My Beauty Best Teacher

From Thomas Sowell comes this piece about an old Russian fable and its implications for politics and businesses today:

An old Russian fable tells of two poor peasants - Boris, who had a goat, and Ivan, who didn't. One day, Ivan came upon a strange-looking lamp; when he rubbed it, a genie appeared. She told him that she could grant him just one wish, and it could be anything he wanted. Ivan said, "I want Boris' goat to die."

This fable may tell us something painful about many Americans today, when so many people are preoccupied with the pay of corporate CEOs. It isn't that the CEOs' pay affects them so much. If every oil-company executive in America agreed to work for nothing, that wouldn't be enough to lower the price of a gallon of gasoline by a dime.

But too many people are like Ivan, who wanted Boris' goat to die.

It isn't the general public that singles out CEOs for so much attention. Politicians and the media have focused on business leaders, and the public has been led along, like sheep. The logic is simple: Demonize those whose place or power you plan to usurp.

Politicians who want the power to micro-manage business and the economy know that demonizing those who run businesses is the opening salvo in the battle to take over their roles. Those who want more power know that giving the people somebody to hate and fear is the key.

This isn't just a question of which elites win out in a tug of war in America. It is the people at large who have the most at stake. We have just seen one of the biggest demonstrations of what happens in an economy when politicians tell businesses what decisions to make.

For years, using the powers of the Community Reinvestment Act and other regulatory powers, along with threats of legal action, politicians have pressured banks and other lending institutions into lending to people they would not lend to otherwise.

Yet, when all this blows up in our faces and the economy turns down, what is the answer? To have more economic decisions made by politicians, because they choose to say that "deregulation" is the cause of our problems.

No matter what happens, for politicians it is "heads I win and tails you lose." If we keep listening to them and their media allies, we are all going to keep losing big. Keeping our attention focused on CEO pay - Boris' goat - is all part of this game. We are all goats if we fall for it.

Sowell has a remarkable talent of making material relatable to us all. It appears that the Democrat's hatred of business and profit is going to lead to the death of one of the Big Three- see this story. This will cause thousands of union labors to have no job at all, and evaporate the pensions of many other good union men. I've always wondered why people vote Democrat, including union employees and teachers. They always think that they'll be better off when Democrats are in charge, but then they all lose their jobs.

Teachers are the same way- back when the teacher-hated Republican John Engler was in charge of Michigan, they all got raises and there were many jobs. Now that the teacher-loved Democrat Granhom is in charge, they get pay cutes and lose jobs. They didn't want to improve their own situation by voting Democrat- they just wanted to kill others goats.

In The Inside Deal: Obama's Economic Program I wrote:

The Inside Deal is Democratic President Barack Obama's domestic economic program and is characterized by extensive government spending for politically connected groups within American society. It is aimed to reward those groups that supported Obama's campaign for the Presidency in 2010, such as labor unions, public employee unions, teachers unions, environmentalists, anti-war protesters, Wall Street, and big businesses. Some of the programs that were passed by the Democratic Congress at the time to reward these groups include the stimulus bill, the healthcare bill, and massive annual budgets. Increasingly during the height of the Inside Deal, there is a link between who receives taxpayer money from the federal government and their political connections. Called by some crony capitalism.

The Inside Deal continues to pay off for some groups and those companies and individuals and special interest groups recognize that in order for them to continue to be provided with political and economic support, they need to keep in power a group of politicians who will continue to steer money to them in spite of whether they deserve it or produce anything of value. That group of politicians in the Democratic Party, and so it is not surprising that the Inside Deal is creating a tight relationship between those groups that the Democrats steer money to and those groups rewarding Democratic politicians in the form of campaign finance.

One such group that has benefited from the Inside Deal is the Big Green Machine. Via theblogprof comes this story from the Washington Examiner did a little bit of journalism and reported on the suspected corruption between Democrats and Big Green Machine:

Officials of a dozen top Big Green environmental groups contributed more than $14.5 million to congressional and presidential candidates in 2008 and through the second quarter of 2010 with 96 percent of the total going to Democrats, according to an Examiner analysis of federal campaign data.


...Six of the dozen collectively received more than $160 million in federal grants and contracts, according to their 2008 or 2007 IRS tax returns, with the Nature Conservancy's $110.6 million being the highest, followed by the Trust for Public Land ($28 million), Audubon Society ($17.5 million), the Environmental Defense Fund (parent of the EDF Action Fund) with $3.6 million, Natural Resources Defense Council ($358,072) and Defenders of Wildlife ($205,021).

President Obama was the biggest recipient by far of contributions with a total of more than $2.4 million. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was Obama's main 2008 primary rival, got $86,500. ...Obama's biggest groups of environmental supporters came from the Sierra Club ($917,965) and Defenders of Wildlife ($905,375).

This is the definition of corruption- they give campaign money to candidates who then support their companies and interests with tax money for 'research' or 'oversight' or 'awareness' or some sort of garbage. The relationship is one that use my labor and your labor to strengthen relationships between politicians and those who are politically connected, and that is not what America was about. Republicans do it too, especially with Big Oil and Big Defense, but it appears to be worse under Democrats since they pass bigger spending budgets and spend more money on discretionary items and appear to be a little less ethical about it all. That means anyone with a "D" in front of their name this election should be thrown out- it'll lessen the corruption, although then we need to go after "R"'s that are corrupt too.

One important aspect of the mass media today is the ability for average people to use their cell phones to capture politicians on camera, making mistakes, making speeches, blundering, or doing nice things. The ability to capture the everyday politician on film, out of his environment and unscripted, and then post that video on a video-sharing site so that it can be seen by thousands of people around the world is going to affect our political system.

