To all my readers,
When I started Conservative Ken in June of 2009 it was largely as a relief valve for the political-themed ranting I was inflicting upon my friends, none of whom appreciated it. I enjoyed conveying my point of view even as those positions evolved to the point that I felt the need to spin-off the blog into a new entity entirely. But, as Joanie loves Chachi taught us, spin-offs are not always successful. Whereas I used to throw myself into writing these columns with enthusiasm, I now find myself putting them off and continually missing my own self-imposed deadlines. Its partly a withering of the enthusiasm and partly that I simply have more responsibilities as time goes on. During the past two years and 91 columns, I have changed jobs, gone back to school, bought a house, lost old friends, and made new ones.
Like any good radical, I've never judged the success of this blog by the number of followers on Blogger or the number of fans on Facebook. I've always done it for myself but was always happy to receive feedback from people who took something away from what I'd posted or written myself. I'd like to thank my readers for their encouragement and for being open to a political point of view that seems lost in the red/blue divide. I view the respect for economic liberty and social tolerance as a philosophical movement even more than a political one. While I will continue to strive to support these values and model them for those around me, I will no longer write original material on Blogger or update the Facebook page.
Thanks again to all the people who have supported me along the way.
Regards,
The Libertarin
Ken Pugh
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
The Obama Downgrade Or The Tea Party Downgrade?
When Standards and Poor's, one of three credit rating agencies that evaluate risk on a country-wide scale, downgraded the US to AA+ rating from the AAA rating it was the first time the US had seen such a downgrade since it first became a AAA nation in 1917. The fact that it happened on the heels of the contentious debt deal, that was hammered out mere hours before the US ran out of borrowing power, being passed begged the question of which side was more at fault. Prominent Democrats have called it the Tea Party Downgrade, while those on the right have called it the Obama Downgrade. Although the Tea Party seems to keep fiscal responsibility as a central theme, Obama steadfastly refuses to take the nation's finances seriously.
While Obama seemed obsessed with using the debt deal as an excuse to raise taxes, the rating agencies were concerned only with spending cuts. Moody's has said a downgrade was imminent unless the amount cut was 4 trillion over ten years. The actual spending cuts in the bill were 2.4 trillion over 10 years. The only real way to achieve those kinds of cuts is to touch the third rail of politics, entitlement reform. While Obama announced he was ready to talk about entitlements but then ducked and demagogued any discussion of reform, the day when the payroll taxes will not cover the checks going out is rapidly approaching. The dates are continually moved up as long as we stay in a recession where total revenue to the government falls as less people pay taxes and more receive benefits. Even assuming that 2.4 trillion will actually be cut from the budget is impossibly optimistic. The first two years of cuts is 20 billion and 50 billion. Future Congresses, of course, cannot be held to these larger back-loaded cuts just as the current Congress is not held to the previous Congresses decrees.
Obama also belies his unseriousness when it comes to fiscal issues by constantly referencing his own debt reduction plan which was never shown to members of Congress or introduced as legislation. Par for the course for a President who was not passed a budget in over 800 days. While Obama is busy overhauling healthcare, telling GM which types of cars it can build, attacking countries without even a nod to Congress, and passing stimulus he has no time for such petty yet constitutionally mandated chores such as budgets. When Obama was inaugurated some in the press echoed his sentiments about the smallness of our politics especially for a man destined to do such great things. The perception of his comments by some seemed to be that he was literally lowering himself to be the most powerful man in the world. Unfortunately the "great things" he has done have failed miserably and he seems less interested in the business of governing than the business of transforming.
The rhetoric rolled out of by the left was laughable at best, the principal talking point being that Reagan presided over a robust economy because he enacted the biggest tax hike in history. Although this a partially true, it illustrates a greater point. As Pat Buchanan, a White House aide, recalls "Reagan was persuaded to sign on to a bipartisan big deal to cut spending three dollars for every dollar he accepted in new taxes. And the Gipper forever believed he had been lied to, as he got three dollars in tax hikes for every dollar in spending cuts." One of the oldest sayings in Washington is tax increases always come on time, spending cuts never materialize. Even with the tax hike, the net effect of the Reagan Presidency was to cut the top marginal tax rate in half and spur private sector growth.
After the debt bill passed and the downgrade was announced, the left claimed we had been downgraded because government had to been slashed to the bone. The New York Times predictably reported that Republicans "want a vastly smaller government," called the dispute about raising the federal debt ceiling "an epic clash over the parties' divergent views on the size and role of the federal government." and added President Obama faces "a conservative movement seeking a wholesale redefinition of the proper role of government." Thanks to baseline budgeting, which builds in government growth to the budget every single year even the 2.5 trillion cut over ten years only reduces the estimated additional debt from 10 trillion to 7.5 trillion. Rest assured, we will still increase our debt by 50% over the next ten years assuming all the cuts materialize. Unfortunately both sides of the aisle have the same vision of government, just slightly different ETAs.
