Detailed Abstractions

Well, the verdict is in. The Republicans are being cast as the party of no.  The party without ideas.  The party of obstruction.

Please make no mistake about it, this marketing push isn’t really about obstruction, but about the upcoming elections.  Just as President Clinton did brilliantly prior the 1996 elections when he cast all Republicans as following Newt Gingrich and obstructing spending laws, the Obama administration is moving forward in much the same pattern.

This is possible because the White House, regardless of occupant, has historically been able to control the news cycle.  In my opinion, this should be an indictment on journalism as a whole when alternatives which exist aren’t being reported, but simply put:  when the President talks, news happens.  When your normal representative talks, you’re lucky if you even hear about it.

It worked during the Clinton Administration on spending, it worked during the Bush (43) Administration on the Patriot Act, & it certainly might work again this time. Irregardless, the campaign is back and in high gear (here via USA Today):

…”Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress,” Obama said. “And that has very real consequences.”…

Or here via NY Times blog, here via WaPo, & on and on and on…

From a critical point of view however, obstructionist should not automatically be a pejorative.   Without analyzing what exactly is being obstructed, this is little more than name calling.

As an example, if say in the 1940s Congress was actively trying to “obstruct” the intermittent of thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans, this would not only be a moral good, but any thoughts to compromise solely to be seen as a non-obstructionist would be wrong.  What would be a compromised alternative?  House arrest?

Additionally, we have to be on the lookout for the differences between the marketing of bills and their actual language.  Think of the new health care legislation.  President Obama’s promises of more health care for all at cheaper prices, simply don’t seem to be fulfilled by the 2500 page law passed… or maybe they are being fulfilled, but like the Patriot Act, no one really knows what the new legislation actually means (here via Cato):

…The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents the most significant transformation of the American health care system since Medicare and Medicaid. It will fundamentally change nearly every aspect of health care, from insurance to the final delivery of care.

The length and complexity of the legislation, combined with a debate that often generated more heat than light, has led to massive confusion about the law’s likely impact….

Or on yesterday’s Meet The Press Rep. Van Hollen stated (transcripts here via MSNBC):

…The frustration is there are lots of important bills to push for jobs that are sitting over in the Senate.  But it’s not the fault of the Democratic leadership in the Senate.  I mean, frankly, you know, John Cornyn and his allies have been trying to block a whole lot of very important jobs measures.  We in fact sent a piece of legislation over very recently that would remove these perverse tax incentives to ship American jobs overseas, that give American corporations a bonus if they ship American jobs overseas….

Just like health care, the basic idea that our representatives are working on private job creation incentives is a good one.  But just like the Obama Administration’s promises on health care, Rep. Van Hollen is selling us a job creation bill which has little chance of actually creating jobs.

To translate – what they mean by “removing incentives” is to increase taxes on businesses who outsource.  Now, some may want this to happen for various reasons, but the economics are pretty straight forward.  Tax increases have never increased jobs & forcing a tax such as this could actually result in companies simply moving their head quarters as well.

To be fair, there are bills I don’t believe the Republicans should block, for instance the extension on unemployment benefits (though it seems likely to pass soon: here via The Hill).

Yes, the point isn’t that the Republicans are doing the right thing and the Democrats are failing at every single step, the point is only intended to remind us of the old saying about representative governance:

The people will get the government they deserve.

& so long as we allow marketing campaigns to have more force in elections than critical analysis does, we will likely continue to be disappointed.

Oil leaks into the Gulf of Mexico from the end of the pipe that was supposed to pump oil from the sea floor before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded Photo: AP

The audacity of writers will never cease to amaze me and today is no exception.

In a piece at Salon.com, authored by Andrew Leonard, and titled Gulf oil spill gas price blackmail Mr. Leonard tries to make the case that the Obama Administration should:

Ignore critics of regulation who warn of rising pump prices. They are obsessed with the wrong bottom line.

Though his only reasoning seems to be that the opponents of new regulations only came to be after a major crisis. First, he starts with some of the current opposition statements:

The International Energy Agency is frightened, reports the Financial Times that “a knee-jerk reaction by regulators, banning new offshore licensing altogether,” in response to the Gulf oil spill, will end up increasing costs for the oil industry, and “therefore oil prices.”….

