Heck of an Idea

Bidding on teachers

2011-12-22T09:14:00.000-05:00

I just saw this article on the faults of merit pay.

What struck me was the idea of bidding for next year's teacher. I would add the idea of sponsorship of vouchers and direct threats of non-renewal of contracts.

Lessons on media in Cain Kerfuffle

2011-11-04T08:55:00.000-04:00

In this recent news blitz on Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment case, I am again reminded about the news media's ridiculous notions of the rules of disclosure.

Since the reporter seeks a higher salary through satisfying thepowers that be in his news organization, we must understand the dynamics. The reporter has low standards of proof to put himself in front of the public with hos information. The target has high standards of proof to overcome bad news. This simply reflects the rules of the game that most likely increases the reporter's salary and income over time.

To understand how perverse this self-serving methodology is, let's pretend that these same rules applied in court. What would be the outcome.

To keep this example as close to a real lawsuit, let us pretend the reporter was filing a libel or slander claim against a private citizen. Under the rules that reporter claim should apply, once the reporter filed the lawsuit, he has the right to say anything he wants about the private citizen.

In the news reporter's world view, the level of proof the reporter must meet is simply, "I accuse you. Now disprove my accusation." The reporter need show no papers, no recorded statements, or no evidence that private citizen was even in the place where the accusation suggests the wrong doing occurred. The reporter believes Mr Citizen now has to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Any flaw or hesitation means the reporter's flimsy accusations are true. No trial. No argument. Instant verdict in the court of public opinion.

The problem is that people seeking damageto their reputation have an incentive to keep their had down and protect their good name. The reporter's false promise is that playing by the reporter's arbitrary and capricious rules the citizen can end the problem quickly.

To truly fight and win this type of battle with the press is to be able to identify the self-serving nature of the reporter's rules and require the reporter do work before the response is forthcoming. It also requires persistent repetition of a strong statement of the rules of fair play:
1. I respond to specific allegations as to time, manner, place, and person.
2. I respond to corroborated evidence only.
3. If a judge wouldn't consider the case, I certainly won't.
4. I will sue for slander and libel.
5. Anonymous sources need not be disclosed to the public, but they must be disclosed to me before I will respond.
6. New questions do not demand instant responses. Instant responses only serve cameras. I serve the truth.

To fight the media this way means you will have days or weeks whee your message of the day is not served. PR consultants believe this is bad. In truth, those days will happen. It is better to have the battle early in a campaign. Set down a marker for the media. If you are clean, you will more message days than fewer. If you follow the reporter's preferred path, you are on their message when they choose.

Term limits reconsidered

2011-10-05T08:54:00.000-04:00

Polipundit's post makes me want to post a thought that has been bouncing around in my head for a month or so. Term limits on politicians are great, but what about employment limits for bureaucrats? Why not enforce a twenty year across the board limit on government employment? Force some of these lifetime government-employed people to find a new employer for 4-5 years.

Think about what that would do to government-school teachers or license branch functionary or tax collector. How many people in government are immune from having to worry about losing their jobs, yet those same people will lecture the rest of the world about how to live a life fully.

Imagine a government-school teacher who has just returned to his beloved teaching at age 47. He has just spent 5 years working as a lab scientists during his required 5 year break from government employment. He is now eager to be back with is beloved students, where he spent the first 20 years of his career. He has new life experiences to share. He has new insights into science. He has been gone longer than the limited and phoney 1-year sabbaticals that academia loves so that he has had to absorb worries about being able to return to the classroom. He is as fresh and excited as a first-year teacher, but he has the wisdom of an experienced family man.

That term-limit on government employment would be great.

What about the second teacher who chooses to disperse his 1-year breaks with 4-year visits to teaching. He, too, has more to offer the kids.

What about the third teacher that teaches in a private school for 5 years. He, too, will have experiences that challenge the assumptions in government schools of how education should work.

The license branch manager who has run a restaurant? The court clerk who has been in a small business worried about keeping expenses down?

Politicians need term limits, but they are at least exposed to the risk of losing their jobs. Their staffers' risk is similar but insulated. Those staffers may bounce from politician to politician, or politician to party organization. The full-time committee staff or institutional staff come to expect certain customs.

What if everyone in the building has had to step away from being in government for at least 5 years?

What if a Congressman went back into state government for 5 years? Or state politician back to local government?

This part from Thomas Paine that is posted at Polipundit.com makes my point about why. Forcing a change like that stated above is about how to do it.

Articles: Obama's Numbers

2011-09-29T11:25:00.000-04:00

Articles: Obama's Numbers

I think the numbers issue for Obama is interesting. I think the issues for elections that are direction changing are even more interesting.

Using the Census data for the 2008 election of voter participation by age (Census Publication P20-562 (May 2010)) and the IRS 2000CM mortality tables, I ran some rough projections on what happens to the voter population over time. Since the census source data did not break the data down by age, I purposefully did not do this by each incremental age. I then averaged the mortality rate (more accurately the survival rate) for each cohort. For younger ages, this made the mortality rate artificially high and for older ages, artificially low.

To simplify tracking specific cohorts of people, I grouped them by age. Group I is all voters under 35 in the 2008 election. Group II is voters between 35-55. Group III is voters over 55. Once assigned to a group in this analysis, a voter does not change groups as he ages.

What I found among persons that voted in 2008, 16.8% are dead by the 2020 presidential election. More significantly, those Group I voters are only two and a half percentile of the sample group, but through death alone become three and half percentile of those alive in 2020. Group II voters do not materially change through proportion of the 2008 voting group. Group III voters decline from three percentile of the voters in 2008 to only two percentile of the 2008 voters still alive in 2020.

The effect on voting is that the thinking of the voting population moves from older, established philosophies to newer philosophies among prior voters by about 20% of the vote every twelve years, due to mortality alone.

Assuming that our population continues to grow and replenish each age group, particularly the younger voters, this effect can be increased by at least another percentile or more every twelve years.

Essentially without accounting for any other factor the age component accounts for over 30% of the change in voting patterns, all other things being equal.

Any political scientist will tell you that this analysis does very little to predict changes in voting patterns. I agree.

Due to the physiologic tendency of thinking patterns and philosophies to crystalize and not change in our latter years, what it does mean that over twelve years, nearly 30% of the population is going to be able to adopt a new voting philosophy. Older voters will try to avoid it. Younger voters will change philosophies most easily. Older voters are sticky. Younger voters are more fluid.

What this means for the 2012 election is that it can have significant long-term consequences for nearly a generation's long-term voting behavior.

An 18 year old voting for his first time in 2006 may come to hate the results of his Democratic vote by 2018. He is more likely to vote Republican from 2010 onward if Republican policies are implemented and that voter associates any success with those policies.

Simultaneously, those who came of age during FDR or LBJ die out rapidly even if they rarely vary from their party of choice.

The young voter who comes to be depressed about Democrats because of their votes in 2006 and 2008 leading to economic disaster. Votes in 2010 and 2012 for Republicans that result is desired impacts on society stand to make this voter a life-long Republican. As the voter naturally shifts from being a fluid voter to a sticky voter due to age, Obama's era will be a linchpin in the voter's thinking.

If that type of pattern is noticeable while 30% or more of the population that votes changes, long-term voting habits will shift throughout the electorate.

Consequently, Republicans need to consider going "all in" in the 2012 election for the clearest philosophical pitch they can. Succeed or fail in economics or taxes, 2013 to 2017 has a good chance to be a good economic period if even 15% of Obama's enactments are repealed. Republican office holding will give investors confidence of no more Socialism in big chunks.

If voters have a clear philosophy stated with this turn around, they will attach it to the Republicans' stated philosophy, right or wrong. Only through the course of several elections espousing this philosophy will political scientists be able to assess the accuracy of philosophical pronouncements versus actual practice versus actual results.

If Republicans go "all in" philosophically with a strong Conservative message, barring unforeseen circumstances like World War III or a volcanic eruption from Yellowstone's super-volcano, Republicans can push Democrats to the back benches for the next 12 to 20 years. The longer the economic success with a strong philosophical coherence the longer that position of power will be.

In practice, this will be extremely difficult. Success breeds many fathers. Each claimant to the mantle of father of the success will try to define the philosophy to serve his financial or political gains. Dilution of the philosophy becomes probable. Confusion among newer voters become equally more probable. The likelihood of a swing back the other direction becomes stronger in the next twelve-year cycle.

The key in the second cycle is whether the Conservative philosophy is articulately taught and empirically tested to persuade future generations of its truth. The least philosophically immersed will begin pushing Conservative doctrine as gospel truth and push away naysayers as if stupid or evil. Those tendencies to seek conformity to groupthink must always be undermined and deprived of credibility. Conservatism withstands empirical scrutiny. Avoid religious indoctrination and its prevalence can last for generations because each generation can perfect it.

The key today is to take the gamble of articulating the philosophy clearly, proudly, and courageously when electoral victory is most likely. Then prepare for the withering onslaught of the dying socialistic philosophy.

What does defense spending produce?

2011-08-24T09:34:00.000-04:00

In reading, Victor Davis Hanson's article on the myth of World War II spending, I had some thoughts about economics that are quite tangential to VDH's point.

VDH points out how liberal's are changing their story about the Keynesian effects of spending during the Depression and WWII.

In reading this, my mind jumped back to Economics 101 in the classic Guns versus Butter choice. As you all remember, this is the choice that we as a society through government have to make whether we want more guns or more butter, but we can't have both. Laying aside one of the flaws of this dichotomy that good spending increases the size of the economic pie, so you end up with both, there are some inherent teases in this set of false choices that drives much liberal economic thinking.

Since most liberals only use economics classes to recite catch phrases and not dig any deeper, this guns versus butter is one of their favorites. In their eyes the choice is quickly converted into a choice of welfare versus defense spending. The notion for them is that if there are limited dollars, money spent on either welfare (using government distributed butter as the image) or guns (using army rifles as the image) is gone once spent. The choice must be made. The compassionate minded must choose butter and reduce spending on guns.

I do not dispute the fundamental choice that guns versus butter was supposed to teach. The lesson is supposed to be that must make choices in government spending. The problem is that the images are misleading to the uninquiring so they create false confidence among liberals that they understand economics.

Let's dig deeper. Butter represents welfare spending and other government spending on the domestic front like building highways or public schools. Guns represent the army, navy, and marines. (I am not sure where the FBI, ATF, or state and local police fit in most liberals minds. I suspect that the FBI and ATF are guns because I believe they are non-union and that police are butter because they are often union. Am I jaded?)

For the simple minded, purchasing guns is bad. Analysis done.

For the deeper minded, let's keep exploring what these images really represent and whether a better set of images are available.

Butter as domestic spending has the feel-good aspect that anything spent at home gets a better society. Guns as military spending has no feel-good aspect to the average liberal. The choice seems easy. Not knowing anything about the author of this method of teaching, I wonder what his motivations were.

In the real world, this dichotomy is a disaster. Most federal domestic spending is far beyond the scope of what is allowed under the US Constitution. Education? No. Welfare? No. Social Security? No. Medicaid? No. Obamacare? No. Liberals feel good but have no legal basis for their programs.

The problem with most of these programs is that they are grant programs. As a lawyer, I look at transactions to see if each party to the transaction gives something of value to promote the exchange. If so, there is a contract. If not, there is a grant or a gift. Both would be legal transactions for individuals, but not necessarily for constitutional governments. The problem with most liberal, grant programs is that the government is not a party receiving a benefit back from the other party. The programs produce no value because it is simply the transfer of money. The recipient may have strict restrictions, like the Program formerly known as Food Stamps or Medicaid, where misspending is a felony. Other programs have no restrictions on the expenditures, like Social Security or unemployment benefits.

Of those that go for specific purposes, like the Program formerly known as Food Stamps or Medicaid, the government gets nothing, but the program beneficiaries get specific goods or services. Since the government gets nothing, it has no accounting method to show that the government balance sheet has increased. It gets the benefit that fewer food riots will occur or old people attacking the car of the Chairman of House Ways and Means. The food providers or medical providers who receive the money on the beneficiary's behalf do increase their cash flow and hopefully their wealth through retained earnings after paying expenses. The program beneficiaries have little incentive to change their behavior within the program. Their choice is pass or fail: stay in the program or quit. Most economic choices are ones of timing of expenditures, size of expenditures, and selection of goods and services purchased balanced against choices on how to obtain more resources to use in the next round of purchases. These government programs destroy the choice about how to garner more resources.

On the guns side of the equation, most people have trouble explaining what gun purchases in a time of peace buy for the general public. Buying more and bigger guns is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about here is buying sufficient guns, military talent, and logistical capabilities that are most likely enemies fear to attack us at home or to attack our citizens abroad. We are buying peace of mind. Most liberals believe this is just as much conservative feel good as butter programs are liberal feel good.

If we are discussing whether to buy a multi-million dollar airplane because it is cool, I would agree with the liberal. If we are talking about projecting power with that airplane to the four corners of the earth so that we don't have to put boots on the ground in every corner of the earth, I would beg to differ with the liberal.

Ultimately, buying peace of mind with the military is a difficult concept to grasp. Why do we want peace of mind? As a liberal hiking in the mountains of ancient Persia, will you be arrested as a spy? We know from recent history the answer is yes. The fear of arrest overseas in that type of situation is an example where the US has not bought sufficient peace of mind. As a conservative businessman traveling in Venezuela, are you likely to be arrested as a spy? Not that I am aware, no. The US has bought sufficient peace of mind there. Can an American travel to the Caribbean and avoid arrest? Absolutely. The travel is cheaper than Venezuela and less personal security is probably needed. I would suggest the quiet presence of the US Coast Guard and US Navy in and around the old pirate-haven Caribbean is a major reason.

The guns choice allows American citizens to move around the world more cheaply under fewer threats which in turns allows more commerce.

A similar domestic guns choice of welfare versus police demonstrates that higher police presence reduces crime where high welfare spending has no causation at all. But high welfare spending and inadequate police presence guarantees a safe incubator for criminal activity. Commerce disappears. Jobs disappear. Wealthy families leave.

Just think how many private transaction are peace of mind purchases: psychiatry, massage therapy, gift shops filled with useless knick-knacks, nice restaurants, flower shops, mega-groceries, luxury homes and cars, etc. If we converted our economy into one that refused to sell anything that offer peace of mind, we would have politburo-run grocery with lines out the door and no food on the shelves.

We buy peace of mind every day. The military is first and last line of defense from foreign threats to our daily bliss. The police are our second-to-last line of defense (don't forget the Second Amendment is the source of the last line of domestic defense) to domestic threats to our daily bliss.

The stronger we are perceived by our enemies, the more likely are enemies go elsewhere.

The guns versus butter analysis is one of the greatest sources of liberals complete disconnect from reality when we discuss government spending. They misapply its true lessons and superimpose their own notions of right and wrong choices. Now all guns choices are bad and all butter choices are good.

The real choices are between expenditures that reduce the daily cost of living for self-sufficient citizens and those that increase the financial burdens on the self-sufficient. The choice is the great wide open versus prison.

Expenditures on highways reduce the daily cost of living by allowing more independent movement of infinite variety. (Some Constitutional questions remain about whether the federal government is properly the dominant player.) Highways give government a general use product that no other provider can provide efficiently and widely. The benefits of highways are easily and objectively measured by traffic counts and value of commerce passing over it. This allows a systematic analysis of good places to place or expand highways. It allows successful governments to build infrastructure for actual growth occurring, not wishful thinking. (Yes, politicians with earmarking and pork barreling ignore these objective measures. That is a reflection of decisions made at the wrong level of government than a bad use of money.)

Expenditures for grant programs with no reciprocated consideration are undesirable. (The individual states need to be aware of these economic problems arising from grant programs, but are not Constitutionally prohibited from pursuing them.) Grant programs benefit only one person or organization at a time. The benefits are diffuse and not subject to measurements of benefits that not subjective. The consolidation of benefits mostly go to the politicians who support the benefit and not to a community.

Once we become aware of the inherent fallacies of liberal reliance on guns versus butter, we are better able to deal with the real problems on the side of the equation called "butter." "Guns" can be expensive, especially during a hot war, but are easier to identify and corral. "Butter" is budget busting, as Obama has demonstrated, and harder to fix.

The incomprehensible lack of diversity of diversity education

2011-08-23T10:12:00.000-04:00

Why is diversity education always taught the same way?

I can just imagine if other subjects were taught the same way:
Newtonian physics taught as a man pushing a box over level ground, even if the real point was gravity's acceleration.
Algebra taught as long addition writ large.
English as "Jack and Jill."
Botany as the study of an oak leaf.
Chemistry as the study of table salt.

The constant refrain of diversity education is that we should learn to appreciate the differences in one another.

The problem that I find is that the people who are best trained in diversity are the least appreciative of the differences in one another.

If a black student comes into class and proclaims his love for his white brothers, he is hailed as living up to the diversity creed. If a white student takes no interest in the fact that the black student next to him has a different skin color, he is racist for not appreciating the differences.

Diversity classes tell us that we look different but share common experiences but discourage actually learning about each others' pasts that might expose different experiences and different opinions. They are discouraged from accounting for differences in skin color, hair characteristics, childhood experiences that don't fit the template, and monetary habits. Heaven forbid a student mention that another person's statement of reality is wrong. There is only one opinion allowed but many observations of facts; so long as the observations support the allowed opinion.

Skin color tells you nothing about the person's character. Got that?