In my opinion, this 'youtube election' effect will have both good and bad aspects to it. Because politicians know that everything they say and do will now be filmed and put online, they may react to this by making few direct pointed statements and saying little. Politicians could increasing be expert sophists- people who have a general knowledge of some things and communicate that general knowledge in soaring rhetoric, and if lacking in knowledge or specifics, able to gloss over that by using words to dazzle and awe an audience. Politicians will increasingly become humorless, as they fear their comments being taken out of context and used against them. And voters will increasingly fall into an endless loop of judging a candidate based on one misspoken thought taken out of context or a joke that didn't really land, and could be forced to then vote for the empty suit, who disguises their general lack of qualifications for office through the use of well spoken words and has no bad jokes to be thrown against them since they never joke around. The worst of the 'youtube election' effect will produce a President Barack Obama.

Or perhaps the worst of the 'youtube election' effect will produce a Governor Sarah Palin. Rather than hiding behind soaring rhetoric and sophistry, rather than avoiding all pointed statements or jokes for fear of them being used against them, a politician may decide to overload the system with comments, jokes, and images of them, so that the sheer mass and volume of information that they pour into the internet will overwhelm any negative images, jokes taken out of context, or misstatements or quotes. A politician will be be forced to be more honest and direct with voters, giving them unprecedented access to their lives and views, because they know that it will be harder and harder to hide their true beliefs, especially if they are lacking in rhetorical skill or their supporters don't buy their sophistry as easily. They'll respond by tweeting and producing a reality show about their lives, like Palin did.

Yes, we can see in the emptiness that is Obama and the oversharing that is Palin the effect that the mass media is having on our political system. You can either choose to get caught up in the soaring rhetoric that marks the best of Obama's speeches, where he says amazing things that mean nothing and speaks nothingness with some amazing ability, or you can settle in with some popcorn and a coke and watch Sarah Palin and her family in her newest reality TV show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, on TLC. Either way, you'll be seeing all the new ways that the mass media impacts our political system.

Obama's book is The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Vintage) and Palin's book is Going Rogue: An American Life.

We present the concluding part of Rina Okonkwo's article on corruption see part 1 here:

The military coup of January 15, 1966 was a direct response to the corruption of the First Republic. The popular support for the coup showed that people rejected corruption. Despite the brutality of killings of First Republic politicians, there was widespread rejoicing in the country for the acts. The assassinations of the Minister of Finance Chief FS Okotie-Eboh, who was notorious for flaunting his ill-gotten wealth, Premier of the Western Region, Samuel Akintola, nicknamed “rigging” and Ahmadu Bello, Sardauna of Sokoto, the Premier of the Northern Region, “whose wardrobe was the most elaborate in the world,” were applauded.13 The coup eliminated “the old brigade of politicians who were destitute of public spirit.” 14

The Ironsi government instituted a series of commissions of inquiry into affairs of the Nigeria Railway Corporation, the Electricity Corporation of Nigeria, Nigeria Airways, and the Nigeria Ports Authority. The report on the Ports Authority revealed that a number of ministers, including Okotie-Eboh, Ribadu, and R.Njoku had formed companies and used their influence to secure contracts.15 In Nigeria Airways, the minister, K. O. Mbadiwe had interfered with award of contracts to a company not registered in the register of companies. K.O. had gone against the board to send “Operation Fantastic,” the maiden flight of Nigeria Airways to New York. Friends and relations of the minister travelled free to New York. Many stayed on in the United States. Chief Dafe, the chairman of the board, was found guilty of hiring many unnecessary party workers in the airline. “Chief Dafe did not know the difference between Nigeria Airways and the party headquarters of the NCNC.” 16

Dr. Ikejiani, Chairman of the Nigerian Railway Corporation, was found guilty of misallocation of funds and disregarding the Board and recognized procedures of the NRC. When Ikejiani became the Chairman, he was in debt. Ikejiani left the NRC with a fleet of cars and buildings. The building of the Railway medical centre, which was estimated cost L75, 000, was inflated to L440, 000. The inquiry thought Ikejiani had diverted railway funds to build his private hospital. The architect for the medical center designed a building for Ikejiani in Lagos free of charge. The panel recommended that Ikejiani never again hold public office. 17

The zeal to punish the wrong doers of the First Republic died with the Gowon coup of July 1966. The politicians in detention were freed. Corruption increased. “Youths knew no other life than corruption.” “One could steal if he shared with those in the right places.”18

The coup of 1975 was an attempt to end corruption. Murtala Mohammed began by declaring his assets and asking all government officials to follow his example. Murtala instituted a series of probes of past leaders. The Federal Assets Investigation Panel of 1975 found ten of the twelve state governors in the Gowon regime guilty of corruption.
One of the exonerated military governors, Rotimi, was later appointed to head a commission of inquiry in 2000. The guilty persons were dismissed with ignominy and forced to give up property in excess of earnings.

The Belgore Inquiry investigated the “Cement Armada.” The Gowon government had imported sixteen million metric tons of cement at a cost of N557 million. Millions of Naira was lost in demurrage charges, as the cement rotted in the seas outside of Lagos. The ports were too congested to enable ships off-load their cargoes. The inquiry noted that the Ministry of Defence needed only 2.9 million tons of cement at a cost of N52million. The orders were inflated for private profit at great cost to the government.19

State governments held similar commissions of inquiry. Corrupt officials were dismissed with immediate effect and asked to refund the money they had stolen. Murtala was assassinated after only two hundred days in office. The Obasanjo regime did not show the same zeal in its prosecution of wrongdoers.

