This is Your Video on Politics. Any Questions?

Check out this new campaign video by Rick Santorum.  It looks more like a trailer for a new Freddy Kruger movie than it does a campaign video.  I like it!  It does a good job capturing the feel of a horror movie, while at the same time expressing the horror another 4 years of Obama would subject Americans to.  It's not as crazy as the new Herman Cain video though which, if you haven't seen it, you should definitely check out - nothing makes your point like exploding bunny rabbits.

The classic poster for the "this is your brain on drugs" anti-drug campaign from the '80's.

Here's Rick's entry at the Cannes Film Festival in the horror short category...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGORiD82rQ

And check out Herman Cain's version of the '80's "this is your brain on drugs" frying egg commercial....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdpN5C1_flQ

Make Love, Not Laws

A 41 year old teacher in California has left his wife and kids to start a new life with an 18 year old girl who is a former student of his.  Here we have two adults who are apparently in love, so I say, good for them and I wish them the best. 

Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher"

It's a little unusual, to be sure, that an 18 year old girl would prefer to tie the knot with a man who's the same age as her father, but I don't think it's unheard of.  Sometimes love is ageless, and in this case it appears that the age gap has not prevented two consenting adults from falling in love and starting a life together.

But if California has its way, the guy will be a convicted felon serving a lengthy prison sentence for simply falling in love with another adult who purportedly also loves him.  According to California State Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, "Our hope is that [making this a felony with a lengthy prison sentence] will be a pretty strong and painful deterrent and will cause someone to think twice before starting an inappropriate, unethical relationship with a student."  Notice there is no concern that anyone is infringing on the rights of others or doing anything that is unlawful.  Basically, many in California's government simply find what these consenting adults are doing to be distasteful and immoral.  To them I say that if they find it so distasteful and wrong, then simply don't engage in it.  Mind your own P's and Q's and let others make their own decisions about how to run their lives.  Again, is this a free country or not?!

This is a classic case of the government stepping in to regulate ethical and moral decisions best left up to individuals, because there is nothing unlawful about their relationship.  Unethical?  Maybe - and perhaps a great number of schools won't want to hire him knowing that he may eventually date 18 year old students.  I wouldn't hire a guy who had that as a priority, but I certainly wouldn't have him thrown in jail just because I disagree with his moral set.

It's a situation where different people with different moral values will evaluate it differently.  Some will say it's ok because they are both adults.  Some will say it's abhorrent because he's a "real" adult taking advantage of a de facto kid.  Others may center on the fact that he left his current wife and kids to date this young'un, and is therefore an immoral bastard.  The point is, this is a moral issue involving two consenting adults who are not infringing on the rights of anyone else by engaging in their relationship.  Live and let live, I say.  I mean, after all, this is still a free country right?  That should mean one has the freedom to do things that others might not do, might not approve of, and might criticize.

But it's crossing the line when the government comes up with its own moral position on the topic and then goes forth to impose its moral values upon everyone else.  Such a law making this guy a felon would not be a law designed to protect our rights or freedom or liberty - it would be a law designed to impose a specific moral value upon society; a moral value the government has deemed superior to the moral values of the two people here engaged in this relationship.  Until either of these star-crossed lovers infringes on the rights of someone else, the government has no right to tell these adults how to live their lives.

And it got me thinking....  Isn't California at the very forefront of the gay marriage debate?  Doesn't California support gay marriage?  Are they not very vigilant in pushing for the legality of two consenting same-sex partners being able to get married?  Well, some may find that immoral just as the government finds this teacher-former student relationship immoral.  Is one any worse than the other in terms of adults being free to pursue whatever love interests they want?  You can't tell two gay people that they are allowed to get married, but then also tell two heterosexual adults with an age gap that they aren't entitled to the same protection of the right to love who they want.

I would support a school that wanted to fire this teacher, and I would respect anyone's opinion on the morality of this situation.  But I don't support government imposition of the "right" moral values upon all of us.

Read more from the New York Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/california-lawmaker-introduces-law-student-teacher-relationships-a-felony-article-1.1051958

Libertarian in Pictures

Thanks to my sister, Tara, for providing this picture.

Soviet Energy Policy

In its proposed rulemaking on emissions from coal-fired power plants, the Environmental Protection Agency has fulfilled President Obama’s campaign statement that his administration would “essentially bankrupt” anyone who had the audacity to hope to build a new generation facility. By essentially prohibiting the production of new plants, the administration is again picking winners and losers in our energy economy, something which is best done by the market.

Diagram of hydraulic fracturing operation.

Supporters of this policy will claim that it is cheaper to generate electricity from natural gas, and that is true for now.  But major producers using hydraulic fracturing and new horizontal drilling techniques in shale formations have recently stopped drilling new wells because the price is so low.

If it ultimately costs more to produce electricity from gas than it does from coal, the administration will have slapped yet another energy price hike on us—in addition to what we already pay to subsidize solar power, windmills, and Chevrolet Volts while taxpayers absorb the debt from the multiple bankruptcies of other politically correct energy concerns like Solyndra, Range Fuels, and a host of others.

Source:  Cato Institute

Hypocrisy on the Left

The following (paraphrased) statements were made in the not too distant past:

Bill Maher:  Sarah Palin is a slut.  Sarah and Michelle Bachmann are boobs.  I could go on and on about Bill Maher - just about every show he says something derogatory towards a conservative.

Ed Schultz:  Laura Ingraham is a slut.

David Letterman:  Sarah Palin could improve her "slutty flight attendant look."

Rush Limbaugh:  Sandra Fluke is a slut.

Notice there's only one conservative on that list above.  The big three networks covered the comments by Maher, Letterman, and Schultz exactly zero times.  They covered the comments by Limbaugh a total of 40 times between March 1st and 11th.  Bill Maher contributed $1 million to Obama, who hasn't uttered a single word about it and who graciously accepted the donation.  Obama also appeared on Letterman's show, hugging and laughing it up with Dave.  And Obama continues to proclaim that we should be more civil and how he wants to raise his daughters in a world without insults and personal attacks.

And then there's this gem I found today on a liberal blog:

"Jesus God, Newt Gingrich is a despicable motherfucker. If I were Queen of the World, I would order him lightly scored with rusty pitchforks, dipped in sulfuric acid, rolled in a bed of broken light bulbs, stuffed into a cannon and fired into a toxic waste dump."

If you're on their team, you get a pass when it comes to hate speech.  If you're on the right, though, you get crucified for the same conduct.  Hypocrisy at its best.

Current Polls

Mitt Romney has won 21 of the 33 republican primary races so far across the country.  It looks like he's going to win the nomination by a somewhat narrow margin over Rick Santorum.  Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have been taking turns picking up distant 3rd and 4th places, and are effectively out of the race.

