Questions and Observations

Free Markets, Free People

Dan Quayle’s wrong

Not completely, not utterly, just in how he discusses the Tea Party’s origins.

Like many influential causes before it, the “tea party” movement appeared on the scene uninvited by the political establishment. Democrats in the White House and in Congress recognize it for what it is — a spontaneous and pointed response to the Obama agenda — but some Republican leaders still aren’t sure what to make of it, as tea partiers have risen on their own and stirred up trouble in GOP primaries.

The  tea party movement is not exclusively a reaction only to “the Obama agenda”. And if the GOP buys into that, they’re buying trouble.  Quayle even acknowledges that without knowing it when he talks about trouble in Republican primaries.

This grass roots movement didn’t begin when Obama took office or in reaction to his specific agenda, but instead began to form during the Bush administration as government continued to expand. About the time TARP found its way into the political lexicon, it went public.  It was the size of the crisis and response – the trillions of dollars thrown around like confetti – that finally spurred people into the streets and birthed the official “tea party movement”.

If you haven’t already, I’d like you to watch and listen to this interview with Pam Stout, a local tea party movement president from Idaho. She’s on the Dave Letterman show, and, knowing the history of the show, I’m sure you can figure out why he wanted her there. But she blows up the game and in what I’m sure was an unintended outcome, gives lie to almost all the myths, legends and charges being circulated about Tea Partiers. Listen at the 3 minutes mark on the second video where Ms. Stout verifies exactly what I’ve been saying about the movement.

Stout is the perfect example of my point – this isn’t a movement of right wing disgruntled Republicans. This is a movement of small government fiscal conservatives – almost libertarian in leaning. Her discussion of the demonization of business, the necessity of allowing businesses to fail, getting out of the way of the markets and let them take the lead in recovery were on target and well delivered.

But most importantly, the GOP needs to understand that her “hero” is Sen. Jim DeMint, not because DeMint is a Republican, but because DeMint is a small government fiscal conservative who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. The reason they’re identified with the GOP is because that’s about the only place other than the libertarian side of the house, that you’ll find those type people.

That’s who Tea Partiers are looking for. They’re not looking necessarily for Republicans. They’re looking for principled small government fiscal conservatives who will return sanity to government and scale down its size, scope and cost. Sen. Olympia Snowe would not qualify. Sen. Lindsey Graham most likely wouldn’t qualify either. And I’ll venture to say, neither would Sen. John McCain. These are the type people they’re promising “trouble” for in Republican primaries.

But if the Republicans don’t quite get it, the Democrats definitely do. They understand they are faced with a grass roots group – a real grass roots group which makes them doubly dangerous – that stand for everything Democrats do not. Democrats are absolutely dedicated to using government as a tool to expand the social welfare state come hell or high water. Their concentration is on expanding both the size and scope of government and, by fiat, it’s cost. Their almost single-minded effort of over a year to pass health care reform, while a more critical priority – the economy – went wanting underlines their agenda, and yes, as Quayle says, this group opposes that agenda. That’s why you’ve seen efforts almost since day one to brand the tea parties as extremist, racist, terrorist – you name it – in an effort to discredit it.

But this goes much deeper than just Democrats and a specific agenda and I think Ms. Stout does a great job representing the movement and of making that point clear. The tea party movement certainly has a focus – but it isn’t necessarily that of many in the GOP. If they thought they had a place in the GOP – if they thought the GOP was indeed the party of small government fiscal conservancy – there’d be no need for tea parties, would there?

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Digging into the March unemployment numbers

Not to make to much of them, but this is important to know when you hear some of what is going to pass for analysis today and this weekend.  Calculated Risk does a good job of drilling down into the numbers and giving them some context.

First, part timers.  The BLS reports:

The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) increased to 9.1 million in March.  These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

Calculated Risk adds:

The all time record of 9.2 million was set in October. This suggests the increase last month was not weather related – and is not a good sign.

Again, while any gross positive number is better than a negative number, other areas of employment don’t necessarily support an outlook that says “the job picture is turning around”. As if to emphasize that point, Gallup’s “underemployment” numbers were released today as well and they increased to 20.3% of the US workforce is underemployed – up from 19.8% in February.

A second number to consider is those who’ve been unemployed for over 26 weeks and would work if a job was available:

According to the BLS, there are a record 6.55 million workers who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks (and still want a job). This is a record 4.3% of the civilian workforce. (note: records started in 1948)

The number of long term unemployed is one of the key stories of this recession.