The Second Republic, under President Shehu Shagari, saw a resurgence of corruption. Shagari was ineffective in stopping the looting of public funds by the democratically elected officials. On December 31st, 1983, General Buhari led a popular coup with the aim of halting corruption. Buhari arrested the state governors and commissioners and brought them before tribunals of inquiry. All accounts of politicians were frozen.

In less than two years, Babangida replaced the reformist Buhari regime. The next fourteen years saw no serious attempt to stop corruption. Leaders found guilty in tribunals under Mohammed and Buhari found their way back to public life and recovered seized property. Wole Soyinka observed that for Abacha to launch a war against corruption was a “huge joke.”

The Third Republic has instituted numerous commissions of inquiry. The Oputa panel and the Akanbi Commission have investigated corruption. Yet all the commissions of inquiry and reports have not stopped corruption. The Transparency Index rated Nigeria the number two corrupt country in the world in 2001.

An historical look at corruption in Nigeria demonstrates that rhetoric against corruption does not end corruption. All the inspiring words of our leaders and journalists have not changed anyone. We have heard the most eloquent appeals and strongest language castigating wrongdoers to no avail. Azikiwe and Shagari were two excellent writers who did not act to stop corruption of their party members and colleagues.

From our survey of corruption in Nigeria, it would appear that change in Nigeria must come from the grass roots and not from the leaders. The British realized, as far back as 1947, that an educated, enlightened citizenry was the key to stopping corruption. Government could not legislate an end to corruption. Punishment of wrongdoers, while necessary, was not sufficient to stop corruption.

In his comparison of corruption in Nigeria and Britain, Ronald Wraith pointed to the need for education in good character and the importance of diffusion of wealth, power, and education in the society. There was need to build a tradition of disinterested public service. In Britain, responsible government began with the emergence of people who entered government service after they had amassed substantial wealth. They joined government, not to increase their fortunes, but to contribute to the country. When the people of Nigeria reject corruption, they will demand and receive good behavior from their leaders.

This is the first week of the legislature's lame-duck session, and former State Representative Leon Drolet from the MI Taxpayers Alliance took the time to invent this fun drinking game based on the lame-duck "farewell" speeches delivered by outgoing lawmakers who are completing their final term in office. This game is focused on Michigan legislators, but it could easily be a game you play with elected officials at any level of government:

Wanna play the politician "farewell speech" drinking game? Tune in to Michigan Government TV and watch the speeches. Here's how it goes:

1. The outgoing lawmaker opens his/her speech with reverent, almost religious, statements about how great the institution of the legislature is. They always use words like, "honorable", "cherished", "esteemed" and such. Everyone do a shot.

2. Next, each politician absolutely MUST, without fail, go on to disparage the citizen-imposed constitutional term-limit amendment. Nothing is more important and popular among House chamber members than this. Do another shot.

3. The speechmaker laments the demise of the great statesmen from the halcyon, pre-term limit days of Camelot. In those glorious days, politicians confined themselves to selfless public service resulting in brilliant leadership responsible for everything good in prosperous Michigan's past. The longer these noble statesmen of old held and consolidated political power, the more selfless and brilliant their leadership became. Of course, those meddling citizens with their damn term limits law ruined everything! Do shot.

4. Now, the politician must ALWAYS thank some fellow House member from the opposing party whom hey worked with to create some new law or regulation. This is a warm, fuzzy way of nobly appearing "above the fray" and creating an overall "team spirit" within the political class. Another shot.

5. Finally, a bonus shot if the outgoing House member breaks down and cries, and is surrounded and hugged by colleagues. Like someone died.

Still standing? You'll need the booze in order to withstand the jaw-dropping detachment from reality on display in the House chamber.

The "sucky speech" syndrome is symptomatic of a disease that infects the ego, creating a false sense of self-importance that strikes both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are expected to worship big government, central planning and politicians as saints. Infected Republicans forget that they're elected to restrain government, so that everyday citizens can lead Michigan forward - each in their own individual, productive ways. They forget that government's primary responsibility is to serve by protecting the liberty of citizens - not to "lead" them with new programs and such.

Conservatives, libertarians and other supporters of constitutionally limited government can help future politicians avoid the sucky speech syndrome by doing our part to keep the political process in its' proper context. We should not deify the institutions of government. We should not teach young people that elective office is some noble calling. America's founders, the real statesmen from our past, understood that government was like fire; something to fear and handle with extreme caution.

As a conservative teacher, I agree with the idea that I should not be teaching students that elected office is some noble calling, but on the other hand, I don't want to continually run down public officials either. The analogy of fire is a good one- fire is not to be feared or run from (unless you're some new super-progressive environmental nut), but can burn you if you're not careful- and government is similar to that- public officials are to be respected and understand, but not deified and idolized. That's a tough balance to strike, and is always a challenge for me in the classroom.

A couple weeks ago I read an interesting article in the Telegraph- in it, longtime journalist Janet Daley suggests that the best thing that the British government can do to improve the economy and make people more wealthy and happy and free is to work really hard and be very productive in DOING LESS. The truth of the matter is that politicians have to have real guts and strength to simply say 'no, I will not spend taxpayer money trying to control people and the market,' but that may be exactly the kind of strength and guts we need today- politicians who promise to do more of less. From her article A daring idea to fix the economy: try doing less:

...the myth of government activism – the idea that intervention by the state is the answer to every economic and social problem – had been definitively routed. Apparently not: Mr Osborne and, we must assume, his boss still seem to believe that any unacceptable national situation must require direct action from them.

