should be law or not:

1. Can you really tell whether worker is losing his job due to trade or due to other forces, such as technological change?

2. Is a worker who loses a job due to trade deserving of a more generous safety net than a worker who loses his job due to other forces, such as technological change?

I suggest the answer to both questions is NO.

So, I wonder which rent-seeking group supports this legislation? I suspect it is not the "anxious middle class."

Silence of the West

Victor Davis Hanson:

"What is striking about all this savagery—whether with the filmed beheadings of Westerners in Iraq to the recent flaming Johnny Storm human torch at Glasgow, screaming epithets as he sought to engulf bystanders and ignite his canisters — is the absolute silence of the West, either distracted by Paris and i-Phones or suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and obsessed with Guantanamo.

It is hard to recall an enemy so savage and yet one so largely ignored by rich affluent and distracted elites as the radical jihadists, as we have to evoke everything from mythology to comic books to find analogies to their extra-human viciousness.

For a self-congratulatory culture issuing moral lectures on everything from global warming to the dangers of smoking, the silence of the West toward the primordial horror from Gaza to Anbar is, well, horrific in its own way as well..."

If you want to understand just a bit of what VDH is writing about, you should follow the link in his comment to Michael Yon's report. And, if you do that, be sure to follow Yon's link to his entire report.

Budget Politics: Pot & Kettle

From a news story in the Washington Post:

"Democrats have pork spending on the menu for their grilling of Jim Nussle, President Bush's pick as White House budget director. Nussle's confirmation hearings will focus on the former congressman's pursuit of earmarks for Iowa, as well as ballooning deficits during his tenure as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

The plan, Democratic strategists say, is to use the hearings to detail the collapse of fiscal discipline during the Bush administration and to grab the offensive from Republicans who are trying to turn the debate over Democratic spending bills into a morality play on thrift.

'We're not going to let these guys act like the protectors of fiscal prudence here when they've left a sea of red ink," said Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.)."

It seems to me that most of what Congress does these days fits the term "rent-seeking." As such, perhaps the very nature of the way Congress works involves "pork," and it really makes no difference whether the Democrat party or the Republican party controls Congress. Congress is Congress and "pork" pays for the vote trading that gets bills passed. (Of course, "earmarks" are an extreme version of what is called "pork," and it seems to me earmarks are a manifestation of Congressional corruption rather than part of the very nature of a legislature.) So, when I read the comment of the Democratic Caucus Chairman that "we're not going to let these guys . . . . .," it really seems to me that the Democrat strategy here is "the pot calling the kettle black." Can the pot calling the kettle black be an successful strategy? Given the rational ignorance of voters, the answer may be yes.

Health Care

DAVID GRATZER has an article at Opinion Journal discussing health care systems. Dr. Gratzer points out that being "born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality." Here are some of the features of reality as he sees it:

• "Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous."
• "A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours."
• ". . . . A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital."
• ". . . . a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over."
• ". . . . France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves."
• ". . . . Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. 'This is a country,' Dr. Day said by way of explanation, 'in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.'

These days there seems to be growing policy talk in Washington about nationalized health care. I'm afraid Dr. Gratzer's view of reality may become increasingly scarce in Washington.

Justice Thomas

Stephen Presser writes an interesting article on Justice Thomas. Here is one passage that suggests why Justice Thomas is one of my heroes:

"When Thomas took his seat on the Court, Justice Byron White gave him some advice about how to respond to the views of his new colleagues: “Don’t change your mind unless you’re truly persuaded.”

Thomas paid attention, showing his fierce independent streak in one of his first cases, Hudson v. McMillan (1992). The suit involved a black Louisiana prisoner named Keith Hudson. Guards had beaten him as a supervisor looked on, telling them not “to have too much fun,” leaving the inmate with “a cracked lip, a broken dental plate, loosened teeth, and cuts and bruises,” according to Hudson’s testimony. Hudson brought a civil rights claim, arguing that he had suffered “cruel and unusual punishment,” which the Eighth Amendment prohibits. In conference, eight of the Court’s nine justices agreed.

Thomas dissented, urging that Hudson’s injuries were actually “minor” and that the Constitution’s “cruel and unusual” language, correctly understood as the framers did, ought to be limited, at a minimum, to significant injury. “In my view,” he explained, “a use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral, it may be tortious, it may be criminal, and it may even be remediable under other provisions of the Federal Constitution, but it is not ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ ” Further, Thomas pointed out, the Eighth Amendment originally referred to the sentence meted out at trial, not to the incarceration conditions that followed. Any decision to abandon these historical understandings should be up to the people, acting through legislation or constitutional amendment, not to the unelected members of the Court."

What do I like about this story? I like that Justice Thomas pointed out that the 8th Amendment originally was about the sentence imposed, and even more importantly, that if this was going to be changed it should be done by "the people" through proper constitutional processes, not by the Court which is not supposed to have the constitutional power to amend the constitution.

China, the Internet, and Liberty

'Breitbart.com reports:

"Recognising the threat of China's growing online community, Chinese President Hu Jintao called in January for the Internet to be 'purified', and the government has since launched a number of online crackdowns.

'The department of propaganda has sent out regulations to try and control the opinions being spread on the Internet, but every citizen has the right to criticise or to take part in public affairs on the Internet,' said Zhu Dake, a professor at Shanghai Tongji University.

'The government has to accept the criticisms of the people, it can no longer react crudely like in the past.'"

This is a very interesting news story, and it's probably worth your time to read the entire piece. One thing the story suggests is that the internet is a fantastic technology for liberty, even in a system of political economy as politically repressive as China.

Can we imagine what the Chinese government might do in order to "purify" the internet?

Here at home, I'm hearing that many of our leaders in Washington are talking about a "fairness doctrine" because of their concerns about talk radio. It seems that the bottom line for such concerns is something like this: "We don't like what talk radio says about us." Maybe such talk by political leaders could also be described as efforts to "purify"? But, thank goodness, we have a First Amendment here at home that will allow us to continue to enjoy the liberty to speak our political minds, even through the means of talk radio. Or, am I too naive or optimistic with respect to our Constitution and the Supreme Court?

[HT Instapundit]

National Parks, Monopoly, & Unofficial Tax

TOM SOWELL:

"When you check into monopoly-controlled lodgings at Yosemite or the Grand Canyon, you are told that one dollar of what you are being charged goes to support some private group that pushes its own agenda for the national parks -- unless you specifically object.

Who are these anonymous groups being funded by this back door method? They have high-sounding names expressing concern about national parks, but that is about all you know about them.

