Steve's Random Political Thoughts

Stimulus Update

2009-06-26T02:22:00.000-07:00

Several months ago, President Obama was here in Columbus holding a press conference to promote his stimulus package. He was with 25 police officers who's jobs had been saved because stimulus money was going to be used to pay their salaries for the next year. Here's an update on how that's working out:

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/05/26/police_budget.html?sid=101

So, now Columbus is saying they need to raise taxes (above the current 2% city-levied income tax) in order to prevent the layoff of nearly 300 police officers, including the 25 President Obama claims he saved. It's been just a few months, not a year, and we already need more money to keep going. This is yet another piece of evidence that large government spending is not sustainable. If you are in debt, it doesn't seem rational to believe that you can spend yourself out of the situation. Yet that's what we're doing, and what is the result? The problem is only being exacerbated. As a student, last year I paid well over 20% of my already meager income to fund government spending that still isn't making up for the deficit, and yet now I'm told I have to pay more to preserve a police force the stimulus package supposedly already funded. I don't have a problem paying taxes and contribution my fair share, but I certainly have a problem when its used in a futile attempt to spend our way out of debt.

The BCS and The Congress

2009-05-02T06:49:00.001-07:00

Neither are organizations I have been particularly fond of lately, so it's tough to take sides in this debate.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4122741

Now, I hate the BCS system with a passion. I thought it was awesome when President Obama said that he wanted a playoff system. I'm all about, as fans of college football, pressuring the BCS to change their money-grubbing, discriminatory ways. I want a playoff. And I don't see why a 16 team playoff system doesn't work. (Sorry President Obama. If you want to be truly fair and non-exclusionary, 8 teams isn't enough.)

BUT, I am sick to my stomach (not swine flu, I checked that out already) that The Congress feels the need to have the government become involved. Senator Hatch is making Utah look like a whining baby. They just seal clubbed Alabama, ranked number 1 for most of last year's season, and proved just how good they are. Do we then need to bring legislation against the BCS to make our point??? No! They just need to continue to beat the BCS teams into submission and prove that we can play with the so-called big boys. That's what sports, and sportsmanship, is all about. That's why it's fun. Getting the political system involved is only sinking to the level of the enemy. Maybe even lower.

I laughed and laughed when President Obama started smack talking the BCS. But I worried and worried when, in a later interview, he looked quite serious and said he might use his "presidential weight" to shake up the BCS. Noooo! That's not what the President should be doing. And frankly, the idea comes across as completely arrogant. Just because you are the President doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. It means you are the highest level public servant, not a dictator. Not that Senator Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Barton (R-TX) are any better with their hearings and threats of legislation. Noooo! The government and legislation are not how we should be solving problems in this country. Whether it be the economy or the BCS, the people are the solution. True change happens when the people get together and pool their abilities, talents, and strengths. When the underdogs from Utah come together and decide that they can play with the big guys, then work and work to make it happen, that's when the foundations of the BCS crack. Not because the government said so, but because the people took a hammer to it.

Want to save the economy? Get out of debt and start working, earnings, and saving. Want to save the environment? Start conserving energy. Want to fix the BCS? Start beating their teams. Want to mess everything up? Turn it over to the government.

SM

More On Rush

2009-03-06T18:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/06/dnc-seeking-slogan-billboard-rush-limbaughs-backyard/

Now, I'm not a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh. Or rather, I don't listen to him that often. He's too Republican for my tastes. I've never been a huge fan of partisanship and I think he tends to deepen the divide between the right and the left rather than bridge it. That said, the DNC doesn't need to sink to his level as well. They must know that he actually enjoys getting them riled up. This is only going to encourage him.

SM

Multipliers and Statistics

2009-02-24T09:52:00.000-08:00

So, the recent mega-spending stimulus package is supposed to return every dollar spent back to the economy at a rate of 1.59 dollars. That is, it's a 59% return on investment. Based on this, we are dumping some 700 billion dollars, figuring it will increase our GDP by over 1.1 trillion due to what is termed the multiplier effect. To my understanding, this is based on past research dealing with the impacts of government spending.

Here's a few things to know, based on my understanding of the research, although I confess to not being an expert in this field.

A 1.59 multiplier is not a fact, it's a statistic. Statistics and facts are, in my humble opinion, not the same thing. Statistics are more like educated guesses. The government has never spent this much money all at once ever before. Therefore, there is no precedent on which to predict its effect. To think that past estimates of a 59% return on investment will continue to hold true is to commit a grievous extrapolation error. That is, some studies suggest we get 59% on small spending packages, but studies say nothing about large spending packages. It's very possible that small and large packages have very different effects.
If we really get $1.59 back for every $1 the government spends, why in the world are we in debt at all? It's because it depends on what you spend the money on. Precisely what it needs to be spent on is extremely unclear. What does seem to be clear is that it needs to be targeted very carefully. This is not a target I trust the special-interest-influenced political process to hit very accurately.
The multiplier of $1.59 says nothing about the time it takes to realize the return. If it takes 50 years, then it doesn't really matter to our immediate financial crisis. I don't know how long it takes, but I suspect it's not a short period of time. Although, this is an aspect of the research I have not read thoroughly.
There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that deficit spending hurts our economy pretty bad as well. So which effect wins out? The multiplier or the negative impact of a deficit? I guess we'll have to let the statistics continue to argue this one out.

At the end of the day, I only trust a statistic about as far as I can throw it. This recent spending spree is catapulting the numbers far out of reach. $700 billion is a lot of faith in a statistic. A wise man once said, "There are 3 types of lies in this world: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a sizable check to write to the government to make good on my 2008 tax liability. I hope you're reading this, Mr. Geitner.

SM

Rush vs The Congress

2009-01-28T07:42:00.000-08:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/dems-launch-online-petition-rush-limbaugh/

Maybe I'm just sensitive to whenever politicians go after the media because they always seem to after the guys I listen to. Even still, things like the Fairness Doctrine scares me to death. It is as anti-free speech, anti-constitution, and anti-American as it gets. (Yes, I just said the anti-A word). I don't want the liberals off of TV, so why do we have to get the conservatives off of radio?? Now, this most recent fiasco doesn't concern the Fairness Doctrine specifically, but it runs right along the same vain. And granted it's only a petition, not a policy or a law, but still, it's the government behind the petition. If was a private citizen who started the petition, I wouldn't be angry about it.

Now, to be very clear, I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh. I get just as angry listening to his show as I do watching Keith Olberman. BUT, is it really the place of the government to launch campaigns against a private citizen's right to express his opinion? If Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, fine, he's entitled to say that. I think it's a terribly juvenile attitude for him to have. We can't wish for each other to fail. It's not good and it doesn't get things done. I also think it was terribly juvenile for President Obama to invite GOP leaders for a bipartisan discussion and open it up by telling them they can't listen to Limbaugh. That seems to be to be a statement that carries with it the implicit assumption that Republicans are brainless.

The whole thing just frustrates me. If we are going to be bipartisan, we need to focus on ideas, issues, and policies. There should not even be a discussion of who is listening to who or anything like that. There should also not be wishing for people you don't agree with to fail. We need to realize that the only way to succeed to together.

Let's come to the meetings, sit down next to each other, and talk about issues. Maybe that's what they did and the media is bending this. In fact, that's always a possibility. The media doesn't help bipartisianship at all. But that's a rant for another day.

SM

P.S. It has just come to my attention that it is not the Congressional Democrats launching the petition per se. It's the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- a committee that recruits and raises funds for congressional candidates. That's a little better than the government going after him. Still, I don't like it. I also concede that similar Republican Committees do similar things. I am of the same opinion concerning them. In fact, I recently returned a letter I received from a committee asking for donations with a response that said I will consider donating when they consider focusing on generating good candidates and policies and not on tearing down their opposition instead. I'm sure the lack of contributions from this poor grad student was enough to send shivers down their collective spines.

Another Interesting Article

2009-01-27T06:11:00.000-08:00

Not to turn my blog into a list of links to other articles, but this one was way too good to pass up. It's a Wall Street Journal article about all of the recent government stimulus packages. The only modification I would make is wherever Dr. Barro refers to "Team Obama" or the "Democrats" I would also add "and the Bush Administration during his last two years in office."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html

SM

Thoughts on the Inaguration

2009-01-21T15:04:00.000-08:00

Listening to President Obama's inaugural address was interesting to me. I suppose I had always known this, but I realized it a little more clearly: At the end of the day, I want all of the same things he does. Really, our goals are almost identical and include things like strong national security, a healthy economy, efficient use of our resources, freedom and equality. For those reasons, I honestly hope he's successful.

Now, I don't often agree with him on the methods that he proposes to go about realizing those goals. Not that I don't think what he proposes will do what he says it will, but rather I think that the path comes at too great of a cost and there are better ways to do it. My interpretation of history, and my understanding of effective policy seems to be very different that his. The biggest difference that I see is, interestingly enough, probably the most hotly debated topic throughout history: I believe that the people, when left to themselves, eventually get it right. President Obama seems to believe that people don't, so it is necessary for the government to have a much more involved role in problem solving. The true answer to the problems he outlined is probably somewhere in the middle.