Or maybe they don’t believe that at all. Perhaps they just lack the political courage to admit that, in our present crisis, the best thing that the Government can do is to get out of the business of running (or subsidising, or initiating, or incentivising) things altogether – not just in the interests of saving money, but because the effects of such interference are counter-productive. What the economy is suffering from is not an insufficiency of overweening, fussy, bureaucratic initiatives that inevitably unleash an avalanche of unintended consequences, but a lack of cash in the hands of people who might spend it in ways that would actually create wealth and stimulate (in the proper sense of the word) economic growth.

If ever there was a time for radical proposals by a governing party, this is it. Rather than the imitative, mealy-mouthed shuffling of dollops of money from one departmental scheme to another, in what will inevitably look like panic in the face of rising youth unemployment and disappointing growth figures, what we need is a display of real insight and nerve...

...There is an urgent need now to rethink the whole relationship between government and populace while there is still the possibility of discussion. In Britain, Europe and America, the questions are remarkably similar. Can a free-market economy support an infinitely growing state? We will have to choose, quite soon, between liberty and the “security” of a society in which government controls the levers of economic life. Washington politicians are getting a terrible drubbing for failing to resolve their implacable differences over the size of the state (to the extent that they are unable to agree a federal budget). The US national debate may seem rough and ready to European ears – but at least they are engaging in the real argument.

She is right- the argument has been joined, and today via memeorandum I read in the Wall Street Journal an article that echo's the very ideas of Ms. Daley. From former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's article Capitalism and the Right to Rise:

...Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand "Do something . . . anything."

As Florida's governor for eight years, I was asked to "do something" almost every day. Many times I resisted through vetoes but many times I succumbed. And I wasn't alone. Mayors, county chairs, governors and presidents never think their laws will harm the free market. But cumulatively, they do, and we have now imperiled the right to rise....

....We either can go down the road we are on, a road where the individual is allowed to succeed only so much before being punished with ruinous taxation, where commerce ignores government action at its own peril, and where the state decides how a massive share of the economy's resources should be spent.

Or we can return to the road we once knew and which has served us well: a road where individuals acting freely and with little restraint are able to pursue fortune and prosperity as they see fit, a road where the government's role is not to shape the marketplace but to help prepare its citizens to prosper from it.

In short, we must choose between the straight line promised by the statists and the jagged line of economic freedom. The straight line of gradual and controlled growth is what the statists promise but can never deliver. The jagged line offers no guarantees but has a powerful record of delivering the most prosperity and the most opportunity to the most people. We cannot possibly know in advance what freedom promises for 312 million individuals. But unless we are willing to explore the jagged line of freedom, we will be stuck with the straight line. And the straight line, it turns out, is a flat line.

What Governor Bush is talking about is the same kind of thing that I personally observed during my time as a policy adviser in the state's capital. I remember distinctly one time when a young Republican 'conservative' staffer came in to work one day, upset that the car that she had recently bought turned out to have been a bad purchase. She set about writing a law that would force the state to regulate and control all sellers of automobiles in the state and then tried to convince legislators to sponsor this piece of legislation- she wanted the state to immediately do something, to step in and spend lots of money and time and effort controlling thousands of people's individual decisions just to protect several people from their own stupidity. She proposal was met with great hostility towards me, and I countered her proposal by suggesting that rather than the state doing something about used car dealers, it instead loosen regulations and fees and taxes on all car dealers, making the market more free, so that more fools like her could be separated from their money, as the hand of God in its infinite wisdom is wont to do. I wasn't joking though.

The real courage and intelligent thing to do to create a more vibrant, free market by cutting back government regulations and fees and enabling people to be people, in all their glorious faults and warts, because only by doing so can we also unleash the amazing potential for great and good things that humans contain in them. The safe, stately downward path of state control is not the path for me and is not the path that successful, free, and prosperous people- no, we choose the jagged and uneven and unpredictable path that is the path of less government regulation, taxes, fees, and supervision- that is the only true path for better protection and encouragement of life, liberty, and property.

In college, one of the classes that I didn't like was a class called "Political Economy." The class was an attempt to indoctrinate students with the ideas that the market economy could be controlled, and teach us political science students the phony tools for 'controlling' the market and taming it to the whims of politicians. Class after class I got into an argument with my professor, claiming that the class was a sham, that you can't 'tame' or 'control' the market, only distort it for gain by favored classes. I argued over and over that a political economy was an un-American economy, and was a nice way of saying 'a socialist economy.'

The last day of class, my professor's true colors did come out- our final exam question was "Describe the one form of government that can solve all the worlds economic, environmental, and social class problems." Since I wanted to pass the class (my professor disagreed with me all year so gave me a failing grade on every paper), I wrote a brilliant glowing essay on the joys of communism- good old fashioned Lenin communism- and got an "A" (4.0). I hated that class, and everything it represented.

Today from Charles Krauthammer, who writes for the Washington Post, comes this article called "Come to grips with politicized economy." Here is what he wrote:

In the old days -- from the Venetian Republic to, oh, the Bear Stearns rescue -- if you wanted to get rich, you did it the Warren Buffett way: You learned to read balance sheets. Today you learn to read political tea leaves. You don't anticipate Intel's third-quarter earnings; instead, you guess what side of the bed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will wake up on tomorrow.

Today's extreme stock market volatility is not just a symptom of fear -- fear cannot account for days of wild market swings upward -- but a reaction to meta-economic events: political decisions that have vast economic effects.

As economist Irwin Stelzer argues, we have gone from a market economy to a political economy.

In the rest of his article, he talks about how the words of politicians now change the market, more so than supply or demand, profits or losses, or a healthy bottom line. Here is his conclusion:

We may one day go back to a market economy. Meanwhile, we need to face the two most important implications of our newly politicized economy: the vastly increased importance of lobbying and the massive market inefficiencies that political directives will introduce.

