New School Politics

The field expanded yet again today with an announcement from Joe Biden of his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008.  Biden, the “800th candidate,”  announced his candidacy this afternoon.  He didn’t join the field of candidates without throwing punches, criticizing the policies of the two current front runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  “Biden Unbound,” an article published in yesterday’s New York Observer lays out Biden’s tirade.  All of the other candidates, claim Biden, are “playing politics.”  While some were quick to criticize Biden and his attack against the other Democratic candidates, some groups applaud his candidacy.  Real Clear Politics claims that

Biden deserves more than an occasional cameo next to Democratic headliners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is a foreign-policy sophisticate at a time when Iraq and terrorism are the national obsessions.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Put Biden in the Front Row

Biden aimed to contradict the “sound-bite” strategy of his rivals by giving them “straight answers.”  His comments today, however, were treated as just that.  The most repeated quote of the day seems to be Biden’s seemingly racist comments about Barack Obama

“You got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Mr. Biden said in an interview published online yesterday by the New York Observer. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Biden Ignites Furor With Remark on Obama - February 1, 2007 - The New York Sun

Biden claims he would prefer a plan in which there is a “political settlement between the Sunnis and the Shias.  We ought to bring all the parties together…There is no military solution to Iraq.”  Biden has drawn harsh criticism from both sides of the spectrum but Real Clear Politics finds him worthty yet again.

A Democratic candidate who has the most promising plan for getting us out of Iraq — and tried to avoid many of the mistakes going in — should not be looked at askance. Joe Biden is worldly wise, and for that he merits a spot on the first tier.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Put Biden in the Front Row

It will be interesting to see if their prediction does, in fact, come true.  At the moment, Biden’s running a distant third.  His comments today may have boosted his notoriety, but is the press for the better?

technorati tags:biden, politics, 2008, elections, democrats

Popularity: 7% [?]

Barack Obama has been hit from all sides as of late.  It all started last week with a story by Insight Magazine that discussed Obama’s upbringing.   The article claimed that Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school in Indonesia.  The schools,  frequently referred to as “madrassas,”  were disclosed in Obama’s autobiographies.  Insight Magazine, however, claimed that Obama and his campaign have “not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage.”  The article continued, claiming that Obama “was a Muslim, but he concealed it…His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign.”  The right wing villified the Clinton campaign and claimed that Hillary was digging for dirt in her opponent’s history.

“The idea is to show Obama as deceptive,” claimed the same source in Insight Magazine.  Fox News continued the smear tactics, showing a story about Obama’s “dirty little secret:” cigarette smoking.  In reality, Obama had also revealed that character flaw earlier in his political career.  Fox News’ deceiving coverage of Obama has landed them in hot water with his campaign.  As the media knows, interviews are important.  Obama’s campaign, however, claims that they “will not be swift-boated” by Fox News.  They are, of course, referring to John Kerry’s problem with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group.  The group smeared Kerry’s image as a war hero with dishonest tactics.  Obama’s campaign hopes to avoid the same treatment.

The Washington Post uncovered the extent of the damage of the “madrassa campaign.”  One Fox journalist claimed “I’m still in the freezer.”  Obama’s campaign refuses to speak to Fox News staffers.  The article also details the attention Obama has given to other media outlets (CNN, CBS, NBC, etc.) while duly ignoring Fox News. 

What has this done for Obama’s standings in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008?   So far, results are negligible, showing that Obama’s supporters support his ideals, not his history.   Only time will tell how “Madrassagate” will treat the Obama campaign.  With new Democratic announcements, Obama’s going to have a tougher time achieving success in the upcoming primaries.   

technorati tags:obama, 2008, elections, foxnews, fox, media, clinton

Popularity: 7% [?]

I suppose that thirty-five years was as much of a break as we would get from the woman who committed treason during the Vietnam War by supporting the killing of American soldiers. Over the weekend she spoke at a rally in Washington D.C for an anti-war march. Once again she embarrassed herself and her cause by putting her face on the front of the anti-war movement. But, does she represent something inherent with the anti-war movement in Iraq today. Yes, the war has been executed badly, but it is evident in their rhetoric that none of the members of the anti-war movement have the capacity for intelligence to understand the consequences for withdrawal from Iraq.

If you are for an immediate troop pull out you are for a world war. It is that simple. It is not possible for American forces to leave Iraq with in the next 18 months without a major civil war, which would lead to a regional war. In the process of pulling out hundreds if not thousands of American forces would be killed in brutal battles as they retreat and millions of women and children in the Middle East would be massacred. Is this what the anti-war movement wants?

Jane Fonda, do your cause a favor, go back and hide away for another thirty-five years.

