Obama and Annoying Spouses

Anyone that has been with a “significant other” for some time will have experienced a moment when the drive to some destination is complicated because of a wrong turn or two. Growing up, we often joked that any time it was unclear if we should turn right or left, whatever my mother said we should, we should probably do the opposite. My mother had a knack for directing us the wrong way at crucial moments. Thankfully, we often would just laugh at ourselves for listening to her again when we knew we should do just the opposite.

Others, however, are not as fortunate. Instead of moving on and figuring out , given the wrong turn, what the best course of action is now, they focus on that mistake and never let it go. Instead of saying, “We made a wrong turn, what’s the best thing to do to right the course”, they say, “I told you then that we shouldn’t go this way, now we’re all screwed up; we might as well just go home.”

This latter, annoying, spouse seems strikingly similar to Barak Obama and the war in Iraq. We all know, because he can’t go five minutes without reminding us, that he voted against going to war with Iraq while McCain and Clinton voted for it. What Obama seems to not get is that, we are at war in Iraq right now! Focusing on what we should have done is not going to help us to decide what to do now. Even if we grant that going to war was a mistake, that doesn’t mean the best thing to do is just go home. If it is, give us an argument for it that doesn’t depend on the earlier decision to go.

What Obama needs to do is convince us that the best course of action now is to leave Iraq. That is a completely separate issue from whether we should’ve gone in the first place. If he wants to bring that up in addressing Clinton’s ability to make decisions, that is fine. But, again, that’s different from addressing what we should do in Iraq, given that we are there now.

Obama is fortunate to not have any tough questions from the main stream media because what he says about this just makes no sense. Obama says we should get out of Iraq and focus on Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. He justifies this by saying that going to Iraq diverted our attention from Afghanistan and we need to get back to that original mission. That’s all fine and dandy, except there is one big problem. Al-Qaida is in Iraq right now.

I wish someone would ask Obama just this one question, “Why do you think fighting Al-Qaida in Afghanistan is a good thing, but fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq is a bad thing?” I would love to hear if he could respond to such a question without pointing out that we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq in the first place. What would make things really difficult, if someone in the media would push him on it, is that he’s said that staying in Iraq would be an option if there were Al-Qaida attempting to establish a base there. So, what exactly does he think Al-Qaida is doing in Iraq right now, shopping? (Earlier in the week McCain mocked him on this, and should continue to do so.)

So, am I misreading Obama’s remarks on Iraq and Afghanistan? Am I wrong to think his argument for leaving shouldn’t rely on whether we should’ve gone?

Cartoons & Socialized Health Care

I happened upon this cartoon the other day and I think it does a nice job of clearly showing the problem that we are in today. No, I don’t think not having universal health care is the problem. I do think that people are increasingly of the mind that it is the government’s job to take care of them. This never has, and never should be, the central role of our government. The proper role of the government is to set the framework in which we can live freely. It is to protect others from infringing our rights to do as we ought (not as we want) and that is it. (For an outstanding argument demonstrating this point, see F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.)
With that said, I would like to address a few of the depictions in this cartoon.

First, the roads. The majority of our roads are not federally funded. Most of them come from property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes. And this is how it should be. The local governments are able to best decide what roads need to be built, repaired, and ignored. It is not the federal government’s role to do that for us. No one is advocating a local government ran health care system so the comparison to roads is really bad. But, if that’s what someone was advocating, and succeeded in getting it implemented (think Massachusetts), then make that clear. It’s a lot easier to move a state over than to move a country over.

Second, the army. Many don’t know this, but Milton Friedman (an economist) was one of the most influential people in getting the U.S. away from a conscription-based army and to a volunteer army. His reasoning was simple. If the military has to get people to choose to go into the military, the military will have to compete for their service. They have to offer better training, pay, etc. than the other options out there. The result, we have a much better trained and equipped military now than we ever did then. So, what does that have to do with health care?

