300 out of 3,000,000
As stated on HotAir.com:
Mr. Franken — a former comedian and “Saturday Night Live” star known for creating such characters as self-help guru Stuart Smalley — holds a 312-vote lead out of nearly three million in the race to be the next U.S. senator from Minnesota.
Wow. 300 difference out of 3,000,000. We experimentalists have a name for numbers like that: zero. Here's what you get from counting statistics. If you try to count the number of a random event happening 1,500,000 times, then from Poisson statistics you get a standard counting error of [latex]\sqrt{1.5\times10^{6}} \approx 1.2 \times 10^3[/latex]. This means, anything less than 1200 is statistically insignificant.
If we had to do this election scientifically—and we are genuinely interested in finding out what the people really do want—then the only way to do it is re-run it, because any discrepancy within 1200 vote should result in a tie. But then, political science is not a real science, and re-running an election is expensive.
This is yet another reason we need a small, non-invasive government. Do you want your life messed up because the "majority" (by a difference statistically insignificant) voted for the other guy? With a small government that stays within the confines of our constitution, it doesn't matter who's in the office. Heck, we could have Hitler as president and Mussolini as the speaker of the house (or is it the other way around, after all, the current president is popular with the liberal media, as Mussolini was). As long as they are required to stay within the confines of the constitution, they won't be able to do anything truly damaging—at least not in the 4 years that it takes for us to vote them out.
Local Currency — A Real Stimulus Plan
Jake Towne writes for Campaign for Liberty:
The following will lay out a proposed local currency idea to stimulate local economies. This idea is not original and closely follows the successful BerkShares program led by Susan Witt of western Massachusetts and Piedmont PLENTY's, a currency BJ Lawson (aka Ron Paul, Jr.) is helping to start up in North Carolina. The first section will describe how it works, and the second part will list its economic benefits and costs. The third section will list details and my thoughts on the support necessary to start a currency. The fourth section will list several ideas for neighborhood currencies and a small business stimulus plan, and the fifth section is a source list.
I'm not sure exactly what to make of this. It seems like a fundamental flaw is that's it's still based on dollar, so it's just as stable (or rather, unstable) as the dollar. You can't make a house with weak foundation stronger by building more on top of it.
Also, that 10% "discount" that comes with the local currency ... exactly who is paying for that? TANSTAFL. This is yet another way, for local governments, to increase their spending, and I'm rather doubtful of the benefits of encouraging customers to spend locally. After all, isn't free trade supposed to be a good thing? Why would limiting free trade within the same country be any good?
Shortage of Doctors Proves Obstacle to Obama Goals
WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the supply of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.
Well, this should be interesting to watch.
Regardless of how it turns out, I'm sure this would prove yet another evidence to the fact that you cannot turn your back on the "men of the mind" and not see the society fall apart.
Socialism can put lots and lots of printed money in the hands of the mob. But it cannot generate wealth, nor can it motivate those with talent to serve the society to their own detriment.
In free market economy, such shortage of any professional (or even menial laborers) would have been temporary, since, absent the market distorting forces from the government (or large insurers or regulations forcing insurers to act against their own interest), lack of primary care doctors would mean that their fee would (and should!) go up, which would motivate more medical students (or existing professionals) to become primary care doctors, until suitable balance is reached. It's simple supply and demand, first semester economics.
The nice thing about the market is that it is self-correcting (the same reason science has done so well over last couple centuries). Can you say the same thing about the government? And no, you can't include revolutions as part of "self-correction".
Deadline: Dems will nuke filibuster if health-care reform doesn’t pass by October 15
The reconciliation instruction specifies a date. That date, according to one congressional staffer, is October 15. (The original House reconciliation instruction had a late September deadline.)
In other words, the House and Senate each have until that day to pass health care legislation.
If they haven't, then both houses will consider health care under the reconciliation process, which is relevant primarily for the way it affects the Senate. There will be a limit on the time of debate. Republicans won't be able to filibuster it.
