100% Political Pandering

I case you've been living under a rock somewhere, gas prices have been high. The national average these days is hovering around $3 a gallon. There are a lot of people unhappy about that and a lot of politicians that are up for re-election this year.

If you've read some of my previous posts you'll understand that I believe one of the two main objectives of tax legislation today is to buy votes. This plan is a perfect example of that.

Here are other people's thoughts on the idea:

"100 percent political pandering."
- John Berthoud, National Taxpayers Union

"One of the dumbest ideas of the year."
"Simply a please-vote-for-me-in-November payment."
- Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute

Gouge This

There's been a lot of talk in the news about price gouging and how Congress is investigating. Some Democrat from Washington even wants to make "excessively unconscionable price increases" illegal. Seriously. What does that mean and what good is that going to do?

Our economy is based on supply and demand. He's a simple illustration. I own a generator store. The weather's been great, electricity cheap and in abundant supply, and my 10 generators have been sitting on the shelves for months with a $500 price tag on them. Well, a hurricane comes rumbling through (increased demand). Due to the new anti-gouging laws, I can't adjust my price and on such short notice I'm unable to increase my inventory (flat supply). Someone comes in and buys 1. As the warnings increase and the weather worsens, another customer comes in and buys 2 more. Just in case, he says, as he loads them up. The morning of the storm, 4 more customers come in and between them buy the remaining 7 generators that I have.

I've been unable to regulate my inventory because supply, demand, and price are all out of my control. As a store owner, I can never do much to affect demand. Given notice I can keep a steady supply, but I must use price to balance the two.

That's not the end of the story, though. Others come in desperate need after learning now that the power will be out for days. I have to turn them away empty handed. I have no more generators. Meanwhile the customers that came in and bought 2 generators each are running their TVs and air conditioners all day long. The people without are suffering. If I had been able to adjust my price, perhaps some of the customers that bought 2 generators just because the price allowed them to would have only bought 1. Maybe they'd just be running a refrigerator and a couple of fans. And maybe I would still have had generators on my shelf when the people that I had to turn away came in. Wouldn't they have been happy to pay $700 for my $500 generator?

Here's another scenario. This time my generator store isn't in one of the areas affected by the storm but in a neighboring area. I see the news reports about how people are in desperate need of generators. The new anti-gouging laws prevent me from raising my price though and my price is set to be able to sell the generators from my store. If I could raise the price of my generators to $700 maybe it would be worth it for me to try to deliver them to the storm affected areas. Since my price can't go above $500 though, I just let them sit unused in my store.

I'm sure some people would argue that those scenarios are very unrealistic and would never happen and they aren't good examples and all that. I saw the potential for those stories to unfold first hand when I was in the aftermath of Katrina last year, though. Price gouging laws prevent people from reacting to changing economic conditions around them. It may help some people in that they got a $500 generator for $500 instead of $700 but it hurts people others when a generator isn't still on the shelf. That's not gouging; that's basic economics.

Where Do You Get This We Business?

So I'm reading this Newsweek article about how Bush changing advisors isn't really going to affect the White House's policies very much. And that's probably true. And then I get to this line, "We should be preparing for aging baby boomers." I'm sorry, we? We should be preparing for aging baby boomers? Where do you get this we business? Do you have a frog in your pocket?
Don't think of me as cold hearted. Perhaps sometimes I am, but I don't want you to think of me that way (that's supposed to be mildly amusing). I'm all for helping people out. Really, I am. My mom isn't getting any younger and I try to help her out as much as I can. I recently had a friend that went several months without a job. We'd meet for dinner every few weeks to catch up and see how his job search was going. I'd try to make sure I picked up his tab. I give faithfully to my church and occasionally other organizations. I have a trip this fall planned to do some mission and/or humanitarian work. Last year after hurricane Katrina I personally delivered hundreds of gallons of water and gasoline along with food, generators, and other supplies to friends and family that I have still living in the affected areas. I'm all for helping other people out. I just don't believe other people should live their life as if they expect it.

It kinda reminds me of an email forward I saw a long time ago. Upon digging through my email archives, I find it dated 2/10/1999. Yes, I actually have email from that long ago.

It's titled simply "Folk Tale."

THE ORIGINAL VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

MODERN AMERICAN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be that, in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Then a representative of the NAGB (The national association of greenbugs) shows up on Nightline and charges the ant with green bias, and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when he sings "It's not easy being green."

Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS Evening News to tell a concerned Dan Rather that they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the Reagan summers. Richard Gephardt exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share."

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of greenbugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal hearing officers that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare moms who can only hear cases on Thursday's between 1:30 and 3 PM. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV, which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, they are showing Bill Clinton standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "fairness" has dawned in America.

I don't want a grasshopper to starve while I live in abundance. I really don't. But I don't think anyone wants to be the ant working hard all summer while the grasshopper plays all the while sticking his tongue out at the ant and making faces chanting, "you're gonna have to gimme some of your food." There's no justice, fairness, or equality in that. None whatsoever.