Well, no one is forced to serve in the army. After we transitioned to a volunteer military, it has gotten better and more sophisticated. The military can’t just say “You have to join us”, instead they have to say “Here’s why you should join us.” Notice that if we switch to an Obama or Clinton-esque national health care, we are doing just the opposite. No longer do you get, “Here’s why you should join us” but instead you get “You have to join us.” So, the army example is bad for two reasons. First, the army is volunteer and national health care would not be. And second, when military service was mandated, there was no reason for the military to work to make it better. People had to join. Why think the health care industry would be any different?

Third, the postal service. By almost all accounts, our federal government ran mail service is a complete disaster. How many times can you remember their raising the cost of postage stamps? Why are they doing this? Because the USPS is losing money hand over fist and they’re trying to stop the bleeding. People thought the idea of FedEx, UPS, and DHL was absurd because the government already offered a mail service. But, the privatized system works so much better, and is cheaper for those that use it, that they are all extremely successful businesses. If the federal government is unable to deliver a package from point A to point B and keep costs down, what makes us think they can figure out a way to transplant a heart from person A to person B any better?

Fourth, the fire department. Once again this is a bad example because fire departments are not ran by the federal government, but local municipalities. Again, if you want a local ran health care system, say so. As far as I know, no one is seriously advocating such a system, and Obama and Clinton are definitely not doing so.

Now I know that this artist was probably doing this tongue-in-cheek, but I do think it highlights to a great deal how many people think about health care. It sounds so easy to just say the government should provide it and then stop thinking. But, it’s not that easy. Yes, they can provide our health care, but you have to figure out how we’re going to pay for it (the doctors, nurses, and staff are still going to get paid either way), who gets to decide if you get to have that life-improving but non life-threatening surgery, and how we can keep the program from becoming bloated with waste (which we still have yet to figure out how to do with Medicare and Medicaid).

Barack Obama, President Bush, and the War in Iraq

Barak Obama, President Bush, and the Iraq War

Believe it or not, it turns out that Barack Obama’s Iraq war strategy isn’t as different from President Bush’s as you might have thought. This is especially surprising since Obama’s Iraq plan seems to be one of the only things we know about what he would do as president (we’ve yet to figure out what exactly “change” amounts to, even though he wants to do a lot of it).

Listen to Obama speak for a few minutes and sooner or later you’ll hear him mention his plan to begin bringing troops home now. It’s no coincidence that the ubiquitous “We Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home” stickers are often placed right next to “Barack Obama ‘08″ stickers. As it turns out though, Obama actually thinks that Bush’s Iraq strategy isn’t such a bad idea. Of course he could never come out and say that because the liberal-left would kill him for it. Before I demonstrate that their plan for Iraq is essentially the same, I need to briefly summarize Bush’s strategy.

When you hear President Bush speak about Iraq he inevitably mentions refusing to fail. Why is not failing so important? There are two main reasons. First, if the U.S. fails in stabilizing Iraq, there will undoubtedly be an increase in the presence of al-Qaeda in that country. This isn’t too surprising since the people we’re fighting in Iraq right now are mostly members of al-Qaeda. They already have one place from which to base their operations and we can’t give them another one, especially one so close to Saudi Arabia. Second, the increased presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq will put the lives of those Iraqis that have fought alongside the United States in serious danger. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that al-Qaeda is going to seek retribution against the Iraqis that have ‘offended their cause’. Abandoning the Iraqis to al-Qaeda is not acceptable.

Now you might disagree with Bush about this, but you should take note that Barack Obama doesn’t.

Because you probably think I’m crazy, I’ll now quote from the Obama campaign website. The author of Obama’s position paper on Iraq writes, “Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq… In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safe-haven.”