A person who truly appreciates diversity will learn about medieval English madrigals from a black man from the inner city of Washington, DC.

A person who truly appreciates diversity will seek out friends of other races because of similarities of interests and learn about their new friend's family and life experiences over a beer (or root beer for minors). He will ask tough questions that challenge his interlocutor's understanding of reality. Then both friends will challenge their differing opinions. They will laugh that one uses more sun tan lotion than the other. That one's hair is straighter than the other. That one's mother kept money in a shoebox and the other's mother kept money at a bank that went out of business. They will return to the joys of their similarities of interest and look forward to their next meeting.

Anyone who shouts about the importance of diversity scares me as a person who wishes to find only people who agree with him. Diversity studied is diversity ignored.

It does not have to be that way, but diversity training is the domain of the liberals and is just a way to use corporate money to enforce liberal orthodoxy (i.e., correct belief) just as the Spanish Inquisition was about enforcing correct Catholic orthodoxy.

As I watch my child grow, he has friends of all races and cares not one whit. Only as teachers in school tell him to look at all the other kids and teaches my son to place value on being different from his multi-racial circle of friends does he start to have a race-oriented mindset.

Diversity training does more damage that it solves. No member of the KKK will go into diversity training and confess his sins and repent of his racism. No member of the NAACP will go into diversity training and confess that the NAACP is damaging the black community. But put a multi-racial circle of young friends in diversity training and they will start to question their natural open-mindedness.

What's worse is inserting diversity training into history classes.

As a life-long student of history, I have found that the only way to truly learn history is to accept that each era has their biases that cause corrupting influences. The now-beloved Progressives were heavily exposed to racist ideology with many proposing programs to serve their racist goals. Study the history of the early Progressives by getting mad at their racism makes little sense. It is hard to truly learn about what motivated the Progressive's racism if you as a historian are angry.

As history meets the present, that emotional detachment can and should change. The only way a human being can affect the future is by his thoughts, feelings, and actions be carried out in the present.

A passionate pursuit of righteous behavior that interacts with other persons based solely on the content of their character is the best form of antidote to racism.

Diversity training is like taking the heroin addict and waiving a filled syringe in front of their eyes to demonstrate the evils of heroin. It does not work but it feeds the worst elements of the addiction.

legislating walls or channels

2011-07-16T08:57:00.001-04:00

Laws can be written to channel people into specific behaviors. This is done by directing specific acts be done to be legal.Laws can also be done to restrict breach of expected behavior. Essentially the law builds walls that people are not allowed to cross.If we examine the American Constitution we find that it is mostly an act of creating walls. There's restrictions oncongress's abilities. There's some prescriptions on individual behavior specifically treason. But overall most of what is done is establishing walls. A person must be a certain age to serve in a certain office. The problem over time is Congress passes laws that have more and more effort made to channel our efforts. Tax laws are written to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. Essentially there is a channel that we are expected default to get certain tax benefits. But even more damaging than Congress is regulations. Regulations have the effect of being very specific as to what behavior is allowed. In regulation D under the securities act the law, the regulation is written to make very specific persons eligible to invest. Most of what the liberal agenda includes is Congress setting up structures and then has the regulatory world involved in making more specific rules the channel behavior and enforce those rules. Essentially the liberal bureaucrat becomes judge, jury and executioner.The error of modern administration is the conceit that the bureaucrat is an expert. To truly be free, Congress needs to write laws of walls and not an enabling act for bureaucrats to make arbitrary and ever changing channels.

Is compromise always meeting in the middle?

2011-07-07T12:25:00.000-04:00

As we await the results of today's powwow at the White House between the opposing sides on the debt limit debate, I constantly am reminded of the hackneyed refrain that in good settlements each side wins and each side loses.

I have gone through a few mediations and been trained to be a marital mediator. I have worked a lot of settlement agreements for clients. I can say categorically this hackneyed idea of each side winning and losing is ridiculous in more times that I care to mention.

Think of it this way: a gangbanger has your hand pinned down with an axe hovering over your hand. He tells you that he is going to cut off your hand. If you can persuade him to cut off just a finger, you have tried to compromise. Did you win? Is it winning if you lose a body part?

In my way of thinking this is not compromise. It is minimizing losses. When your opponent defines the battle field, your job is often to minimize losses. In this case, the gangbanger defined the battlefield as loss of body parts. The scope of the loss is all that matters.

In the budget debate we have a loggerheads. For the first time in decades the Republicans have come into the debate claiming a real demand for budget cuts with no tax rate increases. They know that cutting spending will improve the economy and lower tax rates will produce more profit and more tax receipts for the government.

The Democrats are demanding slower spending increases and higher tax rates.

If the spending increases one penny, the Democrats win.

If the tax rates increase one tenth of one percent, the Democrats win.

In both cases the battle for whose principles win is to the Democrats.

How do the Republicans win anything in a "compromise"? Slower spending growth? What if the Democrats had overinflated their spending demands just to make sure that they get some increase in the end? (Which they did.)

In the last round, the Republicans beat themselves when they came out saying that tax rates were not increasing and they got spending cuts. Later the spending cuts turned out be less than 1/10th of one percent. They got egg on their face because they accomplished nothing.

The only real solution to the current problem is a settlement that addresses no changes in taxes or spending. Lock both in place. Then legally require that debt service be paid first and that no new contracts can be let out for bid without the money on deposit. Further remove the stupid Democrat Congress law from the Nixon era that removed the president's ability to withhold payment of Congressionally authorized funds.

Obama will abuse that privilege to no end. He will refuse to pay for DOD expenditures and starve Republican favored programs. Fine. He will set the precedent.

With the Democrat blessing on that stupid law's repeal and the Democrat precedent, the next Republican president can move aggressively to fix the problem while Congressmen run for cover in their home districts.

That is the nature of separation of legislative and executive function. It is not Congress's privilege to order money spent. It is to authorize it and set rules of its expenditures. But the president's branch is more than the check writer. It is the oversight and administrative assurance of money well spent at an acceptable price.

Giving the president back this power will have some of the effect of a line-item veto, except with a wider scope.

Republican qualifications to be president

2011-06-16T11:23:00.000-04:00

On June 14th Rush Limbaugh did a monologue during Hour 2 on the discrepancy of the media's requirement that Republican presidential candidates have experience and qualifications for office against the media's allowance for Obama's own and his cabinet officers' lack of experience.

Rush repeatedly asked the rhetorical question what was Obama's qualifications? Why the difference?

I believe that I see a simple answer in the media's liberal viewpoint of the world. Democrats are the carriers of the Holy Grail of Socialism. Wherever they bear the Grail, good will follow.

The Republicans only useful purpose is as servants of the Grail. Republicans best serve the Grail of Socialism by running Socialistic programs efficiently. Republicans are only useful as managers. As anyone knows, good managers must be experienced. If the Republican is experienced, he serves the media two ways: first he has demonstrated ability (which fits the media's desire to appear logical) and he has demonstrated his fealty and subservience to the Socialist Grail by refusing to dismantle their utopian vision.

A good manager then is one who is efficient and follows his master's orders without question. The good Republican is a slave to the Socialist Grail.

Since the good Democrat bears the Grail, he can serve the utopian vision by merely advocating for the expansion of Socialism. The programs he supports don't need to be efficient. They don't need to be questioned. They need to be implemented with haste before the Republicans stop the growth of utopia.

From the premise, so much becomes obvious. Democrats are comfortable with Islamic notions of dhimmitude, where good Christians and Jews don't need to share in Mohammed's vision but they must be subservient to it. Democrats are comfortable with Chinese notions that good capitalists can be tolerated as long as the capitalists stay subservient to the Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army.

Conservative Republicans and Tea Parties are despised simply because they don't know their proper place in society. They won't hail the Socialist Grail or its bearers.

Bin Laden killed because . . .

2011-05-01T23:42:00.000-04:00

Obama got Osama because Obama told Panetta to getthe bad guy. Hmmmm.

Bush never gave that instruction to the CIA before?

Obama decided there was enough info?

So it was today? That at least explains the late night news.

Bin Laden Dead! Why the late night announcement?

2011-05-01T23:36:00.000-04:00

Bin Laden is dead as of a week ago.

Who leaked the news that forced Obama out of bed to announce it?

They waited this long. Why not a few more hours?

if government union payroll deductions persist ...

2011-04-09T08:19:00.001-04:00

Where Republicans fail to get rid of union dues for government employee unions, maybe Republicans need to come up with an alternative. I would propose that all government employees be mandated to pay into a fund for the funding and growth of Christian churches. The employee can then choose which church they want the money to go to.The keys to this plan would be that the employee would contribute to the growth of something better. All employees would be required to contribute to Christian churches. This would include atheists, Jews, and Buddhists .If these Christian churches would find it appropriate to use the money to open Christian schools, that would be acceptable. If these Christian churches would find it acceptable to give money to antiabortion groups, that would be acceptable. If these Christian churches chose to give the money to organizations of supported Christian causes but eventually ended up in the Republican Party or the coffers of republican candidates, that would be acceptable. Like the required contributions to the government employee unions, the rationale for the required deductions from payroll would have a surface explanation that sounded good for the average person to see that they were contributing to a larger calling. It would also have the ability to fund political action on the half of a particular party. If you have the added benefit of allowing all the people handling the money to be able to write themselves big paychecks in order to justify their actions in promoting this Christian cause. If we are to use the rationales proposed by the Democrats to justify mandatory payroll deductions to democratic government employee unions, this plan passes muster all fronts.

Calorie Consumption Cost

2011-03-29T14:13:00.000-04:00

The discussion of energy always seems to make little sense to the general public. I would encourage conservatives to create an index of costs for calories consumed.

Part of this idea goes to the old Clinton considered BTU Tax. They wanted to tax the fuels used based on their power delivered for work in vehicles, machinery, etc.

This measure is meaningless to the everyday lives of consumers, so it was ideal for Democrat gamesmanship.

The same energy can be measured in calories. While the average voter cannot really define a calorie as "the heat necessary to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius" (if I am not mistaken), the average voter knows how many calories some of their foods are and how much they cost.

That seems like a greater measuring stick to discuss the ridiculous costs of solar energy versus oil or coal. Adjust in the subsidies and taxes for various points of view and we have a real conversation.

Just imagine a mom discussing the CCC of her cereal versus oil versus solar energy. That is real economic analysis at the voter's level.

Down and Out on $250,000 a Year - TheFiscalTimes.com

2010-12-08T08:35:00.000-05:00

Down and Out on $250,000 a Year - TheFiscalTimes.com:

While this analysis is very gentle toward the quarter million dollar family, it is still an interesting different perspective.

The key points for me as a bankruptcy attorney are that, just because a family can qualify for a traditional mortgage at 80LTV (translation: 20% down, which is loan at 80% of home value) and get car loans for two nice cars, that is not necessary good financial practice.

Qualifying for a large loan does not mean living comfortably with a large loan.

The lessons here are not income related. The lessons are ratio related. The banks loan money at acceptable ratios -- as the bank defines "acceptable."

If the family were to try these goals from the start, what would the difference be?

1. Payoff student loans aggressively within about 5 years of starting this experiment.

2. Take a home mortgage with the same down payment but seek a 50LTV qualification. That means lower home value which means likely a smaller house, smaller utility bills (if house is actually smaller), cheaper homeowner association dues, lower property taxes, smaller yard so less costly landscaping and maintenance, fewer rooms to fill with furniture and furnishings, less storage space so less clutter possible, etc.

3. Keep cars for 8-10 years (mileage and maintenance allowing).

Essentially this family will have more disposable income inside of 5 years than they have now.

It is very conceivable, assuming only a 10% increase in recreational spending, they could have $100,000 saved outside of retirement plans.

Now they can upgrade homes, keep the same ratios, without severely affecting their costs of living. Why? All the income now spent on student loans and car payments might be available for the larger mortgage. The money previously saved on house maintenance, property taxes, and landscaping, may no longer be saved, but a cash savings built up gives breathing room. The prior payments toward principal on the mortgage become additional leverage (assuming a break even or better on the old home). in the new down payment.

The cash in savings is generating interest or dividends. It should grow nominally in most markets (see "modern portfolio theory" articles to outline investment methods).

The key to living better is limiting loans, especially home mortgages. Realtors have many wonderful things to say about mortgages and their interest deductions. They are true -- as far as they go. But realtors are not tax advisors. They don't look at the added costs of more expensive homes like higher property tax payments, more rooms to furnish, more landscaping costs, larger utility bills, larger homeowner association dues, etc. I would hazard a guess that the interest deduction from your income taxes is exceeded by the increased costs of ownership. That doesn't even address the "keeping up with the Joneses" problem.

If the old lesson about enemies is "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," the financial equivalent is "Keep your loans small, and your mortgage smaller."

Another old line is "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions." I would suggest a financial spin, "The path to Bankruptcy Court is paved with a large mortgage." For the more financially technical minds, "The path to Bankruptcy Court is paved with a large LTV."

Julian Assange: Should Espionage Act Be Used Against Him? - The Daily Beast

2010-12-02T12:59:00.000-05:00

Julian Assange: Should Espionage Act Be Used Against Him? - The Daily Beast:

Being of a libertarian mindset, while being firmly Republican, I do not like to press freedoms into shapes that cause those same freedoms not to look and act as intended. It is like taking a jelly donut and pressing into a Santa cookie cutter, but calling it a donut. Is it still a donut?

With Assange case, it becomes clear that most proponents of free speech, like the ACLU or their wannabes, don't know what they are talking about. Free speech is not about speech with impunity.

Free speech, as aptly described for our Founding Fathers' edification by Lord Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Common Law, suggested that freedoms of speech and press are about the freedom from being prevented from airing an opinion. Blackstone explains that this is not without consequence. After a thought has been expressed, there still can be legal consequences for the speaker or writer. He uses the law of libel and slander as examples. The harm can be done but the harm can lead to punishment.

In this case, we have perfect example of Blackstone's theory. Asange can legally have protected First Amendment rights but still be punished. The government did not act to prevent publication. Asange's rights were protected.

Now the punishment issue. Is it appropriate?

In private industry, there is a strong notion of Intellectual Property Rights and Trade Secrets, as demonstrated in the growing use of the Uniform Trade Secret Act throughout the states. In this law, a company can create an asset that is its right to keep secret. The employees agree not to disclosure, and the employer can take an employee to court to enforce the trade secret. This includes the right to stop the person's freedom of speech about private information. It includes the right to seize information where practicable from certain hands beyond the employee.

My complaint in these types of cases is that we treat the government's national security secrets as legal less protected than commercial trade secrets. Why? Because the press is involved. That is crazy. It is incoherent.

A private person has the right to remain protected in his person, property, and papers. Why? Because the Constitution says so? Not according to Jefferson's writing in the Declaration of Independence. It is because of unalienable rights given by God. It is because of Natural Law. The Constitution does not create the right. It recognizes something that already existed. See Amendments IX and X for further clarification of the point.

In the same vein, a government has a Natural Law right to its own secrets. The First Amendment does not supersede that governmental right. The Federal Government owns the intellectual property that Manning agreed not to disclose by signing up for the military and security clearance. Manning stole government property in the form of National Security Secrets.

The Courts can and should exercise equitable jurisdiction to seize such intellectual property on the basis of clear and convincing evidence of irreparable harm. That includes such information in the hands of a citizen or a foreign national of a friendly nation. (My legal analysis purposely stops at the water's edge for the simplicity of my key argument. The analysis of comity between nations to further this analysis is another topic.)

The problem in this case is not the risk of damage to freedom of speech or of the press. The problem is the accepted analysis of this case misses the point that property has been stolen.

Manning remains free, even after his theft, to say or print what he wants about his observations or opinions. He does not have the right to convert, sell, alienate, convey, or waste another person's intellectual property that he has agreed not to publish.

Assange is the recipient of stolen property. He cannot exercise dominion over that property that he did not receive as a bona fide purchaser for value. Even then, the theft prevents Assange from treating it as his own.

The problem with my analysis is not that I am incorrect. The problem is that political class would find this analysis devastating to their normal method of operation.

Newspapers that receive information that does not belong to the source would be subject to seizure and court intervention.

The problem that we have is that court's treatment of free speech arose over decades where we did not have a good operational concept of intellectual property. All utterances were treated as equal without regard to the information's title of ownership.

My analysis would put the courts in greater play and would have the effect of increasing the consequences to spies and wannabe whistle-blowers who fall outside the scope of whistle-blower safe harbor requirements.

Still the analysis allows a better means of stopping distribution of government information and proclaiming a natural right to do so.

The courts would be kept busy reinterpreting the caselaw, but the effectiveness and predictability of those decisions following this analysis would quickly reduce litigation at the appellate level and focus primarily on the merits of any particular case.

The mess of rules that we have now essentially creates the Wikileaks' problem becoming more common rather than less.

Thoughts on Citizenship & Immigration

2010-11-27T15:22:00.002-05:00

I have been reading Andrew McCarthy's book the Grand Jihad. He repeatedly emphasizes freedom defined by individual choices to attempt to improve oneself versus the Communist and Islamistic definition of freedom as freedom from want or need.

He discusses the desire of Communists and Islamists to kill or repress anyone who does not comply with their taking life, liberty, or property to create the utopian freedom from want.

In the Islamistic mindset, a former Muslim is an apostates. The punishment for apostasy is death by execution or assassination.

Our problem with our borders and the risk of naturalized citizens with these ideals is impossible in our current method. Once a terrorist gets US citizenship he is difficult to treat like the enemy combatant or spy that he really is.