Although President Obama surely bears the most blame for his shameless disregard for this nation's finances, even the Tea Party-inspired Republicans only seem willing to hold out for a smaller increase in the growth of government. Actually shrinking government or acknowledging that the entitlement status quo is unsustainable seems too far outside the mainstream for any politician other than the Pauls (Ron and Rand) to seriously consider. Let us hope the downgrade is a warning that does not go unheeded.
A note to my readers: I did not intend to take the summer off but it seems to have happened anyway. I hope to resume my triweekly schedule. For those not following me on Facebook, you're missing out on daily updates usually a quote, link or video that pertains to current stories in the news. If you're not following me but would like to, please use the link and click the "like" button next to the page title. I hope everyone had a great summer.
Regards,
The Libertarin
While Obama seemed obsessed with using the debt deal as an excuse to raise taxes, the rating agencies were concerned only with spending cuts. Moody's has said a downgrade was imminent unless the amount cut was 4 trillion over ten years. The actual spending cuts in the bill were 2.4 trillion over 10 years. The only real way to achieve those kinds of cuts is to touch the third rail of politics, entitlement reform. While Obama announced he was ready to talk about entitlements but then ducked and demagogued any discussion of reform, the day when the payroll taxes will not cover the checks going out is rapidly approaching. The dates are continually moved up as long as we stay in a recession where total revenue to the government falls as less people pay taxes and more receive benefits. Even assuming that 2.4 trillion will actually be cut from the budget is impossibly optimistic. The first two years of cuts is 20 billion and 50 billion. Future Congresses, of course, cannot be held to these larger back-loaded cuts just as the current Congress is not held to the previous Congresses decrees.
Obama also belies his unseriousness when it comes to fiscal issues by constantly referencing his own debt reduction plan which was never shown to members of Congress or introduced as legislation. Par for the course for a President who was not passed a budget in over 800 days. While Obama is busy overhauling healthcare, telling GM which types of cars it can build, attacking countries without even a nod to Congress, and passing stimulus he has no time for such petty yet constitutionally mandated chores such as budgets. When Obama was inaugurated some in the press echoed his sentiments about the smallness of our politics especially for a man destined to do such great things. The perception of his comments by some seemed to be that he was literally lowering himself to be the most powerful man in the world. Unfortunately the "great things" he has done have failed miserably and he seems less interested in the business of governing than the business of transforming.
The rhetoric rolled out of by the left was laughable at best, the principal talking point being that Reagan presided over a robust economy because he enacted the biggest tax hike in history. Although this a partially true, it illustrates a greater point. As Pat Buchanan, a White House aide, recalls "Reagan was persuaded to sign on to a bipartisan big deal to cut spending three dollars for every dollar he accepted in new taxes. And the Gipper forever believed he had been lied to, as he got three dollars in tax hikes for every dollar in spending cuts." One of the oldest sayings in Washington is tax increases always come on time, spending cuts never materialize. Even with the tax hike, the net effect of the Reagan Presidency was to cut the top marginal tax rate in half and spur private sector growth.
After the debt bill passed and the downgrade was announced, the left claimed we had been downgraded because government had to been slashed to the bone. The New York Times predictably reported that Republicans "want a vastly smaller government," called the dispute about raising the federal debt ceiling "an epic clash over the parties' divergent views on the size and role of the federal government." and added President Obama faces "a conservative movement seeking a wholesale redefinition of the proper role of government." Thanks to baseline budgeting, which builds in government growth to the budget every single year even the 2.5 trillion cut over ten years only reduces the estimated additional debt from 10 trillion to 7.5 trillion. Rest assured, we will still increase our debt by 50% over the next ten years assuming all the cuts materialize. Unfortunately both sides of the aisle have the same vision of government, just slightly different ETAs.
Although President Obama surely bears the most blame for his shameless disregard for this nation's finances, even the Tea Party-inspired Republicans only seem willing to hold out for a smaller increase in the growth of government. Actually shrinking government or acknowledging that the entitlement status quo is unsustainable seems too far outside the mainstream for any politician other than the Pauls (Ron and Rand) to seriously consider. Let us hope the downgrade is a warning that does not go unheeded.
A note to my readers: I did not intend to take the summer off but it seems to have happened anyway. I hope to resume my triweekly schedule. For those not following me on Facebook, you're missing out on daily updates usually a quote, link or video that pertains to current stories in the news. If you're not following me but would like to, please use the link and click the "like" button next to the page title. I hope everyone had a great summer.
Regards,
The Libertarin
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Can't compete on an equal footing? There's a waiver for that.