Now to be fair, prior to that quote Obama says he’ll immediately begin bringing troops home and have everyone home in 16 months. The problem is that he goes on to say residual forces will remain. Well, one might ask, how many residual forces and for how long? What happens if those residual forces aren’t adequate to “protect American diplomatic and military personnel” or to intervene to “provide civilians with a safe-haven”? One might also wonder why he would be willing to leave troops at all, especially since he continually says he’s going to bring all of them home. Essentially, Obama gets that al-Qaeda is going to be a problem and that they’ll be such a problem that we won’t be able to ignore them. Why wouldn’t we be able to ignore them? Because they’ll have a new base to operate from and will retaliate against Iraqis that helped the United States. Sound familiar? He understands what Bush is saying, but he also knows that he’d never get elected by admitting Bush is right. However, Obama is a very smart man and that’s why he provided the “out” clause I quoted above. This clause allows him to preach now about how he’ll bring the troops home, but once elected, can keep things going until the Iraqis can adequately manage things themselves. He can get the political payoff now and keep letting the military do their thing then, all that without ever going back on his word. Smart man.

I should point out one big and important difference between Bush’s plan and Obama’s plan. Obama evidently thinks it is better to wait to act until an outbreak of genocide occurs, whereas Bush thinks it is better act now and ward off an outbreak that would otherwise be certain to occur. I’m not so sure about this strategy.

So, if you’re a big fan of the “Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home” idea, you might want to push Obama a bit harder on what he would be able to do as president, and stop being satisfied with what he would like to do.

Prosperity & Clinton

This is a sign in Newberry, South Carolina that points to the nearby towns of Prosperity and Clinton. (Click the photo to direct to the Yahoo page where the photo originated.)

Before you vote for McCain

Before you vote for McCain
Please do yourself, and America, a favor. Before you head off to vote on Tuesday, take a few minutes to find out about the following bills that McCain helped write:

1) McCain-Feingold
2) McCain-Kennedy
3) McCain-Lieberman

After you’ve learned what these are, ask yourself if a traditional, Reagan conservative would support those bills. Keep in mind that the large percentage of Republicans (who should be as close to traditional conservatives as we’ll get) voted against each of them. McCain not only voted against the large number of Republicans, he sponsored the bills!

Another thing to ask yourself is if a traditional, small government, low taxes Republican would have voted against making Bush’s tax cuts permanent. Here again McCain sided with the Democrats and not the majority of Republicans.

You should also consider whether a traditional Republican would have voted in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants (hint, this is the McCain-Kennedy bill). McCain said it doesn’t really matter if you broke the law to get here, pay $3,000 and you’re fine. Now I know that the bill didn’t pass, but we still don’t know what McCain’s actual position is on amnesty. When asked if he would vote in favor of it as President, he said “Well it’ll never come up for a vote.” What? That wasn’t the question. It was a hypothetical question that McCain didn’t seem to understand.

Finally, are you not at least a bit concerned with his support of Justice O’Connor. It seems odd to say “I’ll appoint justices like Alito and Roberts” and then turn around and say “O’Connor was a fine justice” when they are nothing alike. I wonder if the fact that she would have been the deciding vote in upholding McCain-Feingold had anything to do with that comment.

Of course if you’re not a Republican or are a more progressive one, these things might not matter to you. But, if they do, you should seriously consider the above points and ask yourself if McCain is really a Reagan conservative or is just trying to act like one.

(Bias alert: I’m voting for Romney because I think his policies are solid. If you agree with me about McCain then hopefully you also realize that Huckabee has no real shot at winning the nomination and so should vote for Romney too.)

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

The Economic Stimulus Plan

First, there’s a good chance that my family will receive somewhere close to $1,200 as a result of the “Economic Stimulus Plan” being proposed by Congress. Am I happy to have the extra money? Of course I am! Do I think that the rebates are going to do any good for the economy? Of course I don’t! Here’s why:

1. The majority of (smart) people will not spend the money, but instead either save it or pay down debt.
2. Those that do spend it will likely spend it where it came from – China.
3. Even if 1 & 2 are false, and everyone does blow their rebate check, it still won’t help the economy.

Now, why do I think these are true?