Gallup Chart of President Obama's Approval Rating throughout 2012

Here are some current polls to give you a picture of how Americans stand on things:

President Obama's Job Approval
Approve - 47.5%
Disapprove - 46.5%

Congressional Job Approval
Approve - 11.3%
Disapprove - 82.5%

Direction of the Country
Right Direction - 31.3%
Wrong Direction - 61.3%

Obama v. Romney
Obama - 48.1%
Romney - 43.9%

Obama v. Santorum
Obama - 50.3%
Santorum - 41.9%

Obama v. Generic Republican Candidate
Obama - 45.0%
Republican - 43.8%

These poll numbers are very disappointing if you're hoping to be rid of the Obama administration in 2013, but there's a long way to go, and the numbers will change once the republicans have chosen their candidate.  It's generally the case that an incumbent president has the advantage over various opposition party candidates before that opposition party has chosen one - but once the opposition party chooses its candidate, support consolidates and polls become much more accurate and depend largely on how popular the sitting president is.  By mid-June, the republican party's candidate should be known, and republicans will then be able to consolidate their support behind a single candidate, and start focusing on the President's weaknesses rather than fighting amongst themselves.  The negative ads being run by the republican candidates right now are wreaking havoc with their mass appeal, but once the race turns to defeating Obama, I suspect the republican's numbers will improve.  After all, Obama's record is atrocious, so he can't merely run on "hope and change" this time.

But I must say, I'm very disappointed with the candidates the republican party has put forth.  They are all weak options for a voter seeking a true conservative to vote for.  A majority of the nation still identifies itself as right of center, and I think a true conservative would have mass appeal and do very well against Obama.  However, like 2008, when the republicans trotted out John McCain, the party just seems incapable of picking a strong, conservative candidate for president.

President Obama has a good chance of being re-elected, if for no other reason than the fact that there are numerous voting blocs that are perennially in the democrats' bag, like unions, teachers and academia, and minorities.  Those groups alone make up somewhere north of 35-40%, so a modest portion of the remaining voters may be enough to win another 4-year term.

I've always thought the democrats were much better at public relations than the republicans, and that continues to be the case as an incompetent, destructive democratic president maintains a lead on a couple of ho-hum, neo-conservative candidates.  Once again, I'll probably be cornered into voting for the republican in November simply because he will again be the proverbial lesser of two evils.

Sources:  Gallup.com, RealClearPolitics.com

The Solyndra Syndrome

Our elected officials have no shame when it comes to asking for handouts.  Senator Al Franken, formerly of Hollywood fame, was outraged recently at how long it was taking for handouts to reach a company is his state.  After all, votes are on the line!  Well, according to Franken, jobs are on the line, which is technically true, but his request has nothing to do with jobs or the economy.

SAGE Electrochromics, a company that produces energy efficient windows, was promised federal loan money from the Department of Energy to bolster operating revenues so the company could remain in business.  See, SAGE is going to go bankrupt if it doesn't get a bailout.  Usually, companies need to provide goods or services the public wants, and make a profit doing so, in order to remain viable.  Well, that just isn't acceptable to Franken, who admits:

"While the Department of Energy prolongs closing the deal, time and money are running out for SAGE. There are high-tech manufacturing construction jobs at stake here. It’s been going forward with the project assuming they get this loan guarantee but they’re running out of time and they may have to sell themselves to a French company."

If SAGE can't stay in business via its own merits, then the marketplace is better off if SAGE goes out of business or sells to a French company.  By funnelling money to an unprofitable, non-viable company, money is diverted from useful means to wasteful ones.  The federal loan money isn't going to do anything about SAGE's business model - it will remain a company destined for failure; the bailout will just prolong the inevitable.  But the bailout will prolong the inevitable and maintain SAGE's employees' jobs just long enough for Franken to benefit politically, which is the goal here.

This is an example of corruption that has become far too common these days, and it doesn't take a Ph.D. economist to see why giving money to SAGE is a bad idea and a wasteful use of taxpayer money.  The politicians in Washington are literally playing games with our money, and the country's economy is suffering tremendously as a result.

Here's a more complete excerpt of Franken's comments to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, complaining about how long it's taking for SAGE's bailout to be finalized:

"One such project is from a company in Minnesota called SAGE Electrochromics. I know you are aware of that. Sage has developed energy efficient windows that are cutting edge, better than anything in the world and uses photo-voltaic cells to control the window how dark it gets during the summer to block out UV light and lower air conditioning costs and to let it all in, lower heating costs in the summer. And it’s really…I’ve been there and it’s just an amazing tech. In the Spring of 2010, the DoE promised the company it would receive a $72 million loan guarantee under the 1703 Program to build a new manufacturing facility that would create 160 manufacturing jobs and 200 construction jobs in southern Minnesota. It’s now been two years since SAGE has been notified that it will receive a loan guarantee and the deal has not yet been closed. While the Department of Energy prolongs closing the deal, time and money are running out for SAGE. There are high-tech manufacturing construction jobs at stake here. It’s been going forward with the project assuming they get this loan guarantee but they’re running out of time and they may have to sell themselves to a French company. My first question is that the SAGE loan guarantee was going to be submitted to the credit committee on August 23rd, but it was stopped. Why is the Department of Energy continuing to delay closing and executing the SAGE loan guarantee?"

If it's such an "amazing tech" company, as Franken puts it, then it should have no problem securing financing from private lenders.  The problem is, SAGE is a failing company, and it will be a grand waste of OUR money when the bailout checks are finally written to SAGE.  It's Solyndra all over again, and there seems to be a never-ending string of Solyndras lining up for handouts orchestrated by corrupt politicians seeking votes the dishonest way.

Extremist Views in the White House

Dalia Mogahed, Obama's adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, holds some pretty extreme Muslim views.  Not that you would ever hear about it in the mainstream media.  If a similarly anti-Muslim adviser were in the White House, they'd probably cover it every day in the news and there would be congressional hearings on the matter.  More of the sickening double standard that has become the norm in this country.

Regarding Syria's leader, Assad, adviser Mogahed said that Assad is not able to deliver stability or resistance to Israel, and is, therefore, only a killer without legitimacy.  Under Assad, Syria has a record of consistent hostility towards Israel, and its capital, Damascus, was headquarters for the terrorist organization Hamas and other Islamic extremist jihadist groups.  But this hostility towards Israel is not hostile enough for Obama's Muslim adviser - she would like to see a more hostile Syria, and until then, Assad is not legitimate enough for her tastes.

Here's Mogahed's exact Twitter statement from March 10, 2012 (see picture above):

"To those siding w/ Assad: he cannot deliver stability, protection of minorities, or resistance to Israel. He is a killer w/o legitimacy."

I hope you find it as troubling as I do that such an extremist Muslim holds a post in the White House - I'm sure Israel finds it troubling, and it's part of the reason why U.S.-Israel relations are more strained during Obama's administration than at any time in the last 40 years.  It's just another reason we need new leadership in the White House.

Double Standard at the NYT

New York Times, Front Page, September 12, 2001

The New York Times ran a very anti-Christian ad recently that said:

It's Time to Quit the Catholic Church
“Why put up with an institution that won’t put up with women priests, which excludes half of humanity. Why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters? Can’t you see how misplaced your loyalty is after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and coverup going all the way to the top. Apparently, you’re like the battered woman who, after being beaten down every Sunday, feels she has no place else to go.”

Then, they refused to run this ad, submitted by Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com:

It's Time to Quit Islam
“Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims – fully 9/10ths of humanity? Ask your imam: Does he support Hamas? Hizb’Allah? The destruction of Israel? Does he condemn the slaughter of Christians in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, etc. Does he vocally denounce Islamic killings, FGM, forced marriages, child marriage, polygamy? As a ‘moderate” Muslim you tell yourself and the world that you have chucked out the violent doctrine and hateful, oppressive decrees of your religion, and yet you keep identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims."

