The CBO analysis finds that in the best-case scenario, this bill will reduce spending by $2.3 trillion over 10 years, relative to the CBO baseline. The “over 10 years” and “relative to the CBO baseline” are the important points here.

The CBO baseline is the prediction of what the finances of the federal government would look like under current law before the bill was passed. It projected that over the next 10 years, spending would continue to increase, and we would continue to run deficits. Note that this baseline assumes that the Bush tax cuts expire next year. The deficit amount varies year to year, but for the entire 10-year period, total spending was projected to be $46 trillion dollars. Total revenues were projected at $39 trillion, resulting in a deficit of $7 trillion. If the Bush tax cuts are extended, revenues would be lower and the deficit would be larger than these projections. But for now, let’s assume the tax cuts will expire.

With this bill, in the best-case scenario, our spending for the 10-year period is $43.7 trillion instead of $46 trillion. That’s your “severe” $2.3 trillion cut. It is a cut of roughly 5%.

What about the national debt? Well, today the national debt is about $14 trillion. The CBO baseline predicted a $7 trillion deficit over the next 10 years, resulting in a national debt of $21 trillion at the end of 10 years. With this bill, our debt comes to a mere $18.7 trillion at the end of 10 years.

These are the numbers causing all the gnashing of teeth – a 5% budget cut which allows the debt to grow by 33% over 10 years. Under this bill, spending doesn’t go down – it just goes up a little slower than projected. Under this bill, the national debt is not reduced – it just doesn’t increase as fast as it otherwise would. This bill does not come anywhere close to balancing the budget, much less paying off any debt.

As a result, I find all the hysteria over these “huge” cuts to be pretty ridiculous. Since the bill doesn’t even cut enough to prevent the debt from growing as a percentage of GDP, you can bet we’ll be revisiting the deficit problem at some point in the not-too-distant future.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything.  Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”.

I don’t want to see bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows, but I do think that individuals should bear the consequences of their actions. Mr. Stack correctly identifies that the bankers and businessmen who failed to steer their companies on a sound financial course have been spared the crash that should have come, with the exception of Lehman Brothers. Instead, their institutions have been propped up at the expense of virtually everyone else. The bill for supporting these insolvent institutions is only just beginning to come due.

Allowing Lehman to fail was, contrary to the conventional wisdom, about the only thing the federal government has done right during the downturn. Of course, there’s considerable evidence that Lehman was allowed to fail, not because of a commitment to the principles of the free market, but because Lehman was a competitor of Goldman Sachs, and Goldman Sachs has friends in high places.

One cannot simultaneously advocate bailouts and condemn Wall Street bonuses – at least not with any logical consistency. A choice has to be made. One option is to allow the free market to work, which automatically balances the high-flying profits of financial institutions with the severe penalties of failure. The other option is to let the bankers and lawyers who are running the country scare you into saving them from their mistakes for your own good.

I can sympathize with Mr. Stack’s outrage. In fact, it’s surprising to me that more people aren’t outraged. While I don’t recommend crashing planes into buildings, I do think a lot of people should be taking a much more critical look at the candidates the two major parties are putting before you.

Mr. Stack closes his letter with this:

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Unfortunately, the delusion that we are living under capitalism is quite common. If capitalism includes a free market, the United States hasn’t practiced it in a meaningful way in some time.

It seems to me that we Transgendered, as a group, are not overly prosperous.  Oh, I know that some of us are, but they seem to be the exceptions.

She goes on to relate some stories about the economic hardships of various transgendered people she has known – hardships that come about because certain people shun the transgendered. In the stories, their employers fire them or refuse to promote them. Then she states that society “uses money as a weapon against the transgendered”:

Think about it.  Money is the perfect weapon.  You can’t exist in this world of ours without it.  And to get it you have to work.  Deny access to work, you deny access to money.

At first I assumed she was speaking figuratively. I soon discovered she wasn’t. First she cites Marx and then attempts to use historical references to support her thesis:

If Marx is right (and I think he is) those in control of the society would, of necessity, use money to control the others.

Let’s look at history.

In ancient Rome the Patrician class used money to control the Plebian class (which was vastly larger and potentially dangerous).  Keep them poor.  Give them the bare means for subsistence (bread) and distraction to keep them occupied (circuses).

Here, her confusion becomes apparent.

What is money?

Let’s start with Wikipedia:

Money is used as an intermediary for trade, in order to avoid the inefficiencies of a barter system, which are sometimes referred to as the ‘double coincidence of wants problem’. Such usage is termed a medium of exchange.

Money may also be used as a store of value, although whether our fiat currency system allows such a usage is highly debatable. The important point here is that money is a tool used to trade wealth. It provides an easy way to exchange what you have produced for what others have produced.

