How to Build a Marionette

 | 

On January 18, 2011, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee said that those who characterize the new healthcare law as a “government takeover of healthcare” are purveyors of the “big lie. Just like Goebbels.”

A quick browse round the web reveals wide agreement that Mr. Cohen’s insertion of the Reich Minister’s name into the healthcare debate did little to encourage reasoned discourse. The next day, Mr. Cohen himself felt the need to clarify, saying, "Not in any way whatsoever was I comparing Republicans to Nazis."

A consensus seems to have emerged that, while the congressman is given to using inappropriate language, he means well, and that the matter should be gently set aside. I agree, and will do so right after addressing two small questions.

The first is straightforward: Is it a “big lie” to say that the implementation of the new healthcare law would result in a “government takeover of healthcare?” The second question is more speculative: what would Dr. Goebbels have thought of the new healthcare law?

Regarding the first question, anyone who considers the increased government regulation contained in the new law to be inadequate would almost certainly find the “takeover” accusation questionable. Those who favor the single-payer system of government-run universal healthcare insurance, for example, would probably find the characterization of the new law as a “government takeover” simply laughable. Their fondest hope is that the government will become the sole insurer of health, eliminating the need for private health insurance entirely. Because that hope is not fulfilled by the new law, from their vantage point the “big lie” charge may seem true. After all, they want a government takeover. It seems likely that Politifact, the Pulitzer-winning website that first called the “government takeover” charge the “biggest lie of 2010,” shared that hope.

But there is more than one way to take over a healthcare system.

Guess how many Americans already have their health insurance provided by the government? Come on, have a go.

According to the National Council of State Legislatures, more that 90 million Americans were covered by Medicare and Medicaid in 2009. The website Health Policy Gateway gives us additional government-insured group totals, also for 2009: 11 million covered by the military system, 7.8 million covered as federal employees, and 30.3 million covered as state and local employees. The Indian Health Service tells us that it serves some 1.9 million Native Americans. The Bureau of Justice Statistics counts 2.4 million who get their government healthcare behind bars.

So, even before the new law was passed, the government, in one form or another, was already insuring about 143 million Americans, or about 46% of the 2010 US Census total of 308 million. Not quite half.

How about the other half?

Under the new law, the government becomes a puppeteer and private health insurance companies its marionettes. Let’s look at a few of the strings.

The first string is called “guaranteed issue,” which means that the insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to anyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. They’ll have to take all comers.

The second is “community rating,” which means that insurance companies will be required to charge the same amount to all people of the same age, sex, and geographical location — again, no matter how serious the pre-existing conditions, and no matter what other risk factors may be present. One size fits all.

The third string is “minimum coverage standards,” which means that the minimum scope of coverage will be decided by the government. Have it our way.

The fourth string is “rate review regulation,” which means that Health and Human Services will judge whether proposed premium rate increases are unreasonable or excessive. (At this point the regulations indicate that while HHS will issue its judgment, “whether or not an insurer can implement an increase determined to be unreasonable by a state will, of course, depend on state law.”)

Now imagine that you are a healthcare insurer. Under this law, you have to sell insurance to everyone who wants it, you have to charge them all the same amount (except for age, etc.), your product (scope of coverage) will not be determined by you, and the amount that you can charge is subject to the approval of the government, whether state or federal.

If you are running an insurance company and you are told what you must sell, what you must charge for it, and to whom you must sell it, you are not running an insurance company.

The health insurance industry will be like a giant Howdy Doody, with Secretary Kathleen Sebelius holding the strings.

Note that this list is not comprehensive and does not include, among other things, the bizarre part of the law that compels citizens who are otherwise uninsured to buy health insurance from Mr. Doody.

So, regarding the first question, while it may be an exaggeration to say that the new healthcare law in itself constitutes a “government takeover of healthcare,” calling it a “big lie” stretches the truth. After all, whoever controls health insurance controls the health providers by deciding who will be paid how much for which procedures. There must be a way to put it more fairly. How about this: if implemented as written, the new healthcare law would constitute, in what has been a decades-long journey down the road of ever-greater government control and regulation of the country’s healthcare system, a great leap forward.