One of our best defenses is the Oath of Citizenship. A person who violates the Oath can have his citizenship revoked.

Clearly in the American experience we do not seek to require a person to conform to a state-defined religion or approved sets of religion. We want uniformly enforced laws without regard to the person's religion.

I have a simple proposition: amend the oath to add a line, "I swear or affirm that I do not seek nor am I currently affiliated with any group that seeks to physically punish or kill persons for not complying with specific political or religious beliefs. I further swear or affirmed that I have disclosed all past such affiliations in my application of citizenship."

This simple amendment would prevent Islamic terrorists from legally obtaining citizenship or keeping citizenship once the oath is taken. Past affiliation then do not prevent citizenship, but failure to fully disclose does. Current affiliation should prevent citizenship.

This pattern of oath makes sense. Islam allows Muslims to lie under oath to non-believers. The oath being enforced by God or Allah is not the point. The point is that perjury would be a basis for removing the protection of citizenship.

This oath would merely preventing foreign nationals from moving to the states as trained terrorists and obtaining citizenship under false pretenses. The naturalized Muslim father who kills his daughter for converting to Christianity or adultery can have his citizenship revoked.

The problem becomes for religious Muslims who earnestly want to be American citizens. By attending a mosque regularly, they would have to face the conflict of the Koran with the Constitution.

I will not presume how they would have to resolve the inherent conflict between those two documents to become an American citizens. They know the Koran and the laws of Sharia better than I do.

They should be forced to create a solution to the problem before becoming an American.

Similarly we would need to deal with the problem of American-born Muslim children under the XIVth Amendment's requirements. Such a non-American terrorist could bear and raise a child here. Such a child should not be required to swear an oath of allegiance.

My solution would be to prevent visas from being granted to persons not able to swear such an oath for entry unless under diplomatic passport. Diplomats' kids born in the US don't get US citizenship.

We should grant free immigration rights to those who wish to come here, so long as they are obligated to swear they do not seek physical punishment for apostates. The right of free exercise of religion remains without a cloak of First Amendment claims to physically coerce or threaten others to be part of that religion.

That is true freedom of religion, uniformly enforced.

The Politics of Rare Earth - China Tracker - What a superpower wants - Forbes

2010-10-08T16:25:00.000-04:00

The Politics of Rare Earth - China Tracker - What a superpower wants - Forbes:

This is a wonderful summary of the problem that some of my business friends have run into. It creates unnecessary problems for them.

Did you know about it?

RealClearMarkets - Gold Isn't Expensive, Instead the Dollar Is Cheap

2010-09-21T21:02:00.000-04:00

RealClearMarkets - Gold Isn't Expensive, Instead the Dollar Is Cheap: This is a really good article about gold and international monetary exchange.

As for China, for Geithner et al to suggest that a stronger yuan will make Chinese goods less competitive on the world stage (thus supposedly making ours more desirable) is the equivalent of a restaurant chef arguing that a shorter minute would reduce the amount of time necessary to cook a soufflé. In truth, money is only a veil, and if the yuan rises even more against the dollar, Chinese goods will continue to arrive here (thankfully) en masse much as Japanese goods did after 1971 when the yen began a 20-year climb against the dollar.

The above is the case because while goods priced in yuan will be more expensive in dollar terms, the costs of goods necessary to manufacture Chinese products will by definition decline. In yuan terms everything will become cheaper for Chinese manufacturers, which means any yuan strength will be mitigated by reduced costs of production.

Even better for China, a revaluation upward would be dynamite for an economy suffering from a devaluation authored in the U.S. The seen here is China's growing economic clout, but the unseen is how much greater China's growth would be if its currency weren't pegged to an inflationary dollar which, on the margin, is making investment in China more of a challenge too.

Constitution as Partnership?

2010-09-17T15:01:00.003-04:00

This is a continuation of a Comment that I posted at AmericanThinker.com. This is what I began below:

Mr. Roth comes close to a working theory that I have been considering for a number of months now. Unfortunately, I must say that my conclusion is not quite the same.

I am an attorney in private practice who practices trust & estate law and corporate law. Consequently, I actually use these concepts in daily practice and have to argue their consequences in court. As I see it, if this theory is laid out well within the doctrine of law, it becomes less an analogy and more a working theory driving future lawsuits and arguments to the Supreme Court.

I contend that the theory of the Constitution as a partnership agreement has severe flaws. Where it is strong, my theory reinforces those strengths.

What did the founders believe they were writing? They were writing an agreement, yes. Who were the parties? Clearly the states were parties in their capacity as independent, sovereign states (i.e., now referred to colloquially as "countries" except in International Law). If one views a state as sovereign, like an anointed king, this is the end of the discussion. But the Constitution in its preamble identifies the parties to the agreement as "We, the People, of the United States do ordain and establish." The whole notion of who are the parties or as the United States Supreme Court Justices would put it, "Who has standing to litigate the Constitution?" Court precedent deprives many people of the right to contest Constitutional issues. Yet the Constitution identifies the parties as the People. Not the States.

If this is an agreement between the States, the States should be identified as the parties to the agreement. They are not. Were the States named as parties, this agreement, this Constitution, would clearly be best analyzed as a partnership agreement or shareholders' agreement in a new corporate entity.

The States are not the parties. The parties were the People of United States of America alive at the time of the writing of Constitution.

In Common Law partnerships, a partnership ceases to exist at the death of anyone of the partners (modern statutes have significantly modified this practice because of the problems mentioned below, but let's stick with the Common Law for a minute). When the Founders (the signers and ratifying voters of the Constitution) put this process into effect, they did not have a mindset of entering a partnership. If a citizen died, the partnership would dissolve. That wouldn't work because citizens died every day.

Something deeper was in play.

The problem that the Founders left us in at that step is that they did not define what a Constitution is. For the some of the reasons I recited above, it is not a partnership agreement.

The Founders were granting (legal word meaning "give property to") some of their sovereignty to a new organization using a written document with specific grants of power and certain limitations. What is sovereignty? It is a property right. In English law it is the right of the king to control his subjects without answer to a higher authority. Using Locke's logic, the American Founders treated sovereignty as belonging to the People.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

(Paragraphs added for ease of reading.) So the People have rights. The People establish governments. Such governments' power derives from the consent of the governed. The People alter and institute government.

Governments as sovereign is not a principle that any informed American can stomach.

What are governments if they are readily subject to abolition or alteration by those who receive the benefit of this entity?

Corporations are entities granted rights by government to a few persons. Their main purpose is to regulate its activites and limit the liability of the investors to encourage risk taking. That may sound like what the Democrats have in mind, but I doubt that is what the Founders had in mind. Every shareholder has a piece of paper describing his limited rights in the corporation. Leaving is easy: sell your shares.

Partnerships are alter egos of the partners and may or may not have any agreement on how the enterprise should be run. Leaving is easy: quit.

Most other forms of entities fit within the range between these two. Yet do not accurately describe the American Constitution.

"We, the People, of the United States of America . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Founders believed they were creating a new entity and giving it almost holy duties like a priest being ordained.

They did not "agree". They did not "go into business with."

In the history of English Common Law, this has a strange history. The word "law" in the Common Law context is the rights and duties of the king's subjects that the king would grant justice on a petition for a writ, arising from a treaty between King Stephen and the future King Henry II in 1154. The Common Law was limited in scope but was so efficient that grew to be the ideal method for resolving many disputes. This was focused on contracts, money, and land.

In parallel another court arose under the auspices of King's Chancellor with heavy reliance on Canon Law (church law) and principles of fairness, referred to as equity. This body of law was focused on family related issues, including perpetuating the family's wealth, fairness, and issues outside of contracts or business.

The choice of our Founders to "ordain" the Constitution does not make the Constitution a matter of these principles of equity, but the word choice is striking in its reference to a church term rather than a contractual term such as "grant" or "donate".

Since the Founders quickly became enmeshed in the daily requirements of governance, the amount of legal theory discussed and preserved after the Constitution's adoption seems worthy of note. Some like Madison continued to deal with these issues. Some came to it as a matter of their position, like John Marshall, most did not delve into the issues repeatedly.

The consequence of this is the Founders did not completely address what body of law should inform interpretation of the Constitution.

Let's assume for a moment that the Founders did have an existing body of law that they would have selected to use to interpret the Constitution. I have already suggested that corporate law and partnership law are not good candidates.

Would the Founders have been comfortable with Trust Law? The difficulty with Trust Law is that few of the colonists would have been well informed on such law. The Founders may not have been either.

Yet there is much that recommends Trust Law as the best source of rules for interpretation. Trusts are agreements between a Trustmaker (i.e., grantor, settlor, or trustor) and a selected person to manage the Trust, the Trustee. The Trustmaker sets the rules for managing the assets in the Trust. The Trustee agrees to abide by these rules. If the Trustee fails to abide by the rules of the Trust, the Courts can discharge the Trustee and hold him liable.

Trusts were in operation in and around the days of the Constitution's founding and still create legal issues today (e.g., Dartmouth University's trust and management disputes of recent years).

If the Constitution and other similarly created governments are merely Trusts, what effect does that have on interpreting the document and the role that government officers play?

A Trust could be interpreted as having an expiration date (e.g, the Rule against Perpetuities). I doubt such a requirement is what the Founders (other than Jefferson) would really have intended.

A Trust could be interpreted as being interpreted within the original intent of the Trustmaker. If the Trustmaker's intentions could not be met, under the doctrine of cy pres, the Court would attempt to approximately as closely as possible. Under this notion, the Court specifically states (1) that the Trustmaker's intentions are impossible to accomplish, and (2) that the Trust is modified to have new terms and conditions to reasonably conform to the Trustmaker's intentions. This identification of impossibility would be beneficial in modern opinions. It would force the judge to be more honest.

"The First Amendment deals with Presses and Speeches and Exercise of Religion. It does not deal with Blogs, Radios, and Television. It is impossible for us, judges, to comply with the letter of the Constitution. Our best approximation would be to allow free communication to mass audiences in writing without being limited to pressing the word onto paper. If we could unilaterally modify the Constitution, we would include Blogs, Radio, and Television within First Amendment protections. We have no such power.

"However, the First Amendment is informative of the Founder's intent and informs us as to how to interpret the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment overcomes the Common Law rule that presumes a list is a complete definition unless the list is clearly to provide merely examples. Consequently, we know that Founders recognized rights as being broader than what was stated in the Constitution or its Amendments.

"We find that rights recognized by Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and others did not cease to exist by writing down some rights in the Constitution. In fact it is to preserve those rights that the Constitution was intended to function. Under the Doctrine of cy pres, freedom to write, speak, and pray cannot be limited under the Ninth Amendment."

If this were a mere contract that whole opinion would be impossible. If a contract obligation is impossible, it either causes the whole contract to fail, or, in the presence of severability clause (a clause allowing removal of impossible or illegal provisions without causing the contract to fail) , the problem phrase is eliminated. Notice that the Constitution has no severability clause.

Even more importantly than court decisions, it would force the wider population to take a stricter look at how a Trustee should handle somebody else's money. The strict rules for care would apply. The strict rules for not favoring one beneficiary over another would be easier to see.

In short, Trust law is about asset management and watching out for the beneficiaries' interest.

The whole notion of States' Rights would be harmed (sorry, modern day Confederates) since it would clearly show that the State is just another subtrust. The need for abolition of the 17th Amendment may arise again to allow for a better balancing of interests between the States. (Note: I am not a four-square advocate for this. Such a change would require a study of the problems of seating senators under the old rules. Very problematic.)

Just some food for thought.

Higher Debt: Is the student loan industry headed for a meltdown? « » Print The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

2010-09-08T20:29:00.001-04:00

Higher Debt: Is the student loan industry headed for a meltdown? « » Print The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment:

In my bankruptcy practice, I see this problem as far worse today than even this good article does.

I have spoken to recent graduates and parents of current students. Both are drowning in debt now.

For parents, it is far worse. They are trying to pay student loans for their kids and prepare for retirement.

The bubble has already burst. We just haven't felt the consequences yet.

Obama nationalized student loan financing along with healthcare. That default rate is going to show in the national deficit now. $849 billion of loans with 20% default rate since 1995. That rate is skyrocketing right now as parents with debts become unemployed. Any bankruptcy practioner can quickly tell you about the millions of dollars in student loan debt that their clientele represent. I haven't been at bankruptcy long and my clientele is already pushing toward the first million dollars quickly.

Congress is going to need to cut this program and soon.

When the mortgage bubble popped, I first experienced it with a deal gone sour in April 2007. It took 18 months for many people outside the real estate industry to face the same facts. Acquaintances of mine from Las Vegas have stories that go back many months earlier than my experience.

The same thing is already in play for student loans. Kantorwitz is smoking dope. He doesn't see the problem because he is dealing with people entering the pipeline. He is like a mortgage broker. They are the last to see the problem. Their job is to keep filling the pipeline until people on the other end, like me as a bankruptcy attorney, say there is no more room in the pipeline.

Obama's nationalization of the student loan market has temporarily hidden the problem from general view. He has made the ultimate collapse later and larger.

Sound like Fannie Mae all over again?

A Tsunami Approaches: The Beginning of the Great Deconstruction | Newgeography.com

2010-09-07T10:30:00.000-04:00

A Tsunami Approaches: The Beginning of the Great Deconstruction | Newgeography.com: "-

H/T Wretched at belmontclub.

This article hints at only one of the great Ponzi schemes running through government today: pensions.

Let's not forget about government-guaranteed, highly inflated student loans; Social Security; Medicaid; union healthcare promises.

When states start going into default, it may be too late to correct these government problems at the state level the right way: using the Bankruptcy Code.

Bankruptcy refers to the medieval practice of money changers sitting on benches called "banca" (Latin, Italian) or "banque" (French). When the money changer became insolvent the banker's guild would supposedly break the insolvent money changer's bench. The word for broken was "rupta" (Latin), "rota" (Italian), or "route" (French). The money changer would be banca rupta, banca rota, or banqueroute, respectively.

In modern practice, a person is not collaqu0lly referred to as bankrupt until he files for bankruptcy proceedings. In historic origins, though, a person was technically bankrupt when he was insolvent, that is his current liabilities exceeded his current revenues with little disposable assets to bridge the gap.

The fact is that the States are tending toward this insolvency definition of bankrupt. They don't have enough revenue to meet their current expenses. The problem is that no Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code allows the State to seek the protection of the Bankruptcy Court to reorganize the State's debts.

GM could strip itself of its liabilities to the UAW in part through bankruptcy. Currently, the States have no ability to do the same thing.

Politicians can't do what is necessary to fix their problems. Their best solution is to pass the consequences of their carelessness to federal politicians.

Back To School - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest

2010-09-01T09:23:00.000-04:00

Back To School - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest: What a great article explaining what a student should seek out of college education. Regrets for those pursuing architecture, engineering, or the arts. This article does not deal with how to handle those pursuits.

Birthright citizenship

2010-08-30T08:37:00.005-04:00

Lord Justice Blackstone was an eminent justice in the British legal system before the American Revolution but after Britain's Glorious Revolution in 1688. His book Commentaries on the Common Law reads like an 18th Century legal textbook. It is broad in scope and filled with citations to case law and Parliamentary legislation, unusual for writings of the era. As a result, it has a level of scholarship that would leave many modern writers to shame.

I have not made a study of the matter, but, after 20 years of amateur historical research on the development of the US Constitution and 16 years of practicing law, my impression is that few lawyers or scholars today are well versed on the history of citizenship or immigration law. They regularly feign knowledge but only reflect an understanding of history that goes back to their birth or the birth of the US Constitution.

I would suggest any commentator wishing to be informed on these matters should read at least a handful of books from the Pre-Revolutionary era. Samples include John Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, King Alfred's Code (c. 890, if recollection serves), Magna Carta, etc.

Blackstone on citizenship is truly enlightening as to the development of British policies on citizenship and the Parliamentary motivations for those policies.

Much of the debate on the topic these days focuses on the Fourteenth Amendment and its history. This is a dangerous error.

We all know that words have meaning. We all know that words' meaning shift over time, otherwise "doom" would still refer to pronouncements of judgment by the king rather than an ominous future. Lawyers all know that law is filled with not just buzzwords but legal phrases that significance and a history of interpretation. Sometimes the interpretation is consistent. Sometimes the interpretations vary widely. Still, beginning with the University of Bologna cannon law professor Gratian in the 12th century, legal interpretation has ever increasingly studied different cases to struggle to find consistent interpretations of principle. These struggles often fail, but the attempt is always enlightening. These struggles also cause legal phrases like res ipsa locquitur or due process or self-incrimination to carry meaning for lawyers far beyond what the average layman might suspect.

The Fourteenth Amendment, read in the context of Blackstone, has a similar problem. Blackstone explains in his Commentaries what "subject to the jurisdiction" of the King means. He explains the statutory sources for it. He reads into a justification for it.

I will summarize, poorly, his argument. He breaks the world of people living in Britain at any one moment into three groups: citizens, denizens, and foreigners. He breaks citizens into natural born and naturalized.

Citizens are persons who owe an exclusive duty of allegiance to the king and only the king. The king owes a duty of protection back. Citizens could own real estate. They could transact business.

Denizens were persons not owing an exclusive duty of allegiance. The denizen's loyalty was split between his own king and the limited respect owed to the British crown while in Britain. The denizen had to respect the laws on public order, commerce, and behavior while in Britain and was subject to royal punishment if the denizen violated those rules, just like a citizen. The denizen could not at Blackstone's time own real estate but he could engage in commerce.