This helps us understand why he uses words like blackmail and frightened…. because these people are only looking at the bottom line.   From here, now that we understand these people are greedy and uncaring for anything other than money, he moves quickly into the timing of this opposition:

…it’s impressive to see how quickly the clamor advising the White House not to go overboard on offshore regulation has flared up. The parallels with the financial crisis are irresistible: A massive failure of markets and government oversight leads to a disaster, but before the wreckage has even been cleared away, we are told that regulatory overkill will be bad for business….

What he seemingly fails to grasp is, well, with all due respect to Mr. Leonard, he is failing to grasp the obvious – people generally don’t oppose or support regulations when they aren’t being proposed at all. So this argument about timing is completely irrelevant.

Logically, people, groups, communities, companies…. all of us have enough to worry about that we don’t usually worry about those things that aren’t happening.

It’s possible the author is unaware, but most of the pro-life movement didn’t really exist until 1973 as it wasn’t necessary prior to that. Maybe he finds this suspect as well?

But logic be damned, he uses this to springboard into the current investigation to explain why drastic changes in regulations are needed right now:

…But focusing only on the bottom line without taking into account the larger picture of what could go wrong — and what is going wrong — is exactly how we ended up with a giant Gulf oil slick in the first place….

Ironically, & potentially unwittingly, he then gives reasons why major regulation change should be avoided. By trying to conflate some idea of greed into this, but still keep the appearance of some factual stance, he states some of the issues clearly and properly notices that we don’t yet know what happened.

The main reason we don’t know – the only real people currently talking are those with a stake in not being blamed and there are 3 primary private actors and a multitude of government actors. Independent investigators will sort through all parties statements, responsibilities, duties, actions, and all the rest and hopefully come to some answer as to what really took place. Until then, any newly proposed regulation will be premature and wholly inconsistent with wise decision-making.

Additionally, he never refutes the words used by opponents, because he simply can’t. Economics shows us without emotion or emotion-filled words such as “blackmail” that regulations cost businesses money and those costs have to be borne out by the consumers.

The one interesting thing he noted was about the parallel to the financial market, but here he sees reverse of reality. The parallel Mr. Leonard should easily see is that we have a government bent on adding more and more power at the federal level attempting to use fear of another crisis to grab more power before even understanding why the crisis happened in the first place. Instead, of fearing this, he seems to be concerned only for some hypothetical lack of regulation, as if that has been the problem all along.

The reality is there. Going back historically, let’s say, going way, way back to… how about 6 months ago? When fear of another financial crisis was & is still being used to add regulations on entities such as pay-day loan companies, on investment vehicles such as derivatives, on compensation of employees, and many, many more things which had absolutely nothing to do with the current crisis, his concern for lack of regulation seems oddly misplaced.

After all, this is not only the same administration which is pushing for specious financial regulations, but they are also the same group which after years of railing against the Patriot Act, when the time came to do something, they did. They reauthorized its use to maintain their power.

Please note though – it’s not just this administration. Historically, governments seek to expand their power, they use crises to do so, and once those crises are mitigated, they keep the power they promised us was only necessary under the circumstances.

Whether a terrorist event, an economic crisis, or even an oil spill by greedy business people, allowing the government to take more and more powers before we even have an idea of what took place is the perfect move for those who want reduced freedoms.

As Hayek stated:

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

The high school, which erupted over hurt feelings when some wore flag shirts to school on Cinco De Mayo, and then erupted further when an incompetent management structure got involved has apologized.

The statement given ignores any of the real issues.  Like all political statements, they even pretend something is true that they know isn’t.  Their school & their decisions, are anti-free speech and to pretend otherwise should be seen as the absurdity it is.  He then talks about being “proud” of the students for handling the media coverage…

You mean the ones’ who protested, to get media coverage?

…On Thursday, May 6, about 50 students, many carrying the Mexican flag, walked out of classes. The students told reporters that they thought it was disrespectful for the students to wear the American flag on their shirts while others were celebrating Cinco de Mayo….

First, what the hell were they protesting?  Maybe it’s just me, but if Joe Friday sticks by the facts it seems it went like this:

1. Some students wore American flag t-shirts on a Mexican holiday.
2. Some fragile students complained that they were “hurt” by this.
3. Incompetent management then forces the students to change or go home.

For all intents and purposes, it seems the idiots protesting won the fight.

But yesterday, according to the  statement…. “they (the students) wore purple and white for solidarity”…. so all is well I suppose.

Meanwhile, you still have children who were “taught” in this “teachable” moment that they should never, ever have to be disrespected.  I’m unsure where this belief about respect has come, but I believe it’s a dangerous and intolerant belief.  I seem to recall when respect was earned, not deserved, but I digress.