Now, what would Dr. Goebbels have thought of all this?

While the National Socialist Party never implemented a single-payer system, it did build on the government-sponsored healthcare system created by Kaiser Wilhelm II. In 1934, a national director was appointed for all sickness funds. Another director was created to be responsible for all other insurance funds. Both these directors reported directly to the central government. Then, all funds, community health services, and non-governmental healthcare organizations were put under direct central government leadership. By 1945, health insurance had been expanded to all pensioners, and accident coverage had been expanded to cover all workers, regardless of occupation. A 12-week, job-protected maternity leave had been introduced, and limitations on sick leave had been eliminated. In short, during the Third Reich, in keeping with Hitler’s leadership principle, or Führerprinzip, the central government increased its control of all aspects of the healthcare system. (See James A. Johnson and Carleen Harriet Stoskopf, Comparative Health Systems: Global Perspectives for the 21st Century, Jones & Bartlett, 2009.)

One can’t be sure, of course, but it seems reasonable to say that Goebbels approved of these developments in the healthcare system of Germany. He was, after all, a committed National Socialist and a close friend of the Führer. It also seems reasonable to infer that, were he alive, he would approve of America’s new healthcare law, which has the same sort of centralization of control that was evident in Germany during the decade from the mid-’30s to the mid-’40s.

In pointing this out, it needs to be said that I am not in any way whatsoever comparing supporters of the new healthcare law to Nazis.




Share This


Marque and Reprisal

 | 

The AP reports that Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater US, is involved in training 2,000 Somali recruits to fight pirates who operate on the African coast. The financing for this venture “is being moved through a web of international companies, the addresses of which didn't always check out when the AP sought to verify them.”

I’d hoped that the US government would have followed Congressman Ron Paul’s suggestion and used its constitutional authority to fund such operations. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to punish piracy and felonies committed on the high seas. The next clause allows Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal, to address the special situation in which American ships, property, and interests are menaced, but no other government is involved.

War is not declared. Money for rewards is passed like an ordinary spending bill. Privateers using their own arms and wits are authorized to make money by taking the property of an offending foreigner. A sharply defined goal can be set and only success rewarded. The cost of using mercenaries is minimal, and America’s reputation and diplomatic interests are not on the line. No US serviceman will die.

In Somalia, Prince and his roughnecks can make a profit and pay market compensation to mercenaries who might lose lives or be injured while carrying out their assignments. America can plausibly deny responsibility for the sometimes distasteful aspects of war.

In 2001 Paul suggested that Letters of Marque and Reprisal be issued to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, who was hiding in ungovernable areas of Afghanistan. A force of irregulars, highly motivated by a generous bounty, would have neutralized bin Laden if anyone could have. Mercenaries would not have been distracted by the mirage of bringing “democracy and a strong central government” to the proud and independent anarchists farming that expanse of gravel.

But I expect too much; our Constitution languishes on life support in Washington. War is the health of the state.




Share This


Debt Approaches Historic High

 | 

A recent report went virtually unnoticed, given the uprisings of oppressed peoples from Libya and Egypt to Wisconsin and Indiana. (In the last two cases I refer to the uprisings of the taxpayers against the tax eaters.) It turns out that the government debt of this fabulously progressive nation now exceeds its GDP.

Yes, if you add what the federal, state, and local governments owe to creditors, the sum exceeds what the country produces in a year, which is about $15.1 trillion. This includes the $2.4 trillion in debt owed by states and municipalities, and the debt owned by the fraudulently named Social Security Trust Fund, not to mention the now $14.17 trillion owed by the federal government.

We are approaching the all-time high mark in US debt to GDP ratio, which hit 122% in 1946, just after World War II. We were able to pay down that debt fairly rapidly, but prospects for rapidly paying down our current debt are dim.

In the years after WWII, we had a young labor force, high personal savings rates, and a population that had deferred buying consumer goods during the war. Also, defense budgets were cut dramatically in the face of peace.