All that said, my support and prayers are with him and our country, as they are with any President of the United States. The nice thing about democracy and our system of government is that now President Obama gets a chance to try out his ideas and we'll see what happens. The debates will continue and, if we all remain open minded, we'll eventually figure out what works and what does it. That's why, even in the midst of a financial crisis and everything else, I'm actually quite optimistic about the future.

SM

P.S. I was going to hold my tongue and not comment on the prayers at the inaguration, but I lack the will to do so. Rick Warren held back more than people thought he might, which was probably good, but he did lay it on pretty thick. Rev. Joseph Lowery, however, amazed me. "When white will do what is right?" I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure we just elected a not-white president. Are we still hung up on this? Good grief. If we really want to get rid of racism, we should stop referencing color all the stinking time! But I suppose that's a rant for another day...

Forecasting the Economic Situation

2009-01-10T07:40:00.000-08:00

Here's a game on Economist Greg Mankiw's webpage:

http://bcs.worthpublishers.com/mankiw5/cat_070/game.htm

It goes along with his Macroeconomics text book. You put in a couple of variables and see what that makes the economy do. Just for fun, I put in variables to (very) roughly estimate Pres. Bush's current bailouts and submitted them. The economy tanked. Then, in round 2, I put in variables to (very) roughly estimate Pres. Obama's proposed stimulus plan.

I was impeached immediately.

Give it a shot and see if you can keep the economy running. What you do depends on the situations given to you (it's random), but here's a general hint: find a balance between both low taxes and budget surpluses.

SM

States vs Feds

2009-01-06T09:43:00.001-08:00

I just read this blog on Fox News that I found interesting. And it even stays relatively non-partisan until the last couple of paragraphs.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/06/deseno_burris/

More-on Bailout

2008-12-09T12:11:00.000-08:00

So I've heard the argument from several sources saying that while the bank bailout was a terrible thing for the government to do, the auto bailout is a good thing. Why? Because auto companies employ people and provide jobs.

Point 1: So do banks.
Point 2: Actually, banks employ a lot of people and probably pay them more too.
Point 3: A bailout is a bailout is a stinking bailout.

A recent Fox editorial summed it up pretty good, and even used facts. Something I should probably do more often.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/09/bolling_automakers/

I just heard that Pres. Obama has proposed an "economic stimulus" package that will cost upwards of 1 trillion dollars. Only his will be building roads and stuff. If we need the roads, great. If it's just smoke and mirrors, I'm not impressed. He said his plan is more than just throwing money at the problems. I don't know, but 1 trillion sounds like throwing a lot of money. I'm truly baffelled by all of this. We rail on Washington for spending like a drunken sailor and then turn around and spend like a drunken sailor. And then we get mad at GM for spending too much money flying their personal planes to DC. We respond by blowing more money.

Look, if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Even if it is a good or desirable thing. If you want something, earn the stinking money first. Then buy it. I'd be all for the auto bailout, if we were running a government revenue surplus. But we're not. We need to cut spending even if it means losing some good programs. We need to payoff debt and institute wealth generating programs. Then we will have the money to buy the other things we want or need or whatever.

When I was younger, if I wanted to buy something my parents would give me a job. I'd mow the lawn or wash the car or dig ditches. Then I'd get a dollar. Then I'd spend it. It wouldn't have made a lot of sense for my parents to buy the thing and give it to me and then tell me to pay it off. Oh, but only if it doesn't cause a hardship.

LIFE IS HARD. Deal with it. If it means buying Hondas because GM goes out of business, then great. We'll all be cruising around in eco-friendly, affordable, reliable cars in no time. And for those who lose their jobs in the meantime. I'm truly sorry. Really. I've been unemployed before. But you still have skills, so use it as an opportunity to get into something else and expand your horizons. There's a line from a song I love. It goes something like this:

Thank you God, for giving me this insight
So I might make these wrongs right
If and when there ever is a next time
Because failure is a blessing in disguise

(Relient K, "Devestation and Reform")

We slam big corporations again and again for being greedy and evil. Well, now they're eating the consquences of their greed. And we're saving them from it?? Isn't this what we wanted?? Would we bailout Walmart or Big Oil if they were the ones going out of buisness?? (Probably we would. I mean, what's another trillion?) I say let them fail. It's a blessing really. They'll come back more competitive and stronger than before.

SM

The New Cabinet

2008-12-06T07:06:00.000-08:00

Just for fun, I thought I'd toss out my opinion on the new cabinet members. They are ranked on a scale of "up" (=good or interesting choice), "down" (=bad, stupid, or strange choice), "whatever" (=vanilla choice or whether it's good waits to be seen) and "not sure" (=I really don't know much about this person at all and wikipedia wasn't very informative either). These are only positions that have been announced, and I may do another post after the next batch of appointments are named. (There are still some interesting positions that have not been decided in the areas of energy, transportation, etc.)

Secretary of Treasury - Timothy Geithner. Down. He has a strong resume, but if you've read my other posts, you might realize that anyone who supported the bailout to the extent that Mr. Geithner did is not going to have a lot of my support. (As if that matters coming from someone of my political clout, but still.) Mr. Geithner not only supported the bailout, the whole AIG thing may have been his idea.

Secretary of Commerce - Bill Richardson. Down. The other types of choices that are hard for me to get behind are ones that seem to be based on political moves, rather than actual qualifications. Gov. Richardson has a lot of experience, yes, but not a track record I'm very fond of.

Chairperson, Council of Economic Advisors - Christina Romer. Whatever. This seem to me to be a "sexy" choice, if you will. Dr. Romer is a prominent economist in academic circles, and has done a tremendous amount of work in areas relevant to our current economic crisis. She's smart, but I worry that research (recently presented at Ohio State) such as this takes interesting results and tacks politically motivated interpretations on them. That is, she may turn out to be someone who says "yes" to everything Pres. Obama proposes, and use her research to support this, even when the evidence is weak.

Director, National Economic Counci - Lawrence Summers. Up, I think. The guy is way smart and has tons of experience. He might have the best resume in the entire cabinet. He was probably a contributor to the some of economic success we experienced during the Clinton administration. The only reason I'm not a solid "up" is that I haven't taken the time yet to really examine where he stood on a few policies of recent concern.

Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board - Paul Volcker. Up. I'm a Volcker fan, what can I say? What he did in the 1980's as Fed Chairman was gutsy, not popular, but in retrospect was the right decision. He saved huge future problems at the expense of current discomfort. That's what we need now. Bring on the Volcker Recession Round 2! (Oh wait, we're already in a recession. Perhaps this time it will be the Volcker Depression. Whatever.)

Director, Office of Management and Budget - Peter Orszag. Down, but maybe up. Any student of Alan Blinder is going to make me a little nervous. Dr. Blinder does good work, in a rigorous sense, but he sticks too close to the economist way and doesn't consider the real world often. If that rubbed off on Dr. Orszag, that's not good. BUT, he's been somewhat vocal about our debt and it's potential long term problems. If he seizes on this point and keeps the Budget under control, I may be a supporter after all. Although he was in the budget office during the recent uncontrolled spending fiasco.

Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton. Down. The is clearly a political choice. I really don't see the qualifications. She needs more solid experience in direct foreign affairs before taking these rains. Up to now, she's really just been sort of next to a lot of things, but not directly involved, other than making speeches and stuff. Maybe she'll prove me wrong and usher in a new area of world peace, but I just see her as bring a lot of politics to the White House and not many real solution. We'll see.

Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates. Up. And not because of my personal feelings on the war, either. I'm extremely impressed at Pres. Obama's guts in putting someone in the cabinet who disagrees with him, and to do it in a critical position. This gives me a lot of hope that Pres. Obama really might be more middle ground than I've worried. Now if this was a political choice, then I'm not as thrilled, but I'll take it at face value for now and assume that Pres. Obama really wants a variety of opinions. Again, we'll see.

Secretary of Homeland Security - Janet Napolitano. Whatever. Good resume, political track record. Who knows? Not me.

National Security Advisor - James Jones. Up, probably. All sorts of experience, strong record, and frankly, I'm interested to see how a military guy will fit into this role.

UN Ambassador - Susan Rice. Not sure. I know she's been around a lot, but I haven't paid too much attention to her. I guess I will have to now.

Attorney General - Eric Holder. Not sure. See Susan Rice.

Secretary of Health and Human Services - Tom Daschle. Down-ish. He's over a department with a huge budget and doesn't have a super record suggesting he's not going to blow a lot of cash. That makes me nervous.

US Trade Representative - Xavier Becerra. Down. This one is really puzzling, maybe I don't know something about his track record that I should, but I don't see that he's had much experience in trade matters. He's a lawyer. That's weird. Maybe he's a specialist in international law? Personally, I would prefer to see someone who's more versed in trade economics. Maybe Mr. Becerra is and it just isn't that transparent in my readings of what he's done.