It seems logically obvious that true freedom is to allow things you won’t/don’t like.  Allowing freedom actually means  (please read carefully you spoiled little brats) people are going to do things you don’t really like and there’s absolutely nothing you can or should do about it.

Additionally, on the plethora of things you should be grown up enough to deal with in a free society, speech by way of t-shirts is the least intrusive and offensive thing I can think of.  Seriously, I have what some would call a pretty dark sense of humor, and the things I can think to wear if I were to purposefully wanted to disrupt Cinco De Mayo…. well, let’s just say while it make me laugh, my imagination can lead me to t-shirts which might actually be cause for a protest (assuming the school allowed it).

In a free country, not only do we not allow the cops to arrest people simply for demonstrating their beliefs, but we also respect freedom in general.  For instance, when some comedian or cartoonist creates something satirical, yet disparaging to the Catholic Church, no one demands protests, no one demands censorship, and no one ever demands death.

Sure, people rightfully offended might debate about it, write about it, might boycott products, but they don’t close schools to protest over being disrespected.  They prefer to get their respect through their actions towards helping others, not through mob scenes.

What’s also buried in here,  is that no one (especially the “Mexican” students) seems to understand the holiday has nothing to do with Mexican independence and its history is actually a shared American/Mexican holiday for a Mexican victory of one battle over the French.  It was a hard fought victory for 4000 barely-trained Mexicans over 8000 well-trained and well-equipped French.  So the holiday was never meant to be “celebrated” exactly, as it was meant to be more like a D-Day remembrance.   (Mexican Independence day is the 16th of September)

Indeed, to be really offensive students could’ve chosen to have worn French flag t-shirts, not American flag t-shirts.

Back to the history:  It was used in early American history, mid-1800s, by Mexicans & Americans in California to tick off the French.  Now, I’m all for doing anything that irritates the French, but that obviously died out over time.  The holiday, then became almost nonexistent.

However, with money to made…. over the past 30 years or so, corporations & a willing populace have changed everything.  The remembrance, which should come from such a bloody, yet surprising victory, was turned into a holiday to sell more Mexican food, beer, and flags;  just like St. Patrick’s day might have one time had something to do with St. Patrick, but now serves only as a reason to drink green beer and buy “Kiss me I’m Irish” stuff.

My point: that looking at this from each angle seems to show the American public should be angry at one thing only.  How high school kids, in a well-funded school system, in one of the richest states in one of the richest countries in the world are so… frustratingly ignorant of their ancestral history and know nothing about even about the basic idea of freedom itself.

On this day, in 1941, Japan struck Pearl Harbor.  Watch actual news coverage of the event:

Some color footage, including interview with people who were there:

This morning, news outlets everywhere carried recent news out of the Treasury Department.  The Pay Czar, who is certainly living up to the moniker Czar, announced today (WallStreetJournal):

The U.S. pay czar will cut in half the average compensation for 175 employees at firms receiving large sums of government aid, with the vast majority of salaries coming in under $500,000, according to people familiar with the government’s plans.

As expected, the biggest cut will be to salaries, which will drop by 90% on average. Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department’s special master for compensation, also intends to demand a host of corporate governance changes at those firms….

Even without bothering with the fact that the government is not in any position to understand what kind of compensation any single employee should have, this is still a radical and arbitrary move that if continued can work to destabilize the economy.

Beyond that, this decision is an anathema to a free society breaking not only the contract rights of ordinary citizens, but also violating all individuals by pushing a blatant ex  post facto punishment.

In a free society, within reason, individuals should be able to contract for any reason they want.  In this case, you have employees who have privately contracted with their employers for certain remuneration based upon their perceived worth to the company.

I say perceived work, because obviously not all hiring decisions work out for the company even if the employee does very well at their job.  Personality conflicts, culture conflicts, and even performance problems are some of the reasons why a new hire might not work out as expected.  Unless specifically stated in the employment contract, even in these cases the employer’s general resource is firing, not taking back pay.

Adding to this is the simple, real, true fact that this is by its very nature an ex post facto punishment for perceived mismanagement.  It has been a legal tradition for centuries, a that passing laws, which retroactively punish people, is against a free in democratic society.

In fact it’s in the US Constitution and universally recognized by a number of treaties including Universal Declaration of Human Rights and American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (from Wiki):

…no person be held guilty of any criminal law that did not exist at the time of offence nor suffer any penalty heavier than what existed at the time of offense. It does however permit application of either domestic or international law….