But now we have the most rapidly aging population in our history, a low personal savings rate, and consumers who are pretty well tapped out. Under Obama’s policies, we face high unemployment and tepid growth for the indefinite future, along with the specter of unleashed inflation.

From the late ’40s through the ’60s, entitlement programs were much more limited than they are now. They expanded dramatically under Lyndon Johnson, then exploded with Obamacare, which has the potential of giving “free” healthcare to as many as forty million more people (if illegal aliens get covered).

Social Security is now in the red and likely to stay there. And the first of the 78 million Boomers became eligible for Medicare this year. Moreover, we are only now learning about the trillions of dollars in unfunded pension and healthcare entitlements of government employees.

Until recent times, the US was the preferred place of worldwide investment, because of our relatively free economy. But now, with massive new regulations here — from Sarbanes-Oxley (the law that was passed after the Enron debacle to regulate corporate accounting) to the Dodds-Frank finreg monster (the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) — and ever freer economies in Asia and elsewhere, more investment money is flowing abroad.

After WWII, there was broad bipartisan support for free trade; people had seen the role that protectionism played in extending the Depression and helping to bring about a cataclysmic world war. But over the past few years, we have turned our back on that consensus.

Finally, we have at the helm the most radically leftist and the most economically illiterate president ever elected – and also the most profoundly incompetent president, managerially.

It will take a long time to dig out of this mess.




Share This


CPAC Changes

 | 

For the second consecutive year, Rep. Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This may seem like a minor trend; but, in fact, there are a lot of changes afoot at CPAC — which was an important staging area for Ronald Reagan’s political ascendancy in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Does this mean that the elder Paul is the next Reagan? Probably not. But the changes at CPAC are worth a look.

As usual, pundits in the establishment media focused on some clownish details (Donald Trump’s appearance and some headline-seeking quotes from a couple of collegiate anarchists in attendance) and pasted these to some lazy generalizations about the “stubborn libertarian streak” within the Right. And, as usual, these lazy regurgitations of conventional wisdom missed the more interesting story.

The Campaign for Liberty (CforL) — the political action organization born from the pieces of Rep. Paul’s last presidential campaign — has made a concerted effort to influence CPAC. CforL has developed a partnership agreement with CPAC’s owners, whereby CforL can offer its members discounted tickets to the Conference. This arrangement has worked for CPAC; it’s accounted for between a third and a quarter of all recent attendees.

The arrangement has also helped CPAC achieve some other goals. Since CforL focuses its membership recruitment efforts on people under 25, the deal has broughtdown the median age of the conference crowd. This youth movement is a good thing for CPAC, which could use the change. On this point, I can offer a bit of color to illustrate. About five years ago, a twenty-something Silver Lake Publishing author went to CPAC to promote his book. Overall, the reception was chilly; and, in one panel discussion, he was on the receiving end of some barbs from the execrable Ann Coulter — who dismissed libertarians as “hippies who just want to smoke pot all day.” Her line got a lot of applause from the sensibly-shod audience.

The author was chagrined. Afterward, on the phone, he asked me: “Do these people realize that Reagan was a lifelong reader of The Freeman?”

Anyway, those sensible shoes may be shuffling elsewhere. This year’s CPAC was boycotted by several groups — including the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association — who objected to the presence of GOProud (a gay conservative group) and the growing ranks of Paul supporters. Some of the boycotting groups have announced plans to launch a “family values” conference to rival CPAC.

So be it. Maybe CPAC will become a more open-minded place, with people who remember that Reagan built his political identity on libertarian ideals.

Finally, the arrangement between CPAC and CforL also explains — almost precisely — Ron Paul’s straw poll victory. He was the first choice of 30% of the Conference attendees; and, since CforL accounted for between a third and a quarter of the people in the halls, it’s safe to assume those people danced with the one who brought them.

Second place went to Mitt Romney (in its CPAC coverage, Fox News led with this point and barely mentioned Paul). Third place was a tie between former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. This is a hopeful sign for those libertarians who see Johnson as a better media presence — and, therefore, a stronger prospect in a national campaign — than Rep. Paul. Other popular names (including Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, both of whom honored the “family values” boycott) trailed far behind.