Hail the Chief!

2008-11-12T10:17:00.000-08:00

How did I miss this interview during the campaign?!?! Had I only known this was his position, I would have decked my house out in Obama '08 signs, worn Obama '08 t-shirts every day, and even helped ACORN register people.

He even said this on ESPN . . . that's like going on MSNBC and saying you're Republican. Good thing he won. We can finally get this country going in the right direction.

SM

President Obama

2008-11-05T07:03:00.001-08:00

Well, it was no surprise to see the election results. In fact, it was downright thoughtful of Ohio, Iowa, and Virginia to seal it up quickly so that I didn't have to stay up much past my bedtime. I joked about donning a red shirt with a hammer and sickle on it and then walk around campus calling everyone "comrade", but then I figured that's a bad idea in one of the counties that helped tip Ohio to Obama. And besides, it's a tongue-in-cheek, crass comment that is not representative of my true sentiments regarding the outcome of the election. In fact, I try to be forward looking and view this as an opportunity to, as Obama himself has said, bring about real change. I sincerely wish President Obama the best as he takes on a tremendous responsibility. A few thoughts:

Cons: Anyone who talks about politics with me knows that Pres. Obama's overall approach to economic policy, including health care, frightens me. What he will actually implement remains to be seen, and I am hoping that his plans to redistribute wealth (in his words) don't get very far. While it will close the income gap, I fear it will do so at the expense of wealth-creating motives. It will close the gap by making the affluent poor, not by making the poor affluent. (You can probably just pick a post below at random to learn why I feel that way!) I also worry that President Obama is a little more arrogant than most politicians, but that's really just a personality thing. I suppose another could call it confidence. I am concerned about how he seems to view corporations as endless supplies of government wealth and not as organizations filled with people. Taxing corporations as punishment for outsourcing jobs is not only a poor reason for levying a tax, but since corporations are made up of profit-maximizing individuals, will likely only make the outsourcing problem worse (depending on precisely how the tax is levied). Finally, I worry about his apparent views concerning the class-structure of society. He seems to view the poor as a class of oppressed people who are now rallying behind him in an effort to rise up and beat the rich. That is not the attitude of a uniter. Perhaps I am mistaken in how I have interpreted some of the things he says, but it is a concern nonetheless.

Pros: The international community currently has a very favorable opinion of President Obama. This puts him in a strong position -- and a position not recently enjoyed by his predecessor -- to make big inroads into resolving foreign relations disputes through diplomatic means. I hope and pray that he is able to harness the power of such a position to be successful on this front. The last thing I want is more war. He carries himself well, and if our nation's face to the world is of concern, President Obama should be able to improve that image. He has a very excited and energetic base. If he can transfer that excitement and energy away from campaign-season-love-of-a-candidate to a desire to hit the streets and start working together to figure out and accomplish what is right for this country, then we may go a long way yet. He has the demeanor that is necessary to be a uniter. He strikes me as a moral man as well -- that is something our country desperately needs.

Either way, my prayers go out to the leadership of this country, as they long have. I will also try to rededicate myself to learning truth and working to make my community a good one.

God Bless America.

SM

Edit: I forgot one more pro: I don't have to listen to, nor look at, Sen. McCain anymore.

November 5th

2008-10-23T17:26:00.000-07:00

Now, to be clear, I've been predicting that Sen. Obama will win the election for a long time. I still think that he will, and frankly, I think it's going to be in a landslide. And while he deserves a huge congratulations for winning the election, even still, is this really necessary?? You're not winning a contest or a beauty pagent, you're becoming the next President of the United States. I would, personally, prefer to see a more humble acceptance, and a display of some sort of acknowledgment of the tremendous responsibility that comes with being the most powerful person in the free world. (Well, for now... the way the economy is headed, that later title might belong to Vladimir Putin before too much longer. Sorry, that was cynical of me.)

Although, here's an interesting thought: Should Senator McCain somehow pull off the upset victory, what would his celebration look like? Or better yet, what will his seemingly inevitable concession speech be? My vote is he cusses all the way to the podium, smiles and says something gracious, and cusses all the way back to his home. Or maybe just goes on an extended hunting trip in northern Canada with Gov. Palin to forget his sorrows. Or maybe it'll roll right off him... I mean, this will be the third election he's going to lose. He's got practice.

The Almighty Bailout: Sticking the Government's Finger in a Cracked Dike

2008-10-12T07:10:00.000-07:00

I'm back... maybe! I took a break this summer from blogging as I was studying for some nasty exams and otherwise traveling various places all over the country. I'm hoping that my life has calmed down sufficiently that I can now resume this thing. Either that, or this is going to turn into something similar to journal writing... meaning I'll write a lot in short spurts with large breaks in between. How regular this blog becomes remains to be seen!

The big news seems to be the economic bailout package, and since my phone has been ringing off the hook for the past several weeks with people wanting to know my thoughts on it, I thought I'd preemptively respond to future such inquiries.

In my opinion, the bailout is a terrible idea. Now, I confess that macroeconomics and finance are not my specialties, but I just don't see how throwing $700 billion at failing companies is a good idea. I see two reasons for the current problems: 1) Poor investment decisions made my greedy companies concerned with quick profits and luxuries 2) Restrictive government regulations, particularly in the subprime mortgage industry, in essence forcing companies to make otherwise poor investment decisions. So, why does the bailout not fix either problem?

Lehman Brothers gave us a good example. How anyone thinks that accepting government rescue funds and then the very next day blowing half a million on a lavish company retreat is in any way ethical or good behavior is beyond me. This is why you shouldn't give large sums of money for free to people who have done a bad job of managing what they already had. They will continue to mismanage it. I don't see why we should step in and cover up the consequences of greed and a general lack of integrity. Let them reap the consequences of their bad business practices. Only when they feel the crushing defeat of their business going under will they begin to think that maybe they should have done things differently. No matter how much they cry in front of congress.

The second problem is just as bad. Particularly in the subprime industry, government oversight and regulation has been stifling. The government is generally staffed with people who have earned law degrees, political science degrees, and are otherwise very good at politics. Corporations tend to be staffed with people who have business degrees and have otherwise built their resumes based on work in industry. So who is more qualified to dictate how an industry should be run? Now, I understand that many of the regulation are made under the banner of protecting the consumer and keeping people in houses who may otherwise not be able to afford one. But still, the government all but forcing business (Fannie Mae) to lend to people with a history of bad credit is bound to be a big time money loser. And it's as much responsible for the current economic downturn as the greedy corporations. Now, I am not an advocate of kicking people out on the street just because they are living in unfortunate circumstances beyond their control. But I also don't think that requiring investors to lend them money, when they will not likely pay it back, is a great idea either. I would like to see programs where the unfortunate are provided with housing based on them giving some sort of effort back, and are held responsible for doing everything they are realistically able to do. Not one where they are protected and entitled to something they haven't really earned. It's a tough issue, and I don't have all the solutions. But I do know that current regulatory practices have proven clearly that they don't work.

The bailout is a classic example of masking the symptoms while failing to correct the underlying problem. Will it make things better in the short run? Ya, it might. And we might be able to put this thing behind us and continue on for a few more years thinking all is well. Until the bottom falls out again. Spending that large of a sum of money, when the government already carries a tremendous debt burden, will only hurt the economy's structure even more, and things will get only worse in 10 or 20 years.

Besides, it continues to further the mistaken idea that the government is the solution to our problems. The government is not the solution, but the government can help a solution to be discovered. By letting failed companies fail, and deregulating in order to allow the businessmen and people trained in, and having a deep concern over the performance of, these things do what they think will work. I believe that this will eventually result in our investments being shored up, and our economy being strengthened. It will, of course, be a slow and painful process. For the time being, investments will continue to fall. Loans will be hard to get. Foreclosures may continue. (But, hey, gas prices are tanking too!) However, eventually, the economy will rebound. Loans will start to free up, and investment portfolios will rise. People who lost their houses will be able to get into houses they can affort and will have more incentive to keep up on payments. Failed companies will correct their internal structures, come back more robust, and fire slimey CEOs who waste money. I worry that the bailout will prevent us from seeing the true problems and correcting them, by attempting to cusion the consequences of bad behavior. It is necessary to go through a little pain now so we can come back with greater strength.

So let the market run. As Adam Smith said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." If we let the butcher, brewer, and the baker do what they do and get out of their way, we will get our dinner. And if their greed makes them engage in unethical practices to bake or brew or butch, their shops will fail, and a new, stronger one will come back to fill the hole. We need to have a little more trust in We The People, and not so much in the government.

***

That's the end of my ranting. If you want more, here are a few other economists:
Alan Blinder: Mr. Blinder doesn't agree with me. My only response to his story is that I only hope that when the little dutch boy does pull his finger out after help has arrived, the pressure buildup isn't so great that it kills the dutch boy, the help, and all the townspeople in much greater force.

Greg Mankiw: Although not responding to the current bailout, is much more articulate on these principles than I.

Steven Leavitt: The author of Freakonomics gives a much more technical, and neutral, list of answers to common questions about the current economic crisis.