Lobbying used to be about advantages at the margin -- a regulatory break here, a subsidy there. Now lobbying is about life and death. Your lending institution or industry gets a bailout -- or it dies.

You used to go to New York for capital. Now Wall Street, broke, is coming to Washington. With unimaginably large sums of money being given out by Washington,
the Obama administration, through no fault of its own, will be subject to the most intense, most frenzied lobbying in American history. That will introduce one kind of economic distortion. The other kind will come from the political directives issued by newly empowered politicians.

First, bank presidents are gravely warned by one senator after another about "hoarding" their bailout money. But hoarding is another word for recapitalizing to shore up your balance sheet to ensure solvency. Is that not the fiduciary responsibility of bank directors? And isn't pushing money out the window with too little capital precisely the lending laxity that produced this crisis in the first place? Never mind. The banks will knuckle under to the commissars of Capitol Hill. They control the purse. Prudence will yield to politics.

Even more egregious will be the directives to a nationalized Detroit. Sen. Charles Schumer, the noted automotive engineer, declared "unacceptable" last week "a business model based on gas." Instead, "We need a business model based on cars of the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in hybrid electric car."

The Chevy Volt, for example? It has huge remaining technological hurdles, gets 40 miles on a charge and will sell for about $40,000, necessitating a $7,500 outright government subsidy. Who but the rich and politically correct will choose that over a $12,000 gas-powered Hyundai? The new Detroit churning out Schumer-mobiles will make the steel mills of the Soviet Union look the model of efficiency.

The ruling Democrats have a choice: Rescue this economy to return it to market control. Or use this crisis to seize the commanding heights of the economy for the greater social good. Note: The latter has already been tried. The results are filed under "History, ash heap of."

My prediction- the ruling Democrats, who control us slaves of the state, will distort the market in the name of the 'social good' and create a country that is inefficient, where houses are more expensive and yet worse less, where companies do poorly and their stocks suffer, where banks go under with political pressure, where services suffer, and goods are more expensive and lower quality. In the name of the greater social good, Democrats will take away our liberty and make our nation a poorer place in which to live- in every meaningful way.

Over and over when debating Obamacare supporters I hear the claim that the number one reason why government needs to take on a massive new expensive role in healthcare is because it has become too expensive. These Obamacare supporters think adding more government to the equation will make healthcare less expensive. They are so wrong.

The reason why healthcare is expensive is because of government. Adding government to healthcare in the past has resulted time and time again with a higher cost for healthcare. Government is the problem, not the solution. And this is not just rhetoric- the evidence and data supports the conclusion that adding more government involvement and interference in the private industry of our nation's healthcare has made it much much more expensive.

Presidential-candidate Harry Browne wrote about this back in 2002. He wrote:

It may be hard to believe, but back in the 1950s health insurance cost just a few dollars a month for most people -- and it was available to virtually everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions. The percentage of people covered grew steadily from the 1940s. And by the early 1970s, almost all Americans were covered by some form of insurance. Then the politicians went to work to load up policies with mandatory coverage of all sorts of conditions that may be of no use to you. More and more people decided that insurance had become too expensive and decided to risk being uninsured. By the 1990s coverage had dropped to under 70% of Americans.

In addition, many employers decided health coverage was too expensive. In 1980 fully 97% of the companies with 100 or more employees provided medical coverage. By 1995, only 77% were doing so. The growing number of uninsured people gives politicians more ammunition for more programs to force more costs onto insurance companies, and to push the price of insurance still higher.

Once again, the politicians are seizing the opportunity to save us from their own handiwork.

Over and over it is demonstrated that when government becomes more involved in an industry, that industry becomes less efficient, less responsive to market forces, and services suffer while prices go up. That is why our founding fathers designed a system where government would not have the authority to even think about doing what it does today- they knew that having government run health insurance companies, auto companies, banks, home loan companies, alternative energy companies, and all the other companies that the government now runs would only result in a poorer society.

Government is the reason why healthcare is expensive- the solution is in every way possible less government. Not a lot more government, not a little big more government, not even the same amount of government- the solution to healthcare costs is less government. LESS GOVERNMENT.

Not to over analyze things, but sometimes the most disturbing thing about liberals is their sense of humor. They refuse to laugh at themselves. They will laugh at others and make fun of other people, but in my experience, liberals laugh at themselves a lot less than conservatives do. Maybe it is because conservatives know they are not God, whereas liberals think they are?

This election season, SNL has ripped into the Republicans over and over again. SNL refuses to rip into the Democrats, knowing that to do so would provoke the wrath of the Chosen One, and that they might get death threats like those now coming in to Joe the Plumber. But SNL has ripped the Republicans time and time again, usually in a very non-clever way- laugh at how dumb they are, laugh at how stupid they are, etc.

Even so, Governor Palin went on SNL last week and Senator McCain did this week. I thought Palin's appearance wasn't that funny, and felt like SNL was using her by having her on the show. But with McCain, they were a lot more respectful, and consequently, McCain's appearance actually was pretty funny. Watch it here.

When I was reading the coverage of it over on the AP story, I came across this quote:

Obama said Sunday that McCain was funny. Addressing supporters in Ohio, he said the performance was an example of how politicians can fight on the issues but bring civility to politics by having a sense of humor.

Yes, McCain was once again setting an example how politicians can be civil. Obama likes to talk a lot about leadership, bipartisanship, civility- but never is there an example of him doing those things himself. America is about to elect a guy that talks admiringly about other people doing things that he doesn't do.

Vote for the person with a sense of humor- straight-ticket Republican. It is a better, more funny world in which to live.