I won't even include the NYT's BS reason for accepting one but not the other since it's obvious they are adhering to a double standard wherein it's OK to criticize Christianity, but Islam is off limits.

Read more here:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/new-york-times-protects-islam-from-criticism/?cat_orig=us

Anti-Speech Zones

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." - First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Congress just passed a law making it a felony to protest anywhere the secret service is present.  This means anywhere the president is present, anywhere the vice president is present, anywhere a former president is present, anywhere a leading presidential candidate is present, and anywhere anyone who the president assigns secret service protection to is present.  As a felony, this law is punishable by more than a year in prison.  So the President can basically shut down protests anywhere a politician is speaking by assigning secret service to the politician.  So next time Biden, Reid, or Pelosi visits a locale to tout the virtues of Obamacare, the President can simply assign secret service to the individual and protests at that locale will be punishable by more than a year in prison.  This is outrageous!

For over 220 years, Americans have been able to exercise their freedoms of speech, association, and assembly in protesting the actions of the government.  It's a uniquely American right that is significantly curbed by this new law.

The most disappointing aspect of this whole conspiracy (yes, it's a conspiracy, involving hundreds of members of Congress and the President to curb our constitutional rights!) is that it received widespread bipartisan support. 

But nary a peep from the media.  I would have thought the media, whose job it is to give the first amendment a workout, would at least be mentioning this blatant violation of the Constitution.

Read more:

http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/president-obama-signs-anti-protest-bill-h-r-347/

Your Papers Are Not In Order!

The Obama administration, through Attorney General Eric Holder, is suing the state of Texas for doing what over 20 other states have already done:  enacting a law requiring everyone to show a photo ID in order to vote. 

Holder, Obama, and the rest of the progressives keep pretending this is about voter rights, and that forcing people to present a photo ID is a type of voter intimidation that should not be allowed to stand.  Keep in mind, this is the same Attorney General that spoke up in support of Obama's murder of an American citizen because Obama, absent any constitutional due process, review by any court of law, or investigation by an agency outside the White House, decided by himself that the individual posed a threat to the U.S. such that summarily killing him was necessary and appropriate.  And this is the same administration, again via AG Holder, who refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation when they stood outside a polling place dressed in militant gear and wielding clubs.  I'm pretty sure dressing up in all black and wielding a club outside a polling place is more intimidating to voters than asking them for a photo ID at the door.  And if our government can kill Americans without due process, the surely a state can require the showing of a photo ID in order to vote.

The real reason they are fighting this, and doing so only in Texas, is to help shore up the Hispanic vote.  It's the same reason they sued Arizona over their illegal immigration legislation that merely mirrored the federal law which the Obama administration still has not gotten around to enforcing.  Texas has a large Hispanic population, and this is one of the voting blocks that Obama hasn't entirely won over; one that he feels he can win over with a little effort.  Obama and Holder know that many of the Hispanics in Texas don't currently have a driver's license or state-issued photo ID.  So, requiring them to have a photo ID before voting means that many of them will not vote.  By standing up for the Hispanics in Texas who don't have a photo ID, by telling them that their state is violating their rights, and by telling them that they should be able to vote without expending any effort obtaining a photo ID, Obama and Holder are hoping to improve their popularity among that minority group.

It's not a bad strategy politically, although, like most other initiatives they undertake, they won't just be honest about why they are suing Texas.  They have to put forth these phony reasons and pretend they are merely fighting for the rights of the little man when, in reality, they are simply engaging in outright political gamesmanship in an effort to boost their numbers among the large Hispanic population in Texas.

First of all, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from requiring a photo ID in order to vote.  It's not so unduly burdensome that it effectively prevents people from asserting their constitutional right to vote.  It may cost $10 or $15 to get an ID, and it requires people to go to a DMV or other state agency office to have their picture taken and provide basic background data like address, phone number, height, and eye color.  Second, requiring a photo ID actually enhances the voting system - it makes it harder to fraudulently vote by adding an additional step for poll workers to confirm that the person voting is who he says he is.

The progressives are saying that voter fraud is not a problem, so no additional confirmation step is necessary.  A quick Google search of "voter fraud" reveals that, while perhaps not at Iranian levels, voter fraud does exist across this country.  Common sense dictates that requiring a photo ID will cut down on this fraud.  How soon they forget their own arguments about voter fraud following GW Bush's win over Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election.  I guess we are to believe that all voter fraud has been eliminated since that election ages ago.

There's really no downside to the photo ID requirement, except for those too lazy or disinterested to go and get the ID, and perhaps for those in the democratic party who wish they didn't have to actually win over the Hispanic vote on the merits of their own beliefs.  They are more interested these days in cleverly stealing votes than actually obtaining them through honest means. 

We show our photo ID's all the time, and it presents no great barrier to us in obtaining various goods and services.  The list above provides a litany of everyday things that require a photo ID - at this point in our nation's history, a photo ID is pretty much an indispensable item that just about everyone has and anyone can easily get.

Obama can kill American citizens on a whim without casting a single glance at the Constitution.  But try and make someone show their driver's license when they vote and all hell breaks loose in the Attorney General's office as they scramble to address this great injustice.  The progressives are so full of bull on this that I'm surprised anyone actually buys what they are selling.  Unfortunately, you don't need to have a photo ID to buy that load of horsepuckey!

Keystone Pipeline Still Dead

Obama has been doing a lot of campaigning over the last 1-2 years, visiting key election battleground states repeatedly while touting his job-creation agenda to the unemployment-ridden masses (as an aside, keep in mind that the taxpayers cover all the costs associated with the President's jet-setting around the nation on the campaign trail).  But when presented with an obvious job creation project like the Keystone Pipeline, the President's job-creation agenda seems to fade away, and his big-government, anti-free market, socialist-leaning tendencies storm to the forefront.

Projected Path of the Keystone Pipeline

Aside from potentially improving our energy security, the construction and maintenance of the pipeline, which would run from Canada to America's Gulf Coast, would create thousands of jobs here in the U.S.  It's a very simple, straightforward, and obvious example of something that creates jobs.  One can argue that various tax policies, health care reforms, etc., create jobs, but those are usually complex initiatives not given to clear, concise job-creation analysis.  Not so with the Keystone Pipeline - it's a project that, without question, would create jobs.

In addition, it would provide the U.S. with a great supply of oil from our neighbor to the north, decreasing our reliance on oil from the middle east, a region which is constantly rife with unpredictability, instability, and antagonism towards America.   There are too many uncertainties in the middle east for us to rely solely on that region for our oil needs.