Why can't they get their money from their own members or by making a direct appeal to the public, stating their case, instead of by an unofficial tax on park visitors for a private lobby?"

Sowell's commentary offers good illustrations of problems that arise from monopoly, and in these illustrations he doesn't really emphasize the unofficial tax. Government granting a monopoly is troubling enough, but I am that much more concerned when government seems to be giving it's power to tax to unnamed special interest groups.

Iraq

This is from an email sent by Michael Yon to Glenn Reynolds:

"Another day has passed without my having seen a shred of combat. The area around the city of Hit, in Anbar Province, has mostly fallen silent. A dust storm swept in late yesterday, and as normal, the enemy used the storm for cover to seed a few small IEDs on roads. The bombs were small and were discovered without incident.

I am becoming very interested by the city of Hit and surrounds; the fighting turned-off abruptly in February after Task Force 2-7 Infantry arrived. Why did the fighting end so suddenly?"

Also:

"Iraqis have told me many times that the larger part of this war is not about religion. Fanatical groups such as al Qaeda surely have wreaked havoc, but a huge part of the war is about business, influence and resources. The American Commanding General, David Petraeus, has said repeatedly that money is ammunition in this war. The meetings I attend with local leaders around Iraq are never about religion. Religion is seldom if ever brought up. The meetings are about security, electricity, jobs, water projects. The meetings often are about influence, and politics fit for a novel."

Very interesting.

Wise Government?

Russell Roberts:

"There are two themes in this short excerpt that are often linked together: government can help people so let's ask government to do so. Missing from the logic is whether it is reasonable to assume that asking government to do X is likely to lead to X happening. I understand the theory. But is there evidence for the theory? And putting evidence to the side—it's often ambiguous—is it reasonable to assume that government will act in the way you expect? Does government have the information that would enable a wise decision? And most importantly, does government have the incentive to act wisely?"

Professor Roberts is writing an explanation of his views with respect to a recent Newsweek article. His entire piece is well worth reading. It does seem to me that many people assume government is something it is not, and, by the way, something government cannot be.

The following views seem to me to be an accurate view of government:

In my view, it's best not to assume any motives on the part of "government." There's really no such thing as "government" other than an abstraction we use to describe the sausage factory of legislation. Politicians do have motives. They are the same as mine and yours—a mixture of self-interest and altruism. In the case of the poor, I think it is too easy for a politician to convince himself or herself that interest rate limitations are good for the poor. They are actually good for the wealthier constituents.

It is tempting to assume that government is our friend. My friend might see me about to make a bad financial decision and ask me whether I'm sure it's a good idea. The friend does that out of love or affection. But government does not love. Even the love of a politician is unlikely to extend beyond that of any other stranger. So why do we expect the politician to be our friend and do what is right for us? Given power, I assume the politician will often be tempted to do what is best for the politician. So I think it is best not to ask government to help us make better decisions. Politicians do not have the incentive or the information to help poor people make better financial decisions. And as for the evidence, I see none that suggests that past policies passed in the name of helping the poor have actually done so.

How Things Work: Congress 2007

POLITICO:

"According to the draft resolution, Murtha shouted at Rogers on the House floor Thursday for offering a motion last week to expose $23 million Murtha requested in an intelligence bill.

Murtha had requested the money to prevent the administration from shuttering the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, Pa.. in Murtha’s district.

“I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever,” Murtha told Rogers on the House floor, according to the draft transcript given Politico.

“This is not the way we do things here -- and is that supposed to make me afraid of you?” Rogers replied.

“That’s the way I do it,” Murtha said.

Members are not allowed to threaten earmarks or tax provisions.

The showdown occurred on the Republican side of the aisle, in the so-called Ohio Corner, in front of numerous GOP lawmakers who witnessed the episode, one member present said.

Murtha could not immediately be reached for comment."

Climate Change Models

Brandon Keim:

"Global climate models are missing a good chunk of plant information that could significantly alter long-term climate change predictions. A new technique for modeling phytoplankton -- microscopic plants in the upper layers of the Earth's waters -- could reveal a much more accurate picture."

Now this seems interesting, especially in view of the alleged scientific concensus with respect to global warming. (Perhaps this concensus should not be referred to as a scientific concensus, but instead it might be referred to as a political concensus of many scientists.)

I wonder why someone might think that microscopic plants should be part of climate change models?

"Phytoplankton perform two-thirds of all the Earth's photosynthesis -- the process by which plants turn light, nutrients and carbon dioxide into food. The amount of CO2 processed by phytoplankton during photosynthesis affects concentrations of CO2 in the water, which determines how much of the greenhouse gas the oceans can absorb."

Wow! The little microscopic plants perform 2/3 of all the earth's photosynthesis. Maybe it would be important to have a good model of phytoplankton when worrying about climate change. Apparently the model written about is "a major breakthrough." Why? It seems these little microscopic plants evolve and the new model offers a way of modeling that evolution.

Follows and his colleagues created a model ocean seeded with dozens of randomly generated types of phytoplankton. Like the real ocean, the model accounted for variations in light, temperature and food.

Having set the parameters, Follows' team turned the model on. Over 10 simulated years, the digital creatures competed to survive. Some died out, others flourished, and they gradually settled into their respective niches.

Current marine-modeling systems don't factor in the phytoplankton's ever-evolving nature.

"We know that if climate changes a lot, the oceanic ecosystem will change," says Raleigh Hood, a University of Maryland oceanographer. "This model has the power to change itself under changing conditions."

It sounds like the new model has great value because ocean biology will evolve and this should apparently have an impact on the earth's carbon cycle. The new model may offer a way of guessing about how significant aspects of the earth's climate may evolve in response to carbon emissions. It sounds like models upon which the alleged scientific concensus are grounded may not have enough of the "ever-evolving nature" of nature embodied in them.

In view of news like this, I wonder how much comfort we should find in the scientific concensus on global warming? And, I wonder, in view of news like this if the scientific concensus might also be due for some evolving?

[HT: Instapundit]

Iraq Politics: Here & There

Max Boot:

"An article in USA Today reported on a Pentagon-funded study which confirms what military historians already know--an average insurgency can run for a decade, but most fail in the end. Translation: If we're going to be successful in Iraq, we're going to have to make a long-term commitment. That doesn't mean 170,000 U.S. combat troops stationed there for 10 years, but it does mean a substantial force--tens of thousands of soldiers--will be needed for many years to come. If we're planning to start withdrawing in September 2007--or even September 2008--we might as well run up the white flag now and let the great Iraqi civil war unfold in all its horror."