Well, I guess they are just living up to their expectation. Liberals act all nice and such, but when it comes down to it, it will be a liberal that choose to actually use a "nuclear option" before anybody else—other people have a soul, liberals, like the Japanese, do not.
I suppose I don't really care (because I don't care about health care, as long as it doesn't result in new taxes) as long as they don't complain and whine when the conservatives take back the houses.
Besides, if they do exercise the nuke option, well, when this whole thing falls apart, now it will be squarely on their heads, although with people like Mr. Frank in their ranks, I'm not sure how much of the responsibility they would accept on this partisan decision.
On my desk: The Fair Tax Fantasy
The Fair Tax Fantasy is not quite on my desk, but it’s on the way there. My friend Hugh Hewitt has cowritten an extensive critique of the Fair Tax proposal with Hank Adler, and I suspect it will be as provocative and intriguing as his other books; the title is certainly inflammatory enough! Hugh argued against the plan that Mike Huckabee wound up adopting as a major campaign plank. That led to a surprisingly emotional debate on the merits of the Fair Tax versus a Flat Tax, which Steve Forbes has pushed for decades.
Personally, I like Fair Tax—it taxes consumption, rather than punishing production. I mean it could be like VAT, so that businesses cannot write off "business expenses" (closing a loophole for someone who wants to avoid tax ... in a legally-gray manner), but the main idea of providing proper incentive is there.
But at a more fundamental level, I support what Ron Paul (who is not in the list of Fair Tax supporters) says: lower tax, not just another tax to replace the old tax.
Fair Tax tries to be "revenue-neutral". That isn't the aspect of it I find appealing. Whatever the new tax scheme might be, it should not be revenue-neutral: it should produce less "revenue" for the government (i.e. less stolen from people). It's up to the government officials (elected and appointed) to deal with less "revenue" and cut its spending.
Top Bailed-Out Firms Have Money for Lobbying
WASHINGTON -- The top 10 recipients of the government's $700 billion financial bailout spent about $9.5 million on federal lobbying during the first three months of the year.
The biggest spender was bailed-out automaker General Motors Corp., which devoted $2.8 million to lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. It has received $13.4 billion in government loans and could get $5 billion more, according to a government report released Tuesday.
Failed insurance giant American International Group Inc. and banks Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. each reported spending more than $1 million to influence the government as they lived off federal money this year. AIG has gotten some $70 billion from the bailout fund -- including a fresh $30 billion infusion the government reported on Tuesday -- while Citigroup has received $45 billion and JPMorgan $25 billion.
I guess that's a winning proposition for these companies (as well as an "insurance" plan that can't be beat): spend $1 million to "make" $1 billion ... from public coffers.
It is said, "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury," (attributed to Tytler, although it is disputed, but regardless of who said it, it is true) and that's why we have to be always vigilant.
There will always be flies where there's honey. The only way to get rid of the flies (or at least reduce them) is to reduce the honeypot. Make the government small. Make it a government policy not to "bail out" companies, "insure" debt unless where it's absolutely necessary (such as FDIC, which can be credited for reducing bank runs that used to be so destructive). Make sure that there is a very high standard (so high that it can scarcely be met in a century) to proof of likely outcome before the government acts—and make sure that outcome is to the general benefit of all and no significant detriment to anyone alive.
Nobody is ever "too big to fail". Next time, when someone argues that something is too big to fail, watch the money trails. Chances are, they have been paid even bigger bribes to say that these companies are too big to fail.
Obama Seeks $100M Budget Trim From Cabinet
In what amounts to a scene out of Hollywood's version of executive power, President Obama will convene his first Cabinet meeting this morning and order his department chiefs to immediately cut a combined $100 million from their budgets.
Like the main character in the fantasy "Dave," Obama appears to be trying to work the nation's books, though the $100 million figure amounts to a drop in the $3.5 trillion bucket given preliminary approval earlier this month by Congress.
Well, I guess that's another line on his padded-out resume:
* cut federal budget
Just don't mention how much he cut it by. After all, half-truths are firmly in the domain of liberals.
Texas Secession–Where Would It Lead? A Look at a Future Lone Star Republic
Maybe we unionists are being hasty. Maybe we should let Texas secede.