Now some people may dismiss that as a silly little story. And in some ways it is. For one, it's certainly not just the Democrats that would wildly applaud an era of such fairness. It's anyone running for re-election. My point is sharing the story is that neither version is really correct. A balance needs to be found between helping those in need and removing the incentive for hard work.

I believe in social safety nets. I just don't believe in welfare. The social safety nets of our country are the good people of our country. The social safety nets are the people who give individually, collectively through charitable organizations, churches, and often anonymously. In order for this safety net to exist it's also very important that the government get out of the business of providing a safety net. Just like in this story when the grasshopper knows the ant is going to take care of him he doesn't work, people are often times lulled into a false sense of security when the government steps in and tries to do the job of the people. People take on, and understandably so, the attitude of, "Why should I give this person my money? Aren't there government programs for that?" Or maybe, "Why should I help them? Won't someone else?"

There's a balance to be found between helping someone who needs a hand and making yourself so available to help anyone and everyone that people take advantage of it. That's what happens with institutionalize welfare. Not everyone, but very large number of people take advantage of it. If these decisions are made instead of at a federal or even a state level at the community level or even the household level then there's a much greater degree of discretion I who I want to help and why. And if I don't want to make my decision individually there are numerous churches and other nonprofit organizations that would love to help me decide what to do with my charitable giving. And since I'm the one making the decision, I'll never have to wonder where do you get this we business.

Here Come the Braves

Everyone has been talking all doom and gloom about the season. On 4/15 Smoltz throws a CG 4 hitter. Thomson pitched 6 beautiful shutout innings on 4/16 but the bullpen slipped, probably due to being a bit overworked for the first 2 weeks of the season, and gave it away. Sosa got rocked on 4/17 but I'm not so sure we should be expecting much more of him. Last year he had a lot of good luck. Maybe it'll continue, maybe not. I'll be glad when Ramirez is back, though. On 4/18 Davies mans up after Sosa was bombed in NY and gives up 1 in a CG effort against the Mets. Today Hudson who's been terrible this year follows it up with another CG and they beat the Mets in NY again, this time 2-1. That's 3 CG in the last 5 and 4 beautiful starting efforts in the last 5. A few months from now people will be looking back at this stretch as the one that turned the season around for the Braves.

UPDATE: The AJC now reports:

"Excluding Jorge Sosa's four-inning mess in Monday's series opener, the other four starters are 3-0 with a 0.55 ERA during the run, allowing two runs and 11 hits in 33 innings, with three walks and 22 strikeouts."

That's phenomenal pitching. That's Braves baseball.

Immigration Issues

This whole immigration deal is too big not to weigh in on. The first thing I think reading this article and seeing some of the pictures both in this article and on TV recently is man, I love seeing those people waving that American flag. Too often the TV shows images of people in other countries burning that beautiful flag that so many of our forefathers fought and died for. To see people who want to be a part of this country waving it proudly gives me a thrill. That's the way it really is - almost anyone anywhere in the world, including the very same people that are burning our flag, would leap at the chance to live in America - and it's only just that it's portrayed that way for a change.

Now to the difficult issues. The first issue is the borders. Our borders must be secured. That's not even up for discussion. I'm all for people coming into our country but we have to know who's coming in, why they're coming in, how long they're going to be here, etc. Our economy needs hardworking people from all over the world. We need like-minded people who respect the rule of law and who want to build a better future for their families. I'm for that 100%. The problem with open borders is that it allows people who don't contribute and who wish us harm to potentially enter our country as well. We can't have that.

Once our borders are secured, who should we let in? As I outlined, we want people who are going to contribute. We need hardworking people who are willing to roll up their sleeves and help our economy continue to grow. I don't know if that means we have to limit the number of people that come in every year or what but securing the borders does mean that deporting people becomes a real threat. As the lady in the article said, "They kick us out, weÂ?re coming back tomorrow." Given the currently porous borders there's no way to enforce basic principles on those coming into the country. People coming in should be documented (possibly including providing them with an ID card) and have a hearing scheduled for a year or so out. At that hearing they should be able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language and the American society. This isn't a citizenship exam but should cover the essentials. They should also be able to demonstrate a work history and things like that. Removing the minimum wage and moving from an income tax based system to something like FairTax would make integration people into our economy that much easier and more productive but that's a different discussion.

The toughest issue is what do we do with the people who are already in the country illegally once we close the borders. Honestly, there's not an easy answer to that question. I can see both sides of the debate. I can see how people oppose blanket amnesty. You never want to encourage people to ignore the rule of law, one of the most basic principles of our country. I can also understand the argument that many of these people, even though they're here illegally, have contributed to our economy and we don't want to just kick them out. I think the best resolution is some sort of a compromise. I think there should be a window, perhaps one year, where people currently here illegally can apply for entry into the US just like anyone else. There would be no fear of expulsion if they register but they would be subject to the same requirements as anyone else entering the country. They would also have to pay some sort of a penalty. It could be something from a fine to having them volunteer to help educate and assimilate others coming into the country. If they don't register during that window and if they don't abide by the terms of the agreement then they'll be subject to deportation. I understand this solution may not be ideal but sometimes there's not an ideal solution to a situation.