Also:

Slow progress toward an acceptable modus vivendi may still be possible as long as the U.S. doesn't insist on artificial timetables to resolve complex and emotional issues. What incentive do Iraqi politicians have to make compromises if they think that American troops are heading out the door? If that's the case, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would be well advised to avoid making any concessions that would strengthen their mortal enemies. Thus all the talk in Washington about troop withdrawals has the opposite effect from what is intended. Instead of spurring Iraqi politicians to compromise, it leads them to be more obdurate.

I'm not so sure all the talk in Washington is intended to spur on Iraqi politicians and influence Iraqi politics. Instead I think the talk in Washington is primarily intended to influence our own election politics. But, I do agree with Boot's suggestion that the politics in Washington creates incentives for people in Iraq to hedge their bets with respect to which force will ultimately emerge as the long-term government of Iraq.

What do those in Washington who are pulling for withdrawal of our forces predict is likely to happen with that withdrawal? What is the future they see for Iraq if our forces are withdrawn prior to our next Presidential election? Max Boot writes a bit about what he thinks might happen, and you should read the rest of his commentary to get that picture. I don't think the proponents of withdrawal talk much about the future they picture for Iraq with our near-term withdrawal. I wonder if that is because the picture Boot paints is something like the picture they see as well?

Medicare Meltdown -- Wake Up

Thomas Saving (WSJ $$):

"What's going to happen when the money runs out for Medicare? A recently released report by the program's trustees found that within seven years Medicare taxes will fall short of Medicare expenses by more than 45%. What's more, Medicare and Social Security combined are on track to eat up the entire federal budget.

While the bulk of Medicare dollars comes from payroll taxes and beneficiary premiums, a large and growing share of Medicare expenses is borne by general taxpayers. And although the same law that created the new Medicare drug benefit also requires the president to propose remedial legislation, Congress is not required to actually do anything.

The trustees' wake-up call comes none too soon. But what is needed are not minor adjustments. A major overhaul is in order.

The projected cash flow deficits in these two programs are staggering. For Social Security, the trustees estimate the 75-year burden on general revenues at $6.7 trillion. For Medicare the comparable burden on general revenues is $24.2 trillion, even after allowing the current transfers to grow with the economy. Thus the total burden these programs will impose on federal finances over the next 75 years is $31.9 trillion, more than six times the current outstanding federal debt. Looking beyond 75 years into the indefinite future, the combined long-run funding gap for Social Security and Medicare is $74.8 trillion in today's dollars.

Members of Congress will not have to wait long to experience the practical effects of all of this. Until a few years ago, Social Security and Medicare were taking in more than they spent, on the whole. Thus they provided revenue for other federal programs. That situation is now reversed, and last year the combined deficits in the two programs claimed 5.3% of federal income tax revenues. In 15 years these two programs will require more than a fourth of income tax revenues: In other words, in just 15 years the federal government will have to stop spending one out of every four non-entitlement dollars in order to balance the budget and keep its promises to the elderly."

In conclusion:

"If nothing is done, Social Security and Medicare deficits will engulf the entire federal budget. If our policy makers wait to address the growing deficits until they are out of control, the solutions will be drastic and painful. Let us hope that the current wake-up call is not ignored."

So, what are the chances that our policy makers will ignore these problems? Who on our national political stage is making these problems their issue?

You should read the entire piece, both to understand the nature of our future if nothing is done soon, and also to understand the sorts of things that should be done now.

If this issue is not part of the presidential election season we are already in, aren't the odds that these issues will continue to be ignored pretty high?

Cartoon

As a perfect complement to my last post, check out this cartoon.

[HT: Don Boudreaux]

The Earth's Human Virus

Paul Watson:

"Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach

It won’t be easy but then it’s better than the alternative."

What does Mr. Watson think should be done?

There is only one cure, only one way of stopping this rising epidemic of extinctions. The solution requires an extraordinarily immense effort by all of human society but it is achievable.

We need to re-wild the planet. We need to “get ourselves back to the garden” as Joni Mitchell once so poetically framed it.

This is a process that will require a complete overhaul of all of humanities economic, cultural, and life style systems. Within the context of our present anthropocentric mind-set the solution is impossible. It will require a complete transformation of all human realities.

But the alternative is unimaginable. Unless we address the problem, we will be faced with the complete transformation of the planet from one of diversity to ecosystems shattered, weakened, and destroyed by mass extinction and the collapse of bio-diversity.

One hundred and fifty years ago, Henry David Thoreau wrote that “in wildness is the preservation of the world.”

We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.

In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.

We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us believe.

We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water, and solar power with all generation of power coming from individual or small community units like windmills, waterwheels, and solar panels.

Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.

All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught individually by hand.

Preferably vegan and vegetarian diets can be adopted. We need to eliminate herds of ungulates like cows and sheep and replace them with wild ungulates like bison and caribou and allow those species to fulfill the proper roles in nature. We need to restore the prey predator relationship and bring back the wolf and the bear. We need the large predators and ungulates, not as food, but as custodians of the land that absorbs the carbon dioxide and produces the oxygen. We need to live with them in mutual respect.

We need to remove and destroy all fences and barriers that bar wildlife from moving freely across the land. We need to lower populations of domestic housecats and dogs. Already the world’s housecats consume more fish than all the world’s seals and we have made the cow into the largest aquatic predator on the planet because more than one half of all fish taken from the sea is converted into meal for animal feed.

We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.

We can retain technology but within the context of Henry David Thoreau’s simple message to “simplify, simplify, simplify.”

We need an economic system that provides all people with educational, medical, security, and support systems without mass production and vast utilization of resources. This will only work within the context of a much smaller global population.

Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career. Whereas some people are engineers, musicians, or lawyers, others with the desire and the skills can be fathers and mothers. Schools can be eliminated if the professional parent is also the educator of the child.

This approach to parenting is radical but it is preferable to a system where everyone is expected to have children in order to keep the population of consumers up to keep the wheels of production moving. An economic and political system dependent on continuous growth cannot survive the ecological law of finite resources.

There is, of course, a complexity of problems in adjusting to a new design that will simply allow us to survive the consequences of our past ecological folly.

Wow. Pretty inspiring future, eh? There is much more in Mr. Watson's commentary. You may want to read the rest of it, just so you might understand why he sees us as a virus.

I wonder how many people who are environmental activists agree with Mr. Watson?

I wonder what Mr. Watson thinks of liberty?

[via Instapundit and Dan Gainor]

Patent Predators

Wall Street Journal commentary ($$):

"Patents are only worth the paper they're printed on unless governments protect them. So when Thailand browbeat Abbott Laboratories into dropping its prices for an HIV/AIDS drug last month by threatening to break its patent -- with nearly no international repercussions -- we were alarmed.