To be fair, there are some uses for ex post facto laws which have been recognized by our supreme court including allowing for Congress to grant administrative agencies the ability to do just this thing.  So legally speaking, this might be ok, however to anyone who proposes to value freedom, it should be obvious that even allowing administrative agencies this power was a massive failure of all branches of the government.  They are supposed to protect our freedoms, not remove them one at a time.

Either way – it’s intuitive that both contract rights & ex post facto laws are required for a free society.  If the government can interfere at will in private contracts and retroactively punish you for perceived wrongdoings, you have no ability to make relevant decisions for your life as you have no ability to be secure that those decisions will continue to hold true.

This insecurity is what creates instability in most third world countries today.  This lack of basic economic & legal foundation is what continues to plague most of the planet and yet we seem to be moving on the same path.

A week ago or so, a Democratic non-profit held a focus group of GOP members & Independents (here).  Among other interesting things they found, they noted how the GOP members opposed the President because they felt he was attempting to fundamentally move away from our founding principles.

They went further to note how this differed from Independents “underscoring the extreme disconnect of the conservative Republican base voters”.

I will say this move is absolute proof that the GOP members have it right.  If the administration allows this travesty, it is without a doubt a complete move away from not only our founding principles, but away from freedom in general.

Over time I’ve come to the conclusion that where news entities fail miserably is in their analysis with international politics.  Most pundits, writers, journalists, etc, seem to be able to semi-grasp domestic policies, albeit still in the usual, overly simplistic, fits-to-the-narrative type of way, but lose all rationality with respect to international affairs.

Interestingly enough, I think their failures in both domestic & international analysis stem from the same basic cause, oversimplification.  But it would seem that the degree to which it effects each type of analysis differs due to the lack of incentives private interests have in resolving inaccurate reports on international issues.

Thinking about the counter thought to international policy, domestic policy, we see incentives existing to resolve press inaccuracies.  For instance, if the press pushes inaccurate opinions and analysis which oversimplifies a given topic, a special interest group or two, plus at least one political party, and finally non-profits everywhere will try to enlighten by showing the fallacy of the common narrative.

This is because people rightfully see domestic issues as more directly impacting their lives.  The corollary is that our politicians, our leaders, our special interests, and our non-profits tend to focus where we as a society focus.

The problem that can stem from this seems intuitive – inaccurate press on international issues should be held as highly suspect, but get printed without much serious disagreement.   Since very little counters popular wisdom, this gives the press a power to change opinions and as well as spread myths.

This leads to all kinds of odd conclusions, with large swaths of people all over the planet prone to believe in things without substantial proof nor any degree of rational logic.

For instance believing that western countries are somehow to blame for poor countries with constant internal strife and corrupt governments which inefficiencies and lack of resources.  Or said another way, people all over believe in a zero sum game.  This is true not only in the international sense, but also when dealing with immigration and free trade issues.

Mistaken assumptions such as zero-sum games also lead to beliefs about what one thinks a President can actually do, versus what reality tends to dictate what will actually be done.  This leads to politicians making believable, yet highly impossible claims about given international situations.  This has been done to all recent Presidents, including President Obama when pulling a missile defense shield out of Poland & Czechoslovakia was made to appear as a rash decision amounting to abandoning our allies, when in fact it wasn’t a bad decision when concluding what options were open and what were the greatest threats to our security and security in the region (wrote about it here, though Mr. Obama went and said it had nothing to do with Russia… which was just amazing… wrote about that here).

It leads to pundits everywhere snidely remarking how this action wasn’t “tough” or that action was going to anger others because it was “unilateral”.  With little recourse, journalists  print all sorts of things without taking into any account the actual framework through which any given action action was taken, under what circumstances, with what available options, or really they just leave out anything resembling actual analysis.

Unfortunately, it seems no organization is immune.  A recent piece published in the Economist titled  Even greater expectations discussing the idiotic Nobel Prize Committee decision, is a far cry from the analysis for which the Economist is known.

They rightfully begin with the question the world was asking, “Is it premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year into his presidency?”, but delve quickly into non-international events dressed up to seem as if change had already happened:

…Most broadly, he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr Obama has proposed holding talks about nuclear affairs, removing a precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama made withdrawal of American forces from Iraq one of the main pledges of his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too, Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer engagement.