Popularity: 9% [?]

A few days ago, Tibor Machan, philosopher and co-founder of Reason Magazine (a leading libertarian publication),  wrote a satiricle editorial on what the New York Times might reveal if they were to be a little more candid in their editorial policy.

Mr. Machan hits it right on the nose, articulating the altruistic and nihilistic values that truly lie at heart of their, as well as most leftist, philosophy.

If you want the link to the article, click here. Here’s the whole thing:

The following is a New York Times editorial that will never be written by the editors there:

“We here at The New York Times want to announce a new policy. This is that we will no longer criticize anyone, nor praise anyone. We will, in other words, hold no one responsible for his or her conduct. “We institute this policy in light of the columns published recently in our pages arguing that human beings have no free will, that they cannot choose their own conduct. If this is so, as we believe it is-we haven’t published anyone arguing the opposite thesis, as you may have noticed-there can be no choice about what people do. Neither Saddam Hussein, nor George W. Bush, nor Nancy Pelosi nor indeed anyone at all has anything to do with his or her conduct or, as social scientists prefer to call it, behavior.

“It all just happens because it must. As one of the experts made clear whom we mentioned in the discussion we published, namely Mark Hallett-a researcher with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-’Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force. People experience free will. They have the sense they are free.’ As he added, ‘The more you scrutinize it, the more you realize you don’t have it.’ Which is to say, to be up front about it, free will does not exist at all-it’s an illusion, according Mr. Hallett.

“Accordingly, over the entire history of this newspaper the editors have quite mistakenly blamed many of America’s and indeed the world’s political figures for wrongs they thought have been committed, some of them rather grave ones, such as Hitler’s and Stalin’s-although we have been easier on the second than on the first and we have continued this bias with how we have singled out General Pinochet for criticism but have given other dictators, mostly on the Left, a virtual pass-others less severe, as when we criticized politicians or our own adversaries. And the praise we have heaped upon those we liked was also pointless-they just did as they had to. In every case of blaming or praising, we have been misguided. Of course, we could not be blamed for this either-we just did what we had to do. Everything is exactly as it must be-the world is but a daisy-chain of hard-wired, deterministic forces driving everything relentlessly to proceed as it will. All of our own reporting and analysis throughout the history of the newspaper has come about as a result of impersonal forces, so we cannot be held responsible for any errors that have found themselves into our pages. Nor for the so called achievements for which we have received prizes!

“The very idea of independent journalistic judgment must henceforth be rejected since journalists who have no free minds cannot be held responsible for what they produce, any more than scientists can be required to be objective rather than biased. Nor, of course, are racists ever to be blamed for their prejudices-they cannot help themselves either. Come to think of it, all those who consider what we believe wrong are also blameless-they, too, just think what the impersonal forces of nature force them to think.

“In short, it is really, as Doris Day used to sing, just ‘Que sera, sera,’ after all. As your columnist said professor Benjamin Libet reported back in the 1970s-although, again, he couldn’t help himself when he did this-when we act, we do so independently of our own minds, so what we do is all just happening to us. We actually do nothing.

“So, again come to think of it, we cannot really say what we will do in the future as we write our editorials-it’ll all just happen, as will everything else in the universe.

“Sad part of it is that even as we appear to write these lines, we aren’t doing it. It is all just unfolding as the impersonal forces of nature and we are but puppets in it all. Still, in so far as we might by some chance have any hand in things, we would like to make clear that in virtue of our conviction that human beings have no free will, we are going to try very hard to abstain from holding anyone responsible for anything, including ourselves.”

Popularity: 8% [?]

The consensus early in the ‘08 campaign seems to be that, while a very seductive politician, Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) appears to lack substance and quite simply no one really knows what he would do as president if elected. 

Thursday, the young senator made his first self-identification and it was a revealing one.  

The Associated Press reports: 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race.  

“The time has come for universal health care in

America,” Obama said at a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.  

“I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country,” the

Illinois senator said.  

Obama was previewing what is shaping up to be a theme of the 2008 Democratic primary. One of his rivals, 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, also said as he announced his candidacy last month that he will offer a proposal for universal health care.  

Obama said while plans are offered in every campaign season with “much fanfare and promise,” they collapse under the weight of

Washington politics, leaving citizens to struggle with the skyrocketing costs.  

He said it’s wrong that 46 million in this country are uninsured when the country spends more than any one else on health care. He said Americans pay $15 billion in taxes to help care for the uninsured.  

“We can’t afford another disappointing charade in 2008, 2009 and Obama said. “It’s not only tiresome, it’s wrong.”  

Obama’s call was an echo of a speech he made last April when he said Democrats “need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values.”