Why (smart) people won’t spend the rebates

(Smart) People don’t plan their spending around a one time raise in income. If the economy is as bad as people keep telling us it is (a claim I doubt), then people realize they need to be smart with all their money. Even “free” money that the government hands out. If you’re struggling with your mortgage because of all your credit card debt, are you going to go and blow the money? Of course some will, but I think Americans are generally smarter than that. Instead of blowing the money, many will pay down debts to try to stay afloat once they get back to regularly scheduled income.

What about those that are not struggling financially? Are they going to go out and spend like crazy? Well, probably not. Those are the people that tend to be smart financially and will likely save that money. Many may invest that, which could help stimulate the economy some, but that’s not what the government really wants us to do with the money. They want us to run to Wal-Mart and buy a nice Vizio flatscreen tv.

Where the money comes from and gets spent

Here we need to think about one of the reasons why our economy is in the shape it’s in. The fact is that China has a growing economy and doesn’t have to compete fairly in the global market. Many times people buy products that have been imported from China (or other countries, and really, any type of foreign buying isn’t going to help our economy very much).

Mike Huckabee is by no means a financial guru, but this is something that even he seems to get. (His mentioning it during the debate last night did sound awfully similar to Cato’s Chris Edwards’s piece in the New York Post [link].)

Why, even if 1 & 2 are false, the rebates won’t help

Finally, let’s imagine that I’m wrong about both 1 &2 (a hard thing to believe I know!). The success of American corporations is directly related to the strength of our economy. If the corporations are doing well, they increase production and hire more people. Their success means that new wealth is being generated and getting passed down to the workers in that corporation.

Now, let’s imaging that every person runs straight to the store to blow their entire rebate check on American made goods. How exactly is that going to boost the economy? Yes there will be more sales made in the short term, but do we really think that is going to cause our corporations to go out increase production and hire new people? There’s no way that’s going to happen because those running the corporations know this is a short-term increase in demand. As soon as the checks are spent, the demand is going to go back to regular levels. That means their current production levels and employee levels are just fine.

What the stimulus plan should have done

The best way to help the economy is to make America a better place for corporations to succeed. What I find particularly humorous is that most Democrats reject his idea. But, as soon as the unemployment rate goes up, they go nuts. Do they not realize that when the corporations do poorly they have to let people go?

Okay, so how do we help the corporations? By permanently lowering corporate taxes and encouraging their long term growth.

Am I glad I can finish paying off the Mexican Riviera Cruise with my rebate check? Yes I am, but I think I’d be better off in the long run if I didn’t get the check and it was instead spent on encouraging true long term economic growth.

Mike Huckabee’s Christmas Video

In the above video Mick Huckabee wishes everyone a Merry Christmas and reminds us to not forget that it is a celebration of Christ’s birth. Of course there have been people griping about its exclusive nature (he doesn’t address the beliefs of non-Christians) and one person, Bill Donahue, has even claimed that there is a subliminal attempt to convert people to Christ. This is absurd.

If you haven’t watched the video yet, please do it now. In the back you will see a white bookcase that forms a cross. Apparently, Donahue believes that this was intentional and infers that because of it, Huckabee is trying to advance the Christian cause. This could be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

Let’s say that it is a subliminal message. What would that message be? Well, since the video ends with Huckabee blocking out the “cross” I could only surmise that Huckabee is really trying to advance himself as more important than the cross. After all, it was there and then he blocked it out. If you’re willing to grant that Huckabee would try to convey hidden messages in his video, then you’ve got to be willing to go all the way with it. If the cross-shaped bookcase mattered as the “cross” appears, then why wouldn’t it matter as he blocked it out? Because Donahue knows Huckabee would never do that on purpose. Maybe, if all the post-moderns are right and you get to interpret things however you wish, Huckabee is crazy and really thinks he’s more important than the cross. There’s a better chance that Donahue is the one that’s crazy.

This is the sort of nonsense that we are about to get a whole load of as the political season comes into full bloom. Subliminal messages from a presidential hopeful-give me a break.

And just so you know, at this point I’m not backing Huckabee. Right now, my vote’s going to Romney. So this isn’t some attempt to defend “my guy.” This is an attempt to point out how ridiculous some people are when it comes to being politically correct.