Many observers point out, correctly, that presidential straw polls such as CPAC’s get some attention yet rarely predict the nominee accurately. I’m less interested in presidential horse race handicapping than in the ideas being discussed at conferences like CPAC. There was talk in the halls this year about taxes as the worst form of statist coercion.

I’m not sure that’s true. War is worse than taxes. But I’m glad the CPAC attendees were having that discussion — instead of nodding and clapping to the halfwit populism of Mike Huckabee or the empty screeching of Ann Coulter.




Share This


Hyper-Chutzpah

 | 

“Chutzpah” is a great Yiddish term for nerve — as in having the nerve to ask something outrageous. The classic illustration of chutzpah is a man who murders his parents, then at trial throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

But what word would you use to describe the person who not only murders his parents but consumes their body parts, then goes to an adoption agency in search of new ones? I suppose the best we can do is say he has “hyper-chutzpah.”

This is about the best description possible of Bob King, the new head of the United Auto Workers union. A recent Wall Street Journal piece recounts how King is trying to present the UAW as a helpful partner, deserving of adoption by the workers and management of foreign automakers with plants in the US (mainly located in the right-to-work states).

King’s pitch is pure hyper-chutzpah. He avers, “Our mindset is not adversarial. Our agenda is a positive one of shared responsibility and shared prosperity.” His pitch is part of the UAW’s attempt to unionize the foreign-owned plants, something it has consistently failed to do over the past three decades.

It is doubtful that many workers will fall for this transparently duplicitous pitch. Most workers understand that the UAW has a pernicious history. Yes, it got “great” concessions out of the domestic producers: not just outrageously high compensation packages but unsustainable pension and health plans. Also, the UAW extorted contracts that enabled work rules protecting lazy, drunken, or otherwise incompetent workers, as well as featherbedding — including obscene rules that required workers laid off from any plant that should happen to be closed down to be kept on at full pay, sitting around playing cards in holding tanks.

The UAW has nearly destroyed the domestic auto industry. Two of the three companies it drove to the wall had to be rescued at the cost of tens of billions in taxpayer dollars, a transfer from all of our pockets to the pockets of the UAW thieves. In so doing, it has hurt itself. Its membership, once as high as a million and a half, is now only about a third of that. And if its Fairy Godpresident, Obama, loses in 2012, the next administration will be far less willing to rip off the taxpayers and creditors and give it whatever it wants.

In the face of broad public (and worker) awareness of its destructive behavior in the past, the precipitous decline in its membership over the past few decades, and the rapid deflation of the power of its political ark (i.e., the Democratic Party), the UAW is offering some olive branches. It has backed off from the demand for card check legislation (which would eliminate secret ballots in unionization votes), and is offering to help get the long-delayed free-trade agreement with South Korea though Congress.

All this is like Obama’s recent assertions that he wants to work with business, perhaps lowering regulations and corporate taxes a bit. But in truth, it is all a bunch of BA — bland assurance. It is empty happy-talk by people who despise business and the free market economy in which it thrives. The UAW has permanently crippled our domestic auto industry, handing over a major area of manufacturing, in which we once led the world, to foreign companies. Worse, it has used workers' union dues to finance the election of an endless number of leftist Democratic politicians, who have been crucial in crippling our energy industry, taking over our health industry, and hobbling other industrial sectors as well.

We can only hope that workers and management at the healthy foreign-owned auto companies will give the UAW the cold shoulder it deserves. The nation needs to tell this greedy, soulless, statist, power-hungry, job-killing gang of kleptocrats what Cromwell told the Rump Parliament: “Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”




Share This


That Would Be "Oops!"

 | 

Here’s a wild and amazing bit of news: the Wall Street Journal reports that after a ten-month investigation of the mysterious cases of unintended acceleration reported in Toyota vehicles last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (with the help of NASA engineers) has discovered the cause of these events. The vast majority of them were . . . driver error!