So why does President Obama continue to shut the Keystone Pipeline project down?  No one knows for sure what's in his head, but I suspect he's willing to sacrifice all those jobs because of his green energy agenda.  In fact, the President makes takes a lot of stances that are not in the best interests of American citizens when it comes to his green energy agenda.  He recently stated that he hopes gas prices would rise to the level they are in Europe, which would mean $7-$8 per gallon gas here in the U.S. (Obama's appointed Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu, also stated recently that he hopes for higher gas prices - days later, he now says his position has changed and he hopes for lower prices to ease the pressure on American's wallets)   When questioned about it, the President backtracked a little, implying that a sitting president wouldn't hope for higher gas prices in an election year.  While I don't believe him, even that answer is telling - his view on gas prices is dictated by what's good for his re-election campaign, not by what's good for the American people.  I believe the President wants higher gas prices so that alternative energy becomes a more attractive option in the marketplace - he's willing to sacrifice the well-being of Americans if it furthers his green energy agenda.

The bottom line is that the Keystone Pipeline will create thousands of jobs for Americans, and it will have at least some positive effect on our energy security.  But it's not in line with the goal of widespread green energy now, so Obama is willing to act to the detriment of America's citizens and refuse to allow the pipeline to be built.

Look, I'm all for green energy and alternative fuel sources, but they won't predominate in the marketplace until they can be produced and marketed on a cost basis that is competitive with fossil fuels.  We simply aren't there yet.  We'll get there, but in the meantime, we need jobs and gas price relief now, and the Keystone Pipeline is one item that will surely help.  And I've yet to hear anyone articulate a downside to the Keystone Pipeline.

There are many Americans out there right now who don't have a job, and if our President would act in our best interests, some of those Americans would soon be going to work building the Keystone Pipeline.  For their sake and all of ours, I just hope we won't have to wait another 4 years to see projects like this get the green light (pun intended).

Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood

Remember the uprising in Egypt?  The people of Egypt had finally had enough, and a bottom-up revolution by the people resulted in the ouster of it's dictator, Hosni Mubarak.  Our government, as usual, wasn't inclined to mind its own business, so we took an active role in helping reshape Egypt and assisting the revolutionaries. 

Flag of Egypt

I said at the time it was a bad idea for two reasons: 

(1)  It's none of our business - unless a foreign situation involves a threat to our national security or an attack against the United States, we have no business getting involved, regardless of how pure and well-intentioned our motives are.  There are human rights violations across the entire globe, but it's not our duty or right to interfere in any of them absent a connection to our national security.  Is the new rule that the U.S. should get involved whenever there are injustices being committed somewhere in the world?  If so, we'll face a never-ending, absurdly expensive, and unpredictable foreign do-good campaign.  Evil will never be eliminated from the earth, so if we're inclined to fight it on behalf of non-Americans whenever it rears its ugly head, we won't have time to do anything else but run around the globe interfering in other countries' affairs.  Egypt presented no threat to our national security, and it had not attacked us.  Our involvement was solely designed to help the Egyptian people wrest control of their nation from a ruthless dictator.  But Mubarak was in power for decades, and it wasn't until recently that we got all excited about the notion of deposing him.

(2)  If and when Mubarak was ousted, it would leave a power vacuum and subsequent fight among a myriad of political factions across Egypt, most of which were disorganized and ill-equipped to step in and take over.  There was (is) one political group in Egypt, however, that was fairly organized, and it was apparent to me that once Mubarak was removed from power, this group had the best chance of taking over.  That group was the Muslim Brotherhood, an islamic extremist group more interested in sharia law and destruction of the West than fostering equal rights and democracy in Egypt.  We didn't face a national security threat from Egypt under Mubarak, but we very may well under the Muslim Brotherhood's rule, as they support terrorists and islamic extremists hell bent on defeating the infidels through jihad.  Democracy is not a one-size-fits-all solution to every nation's problems - many nations have thousands of years of culture, values, and religion that don't allow for proper democracy to be practiced.  Muslim nations in particular fall into this group, and I feared that once Egypt fell under the Muslim Brotherhood's rule, democracy would never take hold and we'd have assisted in creating yet another Muslim nation that hates us.

Well, Mubarak is long gone, a new Egyptian constitution has been written, and democratic elections have been held.  It's no surprise to me that the Muslim Brotherhood now holds a majority of political positions of power in the new Egypt.  We have helped create this calamity, and going forward we will now have to deal with Egypt as an antagonistic islamic extremist nation as the Muslim Brotherhood continues to gain more power, rather than as a non-threatening, neutral islamic nation like it was under Mubarak.

The lesson to be learned is, if it's not broken don't fix it.  And by "not broken" I mean "presents no threat to the U.S., and is not treating the U.S. as an enemy."  Egypt wasn't broken before (it was, perhaps, for Egyptian citizens wanting freedom, but not from a U.S. national security perspective), but thanks to our zealous interference in the revolution and Mubarak's downfall, it is now.

Read about the Muslim Brotherhood's consolidation of power in the new Egypt:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/muslim-brotherhoods-political-party-consolidates-power-in-parliament/2012/02/28/gIQA70sMgR_story.html?wprss=rss_middle-east

Read about the Muslim Brotherhood generally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood

WV Creates New Black Market

West Virginia's legislature just passed a law creating a black market for cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine (PE).  Well, that's not what they are calling it (I just coined "PE" as the official street name for the substance!), and they don't realize they have created a black market, but in their vigilance in the war on drugs, the WV legislature has just made its problem worse, not better.

Under the new law, there is a limit on the number of such cold medicine units any one person may buy within a one-year period.  Basically, they have limited the amount a person can buy to an amount far less than what is required to create the dangerous and addictive drug methamphetamine, known on the street as glass, crank, or simply meth.  Before, someone running a clandestine meth lab could purchase as much of the cold medicines as they needed, and they would purchase a lot, because it takes a great number of cold medicine units to compile the requisite amount of PE for making meth.  There was no black market for the PE because anyone could just buy as much of it as they wanted legally at any grocery or convenient store, and it's relatively cheap, as far as illicit drugs and drug ingredients go - a few bucks per unit.

Now, however, meth lab operators will not be able to simply purchase what they need over the counter for a few bucks per unit.  I hope our legislators aren't so naive as to think that the lab operators will simply close up shop!  No - what they'll do is turn to others to help them compile the amount of PE they need.  Instead of purchasing it legally, the drug makers will purchase it illegally through others.  This will undoubtedly increase the overall number of people purchasing PE, and the people playing middle-man, buying it for others, won't do so for free.  Instead of paying what the store charges, the drug makers will have to pay a little (or a lot) extra in order to get others to buy it for them.  This will make purchasing PE for others a venture that results in a profit, however small it may be.  Where there's profit, there's greed and competition, and where the product involved is illegal, people will need to take matters into their own hands to settle business disputes - they can't simply call the police if someone steals their drug money or backs out on a PE deal.  And the price per unit of the meth will increase because the makers will have to pay more for the key ingredient.

So, in their infinite wisdom, our fearless leaders have created a black market for PE where none existed before, bringing with it the inevitable violence, theft, increased prices of drugs and drug ingredients, and crime that goes along with any black market industry, especially drugs.

I can't even say that I hope I'm wrong because I know I'm not.  It's prohibition and economics 101.  I just wonder how much it will cost me as a taxpayer to help fund the administration of this new government-created black market in PE.  I'm sure there will be entire new task forces devoted to clamping down on the problem they just created.  New weapons, new vehicles, new training, new uniforms, new agencies, new heads of new agencies, new consultants for new agencies, new equipment for new agencies and new task forces, etc.  And it's just a matter of time before citizens who are otherwise law-abiding are ruined for venturing into the new PE middle-man business.  I wonder, per year, how many new warrants will be issued, how many more residential doors will be kicked in, and how many more non-violent people will be occupying jail cells around the state.