It is the highest number ever recorded since records started in 1948. The previous high was 2.5% in 1983.  And, as the cite points out, this is “one of the key stories of this recession” and one that isn’t yet showing signs of improving.

The Wall Street Journal points out:

A survey of private employers shows they shed 23,000 jobs in March in a sign that the labor market remains a mixed bag in an economy that is otherwise growing again.

The private-employer report, which came two days before the Labor Department issues its own, broader job report, was a disappointment to many who were expecting both measures to mark a turning point into positive territory.

Calculated Risk concludes:

Although the headline number of 162,000 payroll jobs was a positive (this is 114,000 after adjusting for Census 2010 hires), the underlying details were mixed. The positives: the unemployment rate was steady, the employment-population ratio ticked up slightly (after plunging sharply), and average hours increased (might have been impacted by the snow in February).

But a near record number of part time workers (for economic reasons), a record number of unemployed for more than 26 weeks, and a decline in average hourly wages are all negatives.

Shorter version: Don’t put too much positive weight on this month’s numbers.

There is a lot that has to change in the markets in general before you’re going to see any significant change in the labor market. So when you hear the talking heads this weekend tell you that it is all turning around and it will be sunshine and roses from now on, take it with a grain of salt.

[Welcome Real Clear Politics readers]

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

:

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Corporations sitting on money and not hiring despite better March unemployment numbers

It certainly wouldn’t surprise me given the unsettled business climate.  And, in fact, that’s what the Bureau of Economic Analysis is reporting – a record 1.6 trillion is being held while companies sort out what is happening in the business and financial sectors.  That, of course, means it isn’t being spent on hiring.  But there’s another reason, other than the unsettled business climate that is keeping corporations from hiring:

“Companies slashed their work forces and now find that they could function far more resourcefully than they ever realized possible,” Bianco said. “If anything, we could start to see some of the money being used to expand overseas or to acquire other companies. In either case, that does not bode well for job creation. In fact, mergers lead to job reductions unfortunately.”

A nice way of saying, it may get worse. Companies have become more efficient and productive.  Because of that, most experts I’ve read expect the national unemployment rate – the U3 – to remain in the 9% area throughout the year.  Government efforts to spur hiring haven’t amounted to much:

Alan Krueger, assistant secretary for economic policy at the US Department of the Treasury, points out that President Obama recently signed a jobs creation act known as HIRE which includes a variety of incentives. HIRE, for example, exempts companies from paying social security payroll tax if they hire someone who has been out of work for more than two months, and offers them a $1000 cash bonus if they retain the worker for a full year.

That’s not going to tip the scales and cause a company to hire if solid business reasons don’t dictate such action.  And, as pointed out in the first cite, there’s a very good reason, at least at this point, not to hire – companies have learned to live and, in some cases, prosper without the employees they slashed.

One of the great surprises of the economic downturn that began 27 months ago is this: Businesses are producing only 3 percent fewer goods and services than they were at the end of 2007, yet Americans are working nearly 10 percent fewer hours because of a mix of layoffs and cutbacks in the workweek.

That means high-level gains in productivity — which in the long run is the key to a higher standard of living but in the short run contributes to sky-high unemployment. So long as employers can squeeze dramatically higher output from every worker, they won’t need to hire again despite the growing economy.

And right now, employers are indeed doing more with less and are not going to be inclined to hire more employees until it is clear that demand for their product is up, will continue to grow and requires more employees to produce their product and fulfill the consumer’s demand.

That all brings us to today’s March unemployment numbers:

The Employment report has shown good numbers throughout March today release but not as good as expected by market. NFP data has posted 162.000 new jobs in march, with a revision in the previous data to -14.000 from -36.000 in February. Market expectations were 187.000 new jobs in March. Unemployment rate remains at 9.7% in March, the same February number.

What that report doesn’t break out is the fact that the numbers are most likely inflated by the temporary hiring of census workers (and that will continue through June).  The Bureau of Labor Statistics did note it in its release:

Temporary help services and health care continued to add jobs over the month. Employment in federal government also rose, reflecting the hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010. Employment continued to decline in financial activities and in information.