The foreigner in England was commonly represented by the foreign king's ambassador. He had no duty of allegiance to the British crown and few rights.

A citizen was any person born to a citizen and to most denizens but never a foreigner.

Blackstone explained that the British Parliament, under Queen Anne or William and Mary, set a policy of easy citizenship to encourage commerce. The theory was encouraging commerce on British shores increased the wealth of the British Isles, so why discourage immigration.

It is significant in the modern context to note that during this era, there was no public welfare programs or other government handouts, other than by grants of land. Consequently, the incentives to move to England were limited to commercial gain for most foreigners.

These same types of policies were carried to the American colonies, so the British Parliament passed legislation to clarify when German immigrants to the colonies could naturalize and become British subjects.

It is at this point, my knowledge has a gap in need of filling. I have not studied the exact policies of the states on naturalization law from the Revolution to the Fourteenth Amendment. By generalized understanding is that the states varied widely. The Southern states refused to recognize blacks as citizens.

At this time there was still no public welfare programs of note. There was large scale immigration to fill the vast empty tracks of middle America.

The context of the Fourteenth Amendment, based on Blackstone's analysis, tends to suggest a mindset started in post-Glorious Revolution of encouraging immigration as means of encouraging commerce, which was logical in the vast colonial and newly formed American context.

Nowhere in the analysis does Blackstone suggest that there is natural right to citizenship by birth. He suggests a legislative history. The logical inference arising from that is that this history should inform us about what the Fourteenth Amendment's phrases mean. It should also suggest to us that legislation has always been important to determining who is entitled to citizenship. It is not fixed and immutable.

Since Blackstone shows that "subject to the jurisdiction" had specific meaning under Parliamentary legislation, the meaning could be changed by Parliamentary action. When the Parliament ceased having authority in American on July 4, 1776, and ratified by Parliament in 1783, American legislatures including Congress stepped into the gap. The Constitution then fixed this authority in Congress alone. The Congress has the right to amend the definition of who is subject to its jurisdiction. In the current environment, naturalized citizens have to take the oath of citizenship. The first statement is a renunciation of any dual loyalties to the jurisdiction of the new citizen's birth.

I cannot find any provision in the 8 US Code sec. 1001 et seq. that suggests that any limited oath of allegiance is required for any alien applying for permission to enter the US. How is someone who owes little allegiance to the US fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Once that person leaves the US, the US has no jurisdiction over the person except for rights of re-entry and whatever assets, debts, or obligations the alien left behind.

Is it enough for a legal alien to run up an unpaid mortgage on his home and leave the US to confer citizenship on his child born abroad? The alien is subject US jurisdiction in rem for the house and in personam for the deficiency judgment. Is that what the US Constitution would define as "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States?

I highly doubt it. I would suspect though that a person subject to being drafted into the US military would be. A male, US citizen has to register with the Selective Service. A green-card alien has to register, too. A person who can be required to put his life on the line for the country (just like the king could demand of his subjects owing him allegiance) is truly fully subject to the jurisdiction of the country.

If that alien can abscond and avoid military service legally, can his child be automatically a US citizen?

Congress has defined citizenship. It is has defined citizenship by birth in the US Code, Title 8. The Fourteenth Amendment does not allow states to have separate definitions of citizenship or to consider a baby born in its borders and subject to the jurisdiction of the US as anything but a citizen.

Blackstone's category of denizen has little meaning in my limited study of American immigration law.

The question then become problematic. The old Ark and Slaughterhouse cases were decided before modern immigration law. Ark turned on a partial reading of Blackstone.

My concern here is persons who enter the US illegally. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the US in the context of criminal law and property ownership. This is similar to Blackstone's denizen. But a denizen presumably had not restriction on his entry into England. Is this a reasonable analogy to the US?

Should a person who commits a misdemeanor by entering the US without authority have the ability to pass citizen to his or her child because of the parent's criminal behavior?

Granting the privilege of being subject to US jurisdiction is Constitutional right reserved to Congress. Neither Supreme Court nor the illegal alien has the authority to change that. Only the Constitutional Amendment process can change it.

Parliament granted a generous definition of becoming subject to British jurisdiction and Congress can retract it. The question for courts is limited to whether a particular person is within the limits or outside of it as a matter of fact.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not give birthright citizenship to all on US soil, if born here only as a result of criminality. The history of these laws and logic simply do not allow such a conclusion.

Equal hatred for Dems and GOP?

2010-07-13T16:44:00.002-04:00

I was reading the highlights on Newsbusters.org regarding Laura Ingraham's appearance on the Today. The blog suggested that Matt Lauer pushed the notion that the Democrats and GOP are equally hated.

I am a reliable Republican and I passionately dislike many Republican members of Congress. If I were answering a pollster, I might answer two-bit questions about passion that suggest that I equally hate Republicans as Democrats. "Q: Do you like or dislike Democrats? Republicans?" "A: Yes, yes.

I know that is not a fair representation of my thoughts. It's just my one-bit answer to a two-bit question.

In truth, I don't like many Democrat representatives as persons, politicians, philosophers, or any other way. I don't like many Republicans as politicians and philosophers.

Being a student of political science (since that is my minor and a law degree gives me different insights), many Republicans don't understand the history of the discipline as arising from the Progressive Movement and their desire to manipulate the populace. The discipline taught in school is about finding out what people think and making them vote the way you want them to. There is little interest in political philosophy.

I don't like Republican politicians because they have been bought and trained by members of the Progressive Movement and their progeny. Consequently, a movement that is built around the principles of Locke, Montesquieue, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et al. is doomed to failure. These are philosophical ideals and systems with an abundant history of success. Since loving these ideas requires study and thought, people who gravitate to these ideas don't think about making them simple.

The common excuse is the ideas can't be put on bumper stickers. With most political science analysis relying heavily on polling, which in turn is built on simple phrases that are easily tested as multiple choice quizzes, the Republican movement has confused itself. It can't express its ideas simply, so its politicians don't even try regularly enough (a few ex-judges, doctors, Rep. Ryan and Bachmann aside).

The lack of effort to persuade is what creates my frustration with Republicans. They don't share a bigger, clearer vision, so little changes and stays changed. McCain had no idea what he wanted to do so he moved few to vote for him.

The Democrats of 2008 (especially Obama) made all sorts of noises about Hope and Change and big visions. I had no use for them because there were no specifics (without tunneling into their websites) and their promises were wildly contradictory. Now that the Democrats true desires have been exposed and tried, we know what kind of mess they are seeking. I can say objectively that I dislike the Democrat vision.

So, we can say clearly, for those of like mind to me, my dislike of Democrats is both as to the person, the political strategy, and daily tactics. The Republicans I dislike because of the lack of strategy and poor choice of tactics.

No, Mr. Lauer, it is not fair to say that both sides are disliked equally. Democrats can have a similar if opposite reaction. To reduce these complex thoughts down to being equal is sophistry if not down right stupidity.

Oil spill clean up in three (?) easy steps

2010-05-12T20:38:00.002-04:00

These guys are brilliant in their practicality.

Experience Necessary to be a Justice

2010-05-11T10:13:00.002-04:00

Does a person appointed to the US Supreme Court need to have experience as a judge?

This is a question that we see everywhere. It is a great question. We have a history of great justices with no experience on the bench.

Chief Justice John Marshall is one. Then-Justice-Select Rehnquist is another (Remember he had over 10 years experience when President Reagan promoted him to Chief Justice).

To Kagan's credit, she has more Supreme Court experience than John Marshall or Rehnquist on the day of her nomination. She has clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Thurgood Marshall and served as Solicitor General. Both are very important positions for the day-to-day activities of the Court. While that experience amounts to no more than a handful of years, it does count.

Her experience as Dean of Harvard Law does count. That is a responsibility known for herding cats. That knowledge of human interaction where human interaction is not known for being a day-to-day requirement is important. If you don't have the experience before you get to the Court, you are not likely to obtain it on the Court. The Court has famously been described as nine separate law firms with each Justice running his or her own independent operation. That does not create a lot of interaction other than via memo.

So is she fit for duty? (Oooo . . . . I didn't mean to step into the military recruiting debate where she refused to allow military recruiters into Harvard Law.) Is she fit to be Justice? If she ascribed to Learned Hand's unique philosophy of progressivism and judicial restraint, I would have fewer than objections than the more recent push to toward activist, Aliniski-ite, socialism empowerment. A Justice with socialistic proclivities common to self-described liberals or progressives is less corrupting of our system with an adherence to judicial restraint. There erroneous decisions are less damaging to the system because they move in smaller steps. It gives time for the body politic to study and react to decisions.

The danger of activist judges and Justices is not their philosophy but their leaps in logic that are nearly impossible to fix. Roe v. Wade's failings are more a matter of leaps in logic than what it proscribes. If a voter hated abortion before the decision, a small step would allow the voter to advocate legislative adaptations and fixes to the decision. If a voter is prevented from changing anything about abortion, hatred and resentment boil over. Consequently, the liberals on the Court have created the anger that they blame on anti-abortion promoters.

If Kagan, like many recent liberal decisions, would push to prevent voters from having a say over religion, prayer, government expenditures (e.g., Kansas City public schools), private expenditures (e.g., mandatory ER treatment without payment), we will have made no improvement over Stevens.

Parable about Healthcare

2010-03-26T13:35:00.002-04:00

This HotAir posting is a great way of making our points about Obamacare.

Power Line - The DOJ Seven, Michael Mukasey's take

2010-03-11T09:06:00.001-05:00

Power Line - The DOJ Seven, Michael Mukasey's take

The reason that the so-called Al-Qaeda Seven are so disturbing to me is less about whether the DOJ has attorneys that have represented these terrorists or not. It is about the Democrat tendency toward a mental habit that logisticians would call the fallacy of the band wagon and the popular press would call -- in an Orwellian turn of phrase -- GroupThink. I prefer to think of it less about what it affirmatively is and more about what it excludes. I would call it "monolithicism." All ideas must bow down to the monolithic idea.

Monolithicism is most likely to occur in a situation where the elites not only reject the people's ideas of what the content of rules should but that the people should have any input into the discussion. The monolithic idea must be rammed down the people's throat in such a way that the people never get to undo the new rule. Imagine that you are Napoleon III trying to redesign Paris so that you can prevent the people from barracading the streets in protest, like happened in Victor Hugo's Les miserables. To fix the problem, you take the people's property, destroy their buildings and homes, so that you can build the Champs-Elysee as a monumental street connecting the the Arch of Triumph and the historic Concorde Plaza. To build the monolithic street, the people had to be walked over. The excuse for this process is that Napoleon III leaves behind a legacy of an increasingly peaceful Paris with a majestic street that people like me adore. The pain of some people for the monolithic of historic proportions.

Think of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is completely subject to legislative bodies. There is no shadow (yes, I know the phrase is "penumbra," but what is "penumbra" but a type of shadow) of the Constitution that can be said to favor killing babies. There is no literary or philosophical concept in existence in 1787 (that I have seen, admittedly) that addresses abortion as a natural right. Even so, the Supreme Court shoved the monolith of abortion down our throats. The people have been in an uproar for and against ever since.

Monolithicism justifies all its evils as the perpetrators know better than the people. The people must not only be ignored, they must be penned in so that their complaints have no effect. (Just think about Denver's Protest Pen at the 2004 Democrat National Convention.) In America to build our equivalents of the Champs-Elysee, we have had eminent domain. The persons forced to give their land don't like it, but they get compensation. The system can be abused, but the property owner does get a hearing before a judge and a right of appeal on the pricing and legitimacy of the eminent domain procedures applied. Not terribly monolithic.

This brings me back to the Al-Qaeda Seven. The DOJ has a very strange notion that the President should have no input on how the department should be run due to legal and prosecutorial ethics. I agree that it should have a limited impact from White House staff who are not members of the bar (compare many states rules requiring owners and directors of law firms to be lawyers). I vigorously disagree that the President should have no say.

Yet, as an outsider, I fear the Al-Qaeda Seven and their friends are in a position to impose their shared monolithic notions about how a terrorist should be treated by US soldiers and law enforcement without any input from people of the quality of former AUSA Andrew McCarthy, the blind sheikh's prosecutor. Since the President is not allowed any real input, I don't trust AG Holder, and I hear of few leading luminaries in Holder's (not Obama's) DOJ, what input do the people have to prevent the imposition of monolithicist ideas about terrorists being abused by the US?

Reflections on 1994 and 1996

2010-02-17T08:51:00.002-05:00

As Obama goes down in flames, more discussion of his one-term presidency is arising.

Rush Limbaugh often describes Rep. Gephardt's analysis from over a decade ago that the more unemployment goes up, the better the Democrats will be served at the next election.

In 1994, we all know Clinton lost the Congress. Reasons are debated. My judgment is that Clinton pushed ridiculous ideas and bad budgets. The Republican Congress forced Clinton to correct those two items.

In 1996, the good, gentle, and moderate Dole ran against Clinton with little distinction or clear ideas. He was the un-Clinton.

Now the discussions of who is best served by Obama losing the Congress become very interesting. If a largely Republican Congress arises in 2011, Obama has two choices: go Clinton or go further left. He won't be able to stand still. Political operatives will suggest following Clinton. Common sense would concur.

The remaining question then is whether Republicans merely select the un-Obama, like they did in 1996. Recent history suggests that this is not the most likely result. McCain was very nearly the un-Obama. The Republican base has no use for him as a politician (albeit a great man in nearly other sphere). The base wants somebody more like themselves.

Senior citizens like my father love Reagan for his 1964 Republican Convention speech. Middle age citizens like me love Reagan for his presidency. Young Americans just starting to vote have no memory of Reagan. They know him as intimately as they know George Washington -- as a historical figure. Yet strangely, these three groups can speak about Reagan from a policy perspective in inverse order. The youth have been raised on discussions of the Reagan history. They don't remember the Lebanon barracks bombing, but they know he was tough on Islamic radicals. They have heard the stories even if they can't recite them.

The middle age remember the events and have discussed the theory. They are most intimately aware of the Reagan legacy that they want to pass to their kids.

The senior citizens remember the events but have varying awareness of the history or larger context. Their awareness of the history can be best traced to talk radio listenership. Listeners know the historical summary best.

What does that mean for Obama's re-election in 2012? The more the Republican candidate can tap into that shared knowledge of the Reagan legacy while not getting lost in trying to repeat history, the better the Republican will succeed. The candidate needs to know the Reagan legacy and be able to discuss it. The candidate needs to be able to explain what the internet is and how Al Gore did not invent it or what Global Warming is not and how Al Gore helped invent the myth.

We are dealing with a world filled with myths, legends, and frauds. Stories all. George Washington's cherry tree may be a myth, but it seek goodness. Reagan's use of Pointe d'Hoc may have illustrated the bravery of men in a legendary struggle from which legends of individual soldiers can and should arise. Then we have Obama and Gore and Pelosi all pushing frauds of winning the Iraq War based on Obama's brilliant new strategies, Global Warming, or budgetary deficits create strong economies and jobs.

The Republican candidates needs to be able to tell stories of inspiration and insight and puncture the balloons of fraud and lies. Can we predict Obama's fall now? No, because we don't know who the other candidate is. Let's not assume that such a person will succeed until we know that we don't have another Dole or McCain.

Thoughts on Moderates

2009-11-24T07:23:00.003-05:00

This is a year old post, but I think the reasoning is sound.

One of the great ironies of life is the Uriah Heep Syndrome. In Charles Dickens's book David Copperfield, the character Uriah Heep spends the entire book reciting how humble he is. Every time he appears, he says, "I am so humble." By the end of the book, his inflated ego become abundantly clear. UHS is the syndrome where a person describes himself as being what he wishes to be, but is clearly the opposite.

I find most moderates as having severe cases of UHS. They believe that they are the smartest and best informed people in the room. As a result of this information, they are best able to assess which candidate is best by looking at each candidate issue by issue.

In practice, these moderates are not interested enough to do the research to find out issue by issue what each candidate believes. But even if there is an exception or two that does do an analysis issue by issue, moderates by definition have no political philosophy to inform their judgment. They have no knowledge base to draw on. I don't mean to say that a moderate physician has no knowledge of medicine to draw on. I mean that moderate physician has no political philosophical knowledge. Ask that physician to compare and contrast Marx and Burke. In my experience, that physician can't.

That physician has every reason to proclaim his depth of knowledge, experience, intelligence, and practicality. If not for those, the physician could not succeed professionally. Unfortunately that professional focus risks depriving the physician from being able to converse in great depth in political philosophy. He is an ideal candidate to seek comfort in declaring himself to be a moderate.

This declaration is really a failed attempt of turning ignorance of politics, economics, and law into an asset.

UHS is really likely to occur when a person does not like what that person observes in himself. To remove the undesirable characteristic, the person declares himself to be the opposite.

UHS is part of the normal tools of psychological defense mechanisms. We all do it. The chubby person that declares that he is on a diet when he eats the donut is playing a non-verbal form of UHS. The fat woman in the tight pants. The high school drop out that is worried about being disrespected. These people all have self-image that they are trying to ignore and play a different personality to the world.

The severe cases of UHS are not just minor deflections but are the person's identity. They embrace the UHS and will destroy themselves to live it out.