Now there's reason to be downright worried. On Friday Brazil declared it would seize the patent for Merck's HIV/AIDS drug, efavirenz. It's the first time Brazil has seized a patent, and it's a slap in the face of the World Trade Organization and the market system for drug innovation.

WTO rules allow countries to seize drug patents in times of 'national emergency' or for 'public non-commercial use.' But President Lula da Silva announced the patent expropriation on Friday after price negotiations broke down. Did Brazil's HIV/AIDS problem suddenly turn into an epidemic overnight, or did Lula just not like Merck's terms -- a 30% discount off the market price? Perhaps he was thinking, instead, of Brazil's huge generic drug industry, which could commercially benefit from a free invention and a big domestic market for selling it."

This can't be good.

Farm Subsidies: The Dirty Truth

Bryan Caplan offers some important observations that follow from a survey about agricultural subsidies:

"Bottom line: In the sector closest to perfect competition, where economists truly have to think hard even to imagine a case against laissez-faire, Americans favor heavy intervention nevertheless."

What is an economist to do? It seems more and more people attend college, and more and more of these people take a microeconomics principles course, and yet, such survey results suggest many do not understand the way economies work.

Money Politics

How can we get money out of politics? Don Boudreaux answers this question in a letter to the editor:

To the Editor:

Drummond Drew writes that "We need to find a way to get money out of politics" (Letters, April 26). He mistakenly supposes that carts push horses. Money is in politics only because politicians confiscate and control so much of our money.

The only way to free politics from the influence of money is to free our money from the influence of politics.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

The War

Richard Miniter:

What does this traitor’s tale tell us about the larger insurgency? One thing that is reveals is Iran’s large role in supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

Serkawt Hassan’s charm is his policeman’s bluntness. He doesn’t have a politician’s worries; he is paid to tell it like it is. As the Director of Security for the Sullimani governorate, he supervises a staff of more than 3,000.

Hassan knows something about insurgencies; he joined the Kurdish peshmerga in October 1981and became a guerilla fighter after the 1988 chemical attacks by Saddam Hussein killed almost 200,000 Kurds. He joined the uprisings against Saddam in 1991 and has worked in the security service ever since. Fighting terrorists, he says, is his top priority.

He is a busy man. Often the interview is interrupted by calls on one of his three landlines or two mobile phones. Sometimes, he is ignoring the chirping cell phone while he presses the landline firmly to his ear. Once in a while, he talks like a 1930s Hollywood mogul with a phone in each ear.

He has survived three suicide attacks aimed at him.

Most insurgents either come from Iran or are somehow tied to that Islamic Republic, he says. “Iran knows about these groups and their movements,” he says matter-of-factly. He cites a number of towns just over the border with Iran, which his investigators believe that safe houses for terrorists are maintained: Mariwan,
Pejwan, Bokan, Sina, and Serdai.

“Iran is the top in terror in all the world,” he says. “If you want peace in all of the world, you change the authority in Iran.”

Is Iran actually in control of these groups, as Osman Ali Mustafa would lead us to believe? He scoffs. “If they want to close the border, no one can cross.”

This is a very interesting, and perhaps telling piece. Worth reading. (via Instapundit)

The Great Light Bulb Prohibition

There is an excellent commentary at OpinionJournal.com on political efforts underway to force the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL).

So the environmentalists have decided that light bulbs are the latest indicator of civilizational decline. Compared to "sustainable" sources, conventional incandescent lighting uses too much electricity, and hence is responsible for emitting greenhouse gases and global warming. The only solution is for government to ban incorrect bulbs. The greens may believe themselves more enlightened than the rest of us, but honestly.

The great light bulb prohibition movement is achieving traction world-wide. In February, Australia enacted an outright ban on incandescents, to take effect in 2010. In March, the European Union handed down a directive on "eco-design for energy using products" whose regulations phase out incandescents within three years. This expansion of the Eurocracy will affect 490 million people and all homes, offices and even streetlamps.

In the U.S., Al Gore and other global warmists demand federal prohibition. Democrat Jane Harman has introduced a bill in the House that would outlaw "non-conforming" bulbs; legislatures in California, Connecticut and New Jersey are considering similar measures.

What are the benefits of CFLs? They are estimated to use about 1/3 of the energy of conventional light bulbs, and it is also said that if every home in the United States installed just 1 CFL there would be an annual "savings" of some 15 million tons of coal annually. I guess that sounds good.

On the other hand, why should government force the use of this new technology?

According to the DOE, compact fluorescents constituted 0.4% of the U.S. residential lighting market in 2000. By 2006, out of the approximate two billion bulbs sold, CFL share jumped to about 5%. This is a larger displacement than it sounds, because CFLs last roughly eight times longer than normal bulbs, or seven years.

General Electric, which controls some 60% of the U.S. residential lighting market, has been aggressively selling CFLs. In 2005, GE tripled its manufacturing capacity, and tripled it again in 2006. Wal-Mart recently launched a major campaign to sell 100 million CFLs by 2008, which would double the CFL market share by itself.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like the new CFL light bulb has been doing rather well with consumers, even without government efforts to force the use of this new technology by prohibiting the continued choice of the old lighting technology.

CFLs are only now experiencing growth because of technological advances. In the 1990s, when they were introduced, they cost $15 to $20 each. They also tended to flicker and give off a harsh light. Now the per-bulb price is down to between $1.50 and $3, and improved "soft white" CFLs can mimic incandescent illumination.

Other drawbacks remain, though consumers are surely capable of evaluating for themselves the tradeoffs between energy savings and price, as well as other considerations. From the looks of it, they are gradually transforming a market that has been more or less static since the 1880s, when Thomas Edison invented the filament bulb.

The commentary ends with:

What's equally illuminating is that the environmentalists can't make their case through argument and persuasion. Instead, they immediately resort to state coercion--even when it is, as here, superfluous.

I think this is an interesting observation. The new technology is competing with the old technology for the choices of consumers, and with the recent advances and lower prices CFLs are gaining with consumers. I've replaced many of the old technology bulbs with the new technology myself.

For liberty and for efficiency, government should use force in other ways than prohibiting the continued choice of an old and familiar technology. The days of the old technology already seem numbered because of voluntary consumer and producer choices.

Supremes Global Warming Science

Roger Pielke writes about Mass. v. EPA:

First there is a science error in the majority opinion, though it seems clear that it would not change their judgment of injury. It states:

. . . global sea levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming.