And if all of this turmoil gives you a headache, a little satire should help.

Zero Sum Games

2008-04-12T16:40:00.000-07:00

There's an interesting little concept in economics called a Zero Sum Game. To give a simplistic example, consider two people, each with $5, for a total of $10 in the economy. Now take $2 from one guy and give it to the other. This redistribution leaves one person with $7 and the other with $3. The total is still $10. This is a zero sum game because the total sum of their interactions is, well, zero. ($2 to person 1 - $2 from person 2 = $0 net change.) Easy enough? The basic idea is pretty simple.

It hit me the other day, while pondering on a discussion I had with a colleague about welfare, that perhaps one of the big reasons that there is a debate on how to handle social aid policies can be explained through this concept. That is, I think some people look at welfare and tax issues as if it is a zero sum game. Again, to be abstract, this perspective would interpret an economy as 1 rich guy with all the money, say $10, and one poor guy with nothing. Suppose also that in order to live at an average standard of living, one would need $5. Since we have a moral obligation to care for our poor, a good intentioned person may look at this situation and say we need to tax the rich guy and give a welfare check to the poor one. Take $5 from the rich guy, give it to the poor guy, and we no longer have an income gap and both can live at a decent standard. Problem solved.

But here's why I don't like that: I don't think this is a zero sum game. See, the guy with the $10 probably earned that through his job. Maybe he's a CEO and his job involved playing golf all the time, but no matter, he has a job that paid it to him. Now, in order to get that $10, presumably his company has to provide a service that people pay for. If you take $5 from him, that's $5 he doesn't have to use to expand his company. His company's growth is stunted and so he backs off on production. Instead of making $10 worth of stuff, maybe he only makes $9 now. After taxes he gets $4 and the poor guy gets $5. Total in the economy: $9. Wait, where did the other dollar go? Oh ya, the CEO shrunk his business. So it's not a zero sum game. Taxes distort profits and discourage production. The result is less stuff built, less money made, and an overall drop in average wages.

It works the other way too. See, CEO's are selfish jerks. They don't care about the little guy... just their own bottom line. And without taxes, there is incentive to earn money (since you get to keep it and don't have to just give it to the government). So in all his selfishness, the CEO expands his company and tries to produce more stuff. That means he needs to hire someone to do that. So he hired the guy without a job, and pays him say, $5. The poor guy gets his $5 and the rich guy gets, well, richer than before. Or better yet, maybe the poor guy says "Hey! The government doesn't tax profits! Awesome! I'm gonna start my own business!" He does, becomes a greedy CEO himself, and lives the American Dream.

Okay, I know this is a baked example, but here's the point: Taxes and welfare is not a zero sum game. By not taxing, we encourage entrepreneurship which creates more jobs for those that don't have them. Welfare generally depress this effect and in fact encourages the poor guy to stay poor. Why work if the government will give you stuff for not working? Traditional handout based welfare programs create dependency on the system and don't teach self-responsibility. In fact, it's fundamentally discriminatory against poor people because it's based on a philosophy that says, "You're poor and uneducated and so you don't have the ability to care for yourself so we'll do it for you." I respectfully disagree. We should encourage business and alleviate tax burdens so CEOs can be more competitive, plow money into R&D, and keep our economy alive and strong. Taxes to fund welfare programs is a downward spiral that may help in the immediate present, but in the long run will make rich people poorer while not making the poor people any more rich. Don't believe me? Look at our existing programs: Social Security, Medicare, etc.... all of which are just about ready to go bankrupt and implode.

Now, I'm not done just yet. I do support some taxes and even some welfare. There are three welfare programs I would like to see replace our current ones:

Improve public education and keep it free for everyone. Don't have a job? Get an education (for free) and the go get a job.
Additional job training and search services. Need money to support your family? We won't write you a check, but we will find you a job so you can earn that money on your own two feet. And we'll help you find that job for free.
Emergency medical assistance. If you don't have money and get hit by a bus, we'll still treat you and the government will pick up the check. And even send the tax bill to the evil CEOs. How very... liberal of me... ;-)

I just keep getting angry when I hear people talk about evil corporate conservatives who don't care about helping the poor. My heart breaks when I see people who are less fortunate than myself. I want to help them. As I'm able, I do help them. But that's personal. On a federal level, I guess I just want to see society helping people help themselves, instead of just helping people scrape by. Socialized welfare programs are 100% fine with me if they are based on the self-help principle, not on the government-help principle.

SM

Edit: I swear, next time I'll find a new topic instead of harping on this same one over and over.

McCain's Position on the Political Spectrum

2008-03-07T18:18:00.000-08:00

Just a thought... I believe John McCain could quite possibly be the first candidate ever in history who, upon securing his party's nomination and beginning a general election campaign, has run further to the right instead of more toward the middle.

SM

Are Corporations Evil

2008-03-03T20:16:00.000-08:00

I've been hearing a lot of rhetoric around the good state of Ohio lately as we prepare for the nasty primary election coming up tomorrow. A good deal of it is anti corporation. So I pose the question: Are corporations that evil? Recently someone gave a speech where they basically told people to go into industry jobs (as opposed to corporate jobs) because their candidate's plans will take away corporate profits and give it to the poor who deserve it. Now, I advocate helping the poor, but is stealing people's hard-earned income a good way to do it? I think we should be able to 1) choose our own vocations without the government trying to give incentives us one way or the other using tax tricks and 2) expect to earn a decent living on our own strength, again without the government getting in the way. So what is it about corporations that is so bad? I always thought that it was the innovation of business to find a niche that the consumers want and sell them a product and earn money that was the foundation of our economy. Which, incidentally, is the largest and most successful in the world. (By most key indicators, particularly per-capita GDP.) I'm just getting sick of this idea that we need to beat down the evil business men. Good grief. If helping the poor is our goal, lets get out and help the poor. But not at the expense of those whose hard work got them something good.

SM

Edit: Apparently I need to either slow down when I write or repeat English 101. My grammar is terrible... ;-)

Edit 2: I don't like the last line anymore. I want to add a word. It should be "But not at the forced expense of those whose hard work got them something good." I think if your hard work got you something good, you should go out and share that something with others.

Obama in Ohio

2008-02-20T08:28:00.000-08:00

Senator Obama has been campaigning in Ohio lately and has given a few speeches. Although I have been unable to attend, I have tried to listed and read as much as I can. I have concluded two things so far. First, the Senator is very good at motivational speaking. He can get people to rally around him, and that can be a good thing for healing partisan divisions. What is starting to scare me, however, is exactly the policies we would be rallying around.

For example, he recently said that he wants to keep jobs in America. That's a good goal. How is he going to do it? In his words, "we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America." I have several problems with this:

1- It sounds good. I mean, who doesn't want to hear that we are going to keep jobs in America? But it's very naive. It is precisely high tax rates on business that is forcing jobs overseas. The economics are straightforward: Tax Business -> Companies lose profits -> Managers must cut costs to continue to function, grow, and provide services -> Companies decrease levels of American workers, which are generally higher paid, and outsource to cheaper labor overseas. Mr. Obama's plan strikes me as one that will actually results in increasing levels of job outsourcing. I recommend Todd Bucholz's book, Bringing the Jobs Home for more details on this.

2- On a more philosophical level, the idea that it's okay for government to penalize business for not running their companies the way the government thinks they should frightens me. The very essence of freedom and the American dream of "rags to riches" says that any entrepreneur has the right to engage in commerce the way they wish. It was the tea tax that lead to the Boston tea party. Sure, we want US companies to hire US citizens. But it is wrong to punish companies for not doing so. That sort of policy is the rule of the state, not the rule of the people. It's a dangerous precedent. If we want companies to keep jobs domestic, we should by all means encourage companies to do so, but that encouragement must stop short of penalties and mandates. We could reduce taxes to provide companies with the ability to hire domestic labor. We could continue to improve education and job training resources to allow more people to enter the work force. I admit these are slower fixes. Such incentives take time to really take effect, but they are not only philosophically correct, they tend to provide for more durable, long-term improvements. Manipulating business by forcing behavior through tax incentives (or in Mr. Obama's case, disincentives) may cause immediate positive responses, but it will not last and it will result in further depressing the economy and motivate pressures that will aggregate the problem in the long run.

3- As an aside, in the back of my mind, I am still not personally 100% convinced that outsourcing is inherently a bad thing. It actually helps poor economies, like India, and allows those outside of our country more opportunity to improve their own standards of living and care for their poor. Why do we get so frightened when other countries start to gain strength?

I believe that Senator Obama will most likely be our next president. Good. He has qualities that our nation needs, such as the ability to unite us and repair the trust in the White House that our current president has lost. But if President Bush's security policies take away our liberties, as the Senator has said, irresponsibly stealing from business is the other ugly head of the same monster.

I only hope our nation's hunger for change and optimism isn't satiated at the cost of further eroding personal freedoms.