For Republicans to be successful, they need to stand firm on identified core philosophies and repeat the truth. When confronted with a moderate or a liberal, do not accept the false premises that the moderate or liberal use. If the moderate says, "I look at the candidate issue by issue." The Republican needs to look the moderate squarely in the eye and challenge them on the truth of this statement by playing along. The Republican could say, "Wow, how many hours of research do you do on each candidate to make a decision. I mean, take the last XXX race where Candidate A was a radical Democrat and Candidate B was a strict Conservative. Walk me through the issues."

I would submit that the moderate can't do that. They say the analysis is done, but they don't. They pick up catch phrases and recite those. But they don't understand the catch phrases actual impact.

Moderates need to be challenged. If they go Democrat, they go Democrat. Once they start moving though, the moderate is more likely to become a Republican. They're usually only moderates because the Democrats make them uncomfortable and they don't hear enough about what Republicans believe from non-Democrats.

Challenge the moderates. Win a Republican convert.

Compartimentalizing Morality

2009-11-04T11:01:00.002-05:00

Absolutely brilliant point on environmentalism's failure in environmental issues.

So We're Running out of Gas?

2009-10-12T09:14:00.004-04:00

We are running out of gas?

The left's hype is getting blown out of the water again.

When are we going to quit listening to the hype the Democrat's side of the discussion keep pushing? They are wrong every time we turn around.

FDR's Second Bill of Rights has Second Life?

2009-09-15T16:38:00.002-04:00

Professor Epstein argues that civil educated discourse being drowned out by uncivil persons on your own side makes informative debate difficult and then shows simply that Professor Sunstein's reaffirmation of FDR's Second Bill of Rights is unworkable.

All true. The problem is that the good professors are too caught up in intellectual notions.

The US Bill of Rights works. Early criminal works because they took of one of the key advantages of controlling an opponent -- denying him part of the field of play.

The idea is simplest on a chess board. Trying to learn chess a few years back, I bought a book by Eddie Fisher. One of the key notions is limiting your opponent's ability to move. Use the edge of the board as a weapon, then push him toward that edge that he cannot course. Think of a king versus a queen. For every move the king makes, the queen can swift react and push the king into a corner before retirement becomes evident for even a beginner.

The notion of good law is that it simply prohibits part of the field of play from the criminal. Do not murder. Murder is the knowing or intentional killing of another. Done.

Don't hit people. Don't threaten to hit people. Don't steal.

How about yelling or loud music? Hmmm . . . . Let's just discourage that.

For two people in one room, you have most of the rules to provide those two sanity.

Once you start saying that you cannot intentional kill if the music is too loud, you need two lawyers. One to argue that the music was too loud. The other to argue that the complainant was too old (Remember? If the music is too loud, you're too old?). Now age is possibly the problem?

Complex rules lead to complex arguments. Simple rules, simple arguments, simple compliance.

Professor Sunstein's and FDR's failings is that they want to describe the preferred world and make it a right. They might as well say that the teenager has a right to listen to loud music. At least I will still have a job as a lawyer wearing earplugs, even if you are too old.

Lost our Sense of Mission?

2009-09-12T12:08:00.003-04:00

The guys at PowerLine were commenting on the affable and clarifying Mark Steyn. PowerLine focused on the loss of will defend our culture.

Whether you call it "will" or "morale" may not make a difference. I do see a difference. Will is much more of an individual's trait. Morale is the cohesiveness of the group that reflects a collective of individual wills.

Just like throughout most of American history, America is still divided a third, a third, a third. The Democrats caucusing together is of the vintage of Anti-Federalists, Jacksonian Democrats, Copperheads, European Social Democrats. It has always gathered around the notion of a strong federal government and strong states being impossible and highly undesirable. Their rationales swing widely. At the core they just don't like the Miracle in Philadelphia. Their vision for the country starts with the proposition that the Constitution of negative liberties and we need to enshrine more positive liberties. (Good rhetorical choice of words but a terrible description of the process.) Call them the radical revolutionaries. Change away from the current institution is always good, so long it does not come to resemble the previous incarnation of the institution. In fact, new institutions are preferred over old ones wherever possible.

The polar opposite third of the population is the group centered around the Federal Constitution carrying it out as strictly as possible. Many would even suggest that the 17th Amendment (popular election of senators) was part of the weakening of our Constitution. This amendment may be good or bad. If you looked at this group, they would likely either tell why it is good or be persuaded it's worth discussion. They want change, but theirs is the harder: change to what worked better in our past; preserve the institution and evolve it slowly in Edmund Burke's preferred manner.

The middle third is where all the action is. They call themselves moderate and cling to the Poor Richard (a/k/a Ben Franklin) claim of all things in moderation. A little revolution is good. A little of institutional preservation is good.

The revolutionaries don't have to have a strong vision of what they want. They are highly negative: no continuity, no stability. Change is all that matters. This focus on "no" allows them to build adherents quickly. If you are ever around a talented salesman, the salesman demonstrates the power of "no." To truly understand his talent, just imagine the insufferable, talentless salesman.

The talentless salesman wants to tell you how wonderful his product is. "This car is the greatest ever. Look at the engine, the tires . . . . Wow?! Huh?" When you say, "No, too big." The salesman either argues that is not actually big compared to a dump truck or changes his story to how the next car is the greatest. He wants you to say "Yes." He wants you to say, "Yes, that is a great car. Yes, I have to have it." He is always pushing his ideas of what you should like and gets offended when you don't say "Yes." He is just following the rule that every "yes" is a step closer to success in getting you to buy. An hour later, you are less likely to have bought a car and more likely to run out the door.

The successful salesman tries to get you to say "No" as quickly and often as possible. "Do you want a car with more than 20 mph?" If you say, "No," he has just eliminate half his inventory from the discussion with one question. If you say, "Yes," same solution, different direction. "Do you want a car for more than 5 passengers?" Smaller target again, a "No" gets you a sedan or a coupe, but a "Yes" gets you a mini-van, SUV, or truck. Three more questions and you are standing in front of the car that is most likely to be his best candidate for you.

No arguments. No long discussions.

There still be an hour for you to persuade yourself that you want to buy, and the talented salesman will serve as your pro-buying angel/devil on your shoulder. In ten minutes, though, he knows whether you are going to buy better than you do yourself.

The Democrats have managed to sell their snake oil like the most talented salesman. They get the moderates to say "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor when you are too old to pay the bills yourself?" "Do you want your children to be uneducated?" The moderates have so little foundational understanding of the debates that their "No" answers drive the debate. They know the customer wants to feel good. If the customer wanted a large, red SUV, the customer gets an SUV. Then salesman gets his commission. The salesman is not worried that the customer may be bankrupt next year because of the excessive car payment. I started this by discussion morale. Democrats have a high desire to cohere together when they are excited about institutions that need to change. Discussions focused on "no" are easy. Their problems in morale arise when they need to agree on the vision to replace the destroyed institution.

The Republicans then act like the talentless salesmen: "But look at how well designed middle-of-the-road sedan looks! Look at the moderate mix of space and fuel efficiency." They keep telling the moderates what to like. Republicans of a conservative bent have a common but loosely defined vision. Attacks on that vision are bad. Promotion of the vision is good. Republican morale is highest when the shared vision is most prominent.

Moderates don't have a vision of what they want the country to be. They want to feel good about themselves and their futures. They don't like shared visions, because they have become acclimated to being made uncomfortable about the federal vision. The Democrats' ability to find "No" answers in the sales questions works well on moderates. Moderates don't have a unifying morale and gyrate wildly.

The instantaneous success of the Republicans lately is that they now have a concrete example of Obamacare about which to seek a "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor?" "Do you want this 8% tax increase?" "Do you want government mandates of doctors, lawyers, and counselors sitting you down every 5 years after retirement age to discuss when you are going to die? A/k/a 'Death panels' that you appoint, but follow government rules." No. No. No.

Reveal to moderates the misery of the Democrat revolution(s). The debate becomes easier. The moderates become increasingly uncomfortable with the "No" answers that Republicans generate.

To accelerate this, Republicans must also play Toto in pulling back the curtain of Democrat tactics. The Great Wizard of Oz in the White House starts to look sillier when you quit focusing on the large face but focus on the weak man pulling the levers.

The growing discussion of Saul Alinsky and his writings has been a curtain-pulling discussion.

The discussion of treating moderates like saps who can be lead to desired answers by seeking "no" would accelerate it further. The use of the "no" technique by the Republicans will accelerate it further. Once everyone becomes aware of the "no" technique, discussion of visions because more acceptable.

I dispute whether we have had a loss of will. I think the two poles of the debate have very different senses of what drives morale. Each of their morales is high. Democrats are on a high by recent successes of getting into office. Republicans of a conservative bent on a rising morale because they sense their movement rejuvenating.

The moderates in middle have a sense that don't belong to either pole. They have dropping morale. That may not last. A focused attempt to break moderates' bonds to the Democrats could unleash a rising sense of morale in middle. Then what election effects will arise?

Another measurement of "phoney-ness"

2009-08-31T11:05:00.001-04:00

Another measurement request: what is the ratio of arrests at tea party's or Obamacare rallies? How many union members in the numbers arrest? How many registered members of the respective parties, including LaRouche supporters?

A Measurement of Phoney-ness

2009-08-31T10:58:00.002-04:00

To coin a phrase, let's measure "phoney-ness."

To me it seems easy, what is the ratio of cars to buses parked near the protest area?

While organized groups use buses, self-motivated protesters tend to drive themselves or car pool. Spreads the costs of transportation in smaller, de-centralized increments.

Even to the extent that such a measurement can be manipulated, it would increase the costs and logistical headaches for the organizers. More parking needs. More money to subsidize drivers from the union coffers. Etc.

Does a tea party protest have event-parking pricing? What about a union rally? Are they the same price for the same location for similar weekend or holiday timing?

I would be facinated to learn if there were differences.

Government-Option Healthcare v. Microsoft

2009-08-24T10:47:00.002-04:00

The Department of Justice has a long running history of picking fights with Microsoft (EU is even worse) over supposedly monopolistic behavior. The idea seems to be that one player is too large and must be brought down to size.

Based on Obamacare's characteristics as written in the House Bill, does that mean that the Obama Administration has no issues with Microsoft or later Google over dominating their segments of the market?

This behavior is monopsony (a term I just learned; remember use all new terms in a sentence). Monopoly is one seller for many buyers. Monopsony is one buyer for many sellers.

Obamacare is either monopsony today or tomorrow.

So if I understand Obama, he either likes single buyers (or large ones that have the power to delcare itself a monopsony) and hates monopolists or likes monopsonists and monopolists both.

Let's watch Microsoft and Google and learn.

Fire the Journalists

2009-08-18T17:46:00.003-04:00

I have an idea: let's fire all journalists. No one likes them. They are irritating. Their content is worthless.

With that one statement, we have just created a lot of new openings, so who should fill those chairs?

I propose people with degrees in advertising or marketing from business schools or experienced sales people. They know how to tell pithy stories. They understand that telling a good story is imperative to making a profit when the subject matter turns difficult. They know how to make you feel good about the most depressing or mundane subjects. They know how to turn grammatical variations into phrases repeated around the world by teenagers and young adults.

Journalists go to school to learn to tell stories, but advertisers tell better stories with pictures or shorter scripts. Why waste time reading 500 words of journo-babble when we can get the idea in 30 seconds or just a neat picture?

Journalists go to school to learn how to get two sources for every article, then they turn to old school chum or neighbor to be their representative of the general public (less effort you know). Advertisers and marketers are far more skilled at finding out what the general public wants and thinks and giving it to them.

Journalists go to school to learn how to take polling data and make it a tear-jerking human-interest story about one person that illustrates the point that the journalist wants to make without any regard to what the polling data shows. Marketers have experience in digging into polling data and giving any one segment of the population exactly the product they want. Marketers don't care if one segment of the population agrees with Henry Ford and only wants black cars while another segment wants bright yellow ones. Marketers will use the polling data to order enough black cars and bright yellow cars to make everyone happy. Just imagine if the newspapers were run by marketers that told the same story for two different market segments: one liberal and the other conservative. Imagine that the number of column-inches given to each version of the story could be based on the percentage of that paper's readership who share that political persuasion.

Journalists play at marketing by constantly making the papers look more and more like Romper Room but still giving us the same Henry Ford black Model T for liberal, empty content.

The Middle

2009-08-18T07:51:00.002-04:00

I have written before about my joys and frustrations in reading a particular website. He subscribes to what I would call the "single issue anger." Admittedly this unnamed website does not simply attack the opposition to Bush's immigration deform, but several other attacks on Bush's wayward behavior. The key point for him is the supposed Conservative attack on Bush's variance from the supposed Conservative gold standard.

As hated as Nixon is today and as demeaned as election strategy is too (move rightward for the primary and move to the center for the general election), he understood some basic concepts. He understood that the body politic is actually not just two parties but several groups. These groups are small and align around broader, similar concepts. These groups become successful and powerful when they aggregate larger and larger alliances together. Part of the process is dropping concepts from their main message that the larger group cannot support. Part of it is softening catch phrases to remove the harshness of tone. Moving between groups at different times is part of group building.

The part that few people wish to admit, except at times of radical transition, is that a common enemy is the biggest group builder of all. The common sentiments of frustration and anger allow people to shed old alliances and the older, larger groups start shrinking. These new unaligned voters may stay unaligned unless they find a group that shares their message and tone. The common enemy allows old hatreds to begin to appear petty compared to the new frustration and growing anger. This allows a courtship, similar to the old lyrics from the "Facts of Life" theme song: "The boys you used to hate, Now you date."

The famous French philosopher La Rochefaucauld wrote, "La haine est plus proche de l'amour que l'amite": Hate is closer to love than friendship. Obama has succeeded in causing a growing number of his passionate followers to turn on him. These ex-followers are his greatest problem because they will turn forever on him and his party.

The middle that does not wish to ever be passionate but wants to appear reasonable, those are moving away from him. He can get them back so long as they stay dispassionate. They want to reason issues out and find a middle way. These are the people that socialism and its kissing cousin fascism have always played to. Mussolini invented the modern use of the phrase the "third way." He sensed that coloring his socialism for the middle of his body politic would get him elected. He played to this desire for dispassion and made them passionate for an undefined "something else."

Obama rose to power on his version of the third way: "Hope. Change." Like Mussolini, he was less than clear on the stump of what he sought to do. He allowed the radical left to see the details to keep them happy by having white papers on his website that gave details. He knew that the middle of population would never research the white papers. They had too little passion to research his ideas. It was too big of a burden to challenge their hope for a third way. Why deal with the facts when you are comfortable in the middle.

Now Obama has done something that few have done successfully in recent American political history. He has made portions of the middle uncomfortable and angry. They are getting angrier every time they learn more about his health plan.

What's worse is these angry people start doing research on the plan and run across articles on the global warming myth. They get angrier still.

We may soon start to see a disappearing middle. The middle won't disappear because of the brilliance of current GOP leadership. The middle will disappear because they have focused anger that won't allow them to pretend they are being reasonable. They will start to see that reason has a home in the GOP's body politic (even if it is remarkably absent in the Republican party establishment in DC). The GOP's thinkers and middle America members are the real intellectual powerhouses of the country. Their ability to communicate without the DC establishment as an intermediary has created chorus of strong-minded, clear-thinking, passionate, and all-too-polite people. The middle won't be able to remain dispassionate nor to ignore the violence-prone thugs representing Obama's cause. Once the pendulum of political passion starts to sway, it is harder to bring back to rest.

That is Obama's problem. He is getting hit by the pendulum that he put in motion. The pendulum threatens to grow into a wrecking ball.

The quick answer to stopping a swinging wrecking ball is an application of an equal force in the exact opposite direction. Since that is difficult to do, the application of thug power in another direction will cause the wrecking ball of passion and resentment against Obama to careen into his fellow Democrats in Congress and spread the damage.

A disappearing middle and a careening wrecking ball leads to unpredictable results. Damage will spread far and wide. Republicans in Congress should not rest easy. The new class of Republicans will expect privileges that junior members only get when they are a large group (like the Class of 1994). They will insist on changes within Congress and the Republican Caucus. Smart members of the current Republican Caucus will avoid defending the Caucus's recent stupidities of boondoogle earmarks and reckless spending prior to 2006. They will seek strong law-and-order measures, such as border enforcement and immigration law enforcement (as two separate issues rather than one jumbled mess). They will seek simple laws that are easier to self-police, leading to smaller, less wasteful government.

Simplicity of law is liberty. Bureaucracy is the midwife of tyranny. When the middle becomes passionate about these ideas, Obama's agenda is dead.

Comments on Obama's Iconography

2009-08-18T07:43:00.001-04:00

This video is a wonderful comment on Obama's scary use of iconography without showing the disturbing socialist iconography of the past.

Democratic Repetition of Soviet Propoganda

2009-08-16T15:29:00.002-04:00

While this article proves nearly nothing about whether the Soviets did or did not infiltrate the Democrat Party, it describe well a set of circumstances that seems more likely than not given Democrat methodologies and stated goals.

Truly frightening.

My research on this subject and the truth behind the Vietnam War tend suggests that Soviet propoganda only failed because it did not reach full strength until 18 years after the USSR fell.

Folks created mess

2009-08-07T11:20:00.003-04:00

So Obama wants the people who created the mess out of the way.

Does that mean that he will be asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (failing to address Pres. Bush's attempt to reform Fannie Mae prior to meltdown), Rep. Barney Frank (creating the Fannie Mae system), or Sen. Chris Dodd (creating system) for their resignations any time soon?

Obama, Democrats, and Soviet Communism?