So while +162,000 is obviously better than -162,000, the numbers aren’t really all that solid.  Also remember that our economy requires about 120,000 to 140,000 new jobs a month just to offset job loses elsewhere and maintain a static unemployment percentage.  And that’s pretty much what this month’s numbers show us and is the reason the unemployment percentage has remained static.  What would give us a truer picture of the rate is to remove the census hiring from the numbers. My guess is we’d still be well below the 120,000 to 140,000 threshold necessary to drop that rate.  But what the last three months may indicate is the labor market is finally bottoming out.

The point, of course, is that corporations are still in a position, driven by increases in productivity and lack of demand as well as an unsettled business environment, not to increase hiring any time soon.  The money corporations are sitting on, as noted, is going to go somewhere – most likely to increased dividends or mergers. And mergers actually mean fewer jobs, not more. Until companies see increased, well-defined and sustainable growth in demand to the point they can’t handle it with their present level of employees, they’re not going to hire no matter how many “jobs” bills Congress passes and Obama signs.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Honduras: An update

Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten any better. The Obama administration continues to let relations worsen in order to demand reinstatement for a man the country clearly doesn’t want and it is become quite vindictive in its action.  Mary Anastasia O’Grady, who has been following the situation from the first provides the update:

Four months after a presidential election, reports from Honduras suggest the Obama administration remains obsessed with repairing its foreign-policy image by regaining the upper hand. The display of raw colonialist hubris is so pronounced that locals now refer to U.S. ambassador Hugo Llorens as “the proconsul.”

Washington’s bullying is two-pronged. First is a maniacal determination to punish those involved in removing Mr. Zelaya. Second is an attempt to force Honduras to allow Mr. Zelaya, who now lives in the Dominican Republic, to return without facing any repercussions for the illegal actions that provoked his removal. Both goals are damaging the bilateral relationship, polarizing the nation and raising the risk of a resurgence of political violence.

The U.S., as represented by Mr. Llorens, has been at the center of the Zelaya crisis all along. People familiar with events leading up to Mr. Zelaya’s arrest on June 28 say that had the U.S. ambassador not worked behind the scenes to block a congressional vote to remove the president a few days earlier, the dramatic deportation would never have happened.
The State Department denies this allegation. But numerous sources maintain that Mr. Llorens’ interference allowed Mr. Zelaya to push ahead with an unconstitutional referendum. Fearing he would use violence—as he had before—to trample the rule of law, the Supreme Court took action. Mr. Zelaya was arrested, shipped off to San José, and removed from power by a vote of Congress the same day.

Honduras had defied Uncle Sam and the U.S., led by Mr. Llorens, decided that it had to be taught a lesson. It took out the brass knuckles and tried hard to unseat interim president Roberto Micheletti in the interest of restoring Mr. Zelaya to the office.

Honduras wouldn’t budge. That’s when Mr. Restrepo traveled to the capital with a U.S. delegation. The agreement reached included U.S. recognition of the November election. For a time it seemed things might return to normal.

But the Americans had scores to settle. The U.S had already yanked dozens of visas from officials and the business community as punishment for noncompliance with its pro-Zelaya policy. Then, just days before President Porfirio Lobo’s inauguration in January, Hondurans estimate it pulled at least 50 more from Micheletti supporters. The visas have not been returned, and locals say Mr. Llorens continues to foster a climate of intimidation with his visa-pulling power.

He hasn’t stopped there. In early March he organized a meeting of Liberal Party Zelaya supporters and the party’s former presidential candidate, Elvin Santos, at the U.S. Embassy. Some 48 hours later the party’s zelayistas and its Santos faction voted to remove Mr. Micheletti as party head. Rigoberto Espinal Irías, a legal adviser to the independent public prosecutor’s office, complained that the “meeting generated much bad feeling in Honduran civil society” because it was “perceived to have the purpose of intervening in Honduran national politics.”

Now more trouble is brewing: Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, according to press reports, has said that Mr. Lobo made a promise, in front of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr. Funes, that Mr. Zelaya could return “without fear of political persecution.” Mr. Lobo subsequently announced that Mr. Zelaya is free to enter the country. In exchange, it is expected that foreign aid flows to Honduras will resume. But the minister of security maintains that if Mr. Zelaya returns he will be arrested.