SM

It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's a Superdelegate

2008-02-16T04:25:00.000-08:00

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Candidates_donate_to_superdelegates_02142008.html
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336

Is it just me, or does the idea of superdelegates seem to run contrary to the fundamental idea of power-to-the-people democracy? Regardless of how they actually end up voting, the very fact that they exist strikes me as elitist at best and flat out oligarchist at worst.

SM

Election Prediction

2008-02-13T19:31:00.000-08:00

Just for fun, I'm going to call the 2008 presidential election:

If the match up is:

McCain v. Clinton: It's a huge fight, but Clinton wins by a razor thin margin. If McCain does win, it will be by delegate count only. Clinton gets the popular vote either way.

McCain v. Obama: Obama wins by a close, but indisputable margin. Of course, McCain will try to dispute it anyway. I don't expect him to take losing very well.

So now the question is, who will get the democratic nomination. I really have no clue on this one, but I'm going to call it for Obama. His campaign of hope and change resonates and people will vote for him because of it. Now if only I could figure out what his actual policies are... If anyone knows, please point me to some sources (I'm being serious), because although I like the guy as a personality, I can't find anything of much substance from what I've been able to dig up. I want to know why and how he is going to fix the problems he says he will. Ditto on the other candidates as well, but at least I do feel I know where they stand. Maybe I just haven't paid enough attention, but I really can't figure Obama out, to be perfectly honest.

Regardless of who wins the nomination, I just continue to hope that we will come together and reach solutions on more than just whether or not Roger Clements took steroids. Oh wait, Congress hasn't solved that one yet either...

Stimulus Package, My Eye

2008-02-13T05:38:00.000-08:00

Dr. Greg Mankiw, a very prominent Economist, made the following observation concerning the president's stimulus package.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/02/debt-jobs-tradeoff.html

I had to laugh. The package will indeed stimulate, but at a cost that will probably hurt more in the long run.

SM

Thoughts on Romney

2008-02-07T13:25:00.000-08:00

Well, most of those who I'm aware read this know that I am (was) a Romney supporter. I haven't always been pleased with him, but I thought he was the best out there for what I personally think the nation needs. But I also believe in the democratic process and so I will support whomever the nation decides the president should be. Seriously. (Please note, however, that support doesn't necessarily mean agree with...!!)

Anyway, I recommend checking out his most recent speech. When I can find a direct link, I'll post it, but for now, you have to go to mittromney.com and click on "Campaign Suspended" in the Mitt TV section. (Or you can read it here, but I recommend watching it.)

It's essentially his concession speech... for once, the Romney that I was voting for really came out. If only he could have talked like this when he was campaigning... It's a great speech.

SM

P.S. The speech is long, like 22 minutes or something, but you can find abbreviated versions of it on Google. FoxNews seemed to have a clip somewhere that caught the real good parts.

My Break from Politics

2008-01-30T08:04:00.000-08:00

Really, the reason I haven't written for a while has not been lack of time, but rather desire. You'd think I wouldn't be surprised that politics gets dirty and subsequently disgusts me, but I always am. I don't know... I guess I looked at the field at the beginning of the season and was quite optimistic. On the red side, we had a bunch of people who I took to be honest, decent, moral individuals. On the blue side, we had those that seemed optimistic and hopeful. And while I don't think that their individual good qualities have diminished any, it just seems that the demons are now coming out. McCain and Romney are calling each other the dreaded L-word, Huckabee turned out to be someone I can't support at all, and Clinton and Obama apparently hate each other.

I'm looking for the guy who can come out and run a campaign that's clean, honest, and consists of telling people why they will be good and not why the other guy in evil. I want someone who can lead with optimism and unity, not cheap fluff about hope while continuing to propagate partisan division. I have yet to find that person.

And without saying names, let me just say that if the current GOP frontrunner ends up winning the White House somehow, I'm gonna move to Mexico.

SM

Romney vs. Huckabee

2007-12-17T22:56:00.000-08:00

It's been rather interesting to watch the recent developments in the Republican primary race as Huckabee has unexpectedly become a real viable candidate. I always liked him and a while ago commented to someone that I would seriously consider voting for him if he was more of a serious contender. Well, he is now, and I am taking a hard look.

While I do think Mike Huckabee has made some poor comments recently, particularly about Mormonism, I've been most disappointed with Mitt Romney. Rather than reacting with class and digging in to his own campaign, he's started running a couple of ads that single out Gov. Huckabee and attack his record. Now, to be clear, Romney's ads are hardly the mudslinging we often see. (The first two-thirds of them point out similarities between the candidates, making them more of "contrast ads" rather than "attack ads".) But still, I would rather a candidate tell me why I should vote for him, let the other guy make his case, and then let me decide. I don't need to hear about why I shouldn't vote for your opponent because that doesn't convince me that you are any more qualified.

So with the Ohio primaries still a ways out, I consider myself undecided as to who I will end up voting for. I am still leaning toward Romney, although maybe not as much as before. But I am definitely glad that there are finally some other good candidates I feel I can support. (I don't feel that I could really get behind any of Guilani, McCain, Clinton, or Obama. Although I did take a pretty good look at Obama. The other three I haven't been impressed with at all.)

Anyway, it's midnight and I'm going to bed.

SM

Global Warming in Ohio

2007-12-05T16:22:00.000-08:00

I'm really not sure what just happened today. Some guy was standing out in the absolutely freezing snow and ice trying to recruit donations for his environmental group that is trying to combat global warming. And I donated. Wait, it gets worse. I bought Glenn Beck's new book An Inconvenient Book, but before I could read it, I felt guilty so I went out and grabbed Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. I'll be watching it tonight... before I read Glenn's book.

If anyone knows where I lost my conservative ideals, would you please comment and let me know where they are. I would like them back.

SM

Principles and Politics

2007-12-02T14:31:00.000-08:00

All I really want in politics is for someone, anyone, to show me that they have a set of principles that guide their positions. I just don't seem to see much of that.

A primer on what I mean my principles. The way I see it, every stance on every political can be analyzed by breaking it into two pieces: 1) The stance itself (i.e. "pro-life" or "pro-choice") and 2) The reason, or principle, for that stance (i.e. "murder is bad" or "women control their own bodies"). There must also be a system of logic that connects the principle to the stance (i.e. "Murder is bad -> a fetus should have the right to live -> abortion is murder -> pro-life" or "women control their bodies -> a fetus is part of the woman's body -> pro-choice"). Broken down this way, I believe that our debates would be much more productive. We could identify the stance and principle the candidate stands for, discuss how appropriately that principle is being applied to an issue, and then vote for who best represents us.

That's a crummy explanation of something I think is extremely important, but I'll proceed anyway. To better understand why I believe some of the neo-con hatemonger stuff that I do, I thought I would list some of the principles that guide me and try and explain how I see that principle apply to an issue.

1) Principle: "People should be allowed to govern themselves." And I'm not talking about democracy, I'm talking about everyday life decisions. This is why I generally am in favor of small government. If the government doesn't have to do it, then it shouldn't. And if it does, the government organization closest to the people it affects should be deferred to first. That is, local municipalities should be responsible for education policy, not the federal government. Sorry Mr. President, but No Child Left Behind is not a good idea. It's coercive and doesn't consider the needs of everyone it affects. Let the people be the people.

2) "When certain assumptions are met, the free market and therefore capitalism works." This is the economist in me coming out, but I think it's a solid principle seeing as it has hundreds of years of data supporting it. Because I believe this, I always look very skeptically at anything that increases our taxes. Frankly, if I want it, I'll buy it myself. I don't need the government to pay for my health care. If my employer doesn't provide it, I'll buy it myself or find a different employer. Now, there are public goods and goods with large externalities that people aren't going to be provided efficiently by the market. In these few cases, taxes are appropriate and I gladly submit myself to them. Such things are, to use broad examples, national defense, certain infrastructures, and crime prevention.

3) "People should be responsible for themselves and their actions." Sensitive liberals, please stop reading. If you're poor, it is not the government's job to provide you with food and shelter. Get a job. The American Dream of going from rags to riches only works if you are willing to invest some sort of effort. If you are going to sit there and whine because the government didn't save you from Katrina, then you are far too dependent on the government and not nearly enough on yourself. Now, before I get shot for being so harsh, let me be clear: I do not hate the poor. In fact, I donate to charities as much as I am able. Jean Valjean taught me that lesson a long time ago. I believe that we as individuals should help other individuals in need. I do not, however, believe that it is appropriate for society to force individuals to help others by redistributing income: i.e. Medicare. The federal government's involvement in individual-level charity should be to encourage and fund to some extent private, charitable organizations. The feds should not think they are a charitable organization themselves. The Congress is far to big and unwieldy to provide in any sort of efficient manner. There are good things, and Medicare is a GOOD thing, in principle. But there are better things, and private charitable organizations are generally better. We should encourage them rather than do their job for them. I believe this will actually make things like health care and subsidized living more affordable and more accessible. So, liberals, you can still help the poor. And conservative tightwads, you SHOULD help the poor. Just not through the government. The government happens to be more efficient at other things.