I want to go ahead andacknowledgee the fact that I said assimilate. I want to clarify what I mean by that. There must be things that the entire nation is willing to presuppose in order for the nation to exist and function as a nation. People in our country have to be able to speak a common language and abide by a common set of laws. That doesn't mean we should all be the same. We have to use common sense. The way people dress, the foods they eat, there are plenty of cultural things that people should be allowed to continue. I'd go so far as to say that these are cultural things that we as Americans should encourage. Diversity is a beautiful thing, it really is. Life would be no fun if we all dressed the same, laughed at the same jokes, walked the same, liked the same foods, and on and on and on. At the same time, even appreciating diversity is a common trait. Someone once said if not for the dark then we couldn't recognize the light. By the same token, if not for things in common then we wouldn't be able to recognize the differences. Assimilation has been made out by some to be a dirty word. It shouldn't be. It doesn't mean that we all become identical. It just means that we have things that we accept in common. We have a common basis, a common foundation.

If this wasn't already obvious, I don't have all of the answers. I recognize that people have to be able to enter the country. If people weren't allowed into the country then none of us would be here. That outlook has to be weighed against the fact that we have to maintain a level of security for us all. We as a nation should welcome with open arms those who want to share a common foundation with us: things like language, an appreciation for family values, a robust economy, opportunity, and most importantly freedom.

Nuclear End Game

Through the natural progression of technology things become more and more common. Nuclear weapons are no different. While still extremely difficult to create a weapon and a delivery device, it's becoming easier and easier to do.

Just a few years ago we were sending IAEA inspectors into Iraq as long as they could stay at one time without being kicked out. Right now we're battling both North Korea and Iran over their nuclear pursuits. We're putting a lot of diplomatic pressure on Iran in cooperation with the Europeans. Russia and China are still far less than supportive. How can they not support forcing a country who's stated intention is to "wipe [Israel] off the map" to waive their nuclear ambitions? It makes me wonder what their angle in this deal is.

What's our end game in this whole pursuit, though? Lets say tomorrow Iran announces they're inviting inspectors in. We inspect. No nukes. What if we're wrong? What if the inspectors don't find them and they obtain nuclear weapons anyway?

Or the most likely scenario, regardless of how things play out with Iran, what happens when the next country pursues nukes? What happens if Syria starts trying to build a bomb? What happens if radicals take over Pakistan and gain control of their nukes? What happens if 20 years from now Mexico is governed by radicals and they start pursuing nukes?

Do we just continue this pattern of apply diplomatic pressure, involve the international community, threaten sanctions, offer billions in aid and other concessions, apply diplomatic pressure, threaten military force, finally start paying out the nose in the hopes that some rogue dictator that we didn't trust with nukes keeps his word? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Don't misunderstand me, we're doing what we have to do now. That can't be our end game, though.

Technology eventually becomes a commodity. Computers were novelties years ago. Now almost every household in the industrialized world has one. Internet access is the same way. We would never consider it a viable option to keep "bad guys" from getting computers even though they can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Just look at the time, money, and privacy lost every year due to sabotage. Why do we consider this a viable option when it comes to nukes?

Someone said once that silence can never be bought, only rented. Preventing the spread of technology and innovation is the same way. Eventually our best efforts at presenting "bad guys" from getting nukes will fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying. Right now that's buying us time but we need to looking beyond that. How do we respond when they eventually obtain nukes? The answer to that question should be our end game.

That's an Apology?

I don't know a thing in the world about Cynthia McKinney other than the fact that her politics are extremely liberal. For those that haven't been following along, when people enter the Capitol building in Washington they have to go through a metal detector and be screened, much like what happens at an airport. Members of Congress are allowed to bypass this screening process and are given a special pin to wear on their lapel to help the security teams identify them. McKinney was not wearing her pin as she bypassed security the other day. According the the Capitol Police officer, she was asked three times to stop. She ignored the officer's request to stop and he approached her from behind placing a hand on her arm or shoulder (where exactly the officer placed his hand is a matter of dispute). McKinney immediately turned around and struck the officer. Some reports say with her hand, others say with her purse. In any event, she struck a cop.

Initially she said she was "acting in self defense." No joke. That was her claim. The next day she claimed that there was "inappropriate touching." I'm not sure who's touching was supposed to be inapproate but again, that was her claim. This morphed into "racial profiling" with McKinney claiming she was stopped only because she was black. Today the press is claiming that she's apologizing. Her exact words were, "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."

Now I don't know about anyone else but my mom used to tell me that I had to say it like I meant it. It doesn't sound to me like McKinney meant it. Of course she's sorry that the misunderstanding happened at all. Everyone is. Of course she regrets its escalation. Everyone does. What is she apologizing for? What did she do that she wishes she had not done? That's the real mystery here. My mom wouldn't have considered that an apology from me and Idon't think we should consider that an apology from McKinney.

Fort Mountain

I really enjoy mountain biking but I don't get to do it as often as I'd like. Yesterday I was able to get out a little and enjoyed Fort Mountain State Park outside of Chatsworth, Georgia. It was beautiful, to say the least.