According to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report this value is more like 3 to 5.5 centimeters (from figure 11.10b here) with the rest of the 10 to 20 centimeters total due to natural causes. The Supreme Court has attributed all sea level rise to global warming which is incorrect. I had argued in earlier discussions that missing from this case, in arguments by both sides, was some evidence that the 3 to 5.5 centimeters of increase over the 20th century due to human-caused climate change can be related to some injury.

This seems like an interesting observation. The public policy debate about the global warming issue doesn't seem to clearly make this distinction either, so perhaps the Supreme Court should not be faulted. But, it may be interesting to note that most of sea level rise that has resulted from the warming climate is not being attributed human causes.

Tax or Cap-Trade?

Ian Parry discusses economic policy with respect to carbon emissions:

The CO2 tax has a number of advantages over pure emissions trading systems. In particular, if the revenues from the tax are used to reduce other taxes, the policy might actually benefit the economy overall, and the tax also avoids problems that might be caused by permit price volatility under an emissions trading regime.

Global Warming Quiz

Russell Roberts:

Suppose we discovered that the earth was cooling rather than warming due to a natural cycle. Would you encourage people to drive more and use more carbon-based energy as a way of warming the earth?

He explains the point of his quiz with:

I suspect that some people's ideal policy towards the earth's climate is that it should be whatever it would be if people didn't exist. Or whatever it would be if people lived in loincloths without fire. That is, the ideal climate is the natural one, because our species is unnatural. In this world view, humans are a poison on the earth and the reason we should put on a carbon tax or discourage fossil fuels is that our use of the earth's resources is somehow immoral. . . . .

I agree that at least some of those concerned about global warming seem to hold this view, or something much like it. A student in one of my past environmental economics courses expressed it something like this: "I think humans are the scourge of the earth; pretty much the same as humans view rats."

It is not clear to me why we would be thought unnatural, or why our choices, our technologies, our economies would be thought unnatural. If the conceptual view that supports efforts at using government to "fix" the global warming problem is whether something is natural or unnatural, then wouldn't the idea have to be that human presence on earth was not the result of evolution of life on earth but because we somehow came from outside the earth system?

I think there is a similar question to the one asked by Roberts which might also be interesting to consider. As I understand it, average global temperature has increased and decreased over a large range of values over the course of the earth's history. You can view a chart of the history of average global temperature here. The brief discussion that accompanies this chart characterizes climate history in these terms:

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.

The chart indicates that "today" the earth is in another cycle of warming. It seems to me the earth would be warming "today" even without the pollutants from our economic activities that are a fundamental part of the concern expressed by those who want government to make some effort to fix the global warming problem. I wonder, if we thought the globe was warming, but we also had not figured out that our economic activities might contribute to the warming today, would there be people calling for government to find some way to stop the warming? Whether the globe is warming for reasons that we think make the warming a "natural" phenomenon, or for reasons that are attributed to our economic activities, the impacts of the global warming would seem pretty much the same. And, given that the policy issue today involves concern for "human induced warming," I wonder if efforts at using public policy to reduce the "human induced warming" are successful, if there would be continued efforts to reduce or slow the warming that is naturally determined?

Oh, and one more note about the global climate chart. Note that in the description of the history presented in the chart, today is characterized as a "frigid ice house" by historical comparison.

Capitalism

Andrew Carnegie:

Capitalism is about turning luxuries into necessities.

Courtesy of Mark Skousen.

Road to Poverty

Russell Roberts:

Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty.

Well said.

Wilkie v. Robbins

IDB Editorial:

The roots of this case go back to 1993 when Harvey Frank Robbins bought the High Island Ranch in Hot Spring County, Wyo. The previous owner had agreed to give the Bureau of Land Management an easement on his land. There was no record of the agreement, however, and Robbins, who was not aware of the deal at the time of purchase, did not want the government using roads on his property. Because of his refusal, Robbins says the government began a campaign of retaliation against him to extort the easement.

Writing in Legal Times, Robbins' lawyers R.S. Radford and Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation said the government "repeatedly harassed the guests at (Robbins') ranch, cited him for minor infractions while letting similar violations by his neighbors go unnoticed, and brought him up on criminal charges of interfering with federal agents during their duties. The jury acquitted him after deliberating for less than 30 minutes."

Our government's position:

In representing the government, Solicitor General Paul Clement wrote a brief that includes the heading:

"There Is No Fifth Amendment Right Against Retaliation For The Exercise Of Property Rights."

Or, in less legalistic terms used by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe when arguing on Robbins' behalf before the Supreme Court, "The position of the government here is that there is no constitutional limit on the kind of retaliation they can engage in."

Shocking?

Circumventing the Constitution -- Why?

E.J. Dionne:

It does not have to be this way. As someone who lives in Maryland, I am proud that my state may pioneer a process that could lead to popular election of the president. The state Senate passed a bill last Wednesday that would commit Maryland's 10 electors to voting for the winner of the nationwide popular vote. The bill is expected to pass in the House of Delegates this week, and Gov. Martin O'Malley has said he would sign it.

The law would not take effect unless states representing a 270-vote electoral college majority pass similar laws. The idea is to create a compact among states genuinely committed to popular rule.

Yes, this is an effort to circumvent the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution. That's the only practical way of moving toward a more democratic system. Because three-quarters of the states have to approve an amendment to the Constitution, only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election.

I don't get it. Why do we want to circumvent the Constitution? Why wouldn't we want to have a public debate about whether to continue with the electoral college? Why wouldn't we want to have a nation wide conversation about the merits and the faults of amending the Constitution? And, why would we not want a super majority, as the Constitution requires, to agree on the rules that determine how our President is chosen?

Trucking Protectionism

Wall Street Journal ($$) editorial:

Speaking of protectionism, another bad economic omen is the way Senate Democrats are blocking access to the U.S. for Mexican long-haul trucks.

The truck opening was part of Nafta and was supposed to be completed seven years ago. In February, the Transportation Department finally announced a plan to grant 100 Mexican companies permission to exceed the current 25-mile limit on the U.S. side of the border for a one year period, thus delivering their cargo to its final destination across America. That would be good for U.S. consumers and productivity because distribution would immediately be more efficient. It would also show that the U.S. keeps its treaty commitments.

But if Mexican truckers don't have to hand their cargo to an American truck and driver, it would also mean real competition for U.S. truckers. That's anathema to the Teamsters union, which tapped Democrats Byron Dorgan (North Dakota), Dianne Feinstein (California) and Patty Murray (Washington) to do its bidding by sponsoring an amendment to delay the proposal and attaching it to the Iraq and Afghanistan war supplemental spending bill.