4) "Moral truths really do exist." This is a more dicey topic and I'll address it more later when I have more time, but it can be summed up using gay marriage as an example. Homosexuality really will ruin any society that embraces it. It really is an evil practice. Not sure, ask the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. Society cannot support evil and immoral practices. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to do what you want. I'm not advocating that society punish homosexuals either. But it cannot accommodate it either. I actually like the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy.

I could go on this forever, but I'll stop because I'm late for a meeting.

So please, flame me for this post. Seriously. I welcome open-minded debates. Besides, I'm sure I have probably not explained things clearly anyway. And I'm also sure I'm dead wrong in a few places too. But I want to get better. I think we all do. And I think we all have more in common that we realize. But to figure that out, I believe we have to be transparent with the principles we believe so that we can decide, together, how to best apply them.

SM

Politics and Football

2007-11-16T10:08:00.000-08:00

So with the OSU v UM rivalry game tomorrow, I'm really not in the mood for any deep political musings right now. Although I have say down to pen a blog entry several times in the past week or two, my thoughts weren't really coming together, so I'll put off those musings for another day. Instead I thought I'd comment on something I recently heard a UM (school colors: Blue and Maize) yell at an OSU fan (school colors: Scarlet and Gray). I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact quote and since it probably involved profanities I would prefer to avoid repeating.

"At least I'm not from a Red state you ******* Bush-voter."

Ouch.

Not that it rivals OSU's war cry: "**** Michigan." Truly original. It's a good thing politics has risen above this type of stuff. I mean, at least VP Cheney was making a point...

Just another deep point to ponder from another thoughtful football fan.

SM

Subprime Mortage and The Homeowners Protection Act

2007-10-28T13:10:00.000-07:00

OK, so I'm feeling (a little) bad about my last post. I don't regret anything I said, but I think I may have not restrained my conservative hatemongering tendencies enough. I don't know. Either way, I will do my best to limit the hatemongering in this post, but I can make no guarantees.

I was walking off campus the other day when I was handed a magazine from some guy. This is not uncommon, and having been a hander-outer-of-fliers at times in Japan, I know the frustration that comes when people won't even take it and throw it away. So I took it. But as I did he said "Are you aware that we are on the bring of economics collapse? We need to freeze subprime mortgage foreclosures." That was enough to lure me in. See, he used two key phrases: "Economics" which is what I study all the time, and "subprime mortgage foreclosures" which is closely related to the industry where I spent the past year working. So while I'm no expert, if someone wants to talk economics and/or subprime mortgages, I am fairly experienced, so I jumped in.

He told my that the US economy is going to collapse and the way we can save it is by having the federal government make it illegal to foreclose on borrowers that have defaulted. Why would this work? I asked him this question several times and the only answer I got was that it would work "because the federal government would be the one to do it". Huh? I repeated this back to him several times and he confirmed that I had understood his point correctly. Now, while resisting the urge to directly accuse anyone of blind ignorance, I find it disconcerting that some people will push political agendas without understanding the mechanisms at work behind the policies they push. After me nearly begging him for some sort of information, research, or anything to help me understand, he gave me another tract by a man named Lyndon LaRouche. I had not previously heard this name before, but he is the apparently the author of the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, which I was somewhat familiar with.

I have been reading this magazine and much of Mr. LaRouche's research and am officially opposed to this piece of legislation. Here's a quick run down on subprime lending:
1- Banks borrow money by issuing bonds
2- Banks lend the money to people to buy houses
3- Subprime means the homeowners have poor credit and a history of default
4- The homeowners don't repay the debt
5- The banks foreclose so they can pay back at least part of the money to the original bondholders

Now, there have been some poor investment decisions made in the subprime industry by several high-powered banks. (But let's not accuse Bank of America of making stupid decisions.) They over-invested in risky assets (low-credit borrowers) and as expected, the borrowers are not keeping up with their mortgage payments. This hurts the economy by causing bond-holders to lose money.

The answer, however, is NOT to freeze foreclosure. You do that and the bond holders get NOTHING. It is not fair at all for the government to tell the bond-holders that their investments, which were made in good faith, are now worthless. Maybe I'm just a hatemonger and hate people with bad credit. But then again, maybe people should take on some personal responsibility and pay back the debts they willingly entered into themselves. But that's just me. The government stepping in would effectively say "oh, you weren't responsible enough to pay off your own debts, so we'll take care of you." This teaches people that they can expect someone to bail them out when they screw up and therefore will only cause more poor decision making. It may have positive immediate effects, but it will INCREASE THE FUTURE PROBLEMS by removing the negative effects that are associated with putting personal responsibility aside. It's tough to watch your friends trip and fall and while it's good to offer a hand to help them back up, preventing the fall completely will not teach them how to walk.

SM

Musings on the Nobel

2007-10-13T08:10:00.000-07:00

Look, I want to make the point up front that I believe in respecting anyone who had dedicated themselves to a cause they believe in. I will not ever criticize Mr. Gore for his campaigns on climate change. I do, however, criticize the content of those campaigns sharply because I think the facts presented are blown far out of proportion and do not, as some suggest, represent a scientific consensus. Show me a respectable scientist who believes in human-induced climate change and I'll show you another one who has research showing the opposite. It's an issue that is far from being decided and I hesitate to make huge changes in society until there is a real and scientific consensus. There is not. Now, I'm not going to call things like "An Inconvient Truth" lies, because Mr. Gore does appear to believe them, but it seems like the presentation is political, not scientific. Politics rarely makes for good science.

But I digress. I really wanted to comment on the Nobel Peace Prize. According to "NobelPrizes.com", Mr. Gore and the IPCC won the prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." I don't see anything in there that contribute to world peace, but maybe that's just me. But then again, it wouldn't be the first, second, or even third time I have disagreed with who the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to. I think it's a prize that has become more political than anything. (Granted a prize dedicated to encouraging world peace does have an inherently political aspect to it.) Really though, if you take a look at how the prize is awarded, I think you'll discover that it really is more of an opportunity for the committee to lend their voice to which issues they are in favor of rather than an objective process. And that's perfectly fine, and long as we realize that.

Again, I don't want people to think I'm ramming Mr. Gore. I'm not. I disagree with his characterizations of the issues, but really I'm ramming the Nobel Prize committee. (Here I omit "Peace". I could bring similar criticisms about the other awards too.) I just don't think it's a process that deserves to be clouted as the highest international award available, because it's political not objective, and they proved that again with this recent award. But it's far from the first time.

SM

Unpatriotism

2007-10-06T13:05:00.000-07:00

Check out this piece of work:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298858,00.html

Sen. Harry Reid is blasting Rush Limbaugh for calling troops who oppose the war "phony soldiers". Now, let me make this clear: I am not a fan of Sen. Reid nor am I a fan of Mr. Limbaugh. Frankly, they both drive me nuts. I think Rush's comment was out of line... if anyone has a right to voice opposition to the war, it's those who have witnessed it first hand. But I also think Reid's comment was out of line. I mean, he defends Sen. John Kerry, Rep. Murtha, and others in his party who have said equally despicable things about those in the military. (Calling them murderers in cold blood, etc.) Sen. Reid, if you are going to demand an apology from Mr. Limbaugh for his comments, you need to be completely honest and fair and demand the same apology from everyone who, in your words, "attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us." And that includes people on both sides of the partisan fence.

But when all is said and done, I believe that either of these two people can say what they want about the war and the troops. After all, the troops are over there fighting to preserve and spread the freedoms of speech that they and everyone else in the free world enjoy.

Now let me voice my opinion on the subject. Whether or not one agrees with the war in Iraq or not, I do not see how anyone could slam the troops and feel good about themselves. If you don't agree with the war, focus the debate around the policies and leadership and decisions that got us there. Don't take cheap and cowardly shots at those who courageously risk their lives by following their orders. I believe that there should be nothing but respect, complete and totally respect and awe, shown toward the men and women in uniform. Period. Anything else is, I believe, unpatriotic. Patriotism is supporting your country, supporting those who die to keep it free, and debating these things respectfully and in the proper forums. I hate to say it, but lately I just don't feel this kind of patriotism coming out of The Congress. Not from anyone or any party. And it makes my heart hurt. I would like to see more unity. Not in the sense that we all agree on the issues, but rather in the sense that we all respect each other, our leaders (like them or not), and that we debate issues from a "I like you and think you are smart and honest, but I disagree" attitude rather than a "you're wrong" attitude. That's what I think anyway.

SM

I'm back

2007-10-06T10:46:00.001-07:00

OK, I took a break from the blog thing for a few months while I got my life in order, moved to Ohio, started my grad program, etc., etc. But I'm back and will start updating this again, at least relatively often. (How often relatively is remains to be seen.) I'll try and get a real post up later today.

Also, note that I have split my blogs: One for personal thoughts, things like what's going on in my life, what's on my mind, etc. and another for political thoughts, which includes rantings about, well, politics.

Anyways, enjoy and feel free to leave all of the comments/hate mail you wish!