When Obamacare was originally passed, its critics declared it a job killing bill. There were accusations that the incentives were set up in such a way to destroy private insurance and force employers to dump their employees onto the government rolls. It was also predicted that smaller companies might even give up their plans entirely because they'd be unable to even afford the lawyers to go through the several thousand page bill and tell them how to proceed. The administration, going against the will of the American people demonstrated in town halls and virtually every major poll, passed the bill and implied that the only reason anyone could be against it was either greed or racism and likely both.
As the bills provisions slowly kick in, all the critics' predictions seem to be coming true. Thirty percent of businesses are expected to drop health coverage because of Obamacare. There are also at least five other perverse incentives for businesses in the bill, including relying more heavily on part-time workers and artificially spiking premiums to qualify for subsidies. More generally by making each employee more expensive, Obamacare is sure to cause higher unemployment.
Then came the waivers. Never before had an administration passed such a sweeping bill and exempted their own supporters so promiscuously. In the latest round of waivers, 20% went to businesses in Nancy Pelosi's district. Many unions, including the SEIU who has donated tens of millions of dollars to Obama, have received waivers. AARP strongly publicized in favor of Obamacare but then also received a waiver. When pressed about what criteria go into making this decision, the administration has been mum. Likely because waivers are not mentioned anywhere in the bill and the HHS does not have the authority to issue waivers.
As a candidate who railed against crony capitalism in the form of Halliburton during the campaign, Obama seems pretty comfortable exempting his favored businesses from the extra costs he seeks to impose on all others. His cavalier attitude towards the issue as the number of waivers surpass 1200 speaks to the fact that the media will not challenge him on this issue. Reason, as usual, is a major exception wondering if his waiver attitude might have anything to do with his war policies as well.
This unholy and naked alliance of business and government against other business is exactly the kind of situation Ayn Ran was trying to warn us about over 50 years ago. Government can play favorites because it writes the laws, no one dares complain because government writes the laws. Obama hasn't started anything new here, just expanded it to obscene proportions under the eye of a complacent media.
Although Obamacare is continuing to wind its way through the court system, the best way to fight it might be to simply gain control of the White House and repeal all waivers. When everyone feels the pain together, it will be more palatable to pursue a complete repeal. Liberals have long said that nationalized healthcare is their Holy Grail, if so we should insist that they live under it just like everyone else.
As the bills provisions slowly kick in, all the critics' predictions seem to be coming true. Thirty percent of businesses are expected to drop health coverage because of Obamacare. There are also at least five other perverse incentives for businesses in the bill, including relying more heavily on part-time workers and artificially spiking premiums to qualify for subsidies. More generally by making each employee more expensive, Obamacare is sure to cause higher unemployment.
Then came the waivers. Never before had an administration passed such a sweeping bill and exempted their own supporters so promiscuously. In the latest round of waivers, 20% went to businesses in Nancy Pelosi's district. Many unions, including the SEIU who has donated tens of millions of dollars to Obama, have received waivers. AARP strongly publicized in favor of Obamacare but then also received a waiver. When pressed about what criteria go into making this decision, the administration has been mum. Likely because waivers are not mentioned anywhere in the bill and the HHS does not have the authority to issue waivers.
As a candidate who railed against crony capitalism in the form of Halliburton during the campaign, Obama seems pretty comfortable exempting his favored businesses from the extra costs he seeks to impose on all others. His cavalier attitude towards the issue as the number of waivers surpass 1200 speaks to the fact that the media will not challenge him on this issue. Reason, as usual, is a major exception wondering if his waiver attitude might have anything to do with his war policies as well.
This unholy and naked alliance of business and government against other business is exactly the kind of situation Ayn Ran was trying to warn us about over 50 years ago. Government can play favorites because it writes the laws, no one dares complain because government writes the laws. Obama hasn't started anything new here, just expanded it to obscene proportions under the eye of a complacent media.
Although Obamacare is continuing to wind its way through the court system, the best way to fight it might be to simply gain control of the White House and repeal all waivers. When everyone feels the pain together, it will be more palatable to pursue a complete repeal. Liberals have long said that nationalized healthcare is their Holy Grail, if so we should insist that they live under it just like everyone else.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Movie Review: Atlas Shrugged Part 1
Atlas Shrugged is a book that has been on the best seller list multiple times in the last decade despite first being published in 1957. Ayn Rand tried several times to get the book made into a movie or at least a TV mini-series. Over the years names like Farah Fawcett and Angelina Jolie have been attached to the project wanting to play the lead, Dagny Taggart. Most recently, it was being produced by Lion's Gate before it all fell apart again for the hundredth or so time. With the rights about to revert back from John Aglialoro, a long time fan of Rand, he decided to make an independent movie outside of the big studios and make the movie in three parts.
The first movie covers part 1, about 400 pages, of Atlas Shrugged. The creative team had the unenviable job of boiling down 20 page soliloquies into pithy one-liners, casting mostly unknown actors as iconic characters, and doing it all while racing the clock of the rights reverting back from Agialoro. Some actors, including the one portraying James Taggart, were hired only two days before shooting began. The movie was only released in a few hundred theaters (I had to travel from Newark, DE to Cherry Hill, NJ to see it) and likely will never recoup its own production costs.