Regarding Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia…

Continuing with this as reasoning:

…Yet Mr Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign policy. A speech given in Egypt in June was an eloquent call for a new understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently possible.

Similarly, American policy towards small and repressive regimes, ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments demonstrate progress towards democracy…

Which to date has not only done absolutely nothing to help international cooperation, but has made our interests tougher to protect.  In nearly every UN Conference on whatever, for instance the G-20 dealing with the economic crisis, the US asks for a lot of cooperation and everyone goes their separate ways.

In some ways this is to be completely understood.  American solutions for economic issues will differ from that of Germany or the UK.  Even though the same basic problem afflicts most countries during the global recession,  their banking industries are setup with much different regulations, making the solutions for one country not necessarily compare to another country.  The separate policies might even be attempting the exact same “type” of solution, for instance increasing capital requirements, but under different systems any one specific solutions will affect different countries differently.

When it comes to reaching our hand out to those regimes, we see that North Korea, Russia, and Iran have been openly hostile to any US intents.  Iran’s deadline of October the 1st to fess up or face sanctions has come and gone, even while it was precipitated by Iran admitting to an additional enrichment facility.

And all this, including that all important warming of US-Russian relations, Russia has stated publicly the will continue to trade with Iran, meaning they will back them, if the UN, lead by the US impose stricter sanctions against Iran.

Now these situations are fluid to some extent, especially between cautious friends such as US-Russia and most of the controversial moves taken by Iran & North Korea would likely have happened to test any new US President’s resolve.

The issue is that by glossing over the realities we end up believing in myths.  Think about all that talk about “unilateral” action as if it’s a huge negative due to the controversy surrounding the last semi-unilateral decision to be made, without understanding that this is exactly as we should expect it.

No country should do something the US requests if they know in the end the analysis states otherwise.  On the international stage, Europeans, Cechs, Persians, Africians, indeed every person deserves the same representation we deserve – for their representatives to look out for their interests.

Now this can and does lead to all kinds of international policies from all different governments that appear wrong or unseemly when in truth it’s a playing field for which no one actor controls the rules which leads to countries making decisions that seem antithetical to their stated morals or goals.

It also allows one country to look at another as particularly egregious, regardless of their country’s current international policies.   It should be obvious that while beating up on your own politicians on domestic policy makes sense, doing so on the international stage is just beating yourself up.  Even if well-deserved, it’s easier to beat up on other country’s policies than it is to self reflect.

In some ways, national feeling probably affects this as well.  When most countries populations have enough information to dislike a number of other countries, going against that grain can be seen as being unpatriotic.  You certainly wouldn’t see a major political figure like Tony Blair coming to the US to air Britain’s dirty laundry or Putin to do the same in the US against Russia.

It also allows for journalists to paint country X with any brush they choose.  This helps some countries as the press will like some allies, but can obviously hurts or diminish countries for which popular sentiment doesn’t exist.

In the end, what it does is allow for a type of international superiority by enhancing nationalistic feelings.  When only reviewing other countries’ by hand picking policies, self-selecting cultural attributes, last recent controversy, crazy politicians, one can get the opinion of their general greatness over all those “other” people.

Lastly, and in my opinion, the most unfortunate consequence of this misinformation, is our inability to actually analyze international issues.  In between these simplistic news stories real trade-offs on the international stage are being made and constantly simplified.  From a high-level view the policy might appear to be utterly wrong, but in reality  might not be so.  It might simply be the least bad of all the bad options.  & it might really be the policy itself which is wrong.

For real analysis however, historical context, actions taken versus realistic options available, trends, and a number of other data points are required.  Without honest sourced information cost/benefit analysis simply isn’t possible.

A mere 10 days ago, we were told by our President, that his recovery act has diverted a disaster (here):

Good evening.  Before I take your questions, I want to talk for a few minutes about the progress we’re making on health insurance reform and where it fits into our broader economic strategy.

Six months ago, I took office amid the worst recession in half a century.  We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As a result of the action we took in those first weeks, we have been able to pull our economy back from the brink. We took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market. And we….

…passed a Recovery Act that has already saved jobs and created new ones; delivered billions in tax relief to families and small businesses; and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off.

Of course, we still have a long way to go. And the Recovery Act will continue to save and create more jobs over the next two years – just like it was designed to do. I realize this is little comfort to those Americans who are currently out of work, and I’ll be honest with you – new hiring is always one of the last things to bounce back after a recession.