Equality Amendment

Some members of Congress seem to be interested in adding a Women's Equality Amendment to the Constitution, and it sounds like this new amendment would be a replay of the language in the Equal Rights Amendment which was never ratified. George Will's assessment includes this:

The full inclusion of women in America's regime of rights was accomplished in the 20th century without an ERA, a constitutional redundancy that would have added nothing to the guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process for all "persons." And what mature person thinks the Constitution should be cluttered with consciousness-raising pieties or affirmations, on the theory that, by some mysterious causality, the social climate will be improved?

It seems to me Will is correct here to suggest that the 14th Amendment and the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment makes it clear that women are to be treated the same as all other persons vis a vis the government. A Women's Equality Amendment would seem to be redundant.

Does anyone want to suggest specific reasons why this proposed amendment would not be redundant?

Or, does this proposed amendment suggest that the new Congress is spending way too much time on matters of little import?

Zimbabwe: Rule of Law Lacking

Investor's Business Daily:

Famine, disease, crumbling infrastructure, poor education, shrinking incomes — these are just a few of Africa's afflictions. And, as Zimbabwe shows, many are self-inflicted.

African leaders often point fingers at the West for "not doing enough." But last week's meeting of the Southern African Development Community shows why sensible wealthy nations are reluctant to give aid.

For at that meeting, some of Africa's so-called leaders disgraced themselves by endorsing the brutal, murderous regime of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

Mugabe's 27 years of misrule have taken a country that was once prosperous — the breadbasket of Africa, it was called — and turned it into a poverty-stricken hellhole rife with famine, genocide and terror, and lacking rule of law.

And the economy?

"Corruption is endemic, inflation is in triple digits, most economic activity is informal, and controversial land reform has seriously undermined agricultural production,"

[ . . . ]

Seizures of farms from highly productive farmers have led to widespread hunger. Meanwhile, economic mismanagement has sent inflation soaring to 1,700% a year. Real output per person has plunged two-thirds since 2003.

With the economy imploding . . . the government has simply taken to printing money. Faced with such economic chaos, more than 3 million people — many of them Zimbabwe's most productive citizens — have become refugees in neighboring countries.

. . . the U.N. issued a frightening forecast of more starvation for Zimbabwe, where some 1.4 million people are, in U.N. parlance, "food insecure."

Zimbabwe once had plentiful food — it even exported it to neighbors. Today it needs 1.8 million metric tons of food to feed its people, but grows a third of that.

News & Politics

Don Surber:

So there you have it. When Democrats lard up an emergency bill, Washington reporters say it is for “pet projects.”

When Republicans do it, it is pork.

Put that alongside calling tax-exempt groups “non-profits” and calling lobbyists for liberal causes “activists.”

This is all on the same shelf as the journalism rule that when a Republican is a crook, you identify his party immediately. If Democratic, disclosing the party affiliation is optional.

Could this be true?

Victor Davis Hanson's Clarity On The War

Victor Davis Hanson:

Should a peace candidate win the American presidency in 2008, prompting the U.S. to pull out of Iraq before the democracy there is stabilized, in the short term we will save lives and money. But as the larger war continues after we withdraw, jihadists will still flock to the Sunni Triangle. Hamas and Hezbollah will still rocket Israel. Syria will still kill Lebanese reformers. Iran will still try to cheat its way to a nuclear bomb. Ayman al- Zawahiri will still broadcast his al-Qaida threats from safety in nuclear Pakistan. The oil-rich, illegitimate Gulf sheikdoms will still make secret concessions and bribe increasingly confident terrorists to leave them alone. And jihadists will still try to sneak into the United States to kill us.

Critics of the present war can make the tactical argument that it is wiser to fight al-Qaida in Pakistan than in Iraq. Or that money spent in the frontline Iraqi offensive theater would be better invested on defense and security at home. Or that the human cost is simply too great and thus we should instead make diplomatic concessions to radical Islamists in lieu of military confrontation.

But, again, those are operational alternatives found in every war - as familiar as the old controversies over the French defensive Maginot Line of the 1930s or the American decision to defeat Germany first, Japan second. In the case of staying on in Iraq, at least, our long-term plan is to go on the offensive to confront radical Islamic terrorists on their own turf, and try to foster a democratic alternative to theocracy or autocracy.

That may be felt by the American public to be too expensive or too naive, but it is a direct strategy aimed at an enemy who seeks to terrorize the West and plans on being around well after 2008.

Depending on how we leave Iraq, this global war against radical Islamic terrorism will either wax or wane. But it will hardly end.

I always learn from the clarity of Victor Davis Hanson. But, with the winds of surrender, retreat, and defeat blowing so heavily these days in Washinton, sometimes his clarity and wisdom can be downright depressing, eh?

Senators Biden & Hagel 2002

Michael Ledeen posts a very interesting look back to commentary by Senators Biden and Hagel. This is what Ledeen finds in their commentary from the Washington Post in December of 2002:

Every U.S. Senator believes he or she should be president. Just listen to them talk, and watch the way they walk; it’s obvious. They’re rarely called to account, but every now and then they write something, and it goes into the record, and then someone googles it out. So take a look at this very statesmanlike op-ed that Biden and Hagel wrote four and a half years ago. Notice they had no clue what would happen after the overthrow of Saddam. Notice that they bought into the Saudi view of life, namely that nothing of merit can be accomplished until there is some deal with Israel and the Palestinians. And notice they knew, long ago, that this would be slow,and we’d have to remain for quite a while. Ten years anyway.

It is worth your time to read the entire commentary by Senators Biden and Hagel.

Here are the last two sentences of the Biden-Hagel commentary:

As the bulwark of freedom and democracy, the United States faces the need to disarm Saddam Hussein and set the stage for a stable Iraq, win a protracted war on terrorism and engage fully on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Working with our friends and allies, it is a challenge we can, and must, meet.

Yet, today, neither of these Senators sounds like this. I wonder why we elect such men to national office if they have such short memories about their own views? Or perhaps they don't have bad memories, perhaps they have changed their minds about challenges "we can, and must, meet." I wonder why we elect such men who seem to have only a very short term resolve in facing challenges "we can, and must, meet"? Do true leaders give up in the face of challenges so easily as these two men seem to have given up?

Once again, perhaps we see here the way in which the Curse of the Rationally Ignorant Voter plays itself out in our system of political economy.

Sowell on Democrat's Iraq Strategy

Tom Sowell:

The demagoguery of the Democrats has already put them in the position where a successful conclusion of the Iraq war before the 2008 elections can be a political disaster for them.