My friend who lived over in Germany told me once that an interesting feature of a political system that preaches equality is the marked inequality that exists. The countries that push the most for their citizens to be equal have leaders who live unequal lifestyles, whether it was in East Germany or the Soviet Union in the past, or Venezuela or Cuba today. Similarly, the politicians today that push the most for equality appear to be living it up on the people's dime (Obama throwing lavish parties and remodeling limo's), or using the people's dime to implement policies that support the elite in our country. As surprising as it is to some, conservatives and Republicans and the policies they promote lead to more equality than liberals and Democrats. As an example of this, I found a really good post over at Jack McHugh's Blog:

My colleague noticed an announcement on the website of the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic growth about a state government “Vibrant Small Cities Initiative” program to hand out some $6 million in federal money to subsidize “façade improvements” on downtown buildings.

She was pondering the distinction between “vibrant cities” and the “cool cities” that Gov. Granholm has touted as another government central-planners’ vision of how to revitalize Michigan. I suspect there’s no difference, that both are buzz-words describing an particular elite class’s vision of an ideal setting that in many cases they themselves do not choose.

Here’s my attempt to define the contents of that vision. (Granholm wants to give taxpayer money to support places) with high-density population that are inhabited by: older, upper-middle class singles or empty-nesters, college students who are the offspring of upper-middle class families, or unmarried or childless college grads in their 20s or early 30s from the same upper-middle class background.

(Granholm does not want to support) suburban or urban neighborhoods inhabited by: families with children (or any income level), individuals or families who prefer the privacy and space of single family homes, or working people with limited incomes and leisure time, or the poor who can't afford to live in the cities.

For all the blather about “diversity,” the inhabitants of this ideal world of Democrats and liberals is a narrow class-driven vision of elites.

In Feint & Margin Kate Nkansa writes:

I have come to a few of my own conclusions as to why we cannot even get the basics right on the African continent. We have no pride, accountability, sense of responsibility and ownership. This includes politicians, citizens and civil society in our continent. We are mediocre and accept mediocrity instead of demanding excellence. We have no benchmark to measure ourselves against. Let's stop blaming: slavery, apartheid and colonisation for our mediocrity. We have nobody but ourselves to blame. It is 2010 and many African countries are celebrating more than 40 years of independence. We have, however failed to achieve anything tangible in this time. Let us foster some pride and take responsibility for the poverty, hunger, corruption that prevails in our countries. Our continent’s success solely rests on every African’s shoulders. We as Africans need to create the standards we deem acceptable for Africa. Africans should hold politicians who plunder our resources for self-enrichment accountable. If someone tried to steal or take advantage of your family, you would be outraged. This is the same principle we need to cultivate as Africans. This continent has so much potential, we all need to start believing and actively striving for excellence starting from the way we treat each other as Africans, our work ethic and how we use state and public resources.

More here

The Economist writes:

As in Nigeria, Kenyans queued quietly to exercise their right to vote, reflecting the enormous appetite for democracy that exists on a continent that was until recently dominated by dictators and “big men”. But for democracy to survive, it is not enough to hold elections. Politicians must accept that they may have to give up office, and thus all the opportunities for self-enrichment that come their way. It is no coincidence that the most corrupt politicians are also those who cling most desperately to power—as in Kenya and Nigeria.

Doug Ross has put together a wonderful gift for the holidays- a letter book of US regulations for children! Sure to by a favorite for future czars and bureaucrats! Over at the original link you can see all the pictures that go with each letter, but if you want to just use your imagination, here are the letters:

The Obama Administration's Official Alphabet Guide for Learning Government's Role in Your Life

Hi, I'm Omar, the Obama administration's official kid's ambassador. Today I'll be guiding you through some of the many necessary regulations that government imposes on us for our protection -- and we'll learn the alphabet at the same time!

• A is for auto. The size, speed, fuel and bumpers of autos must be regulated to protect us from ourselves!
• B is for business. Government must levy taxes, regulations, fees, surcharges and paperwork on businesses, lest they take advantage of workers.
• C is for cupcakes. Every aspect of child nutrition must be controlled -- because we can't leave it up to the parents!
• D is for doctor. Health care guidelines make sure every doctor practices medicine the same way.
• E is for electricity. Americans must expect to do without electricity from time to time, because we use so much of the world's resources. That is why American coal, nuclear, gas and other sources of energy must be restricted.
• F is for fare. Cab fares must be tightly controlled down to the tenth-mile because small business owners simply can not be trusted.
• G is for ginkgo and other medicinal herbs, which can not be sold without oversight by the FDA, state and local agencies. They're looking out for us!
• H is for Happy Meals. Selling toys with food is an evil marketing tactic, which kids and parents should not be exposed to!
• I is for immigrants, documented or not. We must welcome everyone into our country, because open borders and a welfare state promote tolerance and unity.
• J is for junk-mail. No longer can marketers promote their products without a complete review by federal, state and local authorities.
• K is for knives. Even pen knives and bottles of shampoo represent threats to airline safety and must be confiscated for our protection!
• L is for lollipop. Only organic lollipops that contain less than 25 grams of sugar can be sold in the U.S. It's for our protection!
• M is for MRI machine. Overrated tests and diagnostics aren't always needed for seniors, based upon the government's "Complete Lives System", which ensures fair and equitable treatment for most healthy Americans.
• N is for NEA, the teacher's union that has its first priority educamating us kids (after electing big government politicians, that is)!
• O is for oil, the source of automotive energy around the world. Government must prevent drilling for oil because cars represent freedom to move around the country.
• P is for prescription drugs. For safety reasons, government must put drug manufacturers through decades of testing and regulatory hoops even if certain patients could use experimental drugs. These dying patients could actually die if they're exposed to drugs that aren't ready for the market!
• Q is for QWERTY keyboards, the electric current, operation and safety for which must be reviewed by multiple agencies for our protection.
• R is for the rich. At some point, they've made enough money. Those who have grown too wealthy on the backs of the workers should have their excess riches confiscated for redistribution.
• S is for shower-head. Unrestricted flow wastes water, which is why government must regulate how all shower-heads work.
• T is for toilet. All toilet designs must be reviewed by federal officials to ensure less wasted water.
• U is for unions. Unions are collectives of workers who band together to protect workers and elect big government politicians.
• V is for vending machine. Government needs to set standards for what kinds of drinks and snacks may be sold to gullible consumers.
• W is for warmal colding, the climate change phenomenon caused by humans which results in crazy streaks of hot and cold weather.
• X is for X-ray machine. X-rays are discouraged in medical settings (for cost reasons) but used extensively in airline security.
• Y is for yacht. Democrat leaders like John Kerry use yachts to visit constituents, but others who own them should be considered overly rich.
• Z is for zebra-suits -- the nickname for federal prisoners who violate the hundreds of thousands of regulations that protect us 24 hours a day!