SM

One Step at a Time

2007-10-06T09:56:00.001-07:00

So, my sister just returned from a mission in New Jersey. Most of you probably already know that, since I've been rather excited and have not been very quiet about it. As much as I didn't want to return from Japan myself, I'd been waiting for her to get back for some time now. You miss your family a lot more when they're the ones out on an adventure and not yourself, I suppose.

Anyway, chatting with her since she's been back has made me think back on the past 18 months of my life to see how much I've been able to grow and learn. The growth in my sister is tremendous and easy to see. That happens when you serve, if you do it right. Which she did. And without going into too much detail about my own personal strengths and struggles, I have definitely used her example to help myself to set new and better goals.

Because while I do believe one person can make a difference in the world, I think we can make a more profound and lasting difference if we seek to better ourselves and the people around us, one individual at a time. I don't think there is a government program that will wholly perfect society, so I'm not going to look for one. It would be nice if there was, but because individuals are by nature individual, blanket cures are not a substitute for individual works. That what impressed me about what my sister did. She hasn't stopped talking about the individuals she met, influenced, and was influenced by. She speaks of them by name, even though I have no clue who they are. And she glows when she does it.

Jean Val Jean from Les Miserables taught me the same thing. He faitfully walked past a beggar and dropped a gold coin in his hat every day. Although I don't do it everyday, when I'm approached by someone in similiar conditions, I try and contribute something. I've been told that I shouldn't because "they're just going to buy booze" and maybe that's true. But that's their choice. Whether or not I give is mine. And while I will continue to oppose universal health care (since I'm a conservative and therefore I told that I hate the poor) I will continue to support local charities and individual giving. I think that's really the best way to change society. And not just in areas of health care and poverty, I just use those as examples because that seems to be the hot topic to talk about recently.

Before going on a 50-miler with my scout troop, our scout leader said "the way to eat a whale is one bite at a time and the way to hike 50 miles is one step at a time." I also feel that the way to change society is one individual at a time, starting with ourselves.

SM

A Good Article

2007-10-06T09:55:00.002-07:00

I just found the following article that I really enjoyed. It does a decent job of summing up my thoughts on health care and government involvement in general. If you have a minute, check it out. It's pretty short. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/where_michael_moore_is_wrong.html

SM

The Border

2007-10-06T09:55:00.001-07:00

OK, I've been avoiding debates on immigration and border security since I haven't really known what my own position is on this issue. I still don't, really, so I can't say that I was either elated or crushed when the bill died in the Senate yesterday. I was just sort of like "Huh... The Senate is arguing again..."

But I think I did start to generate some intelligent (well, relatively speaking) thoughts on the matter as I pondered it stuck in traffic this morning listening to Doug Wright (who, incidentally, I don't usually listen to.) I think we're going about this all backwards. To me, it should be a three step process:

1- Reform the actual immigration process... meaning, make it easier for people to get in the country legally. I believe that most people crossing illegally aren't doing it because they're bad people but because they don't want to put up with government red tape. You can hardly blame them.
2- Now that most people are coming in legally since the process has been fixed, NOW we can look at stopping those who are still crossing illegally from crossing. See, now the majority of the people crossing really are the drug smugglers, terrorrists, etc. who still have reason not to come in the legal way.
3- Finally, now that people are coming in and out legally and the borders are protected, NOW we can address the issue of what to do with those who are here. Because if we do make it easier for them to become legal before securing the borders, we'll have a flood of people cross illegally. So this should be the third step.

I dunno, I just thought of this this morning, but it's the first thing I've thought about this whole messy debate that makes sense to me.

SM

Never Forget

2007-10-06T09:54:00.002-07:00

So... I haven't updated this for a while. I've been in Hawaii (picture will soon be coming) and doing other stuff... like.... Anyways, please anticipate some upcoming light-hearted posts and cool pictures. You know, stuff you might be interested in.

In the meantime, I've been feeling rather sick to my stomach these past few days over something I learned about a friend. And I guess I need to vent.

I was reunited, rather randomly, with a friend I haven't talked to forever. It was wonderful. I love my friends and love to keep touch with everyone. (That's part of the purpose of this blog.) We chatted about how things have been and spent a lot of time catching up on life. But something didn't feel right. Looking through a few pictures of the past few years was revealing: There was evidence that this person is no longer living a very good life. To the extent that it really made my heart bleed.

Some quick background: This person served a very honorable mission for the LDS Church. Although raised in a family that was only partially active in the church, several experiences convinced my friend that servicing a mission would be a good idea. My friend turned out to be one of the very best missionaries I've ever seen. Not in terms of winning converts, but in a more comprehensive sense. Holes in socks were just surface evidence of how hard working and dedicated this person had been. Hard work and love literally radiated from my friend upon return from the mission and continued for years.

But something happened and that's not the case anymore. The light is gone. And while I don't have a first-person confession as evidence, it's pretty clear that activity in the church has diminished and lessons from the mission have been forgotten. My friend is losing a battle with the secular things of the world. And it appears that the casualties could be pretty bad... I'm not sure. I haven't approached my friend yet and am still debating to what extent it is appropriate for me to.

But discussing my friend's woes is not my purpose here. I have known far more people who have fallen, struggled, and come back as stronger than people I've known who have fallen and given up. Human beings are remarkable in their resiliance to overcome extremely difficult challenges. I trust this situation will turn out the same, but until then I'll probably continue to feel a little sick.

I'm posting this because I felt a need to, well, testify I suppose. I like to debate politics but every time I do, I shy away from using religious based philosophies in my arguments. Even when discussing moral issues. It is, afterall, politically incorrect to do so. I've been asked why I oppose gay marriages and my response is usually Republican: We need to protect traditional families. This is true, but the real reason I oppose it is because God says it's bad and I trust God. It hit me pretty hard a while ago that my religious beliefs are not something I can, nor should, divorce from my political beliefs. America is a land based on freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Separation of church and state is an institutional distinction and does not have to imply separation of politics and religion, which is ideological.

Our ideals should come from whatever motivates us. From whatever feels right. (Note that I said feels "right" and not feels "good". But if I was to edit that sentence I would maybe change the word "feels" to the word "is".)

So why mention my friend? My friend is struggling because my friend forgot about the foundation. The secular debates and challenges of life appear to be winning at the moment. It made me wonder: Where do we as a nation stand in this same battle? Is political correctness and the fear of standing up for our beliefs--because often our beliefs are religious--causing us to sit passively? I don't know. I hope not. But sometimes I get the same sick feeling when I listen to politics and it seems like people are afraid to just stand up for a belief and let the people decide. I think Romney handles the religion issue well, but I wonder what the reaction would be if he said something to the effect of "ya I'm Mormon and this is what I believe and it probably will have an influence on my policies because it's a set of ideals that I've seen make a positive difference in my life and others." I don't know how that would go over, but I would certainly respect anyone who did that, be they Mormon, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or anything else. That is, if they did it and meant it.

So my appeal to my friend and to everyone else is to please, never forget. Never forget what got us here. Never forget the blood shed for this country. Never forget the good fortunes we do have. And never, ever forget what God has done for you.

I really don't know what sparked this post, just a gut feeling I guess. I've been thinking about these things for a while before I ran into my friend. But what I do know is that there are much larger things at work than the petty political debates I love so much. And there really is strength in believing something and standing for it. And in never forgetting where those beliefs come from.

SM

Intelligent Debates

2007-10-06T09:54:00.001-07:00

Wow...two posts in one day. But this one is important.

For the sake of brevity, I heard a comment made by Bob Lonsberry this morning on the radio. He asked for callers to phone in and say if they were offended by it or not. I was offended (slightly) but was unable to call in. So I sent him an e-mail instead. His response:

"thanks, steve, i appreciate your opinion.
no matter how wrong-headed.
(smile)
kindly,
bob"

Now, I know this was light-hearted, so I don't want to fly too far off the handle, but I just wanted to make a quick point: Insults don't solve problems. Intelligent discourse does. This is a (very) minor example, I'll conceed that. But I thought the same thing when watching the presidential debates last night. Sure, the John Edwards comment was funny, but it was wholly unproductive. Maybe Bob's right, maybe I'm right. I don't really care. But it should have said "I don't agree with you" or "I think you're wrong because...". See, the biggest problem with the response is not the response itself, but the fact that his second sentence screams that he didn't really intelligently consider anything I said. He just dismissed it as wrong. Whether or not that is an accurate characterization of how he read my e-mail, I don't know, but his response suggests it.

Now, Bob's reply really didn't offend me at all. I actually chuckled at it. In fact, I was flattered that I got a response at all! But come on guys, let's elevate the discussion just a little, huh?

SM

P.S. I'll include in a comment the text of what I wrote to Bob for anyone who is curious about the specifics. I'd be interested in what you all think. But I didn't want to include it in the body so as not to distract from the point of this particular post.