Think about what life in Texas would be like if its pandering governor has his way.
The new nation would have to raise an Army and a Navy and an Air Force from scratch, of course. For the first few years, if it didn't want to be gobbled up by Mexico or intimidated by the hugely irritated United States to the north, there would probably have to be confiscatory taxation, and a draft of a million or so healthy men and women over 18, just to guard its thousands of miles of borders. The drug violence and corruption in Mexico would quickly move north and permeate the new nation. Loyal Americans would no doubt launch a resistance movement. Under such conditions, in this militaristic state, we can assume that certain "adjustments" would be made in civil liberties.
His analysis probably downplays the resources of Texas and exaggerates the difficulties a Lone Star nation (if it would really be a lone-star, rather than several stars) would face.
But, for all this talk about potential secession, I am glad that there is no real support for secession in Texas (although that 25% is somewhat troubling—I just hope that they are just riled up about the persecution by the media, and that genuinely, they remain loyal, patriotic Americans).
Secession is a last resort action. Like shooting a robber who is pointing a gun at you. You are supposed to try everything first. Make a noise to make the robber run away. Try reasoning with him so that violence wouldn't be necessary.
Just like dealing with robbers must be dealings with the federal government. When it invades into our domains—either domains where the states should be sovereign, or into an individual's "castle"—we must reason with it; we must petition the officials not to betray the founding principles of this nation. Any and all methods we can try within the system must be tried first.
When all else fails (and I think we still have decades of Obamas and Pelocies to go before we can reach that point—the Civil War didn't break out in a day), then we can secede and call it self defense—but not before.
Reverse Discrimination Case Could Transform Hiring Procedures Nationwide
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Inside a burning building, fire doesn't discriminate between Matthew Marcarelli and Gary Tinney. Inside the New Haven Fire Department, however, skin color has put them on opposite sides of a lawsuit that could transform hiring procedures nationwide.
This week, the Supreme Court will consider the reverse discrimination claim of Marcarelli and a group of white firefighters. They all passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities likely to violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
This is more than about discrimination (which shouldn't matter once, for example, firefighting becomes privatized—private institutions should be free to discriminate all they want, as long as they are ready to face the consequences (of boycott, etc.)).
This is more about not changing the rules in the middle of the game. I don't know if these promotion processes would have been protected by contract laws. But, even if it weren't, legally speaking, morally speaking, once shouldn't change the rules after the fact in a way that affects those affected negatively (see: "ex post facto").
Teachers don't announce some kind of grading scale, and after the result of grades come out, change them in a way to lower people's grades (sometimes they will make changes that might bump someone's grade up; no one ever complains about that).
If these firefighters were told that they would be promoted (or be considered for promotion) upon passing all these tests, then they should be promoted, whether someone else is promoted along with them or not. Do you think that there is really a "hidden bias" in the test? Then change the test—for the next set of applicants/firefighters who take the test. Those who already put in the effort in taking the test shouldn't be penalized for not being black.
Obama to Request Budget Cuts From Agency Heads
On Fox News:
Families are making tough decisions about their money and so too will their government, President Obama said Saturday, promising that spending cuts are coming -- and soon.
At a Cabinet meeting Monday, the president will ask department and agency heads for specific proposals for trimming their budgets.
Is it possible that he actually listened to people speaking out at the tea parties? (... once again proving that White House press secretary cannot be trusted—he claimed that Obama didn't give a flying kick about people protesting as long as they weren't liberals)
Well, we will see if there's any truth to his claims about there being "no sacred cows", because by his own criterion ("programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective"), the very first programs he should cut are entitlement programs—almost by definition, since, with generous unemployment benefits, there is far less incentive for people to look for jobs, or take a job that is less than ideal.
As far as I am concerned, this announcement is like when Microsoft makes an announcement that they will do something good: we will believe it when we see it. Obama has broken so many promises and flip-flopped so many times, I don't trust what he says (if I ever did). We will see what he does, and see if he does cut spending as he appears to promise to.