Yes, after all the hysteria whipped up by the media and Congress — a hysteria that had the hidden goal of harming Toyota and helping the recently nationalized GM — it turns out that the most common problem by far was that drivers were hitting the accelerator pedal instead of the brakes. Yes, in some cases it was sticking accelerator pedals and improperly cut floor mats that were at fault — and both defects were quickly addressed in a recall by the company — but driver error was the big problem.

In short, Toyota suffered what Audi did many years ago: a media-driven hysteria for something primarily caused by drivers handling their vehicles improperly. In 1986, a number of people sued Audi, claiming that their cars had inexplicably accelerated, despite the brakes being depressed. A wave of prejudicial publicity followed. In the end, however, the NHTSA found that the majority of cases were clearly caused by the drivers pressing the accelerator while thinking they were hitting the brake.

In 2010, leading the charge in bashing Toyota was the Democrat-controlled Congress. Most of the congressmen sitting on the committee that investigated Toyota were recipients of UAW campaign money. Even more out front was DOT head Ray LaHood, who opined at the time that Toyota owners should immediately stop driving their cars.

Questioned about the new report, the now-discredited LaHood got annoyed and refused to use the phrase “driver error.” But he was forced to concede: “We feel that Toyotas are safe to drive.”

This simply will not do. LaHood has been proven unfit for his position. He deliberately hyped a problem the cause of which he was utterly clueless about, scaring the hell out of a lot of consumers, and costing Toyota a fortune in tangible and intangible assets.

If he had even a semblance of dignity, LaHood would resign immediately.




Share This


Federalism in Action

 | 

The greatly imperiled traditional view of federalism has it that among the other mechanisms for the balancing (and hence constraining) of powers in our government, the states require substantial power to balance that of the federal government.

One of the benefits of federalism is that it allows the various states to experiment. If Texas wants to try fiscal discipline while California engages in fiscal incontinence, the rest of the states can watch and judge which fiscal policy is most productive of wealth and happiness for citizens generally.

We see this happening now before our very eyes, as most of the states grapple with budget deficits. Different states are pursuing different policies.

We see, for example, Illinois jamming through a two-thirds hike in personal income taxes and a nearly 50% rise in state corporate taxes to deal with its budget deficit. But in Georgia, a bipartisan tax commission has recommended to the state legislature that it cut its personal and corporate tax rates from the present 6% down to only 4%. As one of the commission members — economist Christine Ries of Georgia Tech — put it, “Our over-riding goal was to get the income tax rate down as low as possible, because the evidence is so clear that this is the biggest driver of growth and jobs.” The commission proposes to cover the tax loss by expanding the application of Georgia’s 4% sales tax to many purchases (such as groceries) now exempt from it.

Shifting corporate and personal income tax to consumption tax seems like an economic no-brainer if you want to encourage the creation of jobs, although as the Wall Street Journal notes,the logical thing would be for Georgia to eliminate the income tax altogether (as nearby Florida and Texas have done).

Again, it is nice to be able to contrast the behavior of, say, California with Utah. Newly-installed California Jerry Brown, the aging Moonbeam whose original decision (1978) to let public employees unionize and collectively bargain was a major reason for the state’s massive overspending today, and who owes his election to massive spending by those same unions, has proposed a plan to deal with the state’s budget deficit. It calls for dramatic increases in taxes and some cuts in spending, but does nothing to address the ridiculously bloated salaries and pensions that state employees receive. He intends to use the prospect of cuts in services to cow the citizens into raising taxes.

This is the typical statist ploy: threaten cuts in public service to get what you really want, which is always more taxes, while leaving the underlying problem (ballooning compensation and pensions for government workers) untouched. At least the miserable Governor Schwarzenegger tried, at the beginning of his regime, to address the public employee pension problem, by floating an initiative that would have put all new hires on defined contribution plans (such as 401k), before being whipped into a girly-liberal by the public employee unions.

Illinois is another case of the statist response to the pension crisis. Governor Pat Quinn, just a month before the November election and in the face of a huge state budget deficit, gave the public employee unions a guaranteed two years of no layoffs and even cost of living increases. With their support he squeaked through to reelection. After winning, he jammed through massive tax increases.