If the recent increase in the number of troops in Iraq, and their freer hand in dealing with the terrorists there, reduces the level of violence enough to stabilize Iraq enough for American troops to start coming home before the 2008 elections, the Democrats will have lost their gamble.

Only an American defeat in Iraq can ensure the Democrats' political victory next year. Their only strategy is to sabotage the chances for a military victory in Iraq without being held responsible for a defeat.

That is the corner that they have painted themselves into with their demagoguery that even their own supporters see through.

Public Choice on Democratic Failure

Peter Leeson:

This paper empirically evaluates two competing theories of electoral accountability in the context of New Orleans’ 2006 mayoral election. According to the democratic efficiency theory, voters can successfully punish ineffective political agents by removing them from office. In contrast, the public choice theory argues that the bundled nature of political goods prevents voters from successfully holding ineffective politicians accountable. We find that although there is limited support for the punishment effect predicted by the democratic efficiency theory, this effect is overwhelmed by the fact that the bundle of goods politicians offer contains elements that pull in opposing directions. This prevents the punishment effect from having any real impact, leading to democratic failure. Our results support the public choice theory of electoral (un)accountability.

Why Aren't Stories Like These In The Papers?

Marty Lederman reports the relevant language in the House and Senate bills concerning what Senator McCain is reported to call a "forced surrender date." It is informative to actually read the text of the legislation. I am not going to comment on the legislative texts. I'm going to ask why the newspapers and news magazines don't give us news stories like this? Lederman writes:

One oddity, however, is that it remains rare for newspapers and other outlets to link to, or even quote from, important legislation being considered in Congress, even when it's the grist for front-page stories. The recent legislative debates concerning proposals to hasten withdrawal from Iraq are a prime example. I've yet to see a single newspaper article online that actually links to or quotes from the provisions that have been the subject of such heated debate in Washington over the past few weeks. It's odd to expect the public to be able to meaningfully understand and debate these important initiatives without knowing what they say.

Maybe it is odd to expect the public to be able to express meaningful views on proposed legislation when the proposed legislative language is not readily available. Maybe it is not. Maybe it is odd to assume that assertions made by politicians and pollsters about the will of the voters have meaning when we know that stories like Lederman's do not routinely appear in the news sources that are readily available to us.

It also seems to me, perhaps a bit odd that we do not routinely find news articles like Lederman's. Surely at least part of the news story about the "forced surrender date" is what is required by the written language in each piece of legislation in question. Sometimes I wonder why it is thought that the "news" is what politicians say. Yet, that seems to me mostly what we read and hear in the "news," and it seems that those who report the "news" believe they learn what the news story is by asking politicians to comment.

There have been many times in the past that I've read and heard news stories about legislation and statutes and court opinions, and I've suspected that I wasn't getting the entire story (or the "rest of the story" to borrow from Paul Harvey). In such cases, when I've taken the time to find the legislation or statute or court opinion, very often I've discovered that my (more informed view) of the story was quite different from the press stories. I think the curious thing about my experiences is that because of the web it has generally taken very little time for me to obtain the original materials. In many cases I've obtained a copy of the original materials in 10 or 15 minutes or less, and I've read what I was looking for in far less than an hour. I would guess that Lederman wrote his story, including obtaining the statutory text, in under an hour.

So, it seems to me we should routinely find "news" stories such as Lederman's in our newspapers and our news magazines. But, we don't. I guess those in the news industry simply don't think such stories fall within the realm of news. I think that should seem odd to us. Or, perhaps those who write the "news" stories aren't very competent.

In any case, when I'm interested in a controversial issue concerning politics and government I simply don't trust the "news."

Vietnam Liberty

From the Wall Street Journal ($$):

The five democrats who go on trial today stand accused of threatening the Vietnamese state for demanding rights that citizens of free countries take for granted. Those dissidents, and all Vietnamese people hungry for liberty, deserve support from the free world.

Crichton On Liberty

Micheal Crichton is interviewed by Scott Burgess. I just had to note the following question and answer:

What is the most serious threat facing our civilisation?

Loss of classical liberal values in those western societies that embraced them.

England was the first modern state, the first superpower, the first nation to deal with moral issues around the world, and the first nation to install the benefits of what we might now loosely term a liberal society. I mean that in the 19th century sense of liberalism. That notion of liberalism was also present in America, but made it to the Continent only in a pale and limited form. It is a wonderful social conception that must be vigilantly guarded. It is not shared by other nations in the world. Nor is it shared by many citizens in English-speaking countries. Peculiarly, many of our most educated citizens are least sympathetic to classical liberal ideals. Indeed the term 'liberalism' in the modern day has come to imply a constellation of attitudes that John Stuart Mill would not recognize as liberal at all. Nor would, say, John F. Kennedy recognize them as liberal. Kennedy's conception of liberalism was simultaneously more tolerant and more tough-minded: tolerant about varieties of behavior within the society, and tough-minded toward threats to a tolerant society from without.

That's all gone, now. Today there is far too much sensitivity within societies, and too little hard-nosed recognition of threats from without. We are inclined to be intolerant of speech by our friends and neighbors, and tolerant of beheadings, rape, and homophobia in distant lands.

This makes no sense. But here we are.

Constitution, Congress & Attorneys

George J. Terwilliger, III writes an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal ($$) concerning the Constitution and the recent firings of several US Attorneys.

With subpoenas looming and Justice Department lawyer Monica Goodling taking the Fifth before Congress, the controversy over the firing of U.S. Attorneys grows closer to becoming not just a political fight, but a court battle. There seems little justification for a legal war, however, and the courts are not likely to enforce Congressional subpoenas to presidential aides.

What does the Constitution tell us about this recent political tussle in Washington? One thing the Constitution tells us is that Congress and the President are different branches of government with different powers:

Congressional powers are only those "herein granted" expressly by Article I the Constitution, which provides a long, explicit list of its authorities. In contrast, Article II of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive power" is vested in the president and, while Article II contains enumerated powers of the president, it does not limit that authority to those expressed. Expansive executive authority reflects Alexander Hamilton's recognition that "[a] feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government."

[ . . . ]

Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, but the power to execute the laws is entrusted to one person alone -- the president. The ability to appoint, retain or fire anybody to carry out these responsibilities is a core executive function, properly left to his unfettered discretion. This has been recognized by the Supreme Court. As the Court observed in a case growing out of the House Un-American Activities Committee investigations of the 1950s, "We have no doubt that there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure."

Duh. Pretty basic. Pretty simple. The President has the executive power and Congress has the power to legislate.

