Chemical Weapons in Iraq

Here's a story that wasn't reported in the mainstream press. Chemical weapons were found in Iraq. That's right. This is probably news to you. Newsbusters noticed that no one else seemed to report on it.

The few media outlets that have discussed it talked about how it wasn't as many weapons as what we suspected or how they were old weapons, not newly made weapons. What they don't mention is that a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon and under International Law Iraq was unable to possess them. By Iraq's admission they did not possess them. Neither the law nor Iraq's admission tempered the statements to say they didn't create any new weapons. They didn't say they only had less than 5. The law was they couldn't have any.

I know maybe I'm beating a dead horse here but you'll here in the press for years about how we went into Iraq and there were no weapons. This isn't true. I'm not advocating the manner in which we went into Iraq but lets stick to the facts. Iraq did have chemical weapons. The press just didn't have the objectivity to report it.

America the Beautiful

I want to go here. Really, I do. I love being outdoors, camping, mountain biking, the like. Europe seems to have all the sex appeal and get all the press with its rich history. I'd much rather take a few weeks one year when the kids are older and tour all of the National Parks out West, though. It's a beautiful country we live in. Really, it is.

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.