Sharpton vs Romney

2007-10-06T09:53:00.000-07:00

Just for the record, I'm not calling for Sharpton's head. I stand on this issue the same way I did on the whole Imus garbage. That is, I think it's stupid. Ya, ya, I disagree with what Sharpton said, but I've disagreed with him from long before this comment. So I'm consistent on that! Ditto with Imus. But give the man a break and let it go. Besides, the more stupid things he says about Mormons, the more people come rushing to their defense and the more positive publicity is generated. So keep it up Sharpton, you're helping Mitt out!

SM

True Conservativism

2007-10-06T09:52:00.002-07:00

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." --Adam Smith

True Conservativism. This is a topic that I am rather passionate about and one that forms the basis for most of my political beliefs. (As such, I am very interested in your comments and thoughts on the subject. And don't hesitate to tear me apart if you think I'm wrong! I often am.) First a quick note. I do have reserves with using the word "conservative" mainly because of the politicized nature of the term. So I want to explicitly stress that I am not talking about conservativism as the antitheses of liberalism, nor am I talking about conservativism in the sense of the perceived political stance of Republicans. In fact, they miss the point on this as much as anyone. I further warn you: This is gonna be a long post!

America was founded on ideals of personal liberty. The American Dream is the idea that one can, on his or her own initiative, do whatever he or she wants to do and in so doing can go from rags to riches regardless of background. The driving force in this is the part about doing whatever you want to do. No one dictates. There is no government that is going to take your personal property and redistribute to forcibly make others equal. That's socialism, or worse, its evil big brother communism. It is a philosophy that this country has waged wars, like WWII, to defeat.

In a nut shell, True Conservativism is the philosophy that the best way to govern a people is to let those people govern themselves. And that doesn't just mean letting them vote for those who govern. It means letting the people make their own decisions about how to use the resources they individually own on their own. It means as little regulation as is necessary. It means that The Congress fundamentally has no business telling people what they can and can't do. It means we let people do things according to their own common sense--which, as Glenn Beck points out--most people have. Afterall, it's called common sense.

True Conservativism, however, depends on a key assumption: That people are generally good and behave rationally. If that's not the case then sure, we need big brother to tell us what to do. But I, personally, believe that people are good and do behave rationally. And I'm willing to be so bold as to assert that most people will agree this is a safe assumption.

So what? Well, the philosophy of True Conservativism has deep implications on how an organization of human beings--say a nation--should be organized to achieve the best and most efficient results. I'll discuss a few brief examples. Taxes. The government has no business taking our money. We should be allowed to spend the money we earn however we want. (The funny thing is, when we do that we grow the economy and create jobs, which is what taxes are supposed to do.) Centralized government. It's a bad idea. Governmental decision making should be made on a level as close to the people affected by the decisions as possible. That's why the founding fathers originally made the states more powerful than the national bodies. National bodies exist as a unifying organization, but when making laws that have personal impacts, such as issues dealing with marriage, alcohol and drugs, abortion, gun control, environmental regulations, taxes, etc. etc. etc., these decisions should be made in an organization as close to the people as possible. In this way the people are allowed to govern themselves.

There are exceptions. I do not want to be mistaken for an anarchist. True Conservativism is not a catch-all. It won't solve all of the problems. No philosophy that doesn't incorporate the wisdom of God will. So I admit there are times that we need some centralized governmental organizations. National defense is a big one. Interstate infrastructures is another. Public goods and externalities by their very nature require a bit of central planning. Every time a soldier kills a terrorist, the people are protected and should, therefore, contribute to the upkeep of the army. Hence some federally-levied taxes are appropriate. Such things need to be debated on a case-by-case basis. But the underlying goal in such debates should be to figure out ways to establish organization where the people make the decisions, not The Congress. Hence True Conservativism still plays an active role.

The only time I believe it is appropriate for governmental bodies to potentially violate True Conservativism is in the realm of morality. The assumption here is that there are unambiguous moral standards. I proclaim that such standards do indeed exist. Thus government should uphold general moral standards. As an quick example, I support efforts to define marriage on a national level, even though such a definition would be a decision made in a forum removed from the people. This does make my skin crawl a little bit, because big brother is dictating how adults should live and I don't like that. But it also makes my skin crawl to think that there are motions to make socially acceptable a practice that is fundamentally evil and will weaken our nation.

But ultimately, True Conservativism is a philosophy and an ideal, not an action. Where we go with it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with an understanding that the best outcomes are generally realized by letting people govern themselves. Government deliberations should not be "how can we establish laws to solve problems" but rather "how can we establish organization that allows the people to solve their own problems."

I also realize that it is not the system as it is currently established. So I will continue to weigh in on the debates, because the Supreme Court's decisions affect me, even if I really feel that such a decision should be made on a level closer to the people.

Adam Smith's invisible hand works because when the butcher and the baker try to provide for their own selfish well-being, they end up producing something that's good for the economy. See, the baker wasn't told to make bread, he just wants a paycheck. And since it turns out that since he's good at baking break, and enjoys doing it, his selfishness has done something good for the people. Why? Because he is the people.

SM

Blame

2007-10-06T09:52:00.001-07:00

After yelling at my radio all the way to SLC this morning, I figured I should take a few minutes to vent a little so I can concentrate on the things I'm supposed to be doing today.

First, I wish to express my condolences to the families of all those affected in the recent shootings at Virginia Tech. It is a tragedy. I am appauled that these things seem to continue to happen. I pray for peace and hope that devastating incidents like this will never happen again.

There's another thing that bothers me. Whenever something terrible like this happens, it seems there isn't even a 24-hour mourning period before people start pointing fingers. The radio reported people saying the Virginia Tech administration has "blood on their hands" for not responding more effectively. The KSL news ancors (who I've never been particularly fond of for their tendency to sensationalize everything) continually questioned the administration's competency.

Look, the person responsible for this is dead. He killed himself along with his victims. It was a tragedy. But we will never solve anything by lynching everyone we think should have been able to prevent it. Besides, I'm not convinced that had the administration done everything people say they should have it would have entirely prevented the second wave of shootings. But even if they did, probably there would still be those blaming the administration for the first round.

Did the administration handle this in the best way possible? I honestly don't know. Probably not. But is there anyone who would have done a perfect job? I seriously doubt it. I am sure those in the administration are doing their own personal reflection. They probably already feel a lot of responsibility for what happened on their campus. But when people start pointing fingers, it only makes it worse. Can we learn from this? Of course. Should we have constructive dialog on what can be done to prevent this from happening again? Absolutely. Should we condemn others for it? No. We should move on and get better. Playing the blame game does not move us forward because it doesn't seek a solution, but only to punish those who didn't provide one. It can only prevent us from solving problems.

May those victims rest in peace and may their families be blessed with peace and comfort as they struggle through this. And may we as a nation bond together with unity to solve these problems. We are all Americans. We are in this together. So act like it.

SM

The Right to be Stupid

2007-10-06T09:51:00.001-07:00

Since it seems that everyone in the mainstream media is carrying on about the Don Imus story, I thought I'd get my hands dirty too. Who am I to pass up the current political pundit fads?

First, for the record, I am no fan of Don Imus. I disliked him from even before this latest incident. He's insulting, hateful and there's a whole bunch of other judgmental names that I could call him. But then I'd be just as guilty as him. At the same time, I respect the right of CBS to fire him. Because, in my opinion, to concede that Imus has the right to free speech, you also have to concede that CBS also has the right to run their business any way they want to. It's their company, afterall. When you speak your opinion with the backing of a corporation, you are also responsible for representing the corporation. So the right to freedom of speech that we enjoy in America gives companies the right to be socialistic if they want. As long as it stays within the umbrella of their own business. If you don't like it, don't patronize them. Afterall, when someone does something against the will of the people--and therefore the will of the free market--to paraphrase Economist Todd Bucholz, such a person deserves a punch in the face from the invisible hand. Meaning if the market doesn't like you the market will destroy you. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

But while I respect what CBS did, and frankly I think the airwaves are better off without Imus, at the same time, those of us outside of CBS operations shouldn't be condemning him for saying stupid things. The beauty of living in America is we are all free to be stupid.

The thing that bothers me about this and other similar incidents is how offended people get. I mean, so Don Imus said something bad about you. So what!? I mean, consider the source! An insult from Imus carries about as much credibility as an insult from Rosie O'Donnell or Donald Trump. I'd be flattered to think that people like them don't like me. It must mean the Rutger's basketball team is respectable, since I'm not aware of a time when this creep has done anything respectable himself. But if we are all going to agree that we are better off living in a country where we are free to be stupid, then we need to get over the offended thing. Calling for someone else to step in and punish someone for being dumb is against the principles of self-reliance. We all have to live together, so move on already!

Besides, calling for someone to be canned--and understand that right now I'm speaking in the context of forces outside of CBS internal operations--just because they disagree with you should send a cold chill up the spine of any thoughtful American. It sounds like Big Brother. I mean, the right we have to be stupid is what keeps Rush Limbaugh, Rosie O'Donnell, The Reverend Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Ann Colter, and a whole bunch of others employed. And while I think the world would be a better place without any of them, they are Americans and have their own liberties too.

SM