2009-08-05T14:58:00.002-04:00

Here are a few articles worthy of consideration as to whether we are reaping the Soviet infiltration that President Reagan observed in the 1950's in the Screen Actors Guild.

http://www.globalpolitician.com/23436-terror-russia
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-regresses-to-cold-war-mythology-and-switches-sides/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-quest-into-the-magic-world-of-anti-american-mythology/

Obama Supports Violating Constitution . . . of Honduras

2009-07-28T15:45:00.003-04:00

Obama's State Department revoked the visas of Honduran officials appointed by the constitutional interim government of Honduras.

How are we not to interpret that Obama believes that our Constitution should be ignored as readily when he finds it equally inconvenient.

For text of the Honduran constitution in English see this post.

Killing the Elderly

2009-07-27T16:59:00.004-04:00

Obamacare would have the de facto effect of saving money in many entitlements:
1. Medicaid;
2. Medicare;
3. Veteran's Hospitals;
4. Social Security Retirement;
5. Social Security Disability;
6. SCHiP, etc.

Five out of the six are mostly for the aged. Each of these programs will save money for every year one of their beneficiaries dies earlier than currently expected.

Assume that Medicaid would cost $3,000 per year per patient in their last ten years of life only. In that period, that saves $30,000 per patient. Nursing homes in Indiana cost a measly $120 per day or $3600 per month or $43,200 per year. The average patient is only in for two years, so we don't actually see $100,000 per patient in Indiana. But New York or California might. Indiana's still close.

One third of patients will need this type of care. The actual projected cost per patient should be the actual cost times the probability of care or $28,512 per person over 65.

If we quit paying for life-extending care in persons aged 85 and up, that would save the last two years of life expenses on much of that 33% of the population. The $28,512 per person over a population of 2.1 million people in 2010 (National Institutes of Health, Institute on Aging), that could save $59.9 billion. For the next age cohort of 75 to 84, find a way to reduce their projected population 17 million in 2010 or 18 million in 2015 or 20 million in 2020 by 10% and you save another $59 billion on the same math.

Reduce every other age cohort through attrition of bad care by 0.5% to 1% with cost per patient of $3,000 in an America of 300 million inhabitants, you can save $90 billion per year.

I have shown a very dramatic example by reductio ad absurdum. No American will tolerate this methodology imposed nakedly. Bury the method behind rhetoric and "for the good of the country" nonsense and a quick incentive to kill the elderly will creep in.

Smaller populations reduce healthcare costs. Abort them. Let them die early. Obamacare saves money.

The problem is that healthcare costs cannot go down, as I have suggested in earlier posts.

So now the costs keep rising because supplies of providers dwindle and need to be replaced in a very expensive fashion; the ability to provide care must be rationed to maintain the current level of care for some preferred portion of the country. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's health advisors, that preferred portion of the population is late middle-aged.

In Logan's Run, the solution to knocking off people over 30 was Carousel.

Is Obamacare going to implement this?

Obama SAVED the economy?! Whatthe . . . !

2009-07-22T15:12:00.000-04:00

How sure are you?

2009-07-21T18:07:00.002-04:00

Comments on Strata-Sphere

2009-07-21T16:43:00.003-04:00

Strata-Sphere is a blog that I read religiously. AJ is a joy to read about science, logic, and foreign affairs. I rarely disagree with those conclusions and often am educated to extraordinarily intricate levels. He does a wonderful job of making complex ideas simple.

Then he gets mad at the Republicans, particularly conservative republicans that insist on consistency. These he treats as pariahs. Admittedly I am one of those. Like every other person, I want people whom I respect to respect me in turn. I have no problem earning that respect. So, am I eligible to earn that respect?

1. Harriet Miers should never have been on the court. Justice Alito is superb. Conservatives erred in seeking an upgrade? The point of confirmation, according to the Federalist Papers, is to avoid having the presidents' friends of dubious quality be appointed without comment. How does this differ from that ideal?

2. AJ hates the attempt to block immigration legislation. Fiat justitia ruat caelum: Let justice be done though the heavens may fall. A bit bold in tone but actually in my practice a way to get things cleaned up quickly. If a case gets knotted up with a judge trying to dictate a "fair result," it often is highly inefficient and likely to reward the wrong-doer. If the judge flatly enforces the rules quickly and efficiently, the result is more likely to be that the parties resolve the issue themselves in a more efficient manner. This is the problem with the immigration debate position that AJ takes, he is interested in being fair to the law breaking immigrants. Unfortunately, he would reward the rule breakers and claim jumpers at the expense of those immigrants wishing to play by the rules. Experience has quickly shown us that refusal to give jobs in states to illegals and a weakening economy quickly reverses the net immigration flow. If we take a few more steps to tighten those up by more aggressive enforcement against cheating business owners, the immigrants leave quickly. The experience of history with immigrants is something like an eight-to-one ratio: eight leave voluntarily for every one that suffers enforcement of the rules. I suggest that ratio would go higher as the immigrants believe the free-ride of welfare, education, false automatic citizenship, and tax evasion (i.e., under the table payments) are closed down. Legal immigration will be much easier to justify.

I would add that I am in favor of immigration, but I want a small ratio from any one country. Diversity of country of origin will weaken the down side of immigration allowing more divergent strengths to appear. Too much of one profile is damaging.

3. Pushing Specter out. If jumping from the party is seen as detrimental, the party will build cohesion. Specter got a temporary advantage of going with the Democrats. The Democrats have helped the Republican cause by treating him like a pariah. Less likely to get followers. Now if a person stays, he is going to be more sensitive to primary voters. Independents naturally get mad at this result, because they don't want to lower themselves to belong to a party.

In fact, the more people that join a party and regularly vote for it in the primaries, the more the party will move toward the center. The parties would serve themselves well by making party primary participation be more valuable: discourage open primaries and make challengers easier. That will push the parties toward the center of their end of the spectrum. A party should never be in the center, because then there is less benefit from changing parties by voting. The weaker party is always the most centrist because they feel they need to imitate the winner.

I would argue that 60% of the population tells Gallup that they live and act conservatively in daily life. If the Republicans can show how their ideas better reflect these habits, we will persuade more.

4. AJ does not radical sounding language. The problem is that parties build loyalty by activating their followers passions. I wish it were not so, but people are persuaded by their emotions nine times out of ten. Put another away, market research on convincing clients to implement one legal strategy over another shows only 10% of the population can be persuade by "the bottom line" of accounting numbers. Why is a legal strategy implemented by Congress different?

In fact Democrats own most of the population either in party identification or means of persuasion because they show a reckless disregard for the truth when passions will get them what they want. Lie, cheat, steal . . . who cares, they say, just win.

I want Republicans to get the best people in the job, that strictly adhere to the rules, and argue on logic with the ability to show passion simultaneously and to clearly identify friend from foe.

Compromise where it actually moves your agenda forward. Stand firm where compromise only weakens your cause.

If that makes me a radical, then radicalism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

Bankruptcy for Doctors

2009-07-20T14:31:00.001-04:00

Doctors will face an increase in bankruptcies. As a result, websites like www.bankruptcyfordoctors.com will spring up in many places.

The key question is how bad and how fast. The key problem will be landlords on 5-year term leases and equipment financing.

Well-managed bankrupt doctors will layoff staff aggressively. Poorly managed will not pay payroll taxes or staff and increase the issues to dispute in court.

Parsing Universal Healthcare

2009-07-20T13:36:00.004-04:00

Now that we know that "Universal Healthcare" means whatever the Democrats want it to mean at that moment, let's look at it in English in order to compare and contrast the results.

"Universal" means

u⋅ni⋅ver⋅sal–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4. used or understood by all: a universal language.
5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.
6. versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.: Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius.
7. of or pertaining to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: universal cause.
8. characterizing all or most members of a class; generic.
9. Logic. (of a proposition) asserted of every member of a class.
10. Linguistics. found in all languages or belonging to the human language faculty.
11. Machinery. noting any of various machines, tools, or devices widely adaptable in position, range of use, etc.
12. Metalworking.
a. (of metal plates and shapes) rolled in a universal mill.
b. (of a rolling mill or rolling method) having or employing vertical edging rolls.

So it means that care should be available to everyone. Do we have that now?

If you go to the emergency room, is it available to you regardless of race, creed, or color? Yes.
When will you get turned away? Triage demonstrates nothing to treat. Demanded type of care (like radiation treatment) is not offered at the ER. Inability to pay is not allowed as a reason to refuse care, so price has nothing to do with it.

If you go to a private physician, when will you get turned away? Nothing to treat. Demanded care not offered. Inability to pay.

So the quick conclusion is that Universal Healthcare already exists, if you have something that the doctor in question offers the skills and equipment at the ER but never if you have nothing to treat. Other doctors get to pick and choose their patients.

Now, let's go to imaginary Obamacare with the assumption that Congress cannot allow healthcare to make us go bankrupt. (Stop laughing! Congress will impose some limits on how much it will spend some day. Why, when, and how is harder to predict.) They will limit doctors' pay. They will limit who can be paid, if Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's health advisor and brother of Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, is to be believed. He wrote in The Lancet that healthcare costs should be focused on the middle aged with older allowed to die with reduced care.

So now we will have doctors getting less compensation. They will go bankrupt or retire at abnormally high rates as soon as Obamacare goes into effect. They will consequently cease providing care. Supply will dwindle overnight.

Patients will have more ability to demand care, increasing demands on the system overnight.

Those two functions alone will cause waiting rooms, where they still remain, to fill up overnight. Even if Obama offers cheaper care per treatment per patient, he will have lines because no one is able to provide the required level of care.

Obama or his successors will have to increase compensation for doctors. Costs go up. Care won't improve because the retired doctors still don't want to be in The System. Now prices go up but no improvement in quality of care.

So we don't have everyone getting treated. With this proposal, we will have moved from existing Universal Care to Obama Limited Care.

Thoughts on Words in Obamacare Debate

2009-07-20T13:33:00.002-04:00

Universal Healthcare. What does it mean to you?

1. Geographic Availability. Healthcare available everywhere on US soil?
2. Gratuitous. Healthcare is free for every patient?
3. Condition. Only the middle-aged get care because the young rarely need it and the elderly are too expensive?
4. Management. The universe -- I mean, the government -- controls who get care, how they get care, when they get care, from whom they get care, why they get care?
5. Quality. All get first class care.
6. Timeliness of Care. Care is available immediately on demand?
7. Assistance in Obtaining Care. Assistance on entering The System is available to all at no cost?
8. Pricing. Healthcare prices are set so that no one cannot pay?
9. Qualitative Availability. Healthcare is available to all of equal quality?

Do you think that I have same answers to the questions above that you do? Simply put, Universal Healthcare is phrase that sounds wonderful to all but has utterly no meaning. No one will object to it in polls, so the Democrats can push whatever they want on the American public and claim that the vast majority want it.

Jobs

2009-07-17T16:40:00.001-04:00

Vanishing Physician: Heal No One

2009-07-17T16:06:00.003-04:00

We are about to witness a disappearance similar to something the comic writer Douglas Adams envisioned in his sequel to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, called So Long and Thanks for All the Fish. In the sequel, whales leave the earth and take all the fish.

What we are about to witness is the departure of private healthcare that takes with it all the physicians.

We all have heard that government will cut their pay. Often that is where the discussion ends. In fact, that is where the real consequences begin.

A doctor suddenly thrown into Obamacare will see his time even more consumed by government paperwork than currently is with insurance paperwork and CYA anti-lawyer paperwork (which won't go away, either). His compensation per patient will be set by the government. His private-pay clientele will evaporate. In essence, the soon-to-be-gone are the patients whose bills hide the existing catastrophe of government care in TriCare (that is veteran), Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Parts A and B. Those private payors are where the profits are hidden.

When profits disappear, doctors, espcially in sole- or small-practices, will be forced to close existing practices. Many of those practices are in commercial buildings with 5-year leases with options for additional 5-year terms. If the doctor just signed up for another 5-years, he will lose his profits but keep his lease liability. He will have to file for bankruptcy. If the doctor was lucky and is at the end of the lease, he may be able to negotiate a deal. Those in between are going to have to roll the dice.

So we can safely say that doctor bankruptcies will be on the rise. Those small-practice doctors will lose their life savings and have little chance to recover.

Older physicians in larger-group practices will sell their practices for a song to the younger physician-partners. Those older physicians may only be 50 or 55 and have a good decade of service left in their bones, but the headaches and loss in compensation will drive them out of practice. Why not play golf than take these slim pickings?

The younger physicians will have a higher proportion that still owe med school loans or loans for starting their practices. Their compensation hit will make their predicted revenue very small compared to what the projections were when they took the loans. More bankruptcies.

Those that survive will be pressed into ever larger groups. The groups will have to restructure how new doctors are hired. Now many practices pay off the new doctor's student loans after a few years of service. Call it a deferred compensation package. These packages will go away, first slowly, then more rapidly.

That means that younger doctors will have less money to live like they wished when they entered med school. Disillusionment will drive some into the business world. They didn't sign up to be bureaucracts. They had better visions for life.

So where will the replacements come from? India, China, Latin America. Very quickly our health system will wither because the talent leaves the building.

We have a system built on real talent and real science that is the envy of the world. We can destroy it overnight, but it can only be rebuilt over decades. Why destroy it?

Obamacare set to Consume Private Healthcare

2009-07-16T14:49:00.004-04:00

This is no joke. Rep. Kevin Brady asked his staff to map out the House Leadership’s proposed healthcare plan. The result was the attached map.

Today, some readers have pointed out that private health insurance will be forbidden. On page 16 of the Government Publishing Office’s official version of the bill you can read the section for yourself at the Government Publishing Office website. What it says is,
________________________________________
Section 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT HEALTHCARE
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
________________________________________

In other words, Obama will keep his promise that you will can keep your current healthcare. What it does not say is that you will ever get the choice of private healthcare again. If you have it, you can keep it -- for now. If don’t have it, you’ll never get it.

This is government competing against the private sector. As my 9-year-old son is now fond of quoting Rep. Mike Pence (R-Muncie, Ind.), “Government competing against private companies is like an alligator competing against a duck: the alligator consumes the duck.”

This bill is a flat-out a nationalization of healthcare. All new insurance has to play within the new rules. All existing policies will be shut down under their own weight, due to lack of new, young, healthy enrollees. Complete nationalization won’t be immediate but it will legally be inevitable.

Is government-owned healthcare what you would wish on your worst enemy, let alone your family and friends?

Google Translates Honduran Constitution

2009-06-30T16:30:00.001-04:00

Google Translate

Here is a usable translation of the Honduran Constitution. Reading this is a highly eye-opening experience for an American lawyer.

So far, not much seem to be in violation of their Constitution. I am shocked at how this chain of events in Honduran presidential politics can be constitutional, but that is why you study comparative law.

How to Make Failing Healthcare Measurable

2009-06-25T09:45:00.005-04:00

In passing the other morning, I saw Newt Gingrich on Fox & Friends. He said something in passing that I believe a lot more attention. Since I have not done the research on his rhetorical models right now, I will treat this as accidental rather than a pattern to allow myself some room to expound.

When he was describing the failures of certain cancer treatments in Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS), he described NHS's level of care and success as being circa 1955.

That comment hit me like a eureka moment. You can explain bad healthcare all you want, but put it in terms that represents the truth but allows an easy compare and contrast.

We need to have an objective measure of success and failure. Theirs is poor quality; ours top notch. Let's show it.

UPDATE: Here is Newt's comment that gave rise to this post:

To clarify, I am proposing creating a simple spreadsheet of ailments/treatments on one axis and country on the other. The data point for each country is the "Quality of Care stated as a year." The year represents the state of the art. The state of the art is the country with highest survival rate, lowest recuperation time, shortest time from diagnosis to completion of treatment, etc.

I postulate that the US would end up at or near the current year on most all treatments, where socialized countries would tend to be in the 1950's or so.

Understanding Islam

2009-06-22T10:46:00.002-04:00

The New York Times actually ran an interesting op-ed today. (Surprise! Surprise!) It is most interesting because I learned something interesting that I wish to research further. (I realize some may take this as a lack of intellectual curiosity on my part. My lack of interest in researching actually stems for a lack of intellectual honesty from their content. Why bother researching a known lie or impossibility that an introductory economics student can figure out?)

The notion of "commanding right and forbidding wrong" as a central tenet of Islam is intriguing. It allows me to see more clearly why Muslim countries act as they do and are so resistant to notions of liberty. I have been impressed with Danesh D'Suza's comparison of liberty-based countries to the rest of the world. He questions the ability to be moral without free choice.

From those two points of comparison, there is a lot to be studied.

Daily Kos more accurate than news media, except CNN?!

2009-03-10T10:08:00.001-04:00

Fordham University finds that Daily Kos's polls before the election were more accurate than the entire news media, except CNN?! Doesn't that just say it all?

Editorial Cartoons by Michael Ramirez (Investor’s Business Daily)

2009-02-21T08:42:00.000-05:00

Editorial Cartoons by Michael Ramirez (Investor’s Business Daily)
Click on this link!

Obama warns mayors not to waste stimulus money

2009-02-21T08:27:00.000-05:00

Obama warns mayors not to waste stimulus money

Here's courage: out of bill filled with waste and favoring Democrat policies, the thief-in-chief is telling the cities' mayors that he will call them out for wasting the stimulus package!

Economy & Business news

2009-02-21T08:24:00.000-05:00

Economy & Business news

So is it bailing out banks or is the mortgage bailout another boondoggle favoring retiree states?