What ever happened to self-determination? What ever happened to “the will of the people”. No one argues that the recent elections were fraudulent or don’t reflect that will. And, as any number have pointed out, Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution with his actions and other than the exile, Zelaya’s removal was perfectly legal under their law. Now we have an activist US ambassador trying to influence internal Honduran politics and going so far as to host opposition party meetings? One wonders if Mr. Obama’s State Department would try that in Venezuela and, if so, how Hugo Chavez would characterize it.

Honduras is an ally. It is a democracy. It actually had a good relationship, until recently. And it was a bulwark against the Bolivarian socialism that Hugo Chavez is trying to spread. Instead of undermining its present government, we should be working hand in hand to strengthen it. Instead, it seems, our new foreign policy is to try and antagonize and alienate as many allies as we can.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

BREAKING: Obama’s Birth Certificate Found?

I just received this via email, as I assume many others have or will, and I’m not quite sure what to make of it. I did receive it from someone who’s sent me reliable info before, but this is awfully explosive (if in fact real).

Personally, while I’ve always found it suspicious that Obama went to such great pains to hide his birth certificate, I just figured it was for some personal reasons (e.g. parents weren’t married) rather than any eligibility issues. But now I have to question that.

If this discovery turns out to be the real thing, does that mean we’ll be singing “Hail to the Chief” to … President Biden? (Gulp)

(click to enlarge)

Obama's long-form birth certificate?

Obama's long-form birth certificate?

Stay tuned for updates …

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Today’s good news

One more time for those who continue to believe all these Tea Party demonstrations are founded on the right and favor the Republicans:

A majority disapprove of both political parties, their leaders and most members of Congress, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

Attitudes are reminiscent of those in 1994 and 2006, when control of Congress switched from one party to the other.

The favorable rating for the Democratic Party has fallen to its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question in 1992 —its standing has dropped 14 percentage points since President Obama’s election — but the Republican Party fares no better. Three of four Americans say they are dissatisfied with the country’s direction.

It isn’t just anti-incumbent fever, it is anti-party fever.  How many times do I have to say that these Tea Parties are the tip of a very big iceberg and it doesn’t necessarily represent just the right-wing?  I’d certainly say that for the most part you’ll find very few from the left in there because their nominal party of choice is in power.  But these protests probably represent the big middle more than any I’ve seen in my life time.

I know I sound like a broken record when I continue to say that what happened late in ’08 and early ’09 with the financial crisis, TARP, the bailouts and the takeovers slapped a whole bunch of people awake.  I travel – a lot.  And I’m around everyday Americans constantly.  And I hear them talk among themselves.  Normally it’s about the vacation they’re on,  something personal in their lives, sports – whatever.  But rarely if ever is it about politics, government or the like.

Until now.  Now I hear it constantly.  I hear older couples traveling together, for instance, in a small town diner in Tennessee talking about how big government is going to ruin us.  I hear people in a BBQ joint in Alabama concerned about their financial future and saying government needs to get out of the way.  I hear a hotel worker in the lobby of a Hampton Inn – a hotel worker – complain that this country is going to the dogs. I don’t know their party affiliation, if any, but I do know they’re pissed.  I never hear that stuff usually, and trust me, I’m attuned to hearing it if it is being said.  Politics is the last thing most people talk about in public.  But there is a growing grassroots dislike for all that is the federal government and those that represent it.  I’m not talking about violence, certainly not at this stage, but definitely a desire to do something about it.  While the elite like to wave off the “I want my country back” crowd as ignorant rubes (or thugs, or angry white men, or nazis, or brownshirts or terrorists) who just don’t know what what’s good for them or what they’re talking about, that sentiment simmers not that far below the surface.   People are concerned and people are getting angrier.  I use the word “angrier” because they’ve been somewhat angry about this for some time.   They’re getting angrier because they no longer just perceive their being ignored, they flat know they’re being ignored.  And that really pisses them off.

Look at the cite above – 75% of the nation thinks we’re on the wrong track.  That accounts for most Democrats (the 25% not mentioned) and Republicans probably make up another 25 to 30%).  So that leaves 45 to 50% of the country unaffiliated and not at all happy with either party. And of course, remember, Democrats assumed that the election and ascension of Obama and their assumption of power was all that was necessary reverse that (because, you know, it was all about Bush). Well it didn’t, and in fact, it has gotten worse.  That says something about the “wrong direction” with which the people are dissatisfied.  The last administration and especially this administration have vastly expanded the size, scope and cost of government and racked up record deficits and debt.  As that has happened this number has gotten worse.  It’s not hard to figure out what they’re dissatisfied with, is it?