Now, Utah has taken a different tack. The state pension plan was fully funded back in 2007, but suddenly, by 2009, it fell to only 70% funded, meaning that the state faced a pension funding gap of $6.5 billion. This gap was one and a half times the debt allowed by the state constitution. But the constitution makes changing the pension plans of current workers virtually impossible.

So the Utah legislature made a reasonable choice, under the circumstances. It set up a defined contribution plan for all hires, starting this year, the state donating a generous 10% of the employee’s salary. The plan allows employees a defined benefit option — but again, the state’s contribution is capped at 10%.

For workers, the nice thing about the plan is that they have a fully portable plan, and one whose assets they own personally, so they can’t be “borrowed” by government and used to buy votes in the way that Social Security funds are, or appropriated by a union and used to buy politicians.

The nice thing for taxpayers is that this plan will eventually cost them only about half what the old system would. It shields them from having to cover the costs of any future stock market declines.

Legislatures in Montana and a dozen other states are looking at this model.

That, dear reader, is truly federalism in action.




Share This


Rousing the Rubes

 | 

Sarah Palin interested me during the 2008 U.S. presidential election, for two reasons.

First, she occasionally seemed to embody the “West coast” style of libertarian political philosophy, based more on practical life experience than on academic training.

Second, her flashes of libertarianism seemed in tension with her claims of evangelical religious faith.

Either of these matters could have made her a compelling public figure. I hoped that she’d bring the first into mainstream political consciousness and offer some resolution to the second. But things didn’t work out that way. Quickly, Palin’s public figure had more to do with persona than philosophy.

Then, in fairly short order, her ticket came in second in the presidential election, she resigned as governor of Alaska halfway through her first term, and she signed a contract with the Fox News Channel to appear regularly as a commentator. She also released two books and starred in a short-lived “reality” television show.

In the coming presidential election cycle, I expect that Jon Huntsman — who’s recently resigned his position as U.S. Ambassador to China and taken the initial steps toward candidacy — will be the person who might raise the issues I’d hoped that Palin would.

Meanwhile, Palin remains on the scene. Her cult of personality is still strong. And her cult of animosity may be even stronger.

I’m not the first to note how closely she resembles the character Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell’s 1984 — in respect to oppositional politics, if not to intellectual power. Establishment Left groups use her name or image to incite passionate response in readers, donors, and other constituents. We’d need someone like Freud to explain the reasons why Palin resonates so strongly with the Left. But there’s little doubt that she’s marketing gold — a lip-rouged bogeyman who drives clicks to leftwing websites and sells magazines and books.

There we might leave the discussion. And yet . . . the intensity of Palin-hate that small minds on the Left feel is worth considering in some detail. It’s instructive of the state of political discourse.

In late January, the New York Times ran an opinion column by one if its lesser agitators. The piece was highly critical of Rep. Michele Bachmann, who’d recently delivered a semi-official Tea Party response to the president’s state of the union speech. The agitator mocked Bachmann’s manners and makeup but, more than anything else, she presented Bachmann and Palin (by ham-fisted logic since, to that point, Palin had said little publicly about Obama’s speech) for Two Minutes of Hate.

There’s little doubt that Palin is marketing gold — a lip-rouged bogeyman who drives clicks to leftwing websites and sells magazines and books.

And hate the Times readers did. It’s easy to ignore, or forget, how childish and emotional some Americans are about politics. The internet is great for illuminating things like this. Here are some excerpts from the scores of comments that appeared afterward on the newspaper’s website.

“Michelle Bachmann is as ridiculous a political figure as Sarah Palin. The question, however, is why we are covering either one of them. Both Palin and Bachmann know virtually nothing about the important political issues facing our nation, are not qualified to serve in any sort of high level political office, and do little more than degrade the level of political discourse in our nation.”

“The GOP is ignorant about history. The GOP is ignorant about Europe (Paul Krugman’s piece yesterday). The GOP combines that ignorance with an agenda to misinform the public in such a way that voters, against their own economic interests, support policies that benefit a wealthy elite that is getting richer by the day. . . . If only Obama had been the people’s leader we thought we were getting.”