Rainer Chr. Hennig writes about the emerging 'green' protectionist policies of developed world:

Populist solutions that are to satisfy customers, politicians and the European industry alike are therefore surfacing all over Africa's neighbour continent and the main market of its products. And the solutions seem neat and nice - easy to understand and with the potential of creating more work locally. Even the industry starts propagating these solutions.
The victim mainly is Africa, because the message is that, as longer as a product or person is transported, the more energy is wasted unnecessarily. Worst of all is airborne transport, having the highest emissions of climate gases such as CO2. Unluckily, Africa is far away from European markets and poor transcontinental infrastructure puts most products and travellers on an airplane.
All over Europe, therefore, home-grown campaigns are being promoted, attacking Africa's newest and most successful export products. Anti-globalisation activists, "green" politicians, local industry and even occasional experts and scientists head these "buy local" campaign

See related coverage of this subject by Ethan Zuckerman and Alex Steffen
Photo courtesy of Afrol News

From Grandiose Parlor:

In other countries, politics is a vehicle for effecting change, in Nigeria(read most Africa), it is a means of economic survival. We have politics and politicians, but we do not yet have democracy, and so, every May 29, we can only gape as the politicians describe the bore holes that they have sunk, the street lights that they have provided, the school buildings that they have re-painted, the roads that they have resurfaced - as true evidence that they are democrats! - Reuben Abati

If anyone is looking for a good book to read, I read a really good review for The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal by Robert P. Murphy (Regnery, 2009) (272 pages) over at the Campaign for Liberty. It is a good review of an excellent book:

Government of all kind depends on elaborate mythologies to keep the people complacent in the face of constant attacks on their liberty, their property, and even their lives. Kings used to proclaim that they were divine or at least that they ruled with divine approval, so disobedience to them was actually disobedience to God or the gods. That worked to keep most of the citizenry in line for a very long time.

As religion started losing its hold over people, rulers came up with new ideas. One was that the state was like a big, sheltering family where everyone had to cooperate for the common good -- as directed by the government. Another idea was that the alternative to control by the government, anarchy, was so terrifying that it must be opposed at every turn. Government, according to this notion, is our bulwark against many calamities, including economic implosion. If it weren't for the benevolent, far-seeing actions of politicians and their hired regulators, we would have to endure repeated and prolonged depressions. So even if you aren't crazy about everything the government does, you need to accept it because the alternative is so much worse.

Economist Robert Murphy (Ph.D. from New York University, formerly on the faculty of Hillsdale College and now an independent scholar) agrees that we can learn a lot by looking back at the Great Depression and New Deal, but maintains that the lessons to be learned are the exact opposite of those that our political establishment (including its many intellectual hangers-on) want us to learn. Far from proving any defect in capitalism, the Depression actually shows that politicians should refrain from political meddling with the economy, especially federal tampering with money and credit. Also, if we hunt for the truth about the New Deal, we discover that it was just a parade of endless folly and bungling that made things worse.

That is exactly what Murphy is trying to accomplish with a book that is aimed at the everyday reader, easy to read, and free of jargon. The political scoundrels would love to keep this book out of people's hands.

As a teacher, I have been fighting for years to make sure that in the districts that I teach in, the Great Depression is taught correctly. And by correctly, I mean that they will learn both the liberal version of the story of the cause of and recovery from the Great Depression and they will learn the conservative version of the story. I fight to make sure that in my school and others, teachers and students are knowledgeable about both versions, so that after being educated they can make their own decisions, informed of the bias on both sides. The reason why I do this is because once students become informed, once they become educated, once they are exposed to both sides, they almost always agree with the conservative interpretation of events- that the cause of the Great Depression was (mostly) government, and that the depth of the GD was caused by (mostly) government, and that the recovery from the GD was caused by less government (mostly).

The Great Depression has many important lesson to teach us today, and one of the most important is to understand the nature of the myths surrounding it, and we need to work to dispel those myths. By doing that, the world will become a better place.

UPDATE: I've found out through a Friend Who Must Not Be Named that the great Zach Crossen was a contributer to this fine book. Good work spreading the truth Zach!

During his administration, George Bush was frequently accused of not working hard, being lazy, and generally having a frat-boy mentality to being President. One piece of evidence to support this argument was the frequency to which Bush played golf. Over and over in the media jokes were made about how lazy a President he was, and how he was often playing golf when important decisions needed to be made. It turns out that when compared to current President, Barack Obama, Bush was a workaholic.