Sometimes I think Inspector Clousseau is running things in Charleston.

Article from MetroNews:
http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=51552

GCB v. GMB

There's a new show on ABC called Good Christian Bitches.  Newt Gingrich made an excellent point the other day when he asked, rhetorically, "Take out the word 'Christian' in the title and replace it with 'Muslim' and ask yourself, 'Would any network air that show?' The answer is:  not-a-one!"

He's right on the money!  There is no way in hell that any network would air a show called Good Muslim Bitches, and if any did, I can't imagine the maelstrom of abuse they would receive from all sorts of people and organizations.  It would be the top news story on every channel; there would be a major boycott initiative underway immediately, with companies joining the boycott list faster than you could read them off; and people would be getting fired as the airing network execs tried to come up with an acceptable scapegoat to get at least part of their image back in good standing.

But it's en vogue these days to criticize Christians and their beliefs.  Tim Tebow received more criticism than Good Christian Bitches has, and all he did was pray silently for a few seconds after scoring touchdowns.  There is a war on Christianity going on in this country and people need to take notice, stand up, and push back!

The hypocrisy in this country is disgusting, and the double standard from the left is unbearably dishonest.

This country was founded by Christians on Christian principles.  Christians have good values - if everyone in the nation were a Christian, we'd be as close to total peace, cooperation, and prosperity as is possible to achieve.  We should be embracing Christians, not mocking, degrading, and demonizing them.  Meanwhile, the whole lot of terrorists we are fighting are Muslim, and if you so much as breathe wrong in a Muslim's direction in this country, you are outcast as a racist islamophobe.

As an objective, non-Christian observer, I call it like I see it.  Sometimes this country makes me sick!

Update on Alamo Heights vs. Edison

In my March 7, 2012, post about white Alamo High School students chanting "USA!  USA!" after their basketball win over predominantly Hispanic Edison High School, I questioned the motive of the Alamo students.  It appeared they were using Edison as a symbol of illegal immigration (even though its students are valid U.S. citizens) and chanting "USA!" as an ethnocentric insult.

Edison High School Mascot, the Golden Bear

However, it appears that throughout the game, prior to the Alamo students' chant, the Edison students were yelling "Alamo whites!" at the Alamo students.  So perhaps the Alamo students' chant was in response to Edison's own racial bigotry.

It doesn't make it right, but it provides a valid reason why Alamo would choose to insult their opponent after the game.

Both sides should be reprimanded for this behavior.  Both schools are American high schools, and the students on both sides should be proud of being American.  That both schools were insulting the race or ethnicity of their opponent is disappointing, although not surprising based on how contentious the illegal immigration debate has become in recent years.

Draw your own conclusions.

Small Businesses, or Big Banks?

I would not be exaggerating much if I said that most of the federal government's programs, departments, and agencies do not result in a net positive effect on our nation or economy.  Many are actually destructive, negative vehicles through which the government exerts control over various industries, property, or persons, while still others are merely good PR items - that is, they sound like they are really doing good, but in effect are providing virtually no help to anyone. 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) is one of those government departments that sounds crucial to an economic recovery by helping small businesses compete against larger ones, and putting Americans back to work, fueling the American economy.

In reality, the SBA really only helps big banks become bigger, and richer.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the SBA helps small businesses compete by enabling them to borrow at more attractive terms, such as lowered interest rates, than they would otherwise obtain.

However, only 0.5% (that's 1/2 of 1%) of all companies in the top 15 industries receiving SBA loans qualify as small businesses.  Additionally, about 25% of all SBA loans are owned by just 10 private banks, including Wells Fargo (7.3% of all SBA loans), J.P. Morgan Chase, U.S. Bancorp, and PNC Financial Services.

So instead of being a flagship program for helping small businesses, the SBA is, in reality, an engine driving profits for major U.S. banks.

This is just one example of clever nomenclature the federal government employs for programs, departments, and agencies so they sound better than they really are.  I mean, is anyone really going to sound like he is trying to help our economy recover if he proposes cutting funding for the Small Business Administration?

You should question every penny the federal government spends.  In most cases, notwithstanding how beneficial a particular government venture may sound, you'll be correct in assuming that any given government program, department, or agency provides little to no real benefit to persons and industries in need, or actually has a negative impact on our economy.

Perhaps our government should rename the SBA the Big Bank Profit Enhancement Program.

Sources:  CBO, Government Accountability Office, SBA.

Check out why The Cato Institute feels the SBA should be abolished (as you might imagine, I agree with Cato)...

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sba

Freedom: Before and After

Before:  East Germany right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, after almost 50 years of communist rule.  It is a country of dilapidation, disrepair, and ruin.  This is what communism/socialism does for a nation.

After:  The same places now, after 20 years of freedom.  Almost unrecognizable.

We are heading in the opposite direction.  There is a good comparison you can easily find online of Detroit in the 1950's and Detroit now.  It is basically the East Germany before-and-after exercise in reverse.

Markt Strasse, in Erfurt, 1991

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,720326,00.html

Atlas Shrugged

I watched Atlas Shrugged:  Part 1 finally.  I had been avoiding it, even though I'm a big fan of the book and it's libertarian message.

I read several reviews over a period of weeks and they were all pretty negative.  After several attempts of trying to want to see it, I read another review by some random person on the internet - she basically said it's a good movie, but since it doesn't cater to the liberal Hollywood ideology, most reviewers are giving it negative reviews more out of an agenda than a subjective opinion of it as a movie.  I realized she's probably right, and that I was putting too much stock in the critical reviews.  So I watched it, and it was pretty good.  Of course, I agree with the libertarian message, and the movie presents it very persuasively and is true to the book, so perhaps I liked the movie more than a liberal would.

Parts 2 and 3 are scheduled to be made soon, with Part 2 being released right around election time this year.  The book is about 1200 pages, so it's no wonder that it takes a trilogy to communicate it via the big screen.

If you haven't read the book, you should.  If you don't want to read the book, watch the movie(s).  Either way, the message that fairness, competition, and independent accountability and responsibility are the best structure for a successful economy/society is clear and persuasive.  That is how this country became the greatest in the world; that is how the Constitution and Declaration of Independence intended this nation to work; and the failure to adhere to those principles is why this nation is failing.

Who is John Galt?

Obama's Kill Doctrine

I can't say it any better than Jonathan Turley, so I won't even try.  His take, from ForeignPolicy.com:

On Monday, March 5, Northwestern University School of Law was the location of an extraordinary scene for a free nation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder presented President Barack Obama's claim that he has the authority to kill any U.S. citizen he considers a threat. It served as a retroactive justification for the slaying of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki last September by a drone strike in northeastern Yemen, as well as the targeted killings of at least two other Americans during Obama's term.

What's even more extraordinary is that this claim, which would be viewed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution as the very definition of authoritarian power, was met not with outcry but muted applause. Where due process once resided, Holder offered only an assurance that the president would kill citizens with care. While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama, or his successor, would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar "trust us" approach to civil liberties of this administration.