“When I think of Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin I always think of mud wrestling. Even Michelle’s description of the lovely outfit she was wearing years ago . . . doesn’t dislodge the frame by frame fixation I have of her and the former half-governor from Alaska in a mud pit, pulling each other’s hair, calling each other names, slipping and sliding in the sticky brown goo.”

Such keen insights are hard to top, but here are two more:

“I just don’t get it as to why do so many people respond favorably to people like Palin and Bachmann? And add to them Glen [sic] Beck and Limbaugh fueling their fire along with others trailing in their wake like Ryan and Boehner. They mock and are sarcastic with religious fervor. To me they are so off the wall and ridiculous that whatever they say is total nonsense. . . . I tremble. I want a brainy President like Obama and brainy people around him.”

She serves as a scapegoat, in the original sense of that term: she carries off the failings that her haters fear in themselves.

“Bachman and Palin are the bullies in the kindergarden [sic] of Republican politics and no other kid in their class will stand up to them. Could their behavior be a portent of the approaching death of the party of the rich old white well educated ruling elite and the emergence of a new party of servants of the rich — probably labeled the New Stupids, but just as much in the pockets of the monied [sic] class . . .”

Bear in mind that all of this was posted, in a public forum, just a few weeks after the “brainy” Barack Obama had called for more civilized rhetoric in the nation’s political debate.

I’m no Freud, but even I can see the psychological themes in the Palin-hate. It’s projection. And she serves as a scapegoat, in the original sense of that term: she carries off the failings that her haters fear in themselves. Ignorant, ridiculous, stupid, bullying, mocking, sarcastic, a stupid servant of others, of elite political forces,and . . . ridiculous. Clearly, her haters don’t feel very good about themselves.

And they worry — a lot — that they’re ridiculous.

Perhaps with good reason. “JF” from Wisconsin believes that the GOP’s wide-ranging ignorance empowers it to bamboozle the nation’s voters. And consider the political order, as interpreted by “Annie” from Rhode Island: in her view, three pundits and a junior congresswoman dictate the political agenda to the Speaker of the House. And there are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of these mail-order Aristotles out there — all desperate to show that they are so very much smarter than Sarah Palin.

I have no idea whether Palin will run for president in 2012 — though I doubt she will go very far if she does. But I’m glad she’s still on the scene. The response she evokes in the rubes is rich.




Share This


A Gargantuan Gift to the Unions

 | 

After his decisive defeat in the recent congressional elections, President Obama is now trying to portray himself as a born-again centrist, verbalizing vague sympathies for small business and lighter regulation, not to mention capitulating to the Republicans’ demands to renew the Bush tax cuts for two more years. He is even feigning admiration for President Reagan.

But Obama is one of the most artful deceivers in the history of an office well known for attracting deceivers. As I have urged before (“Obamalaise,” Liberty, May 2010), you have to look at what he does, not merely at what he says. And what he is actually doing is continuing to advance his leftist agenda.

A particularly disgusting illustration is his recent decision, almost completely ignored in the mainstream media, to allow TSA employees (the airport screeners) to unionize.

When the TSA was set up, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the TSA administrator was given the authority to choose whether to give the employees the right to collective bargaining. Until now, the TSA has not done so. But Obama’s choice to head the TSA, John Pistole, changed that policy. Now the TSA’s 40,000 airport screeners — those paragons of efficiency and decorum, so eager to guard our privacy rights — join the ranks of public employees who are already in unions. The TSA employees will vote in March between representation by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Treasury Employees Union.

John Gage, president of the AFGE, crowed, “Today marks the recognition of a fundamental human right for 40,000 patriotic federal employees who have been disenfranchised since the inception of the agency.” Well he might crow, since these events will add 40,000 new employees to the public employee unions, which saw a drop of about 250,000 members in 2010. They will thus add an enormous amount to union dues, which will be spent on (among other things) electing Democrats in the next election cycle. In line to get the lion’s share of those union dues will be Pistole’s boss, Obama. It is very convenient.