I think it could be safely assumed that at the moment their dissatisfaction is more likely to fall most heavily on the party in power, but if Republicans assume that means they’re in the driver’s seat, they’re simply wrong.  Right now, if you look at the “my Representative deserves to be reelected” those numbers are below 50% and over 10 points lower than in ’94 when the GOP rode to victory in midterms because of dissatisfaction with Democrats. No matter how many times the GOP tries to sell it, this isn’t “just like” ’94 and they better figure that out quickly.

The rubes aren’t as dumb and certainly not as uninvolved as the political elite would like to assume they are.   How the anger they now are feeling will work itself out remains to be seen.  But, despite the assurances of the ruling class that by November this anger will all go away, especially if the economy turns around, this anger is not likely to dissipate.  So we’ll see how it goes – whether it is an anti-incumbency midterm or a dump the Democrats midterm.  While I’m sure a bunch of Democrats are going to be dumped, I also wouldn’t be surprised to see a good number of Republicans lose their job – especially if they start waffling on the repeal promise and their principles.  Their losses may put a Democrat in office, but it will be because another candidate took the Republican on and split the vote.  And, if it is because they again abandoned their principles, deservedly so.

The politicians like to talk about how corporate America needs to change its culture.  Well there is no establishment in this country more ripe for major cultural change than that in DC.  And what I hope to see in November is an aroused electorate slap the crap out of those complacent scalawags and start that cultural change rolling. A pipe dream – maybe. But it may actually be one of the last chances the people have of “taking their country back”.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Let’s pretend “mandate” doesn’t really mean “mandate”

That seems to be the solution Andrew Sabl has concocted to temper the outrage directed at Democrats for mandating everyone must buy health insurance.  If you’re a fan of word salad, this will please you:

The phrase “individual mandate,” though it explained to wonks how we were going to achieve near-universal coverage, was always bound to make for atrocious framing.  Pairing it with a subsidy is great policy but possibly even worse framing.  Now one thing people don’t like—being told by the government what to do—is supposed to be made better by another thing they don’t like—admitting they need government help.

Here is another way of describing ACA that’s completely accurate but explains the point much better:

“If you or your family aren’t getting health insurance through your job, the government will pay to get you private insurance coverage, just as an employer would.  You’ll have to contribute something—but the law guarantees, with specific numbers, that it will be no more than you can afford. It’ll be less than three percent of your paycheck if your family makes $33,000 a year, less than ten percent if you make as much as $88,000.  Pre-existing conditions won’t matter.  The government will still pay for your insurance, with the same affordable contribution from you.”

The bill has lots more—things that make it even better.  But that, it seems to me, is the basic idea.  And if we drill it in, people (Fox News junkies aside) will stop imagining that the bill is somehow about government telling people without insurance that they have to get it because the government won’t help them.  It’s the opposite.  Under ACA, it’s the government’s job to get you insurance, and to pay for almost all of it if you can’t afford it.  Before, you were on your own.

Objections?

Well I can think of many, but first let’s start with the good Stephen Bainbridge’s characterization of this attempt at giving a word a new meaning:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Bainbridge goes onto point out that “mandate” comes from the word “mandatory” as in you must do, obtain, be, spend, whatever is demanded. It’s not a suggestion. There’s no option.  It’s not something you can decide to ignore. In this case there’s the force of law behind it and 16,000 new IRS agents to insure you fulfill it – something Sabl seems to have somehow missed. Also apparently forgotten by Sabl is the fact that fines for not buying your mandated coverage are one of the major revenue streams with which this monstrosity is fed.

But the best irony is saved for last: Sabl entitles his blog “The Reality Based Community” with the sub “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

Indeed.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

GOP beginning to reject spine implant

Principles begin to yield to politics and Republicans begin to waffle and second guess themselves:

Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that’s roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama’s new health care law.

It’s fine to criticize the health law and the way Democrats pushed it through Congress without a single GOP vote, these party leaders say. But focusing on its outright repeal carries two big risks.

Repeal is politically and legally unlikely, and grass-roots activists may feel disillusioned by a failed crusade. More important, say strategists from both parties, a fiercely repeal-the-bill stance might prove far less popular in a general election than in a conservative-dominated GOP primary, especially in states such as Illinois and California.