In his speech, Holder was clear and unambiguous on only one point: "The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war -- even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." The use of the word "abroad" is interesting because senior administration officials have previously asserted that the president may kill an American anywhere and anytime, including within the United States. Holder's speech does not materially limit that claimed authority, but stressed that "our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan." He might as well have stopped at "limited" because the administration has refused to accept any limitations on this claimed inherent power.

Holder became highly cryptic in his assurance that caution would be used in exercising this power -- suggesting some limitation that is both indefinable and unreviewable. He promised that the administration would kill Americans only with "the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States." He did not explain how the nation in question would consent or how a determination would be made that it is "unable or unwilling to deal" with the threat.

Of course, the citizens of the United States once consented on a relevant principle when they ratified the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. They consented to a government of limited powers where citizens are entitled to the full protections of due process against allegations by their government. That is clearly not the type of consent that Holder wants to revisit or discuss. Indeed, he insisted that "a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to 'due process.'"

Holder's new definition of "due process" was perfectly Orwellian. While the Framers wanted an objective basis for due process, Holder was offering little more than "we will give the process that we consider due to a target." And even the vaguely described "due process" claimed by Holder was not stated as required, but rather granted, by the president. Three citizens have been given their due during the Obama administration and vaporized by presidential order. Frankly, few of us mourn their passing. However, due process appears to have been vaporized in the same moment -- something many U.S. citizens may come to miss.

What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. If the president can kill a citizen, there are a host of other powers that fall short of killing that the president might claim, including indefinite detention of citizens -- another recent controversy. Thus, by asserting the right to kill citizens without charge or judicial review, Holder has effectively made all of the Constitution's individual protections of accused persons matters of presidential discretion. These rights will be faithfully observed up to the point that the president concludes that they interfere with his view of how best to protect the country -- or his willingness to wait for "justice" to be done. And if Awlaki's fate is any indication, there will be no opportunity for much objection.

Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki's family tried to challenge Obama's kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself -- a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.

When the applause died down after Holder's speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law.

Holder was describing the very model of government the Framers denounced in crafting both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison in particular warned that citizens should not rely on the good graces and good intentions of their leaders. He noted, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The administration appears to have taken the quote literally as an invitation for unlimited authority for angels.

Of course, even those who hold an angelic view of Obama today may come to find the next president less divine. In the end, those guardian angels will continue to claim to be acting in the best interests of every citizen -- with the exception, of course, of those citizens killed by them.

Original link:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/06/obama_s_kill_doctrine?page=full#.T1dXtEmgxbM.email

Winds of Change

This is what happens when the government meddles with the free market - supply, demand, production costs, and consumer prices are all unnaturally affected, resulting in waste.  The government can't force demand for particular products or services to increase, or make cost-effective those things the market is not able to do on its own.  But this doesn't stop our omniscient government from trying.

In its grand strategy of forcing green energy to take over the marketplace, rescuing the globe from human destruction, the government subsidizes various companies and "invests" in green energy (government never really invests in anything - it just spends money).  Of course, just because the government says that wind power, for example, should be a cost-effective energy option for companies and consumers alike doesn't make it so.  And when the government's meddling fails, it fails big.

Taxpayers and consumers are now going to have to shoulder the burden of government's misguided market-steering in America's Pacific Northwest.  Wind farms there, built with government subsidies and maintained with tax credits, are now being paid to shut down.  The wind energy companies, which exist not on their own merits but only via government subsidies, are going to be compensated for lost revenues as well, in one instance to the tune of $50 million.  Left to its own devices, the free market would never have supported these wind companies, and resources would not have been diverted from useful means to wasteful ones.  Until it comes into its own as a cost-effective and efficient item for companies and consumers, wind power will have no valid place in the market.  By faking it, the government actually makes things worse, not better.

It's Solyndra all over again.  In fact, there seems to be a never-ending string of Solyndras - companies pegged by the government as the next big thing, surviving on handouts and pumping out products and services that have no real demand behind them.  And without real demand, the supply is the culmination of wasted resources.  It's paying a company to produce pink widgets, not because anyone needs or wants pink widgets, but because the government wishes people wanted pink widgets, because pink widgets, the government has determined, will cure our economic ailments once everyone owns one.  So the government takes money from us and redistributes it to a startup pink widget company to put out tons of unwanted pink widgets, with the idea that, although no one wants or needs them, the pink widgets will catch on because people will realize that their individual sacrifice will lead to a grand utopia where all our problems fade away from the wondrous economic healing power of the pink widgets.

It's why the Chevy Volt is a disaster - Chevy is only cranking them out because the government is paying them to.  But no one actually wants a Volt because they are expensive and take 10 hours to charge up a battery that will only last for 20 miles of driving, whereupon it switches to gasoline like every other ordinary car.  In essence, it's a terribly inconvenient gasoline powered car that instead of simply filling the tank, one must invest additional time, effort, and expense to charge a battery that causes more problems than it solves.  All in the name of making the world a better place to live - according to the government.

The government's job is to merely protect our rights in a free market, not to create a fake market.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/wind-power-companies-paid-to-not-produce/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews

"USA! USA!"

Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with high-schoolers chanting "USA!  USA!" during sporting events.  I'm as patriotic as the next person, and we can fairly assume that all these kids are patriotic too.  But to say that the kids who chanted "USA!" after their basketball team's win were merely being patriotic is totally disingenuous.  Racist?  No.  Poor sportsmanship?  Probably.

Alamo Heights' mostly white basketball team had just beaten Edison High School's mostly hispanic basketball team on the court, and following the win, the Alamo students and players began chanting "USA!  USA!"  Both schools are based in Texas.  It seems pretty clear that the chant was intended to point out how much more American their school was than the hispanic school, impliedly referencing the high number of illegal hispanic (Mexican) immigrants in Texas.  Since both schools are based in the USA, it isn't a very persuasive argument to say that the winners were merely chanting something in victory that applauded both teams' efforts - if your victory chant doesn't point out who won, then what's the point?  It's pretty obvious the white kids from Alamo were expressing their patriotism and dissatisfaction with illegal immigration by using the losing, mostly hispanic team as a symbol of that illegal immigration problem.  It matters not whether the hispanic school is American, or whether any of its students or players are actually illegal immigrants - the point is that Alamo used the situation and the hispanic school as an impromptu symbol of illegal immigration and expressed their view on the subject at Edison's expense.

This situation is nothing like the "USA!" chant following America's dramatic win over the Soviet Union in the 1980 Olympic hockey contest.  That game was essentially a proxy cold war on ice, not a run-of-the-mill basketball game between two Texas high schools.  One cannot compare the motive, intent, and purpose of Alamo's students' "USA!" chant to those of the Americans' cheers following our Olympic conquest of a sworn geopolitical enemy in 1980.

I can understand why the losing team was offended by the chant, and it was in poor taste.  But I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was racist or deserving of anything more than a lecture on sportsmanship.  Should they have done it?  No.  But let's not crucify a bunch of kids for simply being kids.  I agree with their patriotism and their view on illegal immigration, but to taunt an opponent after a loss with such gusto-esque disdain, as if the opponent is the actual embodiment of illegal immigration, is inappropriate.  Hopefully, these kids will learn from the experience and display better sportsmanship in the future and refrain from taunting their opponents, American or not.