Pistole says that the TSA workers won’t have the right to strike or engage in work slowdowns — as if we could tell whether these people are staging a slowdown or not. He also says that the workers won’t have a say in any matter that concerns airport security.

The devil is in the details.

In any case, if Obama is reelected, you can bet that these presumed restrictions will be loosened or eliminated. In the meantime, after the TSA workers unionize, we can expect their wages and benefits to skyrocket, adding significantly to our national deficit. Worse, disciplining lazy or inefficient workers will soon become incredibly difficult, rather like trying to fire incompetent tenured teachers, with the obvious effects on our collective security.

Let us now praise moderate men.




Share This


Blow Hot, Blow Cold

 | 

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, one of the New Deal’s proudest accomplishments, is often cited as an example of government’s ability to do good and generate progress. In 1910, nearly 50 million rural residents (over half the country) lived without electricity. By 1950, 45 million of those formerly "unhooked" were "on the grid," thanks to the REA. Or so the story goes.

Commercial electric utilities, with low voltage transmission lines and facing huge infrastructure investments for universal service, were loath to extend power to far-flung homesteads. Additionally, these were regulated monopolies with prices fixed by the government. But Charles Kettering, developer of the electric starter for automobiles, sensed an opportunity.

After selling his company, Delco, to General Motors, Kettering introduced the Delco-Light Farm Electric Plant in 1916. The small gas-powered engine coupled to a 32v DC generator and a set of batteries came with an entire line of optional peripherals: lights, appliances, well pumps, and electric motors. It was an instant hit. By 1936, nearly 150 companies were selling farm electric plants and more than 600,000 rural homes and businesses were generating their own power.

Meanwhile, according to Craig Toepfer’s just-released The Hybrid Electric Home (Schiffer, 2010), a bunch of radio enthusiasts in Ohio were giving birth to the renewable-energy industry.Fine Homebuilding, a respected journal of the building trades, reports that the first wind generators were made by Great Plains farmers whose living-room radios were hooked up to car batteries that they got tired of lugging into town to be recharged so the farmers could listen to “the Clicquot Club Eskimos, the Ipana Troubadours, or WLS’s National Barn Dance.” So they mounted homemade propellers onto car generators, stuck them on a pole, and wired them to their radio batteries.

Other entrepreneurs sensed more opportunities. In 1930, the Jacobs Wind Electric Company opened its first factory in Minneapolis. Eventually, more than 20 companies were making wind generators. Ever frugal farmers, faced with scarcer funds, soon hooked up the wind generators to their oil-based farm electric plants to save fuel, creating the first hybrid generators.

But then Congress passed the first Rural Electrification Act in 1936, effectively killing the nascent off-the-grid power generating industry. As Toepfer argues, “In a monumental act of irrationality, justifiable only by a lack of knowledge or understanding, the federal government decided to do what no investor-owned utility would even begin to consider doing, extending the central station wires from the major urban centers to every rural and remote part of the nation.”

According to the stipulations of the Rural Electrification Administration, hookups performed under its aegis required the removal or destruction of wind and oil-based farm electric systems. The rationale for this misguided policy was that the only way to increase profitability for regulated monopolies with government-fixed prices was to increase demand, and this was most expedient method of reducing REA subsidies to electric utilities.

The REA doubtless improved the lives of millions of Americans. But Toepfer argues that for the $210 million that the government spent under the REA act, it could have provided every electricity-deprived homestead with a farm electric plant and a wind generator, and still not have spent all its money. Although there is no question that the REA supplied a much greater amount of power than the basic, self-reliant technology that was just getting off the ground, Fine Homebuilding opines that “we put all our eggs in one energy basket, committing the country to an inefficient electric grid, sanctioning tremendous environmental damage in the process, and squelching what could have been an enormous start for alternative energy."

Instead, 90 years later, the federal government’s industrial and energy policies see fit to reverse course and channel taxpayer funds into the same industries that it once saw fit to destroy. Go figure.




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.