Half of all bailouts in the states Nevada, Arizona, California, and Florida. They have 21% of the national population, and most got that way very recently.

China Puts Joblessness for Migrants at 20 Million - NYTimes.com

2009-02-03T18:06:00.000-05:00

China Puts Joblessness for Migrants at 20 Million - NYTimes.com

China is in trouble. Rush Limbaugh reported on a conversation with Bush 43. Bush reported in turn that he had a conversation with Chinese President Hu Jintau (sp?). Bush asked Hu what Hu's biggest problem was. Hu said that it was finding jobs for rural Chinese so that they don't come to the cities.

If the Chinese President is presumed to know his business and report it accurately, this is very bad news.

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision

2009-02-03T15:43:00.000-05:00

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision

I just don't want to see photographs of Iraqis outside the US Embassy as US Army helicopters take off the roof and Al Qaeda progresses toward the panicked throng.

The Third Jihad

2009-02-02T10:18:00.000-05:00

The Third Jihad

Powerful movies from this group. I have not watched, but respected voices suggest you and I should.

Conservative Book Service

2009-01-22T09:33:00.000-05:00

Conservative Book Service

I am in the process of assessing the status of Conservative story telling. I am fascinated by Mr. Breitbart's attempt to improve pop culture by forcing room for Conservatism in Hollywood.

The story telling, though, is going to be the ultimate source of his project's success. The audience will absorb the story, not the politics of the actors. When the story and the actor's politics are one and the same, you end up with a chicken and egg problem. Do audience come for the actor or the story. Mel Gibson has proved that this cycle can be broken with a Conservative story. So truly no dilemma. We just need to have Breitbart's project open the doors to more story telling.

So I am studying what stories already exist for when Breitbart's project succeeds. Is the terrain for the battle already well prepared and advantageous?

As I begin my search, I quickly found this Conservative Book Service page. The first impression I had was that the literature overview has one small entry for fiction amid a sea of philosophy, social science, and history.

This snapshot is frightening. Most people read fiction for enjoyment. This is the best opportunity to reach them with challenging ideas: when their defenses are down. This has been a method for success for Socialists going back to Jean Jacques Rousseau. Tell stories. His Confessions tell his story. It is easy to follow his life story. The persuasion comes second.

Conservative literature reminds me of a friend of mine that wishes to persuade everyone with the force of his logic and facts. The problem is few who matter to him will listen to him long enough for him to complete the argument. Admittedly, this is a personal weakness of mine, too, but I am striving. That effort is the key reason for my research of the topic.

Returning to the Conservative Book Service page, the writers Tom Wolfe and William F. Buckley jump off the list as Conservative writers, but few big names and many books that are about stories or literature but little story telling beyond the grandees Wolfe and Buckley.

Further Google efforts fail miserably, even on the phrase "Conservative Story-telling".

One reference I saw alluded to Reagan's gift of storytelling as part of his success. I have read that many times before. His speechwriters were known to take advantage of it. Then we have had the Bushes, Dole in public, and McCain. Dull as dirt in conveying stories to a crowd. Remember late November 1996 when Dole came out his shell and started telling stories in his own voice? The shock that hit even the Republicans?

Storytelling leads to natural humanity: humor, connection, pathos. Ivory towers? Interesting to understand the mechanics of the Economy, but little for the busy American who looks to Hollywood and Washington for frivilous and serious relief, respectively, from their own daily grind.

Take that same focus on storytelling, expand it to the arts writ large: painting, photography, plays, movies, etc. We need Conservatism to surround us. A new voice and image to represent the Founding Fathers' vision and lessons in the modern world.

Go East, young man? Californians look for the exit - Yahoo! News

2009-01-13T10:46:00.000-05:00

Go East, young man? Californians look for the exit - Yahoo! News
Oops!

Lawyers turn to Facebook to serve legal papers - Yahoo! News

2008-12-18T12:24:00.000-05:00

Lawyers turn to Facebook to serve legal papers - Yahoo! News

Could this lead to service of process rules through electronic service? I can think of innumerable cases of mine where the use of established email communications for service would help.

Who Is at Fault for the Decline of the Big Three? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)

2008-12-16T09:03:00.000-05:00

Who Is at Fault for the Decline of the Big Three? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)

Great analysis of why Big Union came to exist in its current form and why it is fighting a cause that died in the 1970's. This fight has lead to the Big 3's problems.

Michelle Malkin » “22 Pounds of UAW Rules and Regulations”

2008-12-13T09:23:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin » “22 Pounds of UAW Rules and Regulations”

UAW is a burden. End of debate.

Whitewashing Fannie Mae - WSJ.com

2008-12-13T09:22:00.000-05:00

Whitewashing Fannie Mae - WSJ.com

The source of the problem with Fannie Mae is getting buried by the Democrats.

The American Spectator : Mark to Market Means Mayhem

2008-12-10T21:52:00.000-05:00

The American Spectator : Mark to Market Means Mayhem

Good, quick explanation.

Here is FASB 157. Note that the issue date was September 2006 and the required, effective date was November 1, 2007. My! how fast bad ideas do their damage. We have gone how many centuries with recognizing gains and losses when a transaction took place. In 2 short years of ignoring the tried-and-true, the whole system falls down around our ankles!

Some of this was even foreseen. Not the whole consequence but the first necessary steps of writing off billions of dollars at banks. FASB 157 has been a mess throughout. FASB couldn't even agree how to implement it after it went into effect.

What we do is not easy, but the answer is definitely give up on this revolutionary concept that adds little benefit to the system.

Does it make sense for a performing asset like a mortgage to be artificially devalued on the books because similar assets go down in value? It is performing! Why force a re-evaluation unless an actual transaction that can be recorded as history occurs.

The problem with this whole process is that it started with the presumption that accountants could guess what market value was at any moment for any asset. Now we learn that accountants can only track history well. Everything else is an educated guess.

To me as a businessman, I need to know what is history and what is a guess. Good accounting practice makes history clear and labels all else as pro formas.

This FASB mess has muddled the two concepts.

American Thinker: A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism

2008-12-03T14:56:00.000-05:00

American Thinker: A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism

A delightful piece.

SEC gets power to suspend the mark-to-market accounting rule - USATODAY.com

2008-11-24T11:16:00.000-05:00

SEC gets power to suspend the mark-to-market accounting rule - USATODAY.com

Could a large part of the banks problems be solved in January 2009 with the stroke of a pen? SEC has to study mark-to-market rules for 90 days, then it can suspend them. That would cause bank health just in time for the inauguration. Obama gets credit for new-found confidence in the market because he is finally chief executive, when he didn't do anything! What a fraud.

American Thinker: Orwell's Children

2008-11-19T20:55:00.000-05:00

American Thinker: Orwell's Children

The danger of Orwellian behavior shown through Democrats . . . although not named.

Why Mark Cubin may not go to jail . . .

2008-11-19T08:41:00.000-05:00

Law & Business | Professor Bainbridge

Professor Bainbridge makes a persuasive argument that the case against Mark Cubin is not as strong as the SEC would present. The professor describes the theory that would cause Cubin to go to jail and the theoretical weaknesses in it.

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

2008-11-18T09:12:00.000-05:00

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

So the government won't declare it? Hmmm, sounds about right for these PR dorks.

The Volokh Conspiracy - Return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition?

2008-11-06T19:41:00.000-05:00

The Volokh Conspiracy - Return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition?

A very humorous and insightful look at Libertarians and Conservatives. They need each other.

Election map

2008-11-04T21:23:00.001-05:00

FuturePundit: Interrupts Cut Into Work Productivity

2008-10-29T10:05:00.000-04:00

FuturePundit: Interrupts Cut Into Work Productivity

So interruptions are bad, huh? I buy it.

iowahawk: Balls and Urns

2008-10-29T09:58:00.000-04:00

iowahawk: Balls and Urns

So, tell me again how big is Gallup's sampling error?

Taxing the Rich

2008-10-29T09:00:00.004-04:00

Wayne Huizenga, founder of Blockbuster and owner of the NFL Miami Dolphins, is afraid of the tax situation that allowed him to buy the Dolphins in the first place. The late Joe Robbie's family sold Huizenga the Dolphins, primarily to pay the federal estate taxes caused by Robbie's death.

Now Huizenga fears that he will have to pay high taxes too when he sells the team, whether during life or after his death.

Laying aside the fact that a good estate or tax attorney can minimize these consequences, these are valid concerns. The problem is that these are taxation of wealth issues. For this discussion, wealth means assets owned by a person, regardless if a business asset, personal asset, real estate, stock, politician . . . er, never mind . . . . The point is . . . .

Wealth taxes are different than income taxes. So, what are income taxes, in truth? Income taxes are taxes for money received in exchange for anything other than wealth. If you work and receive a wage, income taxes apply. If you own a rental home, income taxes apply to rental income. If you own a store, income taxes apply to profits. Day-to-day transactions generate income taxes.

In an entrepreneurial environment, income is used to make business grow big. Entrepreneurs with no knowledge of taxes and wealth creation solely focus on managing their businesses by managing income creation. They make a dollar; they pay 40 cents in taxes. That's normal, right?

That's not the way the wealthy play. The wealthy don't run a business. They manage investments. A wealthy businessman knows that his company creates wealth by showing the world he can generate income. Once he puts those numbers on paper, he works to remove that income from the books. Tax cheats do it by stealing the money. Smart, wealthy, scrupulous businessmen do it by finding ways to recharacterize the income as something else. They buy new equipment for their business. They spend money on their businesses to make next year's income go up but save taxes this year. This process causes the income to disappear while increasing the amount that possible buyers of the business would be willing to pay to get control over that income stream.

Making the future income look higher while making current income nontaxable through deductions is good investment management. The wealthy businessman knows that he doesn't need a paycheck today any larger than his mortgage company and auto loan servicer require (assuming he doesn't own these outright already). He is willing to wait for his money. He has that luxury.

Once he can afford to wait for the money, and he has avoided as much in income taxes as possible by making his business work better and have more value to potential buyers, he wants to make sure that no one causes his hard to fall apart. That's where politicians in your pocket are invaluable.

The goal of the wealthy is to cause taxes on wealth to be as small as possible and the tax on income as high as possible. Politicians are happy to do this. They can complain about the wealthy businessman to voters and take the wealthy businessman's contributions at the same time. The typical voter doesn't realize his dream of punishing the wealthy businessman is actually making the wealthy businessman wealthier and more powerful.

The wealthy businessman has avoided the income taxes, now he prevents newer, "greedier" businessmen from knocking him off his thone. Now he gets to sell his business based on its valuer being higher because competitors can't enter the field of play. He sells his business through outright sale or stock offering to the public. He gets to move his investment out of the business into a new investment, sometimes for not a penny in income taxes. Now he can invest in assets like those that will generate no taxes even if it generates income. The usual asset used is municipal bonds. These create no income taxes because they "help cities build roads and bridges, so it helps the community."

Does this sound too good to be true? It's not. That is what wealthy businessmen do every day.

Compare that to the entrepreneur who is solely focused on how much money his business makes. He pays more taxes for every dollar earned than our wealthy businessman. He has to compete with guy down the street. He has his whole life invested in his business, and no one wants to buy it.

Politicians tax these guys the heaviest. Why? Ignorance. Few Americans in public schools learn about wealth, taxes, or business. They sure learn about how great import tariffs were to allow American industry to grow during the pre-income tax era. They don't learn how important the development of real estate and mortgage law was in creating a cash-based society (granted, because the research is rather new).

Income taxes on businesses prevent job creation and prices for everyday good from falling. Income taxes on businesses allow politicians to brag about their care for the average Joe while stealing them blind.

Fear any politician preaching about equality. How can he want equality for anyone when he is running to be a member of an elite, over the masses? He wants you to be equal with your neighbor so long as he is above you. His tool for both is the income tax on you and no effective taxes on his wealthy buddies.

The solution? Liberty. Less politician written rules. Less room for the politician to generate power bases.

Washington Times - RAHN: You lose, Soros wins

2008-10-29T08:59:00.000-04:00

Washington Times - RAHN: You lose, Soros wins

This article is one of the best reasons to argue against Socialism/Communism.

The biggest advantage of SoCo (why refer to them separately?) is that its marketing is killer: equality for all, using the power of the State.

The biggest disadvantage of SoCo is it is merely a system for getting power and wealth to the biggest players. In the USSR, this was easy to watch and measure. Politburo members were dukes of their fiefdoms. The king, the Party Secretary, had no power without the consent of his Politburo/Privy Council.

As a business attorney, any small business needs to have a business plan. The best and most likely to create wealth for its owner are business plans that are based on "barriers to entry." This is a term of art that means that there is so technological, geographical, or -- most powerfully -- regulatory barrier to allowing competitors to enter the market. One local, highly successful, serial entrepreneur makes no bones about his preferred business plan: one that has high barriers to entry.

He likes radio stations, banks, etc. These two examples have severe requirements to get started. For radio stations, he need a broadcasting license from the FCC. Since these licenses control the number of stations in a market and the range of the signal (as measured by the broadcast signal's power), the FCC licenses are highly sought after.

For banks, to start a new bank, you need to comply with piles of paperwork and raise a lot of capital. In the current banking crisis, these needs become easier to understand the motivations: paperwork to prove investors' honesty, intended business practices, ability to manager crises, experience with money management; the capital to allow the bank to avoid accepting deposits and on the first rumor of bad news, facing a run on the bank.

These businesses have traditionally generated huge profits by limiting competition.

People like George Soros not only like barriers to entry, but strive to create them in more places. If you have a Politburo member in your pocket, you can make money by the truckload by keeping all other competitors out.

By pushing SoCo, Soros is able to prevent other players on his turf and claiming the moral high ground at the same time. He is able to claim the mantel of Robin Hood while truly being the evil Prince John, the usurper to the long crusading King Richard the Lion-Hearted.

Soros may not have created the crisis, but he benefits and thrives in this environment. It is in his best interest for the Bush Treasury to nationalize whatever it can, then get a committed Marxist elected president.

The secret of capitalism is competition and low barriers to entry. This creates both equalities of opportunity and of result. Most of the wealthiest men (and women) are in businesses with high barriers to entry. Consider that.

Huizenga aim: Sell at '07 capital-gains tax level -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

2008-10-27T20:07:00.000-04:00

Huizenga aim: Sell at '07 capital-gains tax level -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

So higher taxes won't change big owner's behavior?

Good Song to Obama

2008-10-25T14:39:00.000-04:00

Buraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008-10-09T21:23:00.000-04:00

Buraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So a Buraq (Arabic), Burak (Turkish), or Barak (Swahili, I am guessing, since that is the official language of Kenya) is half human and half donkey? Seriously?

So, what about the later stories that a Barak is half woman, half horse, with the tail of a bird? Wow, the imagery here is enough to make me laugh. Barak with his hand on Bible before the Capitol with full fur and birds feathers.

Now there is a man that can face down Russia and Iran!

And now back to more serious reasons to oppose Obama . . . .

Types of Skills Everyone Should Know – Video – Top 100 Important Skills - Popular Mechanics

2008-10-02T14:41:00.000-04:00

Types of Skills Everyone Should Know – Video – Top 100 Important Skills - Popular Mechanics

I guess I better read this with care!

Spectator.org

2008-10-02T11:11:00.000-04:00

Spectator.org

Is Obama stealing the money with nearly a quarter billion dollars of illegal campaign contributions? No one knows. No one can find out. If Obama wins, no will ever know during his presidency.

The amount of funds he has received tends to leave a standard margin of error causing a larger sum of cash in question. If all candidates have 5% of their money from questionable sources, a million dollar campaign leads to only $50,000 in funny money. A $100 million campaign has $5 million in funny money. A $750 million campaign has nearly $38 million in funny money.

But $200 million in funny money?! That suggests real problems. Since the Federal Election Commission is effectively a dead institution at the moment, it is a prime time to steal an election. We may never know in time.

Nobel literature head: US too insular to compete - Yahoo! News

2008-10-01T09:37:00.000-04:00

Nobel literature head: US too insular to compete - Yahoo! News

I have not read extensively on the reaction to this comment, but I would suggest that the Nobel Prize in Literature's overwhelming European focus tends to indicate that the Europeans are too insular.

Without researching, I would hazard a guess that the winners are nearly uniformly Socialist in character and not supportive of the American Dream and related ideals of Enlightenment notions of liberty. They are not likely friendly to notions of struggle and tempering (in the truest sense) of character from the struggles. Too Christian for an atheist Socialist.

If the award gave balance to different political persuasions and religious notions, I would have a greater faith that the European Socialist world-view filter was not being applied.

American Thinker- Print Article

2008-09-29T09:46:00.000-04:00

How Obama is a demonstrated radical

If that doesn't make the point about Obama, what does?

Mortgage fix: conservatism in a liberal-created world

2008-09-23T15:20:00.002-04:00

In the last post, I allude to that mortgage problem was created over 30 years by two Democrat administrations lead to many cases of bank fraud were encouraged and abetted by Democrats in the White House and Congress. For details.

The problem I noted means there is good money and bad money in the system from this problem.

I would assert without much explanation that good money loaned out should not have a significant change. If the loan was properly done, the banks should not receive a windfall and the homeowner who goes bankrupt has other issues that handing out money will not likely solve.