I’ve said it before, there is no such thing as magic. And despite how much politicians may lead you to believe it, the government cannot simply create “cheap affordable healthcare” by decree. There will be a cost of any program that a President Obama or Edwards may propose; and the cost will be outrageous and will simultaneously destroy all incentive and ability to innovate and provide quality healthcare to customers. 

It’s ironic that Obama and Edwards are now proposing universal healthcare considering who they’re chasing in the primary. Over ten years ago Mrs. Clinton was at the center of a proposal to socialize American medicine, maybe they should ask her how that turned out.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Aside from healthcare, the other major issue that the President, as well as nearly everyone on Capital Hill, is emphasizing since his State of the Union address is “alternative” energy. And like healthcare the solution being offered is government.

AP Reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is asking Congress to aggressively expand the use of alternative fuels, mainly ethanol, to reduce the need for gasoline and put the brakes on growing U.S. oil consumption.

The president’s proposal aims to cut gasoline use by 20 percent by 2017, mostly by replacing the fuel with ethanol, and by expected improvements in automobile fuel economy.

The proposal in Tuesday night’s State of the Union address rejects requiring automakers to boost the fuel economy of their new car fleets, but leaves open possible future increases if Congress provides more flexibility in the regulation…

The energy proposal calls on Congress to require the annual use of 35 billion gallons of ethanol and other alternative fuels such as bio-diesel by 2017, a fivefold increase over current requirements. The ethanol would be in gasoline blends of 10 to 85 percent.

Motorists now use 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year.

White House aides said the sharp increase in alternative fuels and technological changes, including the use of more gas-electric hybrid cars, will cut projected gasoline demand by 20 percent over the next decade…

The call for sharp increases in use of ethanol will get bipartisan support in Congress, where several bills including one calling for production of up to 60 billion gallons by 2030 already have been introduced.

But corn-based ethanol will fall far short of meeting such an increase.

Bush’s fuels proposal, which is aimed at replacing 15 percent of gasoline use by 2017, envisions a major speedup of research into production of cellulosic ethanol - made from wood chips, switch grass and other non-corn feedstock.

The president’s upcoming proposed budget for fiscal 2008, will include $179 million for such biofuels and $2 billion in loans guarantees for cellulosic ethanol plants, the White House said.

At the heart of Washington’s folly is a failure to recognize their nature as a government especially in relation to the economy. Proponents of government sponsored alternative energy lead us to believe that government can automatically create a source of energy that will be cheaper and more efficient than the type of energy we use today. To the contrary, however, there will be consequences of the plan that exceed far exceed the benefits:

1. There will be a cost of government researching energy. 2. The free market can better allocate resources in the energy sector than the government. 3. There is not necessarily a better source of energy than our present source.

The government cannot magically create demand they need to take savings from the private in order to do so. This plan will require $2.2 billion in the first year alone and already in the first 100 hours of the new congress there was a tax hike on oil companies which will go to pay for it (along with other programs). Capital will have to be diverted from other lines of production to pay for Bush’ program.

But the motive behind congress endeavoring to redistribute investment is because they think that can better allocate capital in the energy sector. (I won’t even begin to address the immorality of the presupposition of this logic–that the government has the right to take the wealth produced and owned by the oil companies–because that in and of itself is reason to strike it down). This assumption is wrong because it fails to recognize the fundamentally different natures of private businesses and the government.

A private business–such as the oil companies–must produce on their own accord in order to survive. In business terms this means they must make a profit or else they simply cannot remain in business. If a company fails to consistantly turn a profit the incentive for people to invest in it will diminish and they will have progressively less capital to fund their opporations. In other words, energy companies need to make a profit–produce a surplus of goods and services over what they consume–if they are to maintain their own existance.

The government is the opposite. While an oil company relies on voluntary exchange to garner its income, the government takes its money. If the government were to take control of the whole energy sector and (as would be suspected) was not very productive, it would not have to worry about not having the money to continue to operate at is present levels like the private company does; it could simply take more money from elsewhere in the economy to pay for it. By increasing government discretion over the energy sector, as Bush’s plan does, you begin to divorce production from incentive and when that happens supply will begin to diminish and it is all of us who will suffer at the gas pump. The choice is ultimately whether to give discretion over the capital in the energy industry to those who produce oil for a living or those who take other people’s money for a living.