So the party that has unceasingly told us how bad this bill is (and rightfully so), cast no votes in its favor (rightfully so), make the case that it will add trillions to our deficit and our debt (rightfully so) and therefore should be repealed (rightfully so) are now getting cold feet.

Wow. What a freakin’ surprise. And they wonder why they can’t generate any sustainable grassroots excitement about their party. Politics ain’t bean bag, Republicans and it rewards those who take risks.  You either stand for something or you don’t.  7 months, the winning issue handed to them on a silver platter (it’s about the size, scope and cost of government you idiots) and these dopes begin to waffle. Amazing. Not surprising given their record and their seeming desire to be the permanent minority, but amazing that they can’t seem to figure it out none-the-less.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

“Everyone deserves health care”

That’s been the starting position for everyone who supported the health care reform monstrosity that just came out of Washington DC.  It’s stated in various ways, such as health care being a “right”, but the axiom is always that in our society everyone should have health care, or as a practical matter, health insurance.

It sounds so compassionate and decent doesn’t it? But that little phrase packs in some nasty principles.

It’s one thing to say that you deserve to control your own life, or property or income.    That’s pretty uncontroversial.  But when you say, “I have a right to have health care–or a pension, or a home–provided for me even if I can’t afford it”, then what you’re really saying is that I have an obligation to provide you with those things.  Whether I wish to provide them to you, or whether it causes me some degree of privation, is irrelevant.  To say that you–or anyone else–has a right to something I must provide is to say that you have an irrevocable claim on my life, labor or property.  I owe you.

No matter how you try to gussy it up, or dress it in compassion, the fact is that by claiming that such an obligation, you place me in indentured servitude.  My wishes are irrelevant.

Indeed, it’s not even indentured servitude.  At least in an indenture, I have to agree to provide you with my labor for some period, after which I am manumitted.  In actuality, by claiming such an obligation on me that I cannot evade, you make me, to some degree, your serf.  You are the laird of the manor, and I have my obligation of labor days to provide you.

Now, perhaps I should be willing to provide you with health insurance.  Perhaps that is the moral and/or ethical course of action I should undertake.  But that, too, is irrelevant.  By demanding it, and by forcing me to provide you with a good or service by law, you not only ignore my conception of morality, you impose your morality on me.  Whether I agree with your morality is not even a consideration for you.  You have a claim,you say, so your morality trumps mine.

Moreover, once you’ve accepted that it’s perfectly all right to impose a form of servitude on me, in order that I might provide you with a good, what’s your limiting principle?  If you may impose an obligation on me to provide a part of my income or property in order to procure a good for yourself, why can’t you simply take all of it?  After all, you’ve already signed on to imposing slavery in principle, because you’ve decided that you can impose an obligation on me against my will.  Why stop  at serfdom?

Slavery, to one degree or another, is, of course, the inevitable outcome of any attempt to enforce some sense of cosmic justice on life, and the lives of your fellow men.  Because there is no such thing as cosmic justice.  Nor is there any general agreement on what cosmic justice should be.  So, your attempt to impose it on others invariably must be done by force, either through the majesty of the law, or with a knife to the throat.

Which is often the same thing.

So, what you are really saying when you claim that “Everyone deserves health care,” is, “I have the right to enslave you, in whole or in part, in order to require you provide health care to me.”  When you strip the high-sounding phrases to the principles, it doesn’t sound nearly so moral and compassionate, does it?

Oh, and by the way, it does no good to tell me that I also have the same claim on others, and can force someone else to provide me with health care, too.  Because all you’re really telling me is that I can become a slavemaster, too.  The fact that I don’t care to be a slavemaster, or that I find it morally abhorrent, is utterly irrelevant to you.  Again, your morality trumps mine.

Because, after all, if you can get everyone else to join you in your crime–indeed, to glory in it–who will condemn you?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Precarious Guam

This is a congressman grilling the CNO about future plans for stationing military personnel on the Island of Guam.  The Congressman is deeply concerned with consequences of putting too many people on the island, because…well…you have to see for yourself.  The money quote starts at 1:16 into the clip.

And there you go.  These are our “leaders”.  No doubt this is the same intellectual heft and clarity of thought they brought to health care reform.  And will bring to Cap & Trade, Immigration Reform, etc.

Think about that for a while.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Buy Dale’s Book!