Reviews of the movie were hard to find and when found gave the impression that the movie was below the quality of most direct-to-DVD films. Even Kurt Loder, a libertarian and fan of Rand, said of the film, "It’s a blessing, I suppose, that Ayn Rand, who loved the movies, and actually worked extensively in the industry, isn’t alive to see what’s been made of her most influential novel." Despite all this, the movie actually is quite good and definitely worth a viewing.
The two main actors, Taylor Schilling as Dagny and Grant Bowler as Hank Reardon seem to portray the strength of their characters faithfully and their acting chops come up short only when displaying the emotional extremes. In Atlas Shrugged, as with Star Wars, wooden acting does not have to be a bad thing. Matthew Marsden plays a slick James Taggart with a smile that both hides his character's baser intentions and hints that he is enjoying the role. Graham Beckel (Bob Beckel's libertarian-leaning brother) gives the worst performance as Ellis Wyatt, his performance seeming far over-the-top and uncontrolled especially during his heated exchanges with Dagny. The other actors hold their own, even if they do not shine.
Much like with the movie Watchmen, some say Atlas Shrugged is unfilmable and they may well be right. The movie requires many quick cuts towards the end as the two main characters track down the object of their desire (no spoilers here) and many scenes are left out entirely because they are simply not important enough to the main plot. Its hard to see how this could have been avoided without changing the plot around to accommodate the movie-making aspect, something that Agialoro admirably does not do.
Nonetheless, most fans will likely appreciate the film that some have waited 54 years to be made, warts and all. The overall production values are surprisingly high and the film shows no major defects in camera work or casting. Casual movie-goers unfamiliar with Rand might not find much to love but, as Reason.com Editor-in-Chief describes them, the "Capitalism, bitch!" moments help to elevate the movie by showing us something we don't normally see in Hollywood, businessmen as the good guys and the government as intrusive and destructive.
Atlas Shrugged Part 2 and 3 are due out on April 15, 2012 and April 15, 2013 respectively.
The first movie covers part 1, about 400 pages, of Atlas Shrugged. The creative team had the unenviable job of boiling down 20 page soliloquies into pithy one-liners, casting mostly unknown actors as iconic characters, and doing it all while racing the clock of the rights reverting back from Agialoro. Some actors, including the one portraying James Taggart, were hired only two days before shooting began. The movie was only released in a few hundred theaters (I had to travel from Newark, DE to Cherry Hill, NJ to see it) and likely will never recoup its own production costs.
Reviews of the movie were hard to find and when found gave the impression that the movie was below the quality of most direct-to-DVD films. Even Kurt Loder, a libertarian and fan of Rand, said of the film, "It’s a blessing, I suppose, that Ayn Rand, who loved the movies, and actually worked extensively in the industry, isn’t alive to see what’s been made of her most influential novel." Despite all this, the movie actually is quite good and definitely worth a viewing.
The two main actors, Taylor Schilling as Dagny and Grant Bowler as Hank Reardon seem to portray the strength of their characters faithfully and their acting chops come up short only when displaying the emotional extremes. In Atlas Shrugged, as with Star Wars, wooden acting does not have to be a bad thing. Matthew Marsden plays a slick James Taggart with a smile that both hides his character's baser intentions and hints that he is enjoying the role. Graham Beckel (Bob Beckel's libertarian-leaning brother) gives the worst performance as Ellis Wyatt, his performance seeming far over-the-top and uncontrolled especially during his heated exchanges with Dagny. The other actors hold their own, even if they do not shine.
Much like with the movie Watchmen, some say Atlas Shrugged is unfilmable and they may well be right. The movie requires many quick cuts towards the end as the two main characters track down the object of their desire (no spoilers here) and many scenes are left out entirely because they are simply not important enough to the main plot. Its hard to see how this could have been avoided without changing the plot around to accommodate the movie-making aspect, something that Agialoro admirably does not do.
Nonetheless, most fans will likely appreciate the film that some have waited 54 years to be made, warts and all. The overall production values are surprisingly high and the film shows no major defects in camera work or casting. Casual movie-goers unfamiliar with Rand might not find much to love but, as Reason.com Editor-in-Chief describes them, the "Capitalism, bitch!" moments help to elevate the movie by showing us something we don't normally see in Hollywood, businessmen as the good guys and the government as intrusive and destructive.
Atlas Shrugged Part 2 and 3 are due out on April 15, 2012 and April 15, 2013 respectively.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
4:20 Holiday Post
It's March 20th, colloquially known as 4:20 and everyone knows what is celebrated today. Yes, it is Equal Pay Day, the day where we reflect on how women supposedly make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Why, what did you think this post was going to be about?