There has been a great commotion about “alternative” energy in politics but in doing so they have assumed that there is another type of energy out there that is better than what we have now and moreover that we could easily produce it. The fact remains that there is no evidence of this and that at present oil is the best form of energy. There is a reason that there is such a large demand for oil in the world economy, there is a reason why it is the dominant mode of energy we use: there is the largest demand for it and the extraordinary extent of its demand is only representative of the fact that it is the best, most efficient type of energy. If oil wasn’t our best choice of energy–or if energy companies believed that we were running out of oil–the market would likely have made a radical adjustment and begin investing in those alternative fuels. But as is only 2% of our economy runs on renewable energy, and oil is still our best option. And thus our efforts should be concentrated on optimizing its production, which implicitly means keeping it unburdened by government.

Popularity: 6% [?]

The State of the Union tonight was different than many expected. The first part focused on domestic policy was predicted during the talk shows on twenty-four hour news networks prior to Bush’s speech. I was pleased with a number of points that Bush made but was also disappointed with others. I was impressed with the president’s attempt at bipartisanship. Whether Republicans like it or not, Bush is in danger of being a lame duck (assuming he is already not one). My colleague Zach Sims noted that Bush wore a blue tie (perhaps signaling an attempt at partisanship); he also reiterated, “we must work together” on multiple topics.

It is imparative that Bush does work with the democratic controlled house and senate; I believe that Bush will be able to work with his democratic colleagues on multiple issues, including healthcare and energy. On MSNBC’s State of the Union coverage Chris Mathews and Keith Oberman disclosed an informal response from Barack Obama that expressed hope at working with his Republican counterparts to finding a solid energy policy and solving the healthcare crisis.

The goal to decrease America’s gasoline consumption by twenty percent over the next decade is an excellent first step to decreasing our nations demand on foreign oil. At the same time we should be looking into many other technologies including nuclear alternatives to our traditional petroleum driven infrastructure. If the French can get sixty percent of their power from nuclear plants, why can’t we? Bush’s energy policy is sound and his acknowledgment of “global climate change” is a good first step towards combating global warming. I believe that America as a whole is now willing to fight global warming and that most American’s are believers in its effects, Bush has realized that he can only gain political ground by putting forth a policy that pleases the majority of the nation.

I am glad to see that the administration highlighted the problems with the American healthcare system and the HMOs and while I hope that it will remain private, the HMOs are as bad as any socialized medical program.

Bush is working towards a comprehensive plan for immigration, which is better than anything offered in the past, however there is one problem with a guest worker program. The American melting pot has defined this country and is what makes it so unique, but a guest worker program jeopardizes this basic fundamental of the American character. If people come to America, work for five years, and then leave they are not adding any real value to the economy, nor towards the culture and society. Also many of these people wish to work in America and then live in America, bringing their families into the United States to seek better opportunities. Like other immigrants before them, Latin Americans are hard workers with strong Catholic values that encourage healthy family bonds a good work ethic. They are the types of people that Americans want at their side and if we kick them out after working here we will be keeping them from integrating into our society, only inflaming the immigration crisis and increasing the cultural divide. Yes boarder security needs to be tightened, but those who wish to come live and work honestly in America should be welcomed with open arms and be eligible for their citizenship.

I was disappointed at the president’s new policy towards Africa. It may have been an attempt to reach out to the European’s, however giving aid to Africa is neither the responsibility of the United States government, nor should it dictate how taxpayer dollars are spent there. Organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation (which has assets in the tens of billions) are able to demolish epidemics all over the world and they are more efficient than any government agency. Not only does private enterprise have better results, spur creative thinking, and avoid government corruption, it is often able to raise greater capital. In a time when the United States has a half a trillion-dollar deficit, the government should not be spending over one billion dollars to combat disease on another continent. Instead that billion dollars should be used for alternative energy research in the United States, providing up to date text books for American students, dealing with the crimes caused by Katrina evacuees, or perhaps increasing oil output from Iraq.

Iraq and the Middle East present the biggest challenges for the president. Bush called for a two state solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, support for the troop increase in Baghdad, and further condemnation of Iran. I disagree with almost all of the President’s Middle East policy. Iran and Syria do represent threats, but neither country has attacked the United States in thirty years nor has declared war on any western country. Negotiating with Iran not only shows a position of strength for America, it will also enable the US to set the agenda instead of leaving it to the Russians or the Europeans. Opening Iran up to American trade and investment will do more to stop terrorism and radicalism than any amount of bombs, a Starbucks on every corner of Tehran will do more to destroy radical Islamic terrorism than a soldier on each corner. At the same time both Iran and Syria must be convinced (through economic incentives such as trade) to stop their support of Hezbollah.