Picking a President

This presidential election might as well be labeled as the “Election of Firsts”. We could see the first woman president, the first African American president, the first Mormon president, and the first 160 year old president. Well maybe McCain isn’t that old, but it’s close.

America has come a long way in the last 50 years or so. We are now a much more just society and have recognized that characterizing someone based on their gender, class, religion, or race is a pretty dumb thing to do. That’s why we have laws prohibiting such things in the workplace and educational institutions. I’m happy that we’ve progressed as much as we have, but will be the first to admit that we have a long way to go. The current presidential campaign demonstrates just how far away we are.

When Obama announced his candidacy some within the African American community immediately criticized him for not being “black enough.” Others immediately gave him their support because he would “further the black cause” in America. I hope both of these reactions shock you. Not hiring someone because of his color is obviously wrong. But I’m confused how making someone President of the United States of America because of his color is any better. Remember all the “Hey, Just because we’re the same color doesn’t mean we think the same!” cries? How did that change when it comes to electing the leader of our nation?

It doesn’t stop there though. There are scores of women that have done just the same but instead of throwing their support to Obama, it has gone to Clinton. Why? Because she is a woman.

Now obviously there are men that support Clinton and whites that support Obama. There are also African Americans that don’t support Obama and women that don’t support Clinton. So, please don’t think I’m generalizing that all people of these groups are this irrational. But, there are plenty that are supporting one of these two candidates simply because of his color or her gender. That is absurd.

I wish I could say that it stops there, but it doesn’t. Apparently, many people believe that one’s particular religion is a sufficient reason for either supporting or not supporting a candidate. Among those that support Obama or Clinton for irrational reasons, there are those that are not supporting Romney because he is a Mormon. This is just as irrational. This past week Romney did a wonderful job demonstrating why he would make a great president. He did a masterful job presenting his position on the role of faith in politics, refused to pander to any one particular interest group, and reminded those fellow believers what makes America so great.

In sum:

If you vote for Obama because he’s black, then you’re an idiot.
If you vote for Clinton because she’s a woman, then you’re an idiot.
If you vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon, then you’re an idiot.
If you don’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon, then you’re an idiot.

One’s race, gender, or particular religious belief should not have anything to do with whether or not that person is able to lead our country. Can the person work with both sides of Congress to get things done? Will this person garner respect from the international community? How does this person’s moral views line up with yours? Has this person demonstrated an ability to solve problems and resolve pressing situations?

I’d like to think that Oprah has endorsed Obama because she thinks he’s the best for our country and that Barbara Streisand endorsed Clinton for the same, but I honestly doubt that’s the case. I also doubt that Robertson’s endorsement of Guiliani had nothing to do with Romney’s Mormonism.

Governmental Inefficiencies

We’ve all heard the talk about how inefficient big governments are. Disgust at the amount of money it takes to accomplish even the smallest tasks and horror at the unknown amount of pure waste are common among most people today. Usually these things can only be pointed out by looking through vast amounts of paperwork and interviewing countless people (signs of yet more government inefficiency). Yesterday, however, one could see the wasted money fly right out the window.

As I opened up my first copy of The Economist (and the first of only six copies because continuing on after this free trial period is just to dang expense for a graduate student) I decided to see what was on the television. Somehow the channel ended up on C-SPAN and I was able to witness the most ridiculous government spectacle I’ve yet to see with my own eyes. In the House of Representatives there was a debate about a controversial piece of legislation that would allow the federal government to purchase contraceptives and send them to poor and underdeveloped countries as part of foreign aid. The controversy arose because many of these countries, which were previously and specifically excluded, also endorse abortion as a means of family planning. The Republicans didn’t want the public’s tax money to be spent on abortion in any way. The Democrats didn’t think this sending contraceptives to these countries would do that because there is specific language specifying that no U.S. money could be used on abortion or abortion promotion.