According to a report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, "One year out of college, women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn."
The data seems to imply either a lack of opportunity for women or outright discrimination. However, the data for college enrollments show that 57% of college undergraduates are women and that number is climbing. Certainly then, it is not a lack of opportunities that women face. Given that a college education should supposedly raise one's earning potential, is this even more damning evidence that discrimination is keeping the ladies down? Not when you look more closely at the data.
The study notes some difference in male/female employment which explain much of the gap. First off, men and women are not compared with careers held constant, it is an overall number of all men and all women. The report admits that women seek employment statistically slanted towards education, psychology, the humanities, nonprofit groups and local governments which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math, and business.
The one year out of college pay difference of 20% also makes more sense in light of the average hours worked. The report admits that a year out of college, notes AAUW, women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Men are also far more likely to work more than 50 hours a week.
A decade after graduation, women make fully 31 percent less than men but this too is explained in the fine print of the report. A decade after graduation, only 3% of men have left the workforce or are working part time as compared to a whopping 39% of women. Those women who return to the workforce after being gone for so long, typically due to child-rearing, understandably make less than the men who never left.
Although the headline of the report trumpets discrimination at the hands of men, the text admits that "After accounting for all factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap remains unexplained and may be attributed to discrimination." So by the feminists own reasoning, the 23 cent gap is only less than a 6 cent gap and even that only may be discrimination. June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has done more independent research on the subject and comes to a fairly unsurprising conclusion, "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap."
For years feminists have tried to act as though there are no inherent differences between men and women, possibly excepting that men are evil. False facts are constructed to distort the overall picture. A 2007 study reported that 51% of women were now choosing to live without a spouse. A New York Times correction noted: "A front-page article and chart on Jan. 16 about the rising number of women in the United States living without spouses referred imprecisely to ages of the women included in the Census Bureau survey that was the basis of the finding. The women were 15 and older." Imagine that, when girls as young as 15 are included, most women are unmarried.
I'm not a feminist, I'm a libertarian. I support everyone's right to choose their own path by their individual decisions and not because of outside influence. Feminists, on the other hand, seem much more interested in generating false data to support their own conclusions about trends they would prefer to see in society. Unbiased studies show again and again that women choose to make different lifestyle choices than men, that may change with time or it may not. Regardless, as long as women are free to choose their education level, careers, and life decisions without undue interference or artificial barriers they have true equality of opportunity. Equalizing outcomes is a fool's errand and could only succeed by seeking to take away the freedom of choice that early feminists justly fought for.
A NOTE TO MY READERS: Between 2007 and 2010, Equal Pay Day was observed on March 20. In 2011, the date was moved to March 12. I became aware of this after Equal Pay Day had passed by reading this article which was not used as a reference within this column but is an excellent companion piece. It seems that, just like with anti-war protests, it is only cool for to hold rallies for the supposedly disenfranchised when the President is a Republican. If I missed it even though I was expecting it, I can't imagine too many other people even knew it existed. Although I used feminists' own statistics to debunk their bogus findings, the Wall Street Journal uses Department of Labor statistics to suggest women actually make 8% more than men in the cohort of 22-30 year old urban childless workers. They also found the unemployment rate to be 1% higher among men because of the different fields dominated by either sex, a fact I can't help notice men don't seem to be marching in the street about. Happy Equal Pay Day, sort of.
According to a report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, "One year out of college, women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn."
The data seems to imply either a lack of opportunity for women or outright discrimination. However, the data for college enrollments show that 57% of college undergraduates are women and that number is climbing. Certainly then, it is not a lack of opportunities that women face. Given that a college education should supposedly raise one's earning potential, is this even more damning evidence that discrimination is keeping the ladies down? Not when you look more closely at the data.
The study notes some difference in male/female employment which explain much of the gap. First off, men and women are not compared with careers held constant, it is an overall number of all men and all women. The report admits that women seek employment statistically slanted towards education, psychology, the humanities, nonprofit groups and local governments which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math, and business.
The one year out of college pay difference of 20% also makes more sense in light of the average hours worked. The report admits that a year out of college, notes AAUW, women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Men are also far more likely to work more than 50 hours a week.
A decade after graduation, women make fully 31 percent less than men but this too is explained in the fine print of the report. A decade after graduation, only 3% of men have left the workforce or are working part time as compared to a whopping 39% of women. Those women who return to the workforce after being gone for so long, typically due to child-rearing, understandably make less than the men who never left.
Although the headline of the report trumpets discrimination at the hands of men, the text admits that "After accounting for all factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap remains unexplained and may be attributed to discrimination." So by the feminists own reasoning, the 23 cent gap is only less than a 6 cent gap and even that only may be discrimination. June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has done more independent research on the subject and comes to a fairly unsurprising conclusion, "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap."