The US and Israel should also exponentially increase their aid to the Lebanese government to insure it is capable of securing its own boarders from Syria. In addition, diplomacy with Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to stop any unofficial funding of Sunni terrorism in Iraq is fundamental to ending the violence. The only way there will ever be peace in Palestine is if the Palestinians have a state, in a Discovery Times Documentary, Columnist Thomas Friedman discovered that over twenty percent of Palestinians would endorse a single state solution. This is an astounding number considering not one political or militant party in neither Israel nor Palestine has called for a single state solution. A single state solution is the only way to end the boarder conflicts between the two countries and also will give the Palestinians a passport that they so desperately want.

Bush made important points about the state of the world and the state of the country. I hope that he reaches out to his democratic opponents and encourages his Republican constituents to do the same; otherwise the next two years will be less fruitful than the last. Some of his initiatives have promise, but all of them will depend on the willingness of others to succeed. The Congress and Senate will have to work together to ensure that tonight’s speech was not given in vain.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Yesterday the President threw himself into the national debate on healthcare by offering his own initiative on the issue. He essentially offers two changes: one, being a shift of responsibility from the federal to state governments and, two, a shift in the tax burden from private to employee based health insurance.

Free Market News reports:

President Bush is putting together a proposal to tax workers for health insurance payments paid by their employers, according to the Associated Press and Reuters. The Bush administration is hoping that the plan will encourage individuals to buy their own insurance. Under the proposal, health insurance benefits would be considered taxable income subject to a standard deduction of $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families. In addition, individuals would be able to deduct their health insurance premium costs if they pay for it themselves. The tax proposal will likely help the 46 million Americans who are uninsured by giving them an incentive to buy private health care.

What I can agree on with the President on is that employee-based healthcare is overemphasized. For very long politicians have been attempting to connect health coverage with employment. This emphasis, however, seems irrational to me. There is no reason for connecting healthcare and employment just like there is no reason for connecting internet service and employment. We have division of labor for a reason–it is more efficient. Needlessly hampering employers with healthcare costs will only inflate the price of labor and reduce the demand for employment.

But although lowering taxes on individual insurance and no longer placing as great an emphasis on employer provided care are good steps it cannot avoid the fact that Bush’s plan still encompasses taxing those who have health care to pay for those who do not. Politicians have led the public to think that, while there are different methods of going about it, the only options we have involve government.

But there is an alternative that has not been presented, and that is deregulating the healthcare system in favor of freedom. What exists in the issue of health care is that people seem to view it as different, even sacred, compared to everything else–people don’t demand universal home ownership or cell phone coverage, but many do medical insurance. The fact remains that health coverage exists within an economic reality like any other commodity–it must obey by economic laws like supply and demand.  By taxing people with coverage to pay for those who do not, you raise the price of insurance and ultimately punish the purchase of healthcare. By using one man’s money to buy another’s health coverage for others, there is no limit on how much money can be wasted. And by ensuring that there will automatically be demand for healthcare government destroys incentive for innovation and production of quality healthcare.

Nearly everyone in politics agrees that healthcare is in an unacceptable state but they still fail to recognize why it is at that point. For over seventy years we have been trying what Bush, Kennedy, Schwarzenegger, et al. are still proposing today–government sponsored coverage–and all the while no one acknowledged the free market alternative. Until and unless we reintroduce freedom to an industry long devoid of it we ask for its destruction. Only by removing the burden of regulation and the costliness of taxation and by restoring the incentive to buy and sell will the health of healthcare be ensured.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Popularity: 10% [?]

Since when has the attorney general been able to interpret the Constitution?  Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales simply claimed that the right of habeas corpus could be taken from Americans at any time.   Gonzales later claimed that “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”  Clearly, the government has already shown its disregard for the Constitution.  Directly defying and interpreting it, however, is a whole other matter.  Interpretation of the Constitution is part of the jurisdiction of the judicial system.  1803’s Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review.  The Supreme Court (and thereby only the judicial branch of government) had the right to interpret the Constitution.   The Bush Administration has shown its willingness to bend Constitutional precepts with such programs as the recent NSA wiretapping and illegal imprisonments.  The new Democratic Congress won’t stand for the same sorts of Constitutional abuses that the administration has been allowed to commit during the reign of the Republican Congress. Committee chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) got into a lengthy argument with Gonzales over the matter, arguing that the “Constitution says you can’t take [habeas corpus] away except in the case of invasion or rebellion.”  Gonzales retorted with an almost unlawful claim, claiming that

“Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended”

The remainder of Gonzales’ testimony can be seenbelow.   It’s simply astonishing that such grave violations of the Constitutional rights of Americans are being abridged by the very same authority entrusted with the task of protecting them.  The Constitution is more than a guideline; it’s the rulebook for governance.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration doesn’t think so. 

Popularity: 8% [?]