Here's an article on it with lots of quotes about the gravity of the students' actions.  The quotes reflect a wide range of reactions, from allegations of racism and calls for stiff penalties, to the simple recognition that the students engaged in poor sportsmanship and should apologize.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-says-%e2%80%9cusa-usa%e2%80%9d-chant-is-racist.html

Is the Constitution "Good and Substantial" Enough for You?!

A federal judge in Maryland invalidated a Maryland law that required citizens to provide a "good and substantial reason" in order to obtain a concealed carry handgun permit.  According to the law, not wanting to be mugged and wanting to protect yourself against assailants did not count as "good and substantial" reasons for needing to carry a gun.  If that's not the very essence of a good and substantial reason for needing to carry a gun, then no such reason exists - which is actually what the Maryland government was obviously aiming for.  It was an attempt at circumventing the 2nd Amendment by requiring citizens to satisfy an impossible standard.

Smith & Wesson's New .500 Magnum Revolver

At least I can appreciate the honesty with the governments in D.C. and Chicago which simply banned all guns outright - the United States Supreme Court threw those laws out too.

So our right to keep and bear arms is safe for now.  But don't let your guard down, because the government that is there to protect your rights will undoubtedly continue its assault against them, especially the one most important in preventing that government from ever becoming too tyrannical. 

More on the MD law invalidated:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/maryland-handgun-permit-provision-unconstitutional-federal-judge-rules/2012/03/05/gIQAq02htR_story_1.html

"Rush Limbaugh Sux"

Media Matters is officially a non-profit organization claiming to be a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." (This statement is directly from the "About Us" section on their website)  They got themselves in a bit of a jam recently when it turned out that their entire existence was aimed towards taking down Fox News (I think this was gleaned from leaked memos from the organization's higher-ups).  For a bunch of legal reasons that I won't go into here, an organization cannot maintain tax-exempt status if it's goal is to wage war against a specific person or entity.  So, while they currently pay no taxes in their ongoing crusade to destroy the most popular news channel in America, they are at risk of losing their tax-exempt status and might actually have to pay taxes like the rest of us soon.

In any event, for a "progressive research and information center," they sure don't strive too hard for comprehensive coverage of anything. 

Evil Twins:  Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

Here is a list of topics from their blog posts, in order from newest to oldest...

1.  Rush Limbaugh
2.  Rush Limbaugh
3.  Rush Limbaugh
4.  Rush Limbaugh
5.  Rush Limbaugh
6.  Fox News's inaccurate reporting on gas prices
7.  Rush Limbaugh
8.  Rush Limbaugh
9.  Rush Limbaugh
10.  ABC's inaccurate reporting on gas prices
11.  Rush Limbaugh
12.  Rush Limbaugh
13.  Rush Limbaugh
14.  Random Twitter tweet of crass nature by no one of any significance
15.  Sheriff Joe Arpaio
16.  Rush Limbaugh
17.  Rush Limbaugh
18.  Rush Limbaugh
19.  Reporters from local TV station suspended
20.  Rush Limbaugh

I kid you not.  And that's just page one of their blog.  I don't blame you if you don't believe me - check it out for yourself...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/

So what did Rush do that deserves constant blogging on one of the most laughable, yet widely read, liberal media outlets on the web?  Well, on his radio show this week, Rush picked on a woman who complained about not getting her birth control for free (which she claimed cost her thousands of dollars per year - that's a lot of condoms and birth control pills!) - Rush called her some not-very-nice names, and then apologized in the days following the insults.  He has since lost many advertising sponsors and immediately became the target du jour for liberals.

Regarding Media Matters, how's that for "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media?"  They ought to just streamline their entire operation down to a guy at a table in the Wal-Mart parking lot selling "Rush Limbaugh Sux" bumper stickers.  Our national debt has skyrocketed by 75% under Obama, and Rush insulted a woman who wants thousands of dollars of free birth control each year - which do you think matters more?  Oh, did I mention that Media Matters doesn't pay any taxes?

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

Here's a good write-up from the Cato Institute providing an example of how the government engages in central planning, stealing money from taxpayers and giving it away to companies it has deemed important enough to receive "free" money.  Of course, every handout comes from someone else, namely us in the form of taxes.  The government should not be engaged in choosing winners and losers in the marketplace - if a company has a product or service that is so good, it will stand on its own merits and doesn't need government subsidies.  If it needs subsidies to survive, then perhaps it's not a company that should survive in the first place.  In any event, most of these handouts are simply political favors by politicians trying to gain votes in their districts by showing them the money.  It warrants saying again:  power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

USDA Turning Taxpayer Money Into Wine

Today’s example of how the federal government has become too darn big is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Value-Added Marketing Grant program. This (relatively) little slice of corporate welfare will hand out approximately $56 million in taxpayer dollars this year to “producers of agricultural commodities” who can use the money “for planning activities and for working capital for marketing value-added agricultural products.”
A big winner this year appears to be wine producers:

• $33K for the Outer Coastal Plain Vineyards Association in New Jersey.
• $50K for the Ozan Vineyard and Cellar in Alabama.
• $94K for the Wild Wines winery in Oregon, plus $23K for the Southern Oregon Winery Association.
• $50K for the Feather River Vineyards in Nebraska (the USDA kindly kicked in another $50K to Nebraska’s Knotted Wood Distillery to help them market their whiskey).
• Three wineries in New York received $300k combined. The wine grants were complimented quite nicely with a $120K grant given to a New York cheese maker.

The USDA, the politicians who take credit for the awarding of the grants, and the recipients all say that these subsidies are good because the wineries will produce job, economic growth, etc, etc. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But as I often stress – to the point that I become blue in the face – federal subsidies are not a free lunch. Every dollar that the federal government spends helping wineries is a dollar that is taxed or borrowed from the private economy. When the federal government subsidizes particular businesses it’s merely transferring economic resources from one entity to another – a.k.a. central planning.

The $56 million Value-Added Marketing Grant program is a pretty small outlay in a $3.8 trillion federal budget. However, it’s not so much the size of the program that’s the problem. Rather, the program symbolizes the problem with allowing the federal government to spend other people’s money on virtually anything that the politicians on Capitol Hill desire. Given the government’s rising debt load, that situation must be remedied before Washington sends the economy off the cliff.

Sigh…somebody pass me a bottle of wine.