Of course, in order to legislate the Congress needs information, and in order to understand how legislation is working it needs to learn about how the statutes it creates are being executed by the Executive Branch of government. So,

Since Congress does need to legislate with knowledge of the historical impact and efficacy of its prior legislation, courts have held that Congress has the power and authority to make inquiries in connection with its legislative function. But when it directs its inquiries to core functions of executive officials, the executive has the right to resist.

Congressional oversight, in other words, is specifically all about carrying out Congress's legislative function. Congressional oversight is not general oversight of the activities of the other branches of government, not even the Executive branch. Congressional oversight serves as a means for carrying out the legislative activities of Congress.

Mr. Terwilliger puts the general Constitutional framework into specifics with respect to the "issue" at hand:

The broad question currently being addressed is why the president fired some U.S. attorneys whom he had previously appointed. Congress seems poised to provoke a constitutional confrontation to get the answer. Congress should lose that battle because the answer, as to these specific cases, seems well outside the scope of anything Congress could legislate. Under the Constitution, it is solely within the president's prerogative to terminate the tenure of these officials. His decision to do so is not subject to oversight by Congress or review by the courts. Thus, on balance there is no compelling need for Congress to obtain information about his deliberations. And judiciary recognizes a privilege of privacy attaching to those executive deliberations.

Congress may ask the president why he fired these officials and its members may disagree or question the rationale for removal, and do so in a very public way. That is politics. But it does not follow that the president's aides can be forced to come to Congress and give information under oath. The check on a president's corrupt or otherwise wrongful exercise of this plenary power to remove is not legal, but political.

It seems to me that most of the time when the Supreme Court is asked to take up a conflict between the other branches of government it declines to get involved when the matter, as a bottom line, is fundamentally a political issue.

How can we decide if the issue at hand is a political issue? One thing I like to consider in this regard is where the Supreme Court would find power to enforce it's opinion, what ever that opinion might be. If the Supreme Court were to choose to engage this conflict between the other 2 branches of government, and if it were to decided the Congress was supposed to have the power to force members of the Executive branch to testify, how could the Court compel those employees of the Executive branch to go to Congress and speak? Most of the judicial power of the Supreme Court vis a vis the other branches of government is found in a negative way in that the Court can simply refuse to enforce a law it finds to be unconstitutional. But, the Court really has no direct way to compel another branch of government to act in ways the Court decides are constitutional ways they should act. In such cases, it seems to me that any power the Supreme Court would have vis a vis the other branches of governement would come from the political realm. That is, the Court's power would have to come, in such cases, from there being many citizens who would accept the Court's opinion on the Constitution and thereby express disapproval, even outrage, at the failure of another branch of government to agree to act as the Supreme Court has directed. So, when the Supreme Court would have to rely on citizens expressing their disapproval toward the President, or toward the Congress, to enforce it's opinion regarding another branch of government, the issue is, bottom line, a political issue. Most of the time the Supreme Court has chosen not to become engaged in such issues, and that is the proper choice for the Court to make.

This US Attorney issue seems, bottom line, to be fundamentally a political issue. The Court should stay away from the issue, and today's opposition Congress should take it's political efforts against today's President directly to the citizens. At least that's the way our constitutional system of government is structured.

Well, maybe there is another useful role the Supreme Court might play in matters such as these. It could choose to become engaged so that it could make it clear to Congress, the President, and the citizenry that issues such as these are purely political issues. If it chose this course of judicial action, do you suppose Congress might feel a little political pressue from we the people to refrain from such behavior in order to attend a bit more to it's legislative powers? Probably not. But, maybe the voters would be less likely to misunderstand the political nature many of the actions of an opposition Congress.

Kurdistan's Success

Michael Totten has a very interesting report from Iraqi Kurdistan. This "country" is safe and seems on the path of prosperity. Take a look at his pictures of all the new buildings and developments. It seems to me one can interpret these new developments as suggesting the government of Kurdistan is providing the necessary conditions for economic prosperity. Totten points out that:

Kurdistan’s rise flips Iraq on its head. The Kurds are ahead, but they started from nothing. Under Saddam’s regime they had the worst of everything – the worst poverty, the worst underdevelopment, and worst of all they bore the brunt of the worst violence from Baghdad. 200,000 people were killed (out of less than four million) and 95 percent of the villages were completely destroyed.

With the old Iraq government 95% of the villages in Kurdistan had been destroyed. Now, we see signs of growing success and prosperity. Perhaps the following helps us explain these observations:

Iraqi Kurdistan is de-facto independent already. The three northernmost provinces exist as a liberal-democratic state-within-a-state with their own parliament, their own laws, their own immigration policies, and their own military, border guards, and police.

Here are some of the other things Totten reports about Kurdistan:

-- I have never seen so much construction going up so quickly anywhere.

-- Erbil isn’t pretty, as Paris and Vienna are pretty. Some of it is aesthetically brutal, and much of it is still rough around the edges. But it’s stimulating and interesting all the same. The go-go-go and build-build-build attitude is infectious. Every time I come here it looks cleaner, and richer, and more like a normal place.

-- I’m less prone to boredom here than I am in Europe’s splendid capitals even though there is little in the way of entertainment culture. Erbil is the most ramshackle of Iraqi Kurdistan’s cities, but there is real raw power rising in this city and land.

-- Arabs are moving up here from the center and south – when they can, and as long as they are cleared by internal security – and they’re hired to do menial jobs the Kurds no longer want. Sunni Arabs were once the oppressors of Kurds. Now they are reduced to the same low status as migrant Mexican workers in the United States.

-- A whole new town called “American Village” is under construction next to the luxurious Khan Zad hotel on the road between Erbil and the resort town of Salahadin. Foreigners and locals alike are snapping up the properties well in advance.

Wow, this sounds really good. Just think, there is a region of Iraq so successful that immigrants are moving there and many, including foreigners, are investing in property there.

You should read the entire piece, and don't dare miss the photos that show the reality of investment in Kurdistan.

I will leave one last tidbit that can thrill an economist's heart:

“You see this place now with its government, its democracy, and its system of laws,” my guide Hamid said. “It wasn’t like this even recently, believe me. Before, it was a jungle.”

There is great wisdom, it seems to me, in pointing to "its system of laws."

Senate Curly Tails

I like Glenn Reynolds:

THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY WITH THEIR LITTLE CURLY TAILS BETWEEN THEIR LEGS: The Senate has just passed an Iraq withdrawal bill, which like the House bill was laden with pork to buy votes.

It's a disgrace, but par for the course for this bunch.