For years feminists have tried to act as though there are no inherent differences between men and women, possibly excepting that men are evil. False facts are constructed to distort the overall picture. A 2007 study reported that 51% of women were now choosing to live without a spouse. A New York Times correction noted: "A front-page article and chart on Jan. 16 about the rising number of women in the United States living without spouses referred imprecisely to ages of the women included in the Census Bureau survey that was the basis of the finding. The women were 15 and older." Imagine that, when girls as young as 15 are included, most women are unmarried.
I'm not a feminist, I'm a libertarian. I support everyone's right to choose their own path by their individual decisions and not because of outside influence. Feminists, on the other hand, seem much more interested in generating false data to support their own conclusions about trends they would prefer to see in society. Unbiased studies show again and again that women choose to make different lifestyle choices than men, that may change with time or it may not. Regardless, as long as women are free to choose their education level, careers, and life decisions without undue interference or artificial barriers they have true equality of opportunity. Equalizing outcomes is a fool's errand and could only succeed by seeking to take away the freedom of choice that early feminists justly fought for.
A NOTE TO MY READERS: Between 2007 and 2010, Equal Pay Day was observed on March 20. In 2011, the date was moved to March 12. I became aware of this after Equal Pay Day had passed by reading this article which was not used as a reference within this column but is an excellent companion piece. It seems that, just like with anti-war protests, it is only cool for to hold rallies for the supposedly disenfranchised when the President is a Republican. If I missed it even though I was expecting it, I can't imagine too many other people even knew it existed. Although I used feminists' own statistics to debunk their bogus findings, the Wall Street Journal uses Department of Labor statistics to suggest women actually make 8% more than men in the cohort of 22-30 year old urban childless workers. They also found the unemployment rate to be 1% higher among men because of the different fields dominated by either sex, a fact I can't help notice men don't seem to be marching in the street about. Happy Equal Pay Day, sort of.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Obama's War
According to the United States Constitution, troops can only be deployed when Congress formally declares war. The last time this was done was at the start of World War II. This might come as a surprise to anyone who remembers the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan or Iraq. There were also no formal declarations when troops were used for "humanitarian purposes" in Bosnia, Kosovo or Somalia.
As stated in previous columns, Congress dislikes having all that authority that the Constitution delegated to it so it has gradually meted it out to other branches. In 1973 after being burned for their support for the Vietnam War (though it was not even then done constitutionally), Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto. Essentially abdicating its war making powers to a President who didn't want them, the War Powers Resolution enables the President to send troops into war for 60 days without Congressional approval when national security is threatened. Over the years, even these standards have been relaxed so that national security does not have to be threatened and the 60 day limit is waived.
For longer wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress has passed authorizations of force. These give the President the final say so as to whether or not we go to war for an extended period of time. The authorizations of force are meant to give legitimacy to a war if undertaken but as we saw with Iraq, Congress loves to act tough only to abandon wars if they become unpopular. Maybe if they had to formally declare war, they would tend to take their war making power a little more seriously.
All of this brings us to Libya where Obama has used the War Powers Resolution to deploy the military. This seems contradictory to his belief in an interview to The Boston Globe in 2007 when he stated, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." No one has asked how Libya endangers national security because it is pretty obvious that it doesn't.
Although reasonable people can disagree about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Afghanistan absolutely fell under the War Powers Resolution when its government endorsed an attack on American soil and at least a case was made for Iraq at the time with corroboration of many foreign intelligence agencies. As for the sixty day limit, don't expect Obama to be handicapped by a time frame when he didn't let himself be tied down by the national security requirement.
Obama has set an even more interesting precedent by saying that we are not involved in a war with Libya. In 1984, George Orwell predicted a new lexicon would emerge from overarching government. Newspeak, as it was called, turned truth upon its head and acted to obscure what government was actually. Obama has said we are not involved in a war but a Kinetic Military Action. Last year he announced that the Global War On Terror would now be the Overseas Contingency Operation and acts of terror would be called Man Caused Disasters.
Obama's justification for his more genteel term is that we will not have "boots on the ground" but he has actually sent 2200 marines into Libya. Obama has said that he is reluctant to send troops but cannot stand by while a bloodbath ensues. However, America has stood by while Darfur is drowning in blood. In the Middle East alone, cases could be made on similar grounds for intervention in Tunisia, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and Sudan. Saddam killed more than ten times as many of his own people than Qaddafi and even used chemical weapons on the Kurds, are liberals also prepared to embrace that war retroactively?
Even worse, Obama's reason for entering and benchmark for leaving keep changing. Originally, we were there because Qaddafi must go. Then after speaking with his allies, Obama clarified that the UN mandate only went so far as stopping the slaughter of the rebels. Obama then declared victory but has not withdrawn his forces. Likely because the rebels would be slaughtered if we pulled out. If that doesn't quite sound like victory, that's because it is not.