I’l try my best to capture the essence of this debate:

Democratic party representative: “This bill does not approve spending on abortion overseas. It approves sending contraceptives overseas. We are not exporting abortion. Instead we are allowing these poor women and children a chance for a better life by preventing unplanned pregnancies. The Republicans say that they support family planning, well this is your chance to do just that. Vote yes for this bill.”

Republican party representative: “By providing contraceptives to agencies that promote abortion as a method of family planning, we are allowing that agency to free up money previously spent on contraceptives and spend more on abortion and promoting abortion. They no longer need to spend the money on contraceptives because we’re giving them to the agency for free. Therefore, they will have more money in their budget to do exactly what the American people don’t want them to do, promote and practice abortion.”

And then after this brilliant back and forth between parties, another person from the Democratic party comes to the microphone and gives the exact same argument the previous Democrat gave. Of course this infuriates the Republicans so they have to respond. Fortunately for them, another Republican representative comes to the microphone and gives the exact argument the previous Republican gave. Right now the American people have a very low level of confidence in the U.S. Congress and I think this is why. Why can’t more legislation be discussed and passed in each session? Because evidently no one in Congress has an attention span longer than 15 minutes. If no one has anything new to say, then why not just move on and vote?

That would be the sensible thing to do, but then all the representatives that didn’t get to speak at first wouldn’t be able to post their repetitive diatribe on their own little websites for their constituents to see. I know, if you want to report back to your district that you were active, then come up with a new convincing argument that actually advances the discussion!

Economists are always able to (somehow) put a value dollar on time wasted. For example, they’ll tell you so many millions of dollars are wasted on employees playing solitaire at work. I wonder how much money was wasted yesterday on high level government employees grandstanding with the same argument a colleague just gave?

Clinton & Other Dems on Terrorism

I’m not sure if I’ve ever said this before, but I think Senator Clinton is right (well, at least about one thing). In the New York Times there is an article describing the widespread disagreement between Clinton and other Democratic hopefuls about whether or not the United States is safer now than before 9/11. Clinton’s position is basically this, we are safer now than we were before, but because of Bush’s bumblings in Iraq and other places, we’re clearly not safe enough. What appears to be everyone else’s position on the issue, because Bush’s bumbling in Iraq has created more terrorists, we are now less safe than before 9/11.

Now I’m undecided if the lack of terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11 means we are safer, though I do think our knowledge of foiled attacks does signify something. But what I think is really queer is how many of the Democratic hopefuls jump from the possibility of there being more terrorists to the reality that the U.S. is less safe. I’m convinced it’s just a red herring that the Dems hope will give them another chance to blast another Bush policy. I think their argument for us being less safe would go like this:

1. Terrorists were a threat to the U.S. before 9/11.
2. Since 9/11 Bush has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and in doing so, has created more terrorists.
3. If there are more terrorists in the world, then there are more people with a desire to harm the U.S.
4. More people that desire to harm the U.S. means that the U.S. is less safe now than before 9/11.
5. Therefore, Bush has once again screwed up America and despite all his efforts, we are less safe.

This may not be exactly how their argument goes, but from reading accounts of last night’s debate, it sure seems like it’s the gist of it. So why do I think appealing to the idea that there are more terrorists now than before is a red herring? Well, notice that in the argument above there is no mention about improved methods for thwarting terrorist attacks. Let’s say the rate of inflation continues at about 4-5%. Inflation stinks because if you own a home, if its appreciation rate is not outpacing inflation, then you’re losing money (you know, given insurance, maintenance costs, and interest on the mortgage). But, if the appreciation of your home is outpacing inflation, then it’s not as bad as it could be. I think you see the analogy. If there are more terrorists today, but the U.S.’s efforts at thwarting attacks has ‘outpaced’ the growth of terrorists, then we are safer. Notice this doesn’t mean having more terrorists is a good thing, it just means that having more terrorists doesn’t automatically mean we are less safe. The failure of most of the candidates to even address the fact that most agencies at home and abroad are more effective now is just an attempt to discredit everything Bush does.

I’m not sure if I’ll ever say this again, but, Senator Clinton, I think you’re right.