As I wrote previously, I’m not sure what a “saved” job is or how one goes about calculating a figure, but we do know the unemployment rate is 2% higher than predicted.  Additionally, when one is contemplating whether this or any other President is truthful, we should ask if any of their other projections were correct in the first place.

From Bloomberg:

July 31 (Bloomberg) — The first 12 months of the U.S. recession saw the economy shrink more than twice as much as previously estimated, reflecting even bigger declines in consumer spending and housing, revised figures showed.

& for comparison, something we also know.  When Senator Kerry, then Senator Obama, and many other people, liberals and independents all, were dismayed by President Bush’s tax cuts during a recession and a war:

The revisions showed that the 2001 recession was less severe than originally estimated, reflecting a smaller decline in business investment. The economy actually grew 0.1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2000 to the third quarter of 2001, erasing the 0.2 percent drop previously reported.

Of course Bush started us down our current road with the first stimulus bill, because something just had to be done… which I guess presupposes that allowing 300 million people to work to bring back the economy is “nothing”…

Either way – lastly, and most importantly, we know that this has been tried before.  It took several decades to move beyond the blindness people had due to FDR’s almost cult-like status to revise the books written at the time, but the New Deal did in fact lead to a longer Great Depression that was necessary (here):

The New Deal is widely perceived to have ended the Great Depression, and this has led many to support a “new” New Deal to address the current crisis. But the facts do not support the perception that FDR’s policies shortened the Depression, or that similar policies will pull our nation out of its current economic downturn.

The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn’t restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32…

No worries though – I’m sure the government is telling the complete truth about how much health care will cost, what it will do to the current system (good & bad), and all the rest of it.  We just have to believe!

…Some other articles on this as well here @ Reason.com, article on economist research @ UCLA here, & detailed research paper here @ Cato.org.

It’s quite an exciting time to live for those people who love to see barriers broken.  We’ve come a long ways from the 50′s segregation to the first African-American President and likely to be the first Hispanic female Supreme Court Justice.

Of course if those were the only firsts, we’d be doing just fine, but there are others to list:

First time in American History where the budget will include a 1 to 2 trillion dollar deficit (here):

WASHINGTON — The federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time ever and could grow to nearly $2 trillion by this fall, intensifying fears about higher inflation rates, inflation and the strength of the dollar.

The deficit has been widened by the huge sum the government has spent to ease the recession, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. The cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also is a major factor.

(that I’m aware of) The first time in history we will waste tax payer money, during a recession, to investigate a non-existent program (here – emphasis added is mine):

WASHINGTON – Congressional demands for an investigation grew on Monday over new disclosures that a secret CIA program to capture or kill al-Qaida leaders was concealed from Congress for eight years, perhaps at the behest of former vice President Dick Cheney.

The program, which never got off the ground and remains shrouded in mystery, was designed to target leaders of the terrorism network at close range, rather than with air strikes that risked civilian casualties, government officials with knowledge of the operation said Monday.

& finally, the brand new era of the czars (here) with names such as:

1. Infotech Czar
2. Faith Based Czar
3. Cybersecurity Czar
4. Compensation Czar

In  a time fraught with issues such as nuclear proliferation (there is a czar for that as well) from Iran & NK, a declining economy (new unemployment figure 9.5%), continuing wars, we might be looking into the future with an undeserved pride in our decision making abilities.

Getting back to the basics of what made our country able to stand as the the superpower it does today would be a better use of our time than hiring more czars to control more of our economy.

We seem to be moving fairly quickly from a society that was known for fierce independence.  A society known for arrogance, but revolutionary innovations which have increased the standard of living for millions. A society that truly stood as a beacon of freedom in a world where the majority live in crippling dictatorships.

We moved from a society that would rather ask their neighbors for help, but instead they now ask the government (or call a lawyer).  A society that wanted to live free, to a society that believes it’s ok to take by force money from your neighbors so long as most people feel they are spending it incorrectly.

Maybe instead of attempting to fix everything, as if the current decision makers have more of the truth than did previous generations, we should instead follow the doctors’ calling:  First, do no harm.

This isn’t to say changes aren’t needed, but the last time some sales guy told me I had very little time to make a decision, I laughed and walked away. & that was a for some piece of electronics I didn’t really need.  It even took me three months to buy a new car.

If we truly want to make effective changes that will really impact others’ lives in a  positive way, prudence and open skepticism of our government is warranted.

Of course yelling fire in a crowded theater makes for better tv debates and news reports, but it’s possible prudence is the virtue we should be heeding at this time.