The real reason Obama has gone into Libya was because the French and British were already going to go in. International consensus, through the UN if possible, justifies any war to the liberal mind. If the peace movement largely dissolved when Obama was elected, it has now been co-opted to support a war in a foreign land where no vital US interest exists and there is no clear mission and no clear exit strategy. Sound familiar?
A NOTE TO MY READERS:
Due to other responsibilities including co-hosting Captain Blue Hen's podcast, From the Booth, The Libertarin is putting out columns on a tri-weekly basis. To get information about libertarian politics in between posts, check out The Libertarin's Facebook page. I've been posting interesting links, videos, and excerpts from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (I'm trying to read all of Part 1 before the movie comes out on April 15). Please "like" the Facebook page and tell your friends so I can get more fans.
As stated in previous columns, Congress dislikes having all that authority that the Constitution delegated to it so it has gradually meted it out to other branches. In 1973 after being burned for their support for the Vietnam War (though it was not even then done constitutionally), Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto. Essentially abdicating its war making powers to a President who didn't want them, the War Powers Resolution enables the President to send troops into war for 60 days without Congressional approval when national security is threatened. Over the years, even these standards have been relaxed so that national security does not have to be threatened and the 60 day limit is waived.
For longer wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress has passed authorizations of force. These give the President the final say so as to whether or not we go to war for an extended period of time. The authorizations of force are meant to give legitimacy to a war if undertaken but as we saw with Iraq, Congress loves to act tough only to abandon wars if they become unpopular. Maybe if they had to formally declare war, they would tend to take their war making power a little more seriously.
All of this brings us to Libya where Obama has used the War Powers Resolution to deploy the military. This seems contradictory to his belief in an interview to The Boston Globe in 2007 when he stated, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." No one has asked how Libya endangers national security because it is pretty obvious that it doesn't.
Although reasonable people can disagree about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Afghanistan absolutely fell under the War Powers Resolution when its government endorsed an attack on American soil and at least a case was made for Iraq at the time with corroboration of many foreign intelligence agencies. As for the sixty day limit, don't expect Obama to be handicapped by a time frame when he didn't let himself be tied down by the national security requirement.
Obama has set an even more interesting precedent by saying that we are not involved in a war with Libya. In 1984, George Orwell predicted a new lexicon would emerge from overarching government. Newspeak, as it was called, turned truth upon its head and acted to obscure what government was actually. Obama has said we are not involved in a war but a Kinetic Military Action. Last year he announced that the Global War On Terror would now be the Overseas Contingency Operation and acts of terror would be called Man Caused Disasters.
Obama's justification for his more genteel term is that we will not have "boots on the ground" but he has actually sent 2200 marines into Libya. Obama has said that he is reluctant to send troops but cannot stand by while a bloodbath ensues. However, America has stood by while Darfur is drowning in blood. In the Middle East alone, cases could be made on similar grounds for intervention in Tunisia, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and Sudan. Saddam killed more than ten times as many of his own people than Qaddafi and even used chemical weapons on the Kurds, are liberals also prepared to embrace that war retroactively?
Even worse, Obama's reason for entering and benchmark for leaving keep changing. Originally, we were there because Qaddafi must go. Then after speaking with his allies, Obama clarified that the UN mandate only went so far as stopping the slaughter of the rebels. Obama then declared victory but has not withdrawn his forces. Likely because the rebels would be slaughtered if we pulled out. If that doesn't quite sound like victory, that's because it is not.
The real reason Obama has gone into Libya was because the French and British were already going to go in. International consensus, through the UN if possible, justifies any war to the liberal mind. If the peace movement largely dissolved when Obama was elected, it has now been co-opted to support a war in a foreign land where no vital US interest exists and there is no clear mission and no clear exit strategy. Sound familiar?
A NOTE TO MY READERS:
Due to other responsibilities including co-hosting Captain Blue Hen's podcast, From the Booth, The Libertarin is putting out columns on a tri-weekly basis. To get information about libertarian politics in between posts, check out The Libertarin's Facebook page. I've been posting interesting links, videos, and excerpts from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (I'm trying to read all of Part 1 before the movie comes out on April 15). Please "like" the Facebook page and tell your friends so I can get more fans.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Trimming the Branches of Government
In a previous post, I detailed how President Obama was bypassing Congress to institute a wishlist of liberal policies including unionization, cap and trade, and net neutrality. Now Obama is attempting to bypass the judiciary on the Defense of Marriage Act.
Every state is required by the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution to recognize the "acts, records and proceedings" of all other states. Since marriage is included in this group, all states were originally required to recognize the gay marriages performed in all other states. Effectively, a gay couple could get married in Massachusetts and move to Texas and still retain all the rights of a married couple. The Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA made an exception for gay marriage, allowing some states to choose not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Passed by super majorities in both houses and with bipartisan support, the left saw this as a way to allow gradual implementation of gay marriage on a state-by-state basis since a federal law would likely be decades away and the right saw this as a way to contain gay marriage.