President Obama has played 24 rounds of golf as President since February. It took Bush nearly three years to play that many rounds of golf, and yet Obama has done it in one year.

There is nothing wrong with the President playing an occasional round of golf- there is no magic number to the correct amount of golf the President plays. But for the media, which spent a lot of time building and promoting the argument that Bush spent too much time golfing and not enough time governing, it is hypocritical for them to now say nothing when Obama is playing golf a lot more than Bush ever did. The media should have consistent standards on how it covers politicians.

It is almost as if Obama is doing everything wrong that Bush did, only in an exponentially worse way. Democrats criticized Bush for the debt- Obama is piling up debt at a far far faster clip than did Bush. Democrats criticized Bush for bailing out banks and businesses- Obama gave far more money for bailouts than Bush did. Democrats criticized Bush for playing bitter partisan politics- Obama's Presidency is becoming by far the most bitter and most partisan in the history of our nation. And Democrats criticized Bush for playing golf- and now Obama has played way more golf in a year than Bush played over three.

People who voted for Obama did indeed vote for change, but I'm not sure if they understood that voting for Obama was a vote for a dramatic change for the worse. Vote Democrat for higher debt, divisive politics, and more golf playing politicians!

Over at the blog Bible, Math, Politics and More! I read a really good and inspiring post about what it means to be involved with the Republican Party. Here is some of this post:

If "All politics is local," then we represent a front line in the political battles being waged in America today. I think a lot of people—especially those who complain that politicians are insular or that they, the voters, can't have any impact on what's going on—would be pleasantly surprised at their ability to interact with the people voted into office...if they would take the time and opportunity to attend GOP county meetings. Not every politician attends every meeting, but if you come to three or four of ours, you will meet most of our county elected officials in Van Buren County.

As a result of my attendance the last few years, I can say that I am friends with my state representative, most of the county commissioners, most of the county elected officials (county clerk, county treasurer, etc.), and a variety of folks who hold township-level positions. I have had the opportunity to meet a number of state-level candidates and officials, as well as senators and representatives from other Michigan districts. As an officer of the organization, I was even invited to a private meeting (along with about 50 other people in this part of the state) with John McCain in 2007. And I asked him about that nutty immigration bill he supported two years ago.

My main point is this: If you want to make a difference, get involved. Contact your county Republican Party and ask when and where the next meeting is. (Not sure how? Check out migop.org, or the corresponding website in our state.) Take a friend or two with you if you are uncomfortable showing up in a group of relative strangers...because if you want to know more, your friends probably do, also. Attend a Lincoln Day Dinner or other county event where people and politicians mingle. Join a facebook group (we have one—Van Buren County Republican Party) or other internet social network for interested people; read blogs and news stories written by the people who are doing the actual work. There is much work to be done between now and November 2010; be a part of it!

Most likely, the Governor of your state will have a 'State of the State' address coming up soon. If you have a liberal or Democrat Governor who is out of touch with reality too, I suggest that you contact your local taxpayers association group or organize something similar to this yourself. Via the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, written by the great libertarian Republican Leon Drolet:

On February 3, Governor Granholm will present her eighth State of the State Address to Lansing lawmakers. there are fancy receptions prior to the Governor's speech featuring rich hors d'oeuvres and premium bars. Politicians dress in their finest clothes and bring their families and friends to the Capitol to attend the parties. Every state representative gets to bring a special guest - usually a big financial donor - to sit next to them in the House chamber during the governor's speech. It is all very nice. You are not invited.

You see, the State of the State Address isn't about you or your family. Much of the Governor's speech is about the government's budget, not YOUR budget. When Governor Granholm talks about helping the economy, she means giving special tax breaks and subsidies to politically connected and politically-correct companies while raising taxes on every family and business that doesn't have a solar-powered windmill and a healthy lobbying fund.

Let's seize the day of February 3rd away from Governor Granholm and the political class in Lansing.

On the evening of February 3rd, at the very same moment that Governor Granholm begins her speech, the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, and other activist groups like Common Sense in Government, are hosting a different speech outside the Capitol Building. This speech will be a "State of the Citizens Address" where everyday citizens will gather to air their grievances against Governor Granholm and Lansing's government class - and you are absolutely invited!

The protest starts in front of the Capitol Building at 6:30PM and the 'State of the Citizen Address' starts promptly at 7:00PM. Go to www.makelansinglisten.com for more information. Also, check out the great youtube video here.

Friends, it is time to seize the day. It's time to drive to Lansing (dress VERY warm!), and join us outside on the steps of the State Capitol Building. Bring your protest signs and join with fellow frustrated taxpayers in demanding an end to Lansing's failed policies of tax hikes, spending increases and broken promises.

Bring your family, friends and coworkers. The more people we have at this 'State of the Citizen Address', the more the media and (most importantly) the politicians inside the Capitol will pay attention.

Also, call your state representative and state senator and invite them to come too. Tell them that, if they want to really represent you, they should leave their seat on the House floor vacant and go outside and listen to the people. They might tell you that they "have an obligation to attend the Governor's State of the State Address" or that it "would be disrespectful" to miss it. Politely inform them that their obligation is to the citizens, not the Governor. And that we are not asking anyone to interrupt or be rude during the Governor's speech - we are asking them to simply not attend. And to join the citizens outside, instead.

Michigan taxpayers need you to step up. Our economy, our future, need you to step up. Let's do it. Let's rescue Michigan. Let's seize the day on February 3rd! You are invited.

This is a great idea, and I wanted to let you all know about it now, so that you can plan on being there if you live in Michigan, or if you are from another state so that you can begin to plan your own.