Minimum Wage

The minimum wage has been law in this country for quite some time.  However, it has done more harm than good for the workers whom it is designed to help.  In this post, I will provide an outline of why the minimum wage is detrimental to the economy, marketplace, wages, and workers.  It is has been in place for so long that people just assume it is a natural and must-needed law in order for everyone with an unskilled job to have a wage allowing them to live at what the government has determined is the minimum level of quality of life that unskilled workers are entitled to.  I have no doubt that it will continue to be the law for many years (decades?) to come, but does anyone actually question whether it is actually a good idea?  Here are some things to consider regarding the minimum wage:

(1)  The minimum wage violates one of the most fundamental principles of freedom this country was founded on - the right of people to contract for work.  An oversimplified example would be John Doe seeking employment with Acme Industries, Inc.  Mr. Doe meets with the president of Acme to discuss potential employment.  Mr. Doe has been unemployed for quite some time and desperately needs a job to put food on the table for his family.  Acme desperately needs another employee in order to crank out the number of widgets that yields a profit, allowing Acme to stay in business and put lots of food on the table of Acme's president.  Having no job, any wage that Mr. Doe can obtain from Acme would be an improvement for him.  He doesn't need $15/hour, or $10/hour, but even $5/hour would help Mr. Doe make ends meet.  He tells Mr. Acme president that he's worked with widgets before and is willing to work for Acme for $3/hour, thereby undercutting the offers from other prospective employees so he can get the job.  At $3/hour, Acme would get an economic benefit from Mr. Doe's employment at $3/hour.  Mr. Doe's wage plus all the other costs of production would yield a slim profit for Acme, so Acme's president offers Mr. Doe a job at $3/hour.  Both Mr. Doe and Acme reach a voluntary, informed agreement that would benefit both.  But alas, the government steps in and tells Acme and Mr. Doe that they are not allowed to voluntarily agree to a $3/hour wage - the minimum wage is $7/hour, which means Acme would lose money each hour that Mr. Doe works, and Mr. Doe remains unemployed.  So both Acme and Mr. Doe are harmed by the government's interference with their right to contract for work.  The basic freedom to contract for services which Mr. Doe and Acme should enjoy has been prevented by the government, all in the name of helping workers like Mr. Doe.  Instead of hiring Mr. Doe, Acme hires no one, and simply requires increased production quotas from their current employees and raises the costs of widgets for its customers.  Acme's workers now work longer hours, work harder, and consumers pay more for the widgets.  Once again, the government has prevent two parties from freely and voluntarily contracting for work - this is a violation of basic freedom.

(2)  If the goal of a minimum wage is provide unskilled workers a wage that improves their standard of living, why not set the minimum wage at $20/hour, or even $100/hour??  Why set it so low?  I've yet to hear a logical argument from those in favor a minimum wage why it shouldn't just be set at a very high amount so that all such workers can have a very nice standard of living.  After all, wouldn't $20/hour be much more beneficial to the minimum wage workers?  Sometimes I hear the reason that "Well, if it's set too high, it will be too costly for the companies to pay and they won't be able to make a profit."  This seems to be an admission that an imposed minimum wage does hurt private companies, and does interfere with their business model, but I guess as long as the interference isn't too harmful, it's ok - so the reasoning seems to be that it's ok for the government to interfere and hurt companies a little, but not too much.  Well, if the government is stepping in and hurting companies, then the degree of the harm isn't relevant - it's the fact that the government is stepping in to hurt companies that is the point, whether it's a lot of harm or a little harm.  Either way, the government is purposefully hurting private companies and frustrating the freedom of contract between employers and employees.  This is well beyond the constitutional limitations of the government.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow the government to interfere with agreements between individuals concerning work for wages.

(3)  As the minimum wage increases, those jobs become more attractive to the younger generation.  It increases high school dropout rates because high schoolers can obtain higher and higher paying jobs without graduating high school.  As the minimum wage increases over time, more and more high schoolers drop out to get a job that is increasingly profitable, allowing them to get an apartment, car, and other necessities and wants without a high school diploma. 

(4)  As a corollary to number 3, above, even those who don't drop out of high school look for jobs at higher rates as the pay increases.  With more teenagers in the job market, fewer older job seekers can find work, and these are the ones with families they need to support and mortgages they need to pay.  It just stands to reason that the more teenagers enter the job market, the fewer people with dependent children are able to gain employment.  Increased unemployment in this group ends up costing the taxpayers much more money, because government safety nets are used to help these people support their families.  If they can't get a job because some high school kid got it, they need to rely on welfare, food stamps, etc. in order to support their families and make ends meet.  Imagine if the minimum wage were $50/hour - how many high schoolers do you think would forego seeking a job, or stay in school to get a diploma, go to college, rack up college debt, and get a skilled job that pays just a bit more than the minimum wage.  Why go through all that work to make just a few dollars more than minimum wage.  When the job market is flooded with youngsters, adults with dependents have a harder time finding work, and not only do they suffer, but the safety net programs that are used cost taxpayers much more money, and we all suffer - all except the teenager who now makes enough to buy that fast car to show off at the mall on the weekends while they spend their money on clothes, CD's, etc. - instead of rent since they still most likely live with their parents.

(5)  The more a company has to pay in wages, the more it charges for its goods and services.  As the minimum wage goes up, these companies don't sit by idly and watch their profits decline without concern.  They raise the costs of their goods and services in order to maintain their bottom line.  So as the minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of things for consumers. 

(6)  Instead of hiring more individuals, when the minimum wage goes up, a company may only employ 100 people instead of 150 people, since it now costs more to employ them.  They may outsource to other countries where it is cheaper to employ people, or require more productivity from their current employees rather than hire new ones; or replace workers with robotic or computerized workers that costs virtually nothing after installation and programming.  This leads to higher unemployment overall, which is never a good thing in an economy.

(7)  The bottom line is that the market will determine what a worker's value is worth.  If there are hundreds of people without jobs who are willing to put widgets into boxes, but less than hundreds of job openings, the market will determine what the proper wage for such work is.  If the company can fill all the positions by paying $3/hour, than that is what the wage will be.  If a competing widget company wants to pay $5/hour, they will attract better qualified applicants, and the quality of their products and services will be better than its competitor who is paying a lower wage, and the higher-paying company will ultimately get more customers, forcing its competitor to take action to stay in competition.  As companies compete, wages will naturally rise, and we will all be better off.

(8)  With a minimum wage, companies competing know that there is a floor for wages, so they all set their wages at the floor, meaning that no companies will be willing to pay any more than that.  So instead of having a variety of wages for the same unskilled jobs, all of them will receive the minimum wage set by government.  This minimum wage means companies won't offer higher wages, so all unskilled workers are left with an almost colluded level of pay across the board, instead of a competition driven array of wages.  There is no incentive for workers to improve the quality of their work because they know they will receive the same pay everywhere.  There is likely no incentive for companies to pay higher wages, since they know the good workers and less good workers will all receive the same pay, so why should they pay the good ones more than the less good ones.  It unnaturally corrupts the free market when the government sets a minimum wage and interferes with the freedom to contract for wages based on quality, supply, or demand.

This is a sufficient part one for why the minimum wage is not a good idea.  The most compelling reason is freedom - people should be free to work for whatever wage they can agree on with an employer.  With unemployment currently in excess of 8%, there are surely tons of people who would rather work for $3/hour than not at all.  And there are companies that are willing to pay them $3/hour for work.  But the government, with its minimum wage laws, is preventing these people the freedom to voluntarily work for agreed-upon wages, so the unemployment rate remains higher than it should be.

Remember, whenever the government interferes with our freedoms, we are always worse off.  $3/hour is better than nothing, and people should be free to work for whatever they can agree on with an employer.  The days of worker exploitation are over - there are numerous worker safety laws on the books, unlike in the early days of the industrial revolution, so let people and companies freely compete and contract for work and wages and the entire system will benefit employers, employees, and consumers.