DOMA is very likely unconstitutional since a law cannot supercede the Constitution and the odds of it being eventually overturned by the Supreme Court is very high. Regardless, the executive branch is duty bound to defend the laws of the land in court when challenged. Obama has recently said that he will not defend the law in court, abdicating his Constitutional duty. Obama has said that the law is unconstitutional and he is duty bound to "uphold, protect and defend" the Constitution. While this is undoubtedly true, Obama is NOT the one who determines what laws do and do not pass Constitutional muster, the Supreme Court ultimately does this.
Imagine if a conservative President refused to defend Roe v. Wade in court because it is blatantly unconstitutional. It is certainly stretching the bounds of the Constitution to say woman have a Constitutional right to an abortion even if a case for a legal one could be made. The Right To Privacy on which it is based it not found in the Constitution, even the majority opinion written by Justice William Douglas, had to admit that Constitution did not specifically mention a right to privacy but, “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance... Various guarantees create zones of privacy." To take it from privacy to the right to an abortion is an even more tangled path.
Many libertarian lawyers, although in the minority overall, including Andrew Napolitano and Deroy Murdock believe that an unborn child has the same basic right to life as has any adult, and find no basis for denying to an unborn child the same rights and protections under the law as any born child or adult would enjoy. If a compelling case could be made (and I believe it can be) would a President have a right to not defend Roe v. Wade?
The answer to that is no. Regardless of the morality of the issue, the President must defend the Constitution as it is understood by the courts, not merely as he understands it. To be fair, the right has also refused to defend laws that it deems unconstitutional on at least two occasions. By refusing to perform his constitutionally mandated duty, Obama opens himself up to impeachment although no one is seriously considering it at this time. By not defending a controversial law, Obama also opens the door for his successors to similarly not defend laws that they find ideologically inconvenient. The House has voted to use their lawyers to defend the law and DOMA is still the law of the land at this time. If a court overturns it, it will end up at the Supreme Court and will likely remain overturned. If that it the case, then so be it but at least we will have heard from 7 judges that were appointed to interpret the law instead of one man who wasn't.
Every state is required by the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution to recognize the "acts, records and proceedings" of all other states. Since marriage is included in this group, all states were originally required to recognize the gay marriages performed in all other states. Effectively, a gay couple could get married in Massachusetts and move to Texas and still retain all the rights of a married couple. The Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA made an exception for gay marriage, allowing some states to choose not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Passed by super majorities in both houses and with bipartisan support, the left saw this as a way to allow gradual implementation of gay marriage on a state-by-state basis since a federal law would likely be decades away and the right saw this as a way to contain gay marriage.
DOMA is very likely unconstitutional since a law cannot supercede the Constitution and the odds of it being eventually overturned by the Supreme Court is very high. Regardless, the executive branch is duty bound to defend the laws of the land in court when challenged. Obama has recently said that he will not defend the law in court, abdicating his Constitutional duty. Obama has said that the law is unconstitutional and he is duty bound to "uphold, protect and defend" the Constitution. While this is undoubtedly true, Obama is NOT the one who determines what laws do and do not pass Constitutional muster, the Supreme Court ultimately does this.
Imagine if a conservative President refused to defend Roe v. Wade in court because it is blatantly unconstitutional. It is certainly stretching the bounds of the Constitution to say woman have a Constitutional right to an abortion even if a case for a legal one could be made. The Right To Privacy on which it is based it not found in the Constitution, even the majority opinion written by Justice William Douglas, had to admit that Constitution did not specifically mention a right to privacy but, “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance... Various guarantees create zones of privacy." To take it from privacy to the right to an abortion is an even more tangled path.
Many libertarian lawyers, although in the minority overall, including Andrew Napolitano and Deroy Murdock believe that an unborn child has the same basic right to life as has any adult, and find no basis for denying to an unborn child the same rights and protections under the law as any born child or adult would enjoy. If a compelling case could be made (and I believe it can be) would a President have a right to not defend Roe v. Wade?
The answer to that is no. Regardless of the morality of the issue, the President must defend the Constitution as it is understood by the courts, not merely as he understands it. To be fair, the right has also refused to defend laws that it deems unconstitutional on at least two occasions. By refusing to perform his constitutionally mandated duty, Obama opens himself up to impeachment although no one is seriously considering it at this time. By not defending a controversial law, Obama also opens the door for his successors to similarly not defend laws that they find ideologically inconvenient. The House has voted to use their lawyers to defend the law and DOMA is still the law of the land at this time. If a court overturns it, it will end up at the Supreme Court and will likely remain overturned. If that it the case, then so be it but at least we will have heard from 7 judges that were appointed to interpret the law instead of one man who wasn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)