If the problem is bad money loaned out due to bank fraud with the banker's complicity, we need to focus on that. We need to create a method that simply and easily creates a tracking mechanism. The problem was created by Democrats at the cost of the Treasury and we need to be able to see the consequences with the cleansing effect of sunlight. Failure to expose this to sunlight will guarantee that our economy will not recover for a generation or more.

I would suggest that a person who is upside down and the bank wants government assistance, would need to have a report and documentation that shows whether the debtor could not have qualified in the traditional market. If the customer would have qualified, but some new-fangled bell or whistle on the mortgage caused the debtor to go upside down, then Uncle Sam would issue a voucher to allow the issue of mortgage guarantee or a mortgage modification to remove the problem bell or whistle. Through the voucher, Uncle Sam would provide the additional money to provide consideration to underwrite the modification (in non-lawyer terms, Uncle Sam would pay a premium to pay the bank to adjust the terms of the mortgage). The bank would then collect its stack of voucher to Uncle Sam for redemption.

If the banker and the customer could show that the house was appraised at too high a price at the time or that the neighborhood's home values were artificially inflated in this bubble, Uncle Sam could issue a voucher for additional consideration to modify the mortgage.

If the debtor has back payments due that meet these criteria, he could apply for voucher and stay foreclosure proceedings and any collection efforts up to the voucher application up to the applied amount. If the applicant does not receive the amount on the application and the stay reached non-foreclosure matters, the applicant could be charged non-dischargeable interest on the debt of 12% plus $1000 penalty. This would favor likely successful applicants to apply and only seek stays where likely to have intended consequences.

Neighborhoods could be certified as artificially inflated if confirmed by one appraiser and reviewed by an independent appraiser. The neighbors could split the cost. They could receive a voucher for the costs of the appraisal.

This process would cause money to come into banks to pay off the screwed up mortgages and quickly get the mortgages' true values adjusted on their balance sheets. Healthy banks will stand out for struggling banks. Struggling banks will be bought up quickly for their true value. Good practices will have been rewarded.

Persons who were cheated by this Democrat-sponsored fraud will be able to get relief that improves their personal credit ratings. Homeowners have a way to reduce their property taxes where the fair market values are adjusted.

The US government can limit the amount of money spent out of the Treasury.

The remaining problem is what do we do with the bad-money loans that the homeowner committed bank fraud? Those persons need to have some result other than bankruptcy. They need to have a limited, non-dischargeable (for, say, 5-7 years) civl penalty, of $5,000 or 50% of the overage (whichever is higher) per incident. Serial offenders would pay more than single-time offenders. This would prevent the person from easily re-entering the market without paying some money back to the Treasury. It would also force the person into a cheaper property to avoid repeats. Being civil, the fine should be easy to impose, but small to avoid long-term punitive effects for single occurrence.

One of the results of this system, I suspect would be that it would capture many people who are buying and selling houses for investment purposes. I don't know that that serves the purposes for which Fannie Mae was built. Those should be squeezed out of the system. The voucher system would allow accountability for that.

Instead of injecting cash, a system that creates a standardized document and problem assessment will give us feedback on what happened in this situation. This will provide information for future economic historians to account for this problem.

The mortgage problem: how do we solve failed liberal policies with conservatism?

2008-09-23T14:51:00.003-04:00

As everyone knows, this current problem with Fannie Mae, etc., blowing up is bad. Not everyone knows that Fannie Mae became a liberal play toy to follow their racist agenda: more money to the Democrat constituency of "the poor" and "black neighborhoods" that "have been discriminated against for years."

Facts have been proven that a poor family is not a good place to place mortgage. There are better means to develop home ownership.

In essence, we need to solve a problem created by failed liberalism. Conservatism is the solution to failed liberalism. The problem is that sudden changes in economic systems create many additional problems. For example, the changes in real estate taxation practices in the 1986 tax reform act decimated the commercial real estate world. The change was rather sudden. It was difficult.

No matter what the solution, it must be over a period of time. The biggest drawback to this is that the persons hurt by the change have chance to constantly encourage changing the rules of the game. For example Sen. Lugar Farm bill. It is as if it never happened. A five-year turnaround meant short-term changes and long-term stagnation in bad ideas.

What we need to do is balance the need for sudden changes with a natural blocker against the riff-raff who caused the problem regaining its facade of credibility and trying to undo the reform.

Imagine that we are dealing with a flooded house. How do you drain it and start cleaning it? Do you try to pump high-pressure air into the house in order to force the water out of the small openings into which the water had originally flowed? No. You open all doors and windows under water and let gravity take its course. Then you set up siphons and wet-dry vacuums to get to work. You pump as little as you can and let nature do as much of the work as possible. Obviously this system is most effective where doorways are at the lowest level of the house -- floor level and not above basement level. The lesson here is find places where finances can help to naturally clean up the situation.

Where the forces of economics cannot clean out the mortgage-version of a basement, we need to force a financial fix into the system.

Nationalizing all mortgages is the equivalent of closing the ground level doors and to turn on the air pump to force the ground-level water out. It takes too much work and is likely to cause windows to be blown out from air pressure than the water caused. Forcing more money into the system does not help us allow the bad money to flow out as efficiently as possible.

We need a method that tracks what is good money and what is bad money. Then we need to set up a system that pushes out bad money without pulling significant amounts of good money out.

If we can do this, more banks will fail. More people will face foreclosure. However, some banks and people deserve it. Imagine you go into your bank and they offer you a mortgage for $50,000 and you don't have to prove how much money you make. Then the banker tells you that you just need to tell the bank you make more than $80,000 per year. No documents. No follow up. Just your word.

What would you do? How much money would you be tempted to tell the banker you make? If you honesty make more than $80,000, it's a no-brainer. You tell the banker the truth. You get the loan. You can likely repay it. No problem.

If you don't make that much, would you be tempted to lie and tell him, "Funny that you should mention $80,000. That's how much I make!"? Now you get your new-found money! That was easy!

Later you find out that you can't make your monthly payments. You end up in a financial mess. It is your fault or the banker's fault that you are in this situation? The rules of psychology say that if you are the debtor, you blame the banker for suckering you into the loan. You ignore that you had to lie to get the loan.

Is your ill-gotten money, good money or bad money?

I would suggest that it is bad money. You had to commit bank fraud to get it.

Is that a situation that we want to give you Uncle Sam's/the taxpayers' money to fix the situation and keep the liar in his house? Do we want Uncle Sam to reward the banker for not assessing whether the loan was likely to repaid? What if Uncle Sam threatened the banker with sanctions if the banker asked you to prove you had the income to repay the loan?

But here lies the problem: the bankers were encouraged by two Democratic administrations over 30 years with Department of Justice investigations if they asked for basic information about the debtor's financial situation. This Republican administration tried repeatedly to require bankers to ask more questions. Congressional Democrats prevented the fixes from coming to the floor of the US Senate.

Now what do we do to solve it?

Bloomberg.com: News

2008-09-23T09:21:00.000-04:00

Bloomberg.com: News
Explanation of what really caused the banking troubles. Surprising source to have this tone.

Gateway Pundit: Busted!... Video of Fannie Mae CEO in 2005 Explaining the "FAMILY" Connection with Dems & Obama

2008-09-18T12:55:00.000-04:00

Gateway Pundit: Busted!... Video of Fannie Mae CEO in 2005 Explaining the "FAMILY" Connection with Dems & Obama

So Obama and his cronies have nothing to do with Fannie Mae's mess? Watch the videos for Fannie Mae's understanding.

The Truth about the Media!

2008-09-15T10:35:00.002-04:00

Michelle Malkin » The fit hits the shan on Wall Street

2008-09-15T09:26:00.001-04:00

Michelle Malkin » The fit hits the shan on Wall Street

Things look bad on Wall Street.

Secretary Paulsen had sought to get control over mortgage regulation in April, but Democrats wanted to bail out the banks.

The plan, produced by a lame-duck Republican administration facing a Democratic Congress, would drastically expand the authority of the Federal Reserve to oversee financial markets. It would consolidate federal agencies that regulate the nation’s securities and commodities futures markets. And it would allow insurance companies, which have long been regulated by the states, to choose instead to have a national charter and be supervised by a new federal agency under the Treasury Department.
Mr. Paulson said on Monday that he did not expect the bulk of the plan to be adopted during the current administration — and he said Congress should not even consider adopting most of it until after the current housing and credit crisis ended.
“Some may view these recommendations as a response to the circumstances of the day,” Mr. Paulson said. “That is not how they are intended.”
Senior lawmakers, while praising the administration for raising important points for further discussion, said the odds were long for a major overhaul before Congress all but shuts down for the elections in the fall.
“Since this is opening day in baseball, I might as well make a baseball metaphor,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee. “This is a wild pitch. It is not even close to the strike zone.”
Mr. Dodd and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a telephone conference call with reporters that overhauling the regulatory structure was not a high priority. Instead, they said, they were hoping to quickly move legislation that would help homeowners facing higher mortgage rates and foreclosure.
The Democrats’ bill would provide an additional $200 million for counseling for homeowners in danger of foreclosure, would authorize $10 billion in bonding authority for housing finance agencies to refinance subprime loans, and provide $4 billion for local governments to purchase foreclosed properties.
The bill would also change the bankruptcy laws to allow judges to modify mortgages on primary homes — a provision opposed by Republicans who say it will only increase mortgage rates.

(Italics added for emphasis.)

This mess seems to indicate that the Democrats have been in deep with these folks for a while. While the mess is not the Democrats fault, the depth of the problem seems to have been made worse because the Democrats cooperated in preventing real fixes to an existing problem.

Even more interesting is the candidates' reactions. O-Bomba wants to blame Republicans for laissez-faire economics for creating the problem without regard to the history of the matter. McCain addresses the corrective action of refusing government capitalization of struggling businesses and fix the regulatory scheme that favors Congressional meddling and dawdling. I don't know what he wants to do precisely, but fewer regulatory bodies allow greater coherence in operation with fewer political interference opportunities that can be hidden from view. Those make sense to me from my personal experience in business.

Other Thoughts on Earmarks

2008-09-11T15:53:00.003-04:00

If an earmark is a procedural corruption of Congress, what would have the best chance of reducing the need for earmarks?

Many earmarks that get air play are research projects for strange subjects (academia), museums or special institutions of local interest (arts and humanist subjects), and questionable roadways (public works).

The first two examples are just questionable for national expenditure. Roadways are likely to be of more dubious value if paid for by the federal government rather than state or local governments. Why? Locals know local needs better. I would prefer that the federal government drastically curtail its taxation and involvement in federal highways. This is just an invitation to play legislative games. The bridge to nowhere is fine if Alaskans want it and pay for it. Why should the lower 48 contribute?

An empty highway across Arizona (which one I don't know, I am just trying to paint a mental image) from a town in New Mexico to California may make more sense for the federal government to underwrite, since Arizona gets little benefit. But if it is really that worthwhile to all but Arizona, couldn't a toll road solve the problem for Arizona's budgeting?

Earmarking this project is too much money, too poorly analyzed, and likely too expensive for the benefits obtained. Let's try a different way.

McCain and Palin castigate the earmarks she seeks - Yahoo! News

2008-09-11T15:53:00.000-04:00

McCain and Palin castigate the earmarks she seeks - Yahoo! News

I really don't understand this logic. Governors used to have the ability to go to the legislature-appointed Senators for their states to request cooperation from Washington. Now, with popularly elected Senators, Governors mostly have to act like princeps maximus (in its original pre-Augustus meaning) - first citizen.

My problem with earmarks is not the citizen, governor, or business owner petitioning the Congress for help. My problem with earmarks is when the Senator or Representative buries the authorization for payment so no other member of Congress knows that it is there or puts it in the middle of a "must-pass" bill. These are sleazy tactics designed to do an end-run to debate and informed consent by the other legislators.

So why should governors not ask for Congress to do something for their home state again?

Why Should Palin and Voters Be Reverent Toward Obama's Community Organizing? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)

2008-09-09T16:36:00.000-04:00

Why Should Palin and Voters Be Reverent Toward Obama's Community Organizing? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)

Not only is there a question on why to respect community organizing, but why should we respect socialist governments or overregulating governments with socialist tendencies, like Chicago?

A side question that arises is "Why is Chicago so in need of special agitation practices?"

My proposed answer is that Chicago is highly overregulated, leading to heavy reliance on politicians to constantly tinker with the rules. The greater need to change the rules, the greater need for political agitation (for the poor) or lobbying (for those better endowed with wealth).

My question for each politician that proposes change or even smaller changes: what is the ideal that you seek to implement? What example is closest?

If Chicago is the example that Obama intends to change Washington into (assuming that you don't believe that DC is already there), there will be greater need for Community Organizers also known as agitators.

If less government and fewer rules is what we seek, agitators and lobbyist will have less to do. There will be fewer opportunities for conflict and corruption.

Ironic, huh? Fewer rules promote legal compliance. Not just of the nature, if we removed the ban on murder, there would be fewer crimes reported. More accurately, an overeager land developer seeking to build his building will have less incentive to commit bribery or coercion to have ridiculous and arbitrary zoning rules lifted, amended, or ignored by inspectors.

The Strata-Sphere » Anyone Still Believe The Liberal Propaganda About Being For The People?

2008-09-09T09:36:00.000-04:00

The Strata-Sphere » Anyone Still Believe The Liberal Propaganda About Being For The People?

Strata-Sphere quotes an interesting liberal critique of Gov. Sarah Palin:

I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

Look at what she stands for:

* Small town values — a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
* Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America’s image abroad.

(Emphasis added.) The whole liberal motif that Sarah Palin is not qualified because she has no foreign policy experience is exposed in this quote. By inference, the same motif suggests Sen. Obama's supposed qualification on foreign policy with the same or less experience (e.g., Palin's involvement with natural gas pipeline through Canada; fishing ground issues with Russia, Korea, Japan, etc. as a commercial fishing family if not at a policy level) because he has been editing and reading policy papers on the subjects for 18 months.

Frankly, we see in this quote that "ignorance of world affairs" is defined as a "need to repair America's image abroad." By this definition, a foreign policy that is based on treating America as in the wrong is indicative of knowledge in world affairs. Rejecting this premise is by definition ignorant. The logical consequence of this definition and its application is that any assertion of American propriety and power, regardless how long its proponent has studied the issue, will leave the proponent ignorant and unqualified in foreign affairs.

Further, any person willing to kowtow to foreign powers to raise "America's image" is intellectually enlightened. No study. No writing. No reflection. This person is intellectually adept. Add a Columbia undergraduate degree and a Harvard Law degree to the mix and the proponent is absolutely infallible in foreign policy.

I have looked for stories on Palin's interaction with other countries on these issues and have little to nothing.

Let us extrapolate for a moment, though. Suppose you live near the border of another country or two. Suppose you are involved in an industry that often is affected by international treaties. Suppose that industry is heavily regulated as result of those treaties and other domestic laws. Suppose that those treaties deal with those neighboring countries. As a result, coffee shop conversation between you and your compatriots in that industry are going to have a higher dose of international relations discussions than in my home state of Indiana. Does that qualify you as a stateman? No.

In the shadow of William F. Buckley, I would suggest, though, that you might be more qualified than a few of the names in the State Department's phone directory. I would also hazard a guess that you are going to learn issues related to those countries with interest if you are playing in politics, even at the state level. Does the state's National Guard have a role in Northern Command's defense of the homeland? I should hope. The governor, by her own Commandant's interview with Greta van Sustern, has been active in pushing legislation through the Alaska legislature to address troop and support concerns. She has been involved in budgeting for the Guard. I presume that part of the governor's training in transition into the office involves some orientation from the Guard and the Pentagon. This does not make her a strategic or tactical genius, but it is experience.

So poor definitions of what constitutes experience does not take into account both passive and active sources of information about international issues and command decisions.

Historically, our best presidents have had gubernatorial experience. Admittedly some of our worst were also governors (Carter, for instance).

For that I would merely turn to a lesson that I learned in a sales training class a few years back. The lesson focused on the salesman that had 10 years experience and his fellow salesman in the next cubicle with 2 years experience. If the veteran has bad results because he is using poor technique with no system for self-improvement and attempts to address new challenges, is he truly more experienced than the young whipper-snapper? Does your answer change if the younger salesman routinely studies is efforts and adapts his methods to increase his chances for success? What if the younger salesman keeps seeking different experiences: first with young clients, then older ones, then sales to groups of people, then to businesses directed by boards of directors?

The moral of the lesson: if you keep doing things the same old way, you don't have 10 years experience; you have one year's experience 10 times.

Studying Biden v. Palin, Obama v. McCain, or even Obama v. Palin, I keep hearing this thought in the back of my head that Biden has zero years of executive experience and zero years of real involvement in international affairs (albeit with 100.000 pages of briefing books). Obama has zero years of executive experience and 10,000 pages of briefing books. McCain, well, does 5 years in a foreign country as an adult and officer of the United States count as foreign policy experience, when you are negotiating with your own bones, skin, and blood?

Palin, no documented negotiation experience, but 2 years of supervision of negotiations with international oil companies, several Canadian provinces, and the Canadian federal government. What briefings has she receive from the US State Department on this matter? She has served in a legislative capacity at the most personal and brutal level, where the players can know your kids and see them at a basketball game or a restaurant. No threats suggested, but the politics of the personal is pretty tough. Ask any middle school girl.

Palin does not have the ideal resume. I like it far better than the entire Democrat ticket.

YouTube - Obama's forgotten people

2008-09-07T08:39:00.000-04:00

Videos about and by Obama:

Obama's military strategy: