Month: July 2009

Petition Against Health Care Legislation

by

I’ve been sending this to friends, many of whom voted for Obama.

If you do a bit of research on what the health legislation actually contains, I think you may decide you don’t want it. This is a good time to pay attention. We are being fooled.

1) We will not be able to keep plans of our own choice;
2) We will pay more;
3) Quality will decrease.

This legislation will end the potential to fix problems through entrepreneur and customer driven market process.

A starting point: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10367

I’ve signed this and I hope you will too:
http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/

Weird Colorado

by

Here are some other oddball sights… in the upper left – EVERYTHING apparently costs more in Aspen – even their water (poor Boulder, CO). In the upper right – aliens have commandeered the house out in the sticks outside Crested Butte – although I’ll bet that alien is disguised as a dirty hippie in there if you look really close. In the middle left – the “Love Shack” is right in down town Crested Butte and it even has a web site right here; might be fun some time (and well located). I don’t know exactly what the “pig truck” is trying to accomplish in Leadville, but am mildly amused by the handicapped sticker on this monster(ish) truck. On the lower left – they are very particular about their altitude in Leadville, noting that it is TWO miles high as far as liquor goes (the mile high baseball field in Denver has a line in the upper deck indicating their mere one mile status). And finally, in the lower left, that species known as the coug*r (don’t want the traffic) await Kevin Costner’s band in Aspen… I didn’t even know he played (hasn’t had a movie hit in a long time).

Cross posted in LITGM

“…their total inability to admit the possibility of a social order which is not made by political design”

by

In Britain and among the English-speaking peoples … Locke’s ideas were simply combined with the old English tradition of limited government. Rather than a project for a new society and a new morality, the English revolution of 1688 and, to a lesser extent, the American revolution of 1776 were basically, though not only, a reassertion of the rights of free Englishman to live their lives as they used to live them before—under the common protection of the laws of the land. In other words, what we now call liberal democracy has emerged in the Anglosphere as a natural outgrowth of existing, law-abiding and moral-abiding ways of life. For this reason, liberal democracy among the English speaking peoples has been naturally associated with an ethos of duty—which, as Burke pointed out, is not and should not be deduced from will. For this reason, too, liberal democracy in the Anglosphere has been tremendously stable. And the English-speaking peoples have always been the first to rise in defence of their cherished liberties—their way of life.
 
In continental Europe, by contrast, the idea of liberty has tended to be understood as an adversarial project: adversarial to all existing ways of life simply because, in a sense, they were already there; because they had not been designed by ‘Reason’. This has generated a lasting instability in European politics. This adversarial attitude, combined with a widespread disregard for limited government, has led European politics to be recurrently dominated by two absolutist poles: revolutionary liberals and later revolutionary socialists, on the one hand, and counter-revolutionary conservatives, on the other. They both have aimed at using government without limits to push forward their particular, and usually sectarian, agendas. Their clash—the clash between the so-called liberal project and traditional ways of life—has been at the root of the historical weakness of European liberal democracy, when compared with liberal democracy among the English speaking peoples. This weakness also explains why, differently from the English-speaking peoples, continental Europeans are not usually the first to rise in defence of our liberties when our liberties become at risk.

João Carlos Espada, Edmund Burke and the Anglo-American Tradition of Liberty (2006)

These Job Makers are Going, Boys, and They Ain’t Coming Back

by

Now main streets whitewashed windows and vacant stores

Seems like there aint nobody wants to come down here no more

They’re closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks

Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they ain’t coming back to

Your hometown, your hometown, your hometown, your hometown

— Bruce Springsteen and E-Street Band, Your Hometown

Obama in Michigan

“The hard truth is that some of the jobs that have been lost in the auto industry and elsewhere won’t be coming back,” he said in a speech at Macomb Community College in Warren, Mich. “They are the casualties of a changing economy. And that only underscores the importance of generating new businesses and industries to replace the ones we’ve lost, and of preparing our workers to fill jobs they create.
 
He added, “For even before this recession hit, we were faced with an economy that was simply not creating or sustaining enough new, well-paying jobs.”
 
But some economists believe Obama is training people for failure.

Well, perhaps training people for his failure. The real problem is that neither Obama nor The Bruce understands what jobs really are.

We talk about jobs as if they are physical objects. We find jobs. We lose them. We trade them. We save them. We export them by shipping them overseas. Occasionally, we believe they are stolen. Metaphors are common in language and usually harmless, but sometimes we seem to forget that they are metaphors. This in turn causes us to misunderstand the phenomenom under discussion.

In the case of jobs, the metaphor stops us from asking what physical event actually occurs when jobs “go away” and “don’t come back.” Examining this metaphor tells us something that is very important and ignored in most political discussions.

Read more

Stimulus Bungle

by

Government as a real-world institution makes very poor decisions overall. Many people buy into the myth that individuals in government who are driven by a greed for power make better decisions than do people outside of government who act from other motives. A Fox News analysis [h/t Instapundit] provides profound evidence this is not the case.

Comparisons between foundering California and prospering Texas are all the rage now because the differences are quite stark. Now matter what area you examine, California is hurting badly. The state was Ground Zero for the housing bust. Unemployment is exploding and people are leaving the state in droves. Texas, by contrast, escaped the housing bust, has a balanced budget, a growing manufacturing sector and low unemployment compared to most places.

Clearly, California needs more help than Texas. (What form that help should take is another discussion.)

Look at this Wall Street Journal table (scroll down) that breaks down the per capita stimulus spending for each state. Compare California and Texas. Texas get more money per capita from the stimulus in virtually every single category, sometimes by quite a lot. When California does get more per capita it’s not by much. When you factor in Texas’s significantly lower cost of living, the comparison looks even worse.

How did the political system crank out such a perverse result? It can’t be political pull. The Texas federal delegation is overwhelmingly Republican and therefore locked out of the stimulus distribution. Texas has even less pull with the Obama White House. As previously noted, Obama routed money preferentially to areas that supported him, which in the main Texas did not.

In a time of perceived national emergency and one-party rule, fans of government decisionmaking would predict that government would make even better decisions than usual, but, unsurprisingly to the rest of us, in the bizarre sausage-making nightmare of the federal political system, Texas came out with more money per capita than California. If the political system worked as well as it does in the fantasies of leftists, all of the money that went to Texas would have gone to California instead. Even those of us who believe the stimulus foolish nevertheless believe that we should at least spend the money on the people hurting.

The guy with the surfboard needs the help not the guy with the Waverider. Why couldn’t the real-world federal political process figure that out?

texasvscalifornia