This point is critical – the whole reason for money to exist is trade. If you want what someone has produced, you offer them an amount of money representing the amount of your own labor you are willing to trade for that item. This is a completely voluntary relationship. If you don’t want what they have to trade, then you don’t trade your money to them. If they think their goods are worth more than the amount you’re willing to trade, they refuse to sell to you. The transaction does not occur unless both parties agree to it voluntarily.

What is a weapon?

Back to Wikipedia:

A weapon is a tool used to apply or threaten to apply force for the purpose of hunting, attack or defense incombat

A weapon is what someone uses when they don’t care to come to a mutual agreement. When someone wants the fruits of your labor without having to convince you to trade it voluntarily, that’s when they use a weapon. A weapon is used to physically harm you so that you hand over your money or the fruits of your labor against your will.

Money only comes into existence once a society has reached a certain level of civilization. Weapons, on the other hand, have been used by brutes since at least prehistoric times. They’ve been used to take food or land from others, to rape, and to kill. Weapons are used to apply physical force, which is the opposite of voluntary trade.

What is power?

Now let’s return to Ashley’s first history reference. She asserts that in ancient Rome, the Patrician class used money to control the Plebeian class by keeping them poor. So it sounds like the Patricians just refused to trade with the Plebeians, and that’s how they kept them poor? They just refused to hire them for work or buy goods from them? Not quite.

The Patrician class was able to keep the Plebeians poor by exercising political power. Only Patricians were allowed to run for political office, so the entire Roman Senate was Patrician. Initially, Plebeians were not even allowed to know the laws being enforced against them.

Clearly, money was not the tool of control – it was political power. The nature of political power is the power of physical force. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force to achieve its ends. This was the weapon used to keep the Plebeians poor.

Now let’s continue with Ashley’s other examples:

What was the Spanish Inquisition really about?  It was about purging the wealthy Spanish Jewish class from the nation (and stripping them of their wealth to boot).

So was money the ‘weapon’ used to achieve the Spanish Inquisition? Of course not. They didn’t pay the Jews to leave, and if they had you could hardly call money a weapon. The government set up a way to legally torture and kill them – with real weapons. Once again, political power – physical force – was the tool used to take their wealth.

The Spanish conquest of South America?  It was about enslaving an entire people (talk about marginalizing) so they could steal their gold and silver.

This is another example of a government using ‘legal’ physical force against a group of people. Money was the object, but not the weapon.

The colonization of North America?  That was about stealing an entire continent from the Native Americans.  (To them, the land was the wealth.)  And then, to control them, they were herded onto barren reservations and left with no skills or opportunities to survive or prosper in this strange new world that had replaced theirs.

Ashley continues making the same mistake over and over again. Stealing is an act of force. It’s the opposite of trading. The settlers didn’t get the land by refusing to trade with the Native Americans – they used physical force to drive them off of it, with the backing of a government.

Every new minority immigrant group that ever came to this country?  Forced to take all the menial low-paying jobs nobody else will do.  (My God! There goes the neighborhood!)

That almost seems kind. These days we seem to want to throw immigrants right back out of the country. In any case, a menial low-paying job is appropriate for an immigrant who has no skills, but even a skilled immigrant can have trouble getting a good job thanks to all the laws that have been passed to make it harder for them – laws that make licenses, certifications, degrees, etc, from other countries worthless here. This is, again, political power at work.

And then there’s the most heinous, calculated, blood-chilling and cynical example of all: the Nazis and the Holocaust they perpetrated against an entire people.  They methodically passed laws denying German Jews access to work and stripping them of their financial assets.

Exactly! Here Ashley hits the nail on the head without even realizing it. The Nazis used the government’s monopoly on physical force to take the wealth of the Jews, and eventually to march them into gas chambers. The weapon being used here is physical force – and not just physical force on an individual level, but the legalized force of government coercion.

Money is not a weapon; it is a tool of voluntary trade.

The difference should be obvious at this point. If you’re still confused, try to imagine using money to force someone to do something. Now imagine using a gun to do so. See the difference?

So what exactly is Ashley complaining about? She is complaining that some people refuse to enter into voluntary trades with the transgendered (refuse to hire them). This is certainly true, but it is not the same as using physical force against them. This is where the line is drawn between freedom and tyranny.

Refusing to enter into trades with people we disapprove of is something free people do every day. For instance, I wouldn’t use a dating site that grudgingly accepts gays after having lawsuits filed against them. I might avoid businesses owned by Mormons or companies who don’t offer same-sex benefits. It is my right as a free individual to choose who I will and won’t associate with. They are free to live their lives as they see fit, and I am free to live mine as I see fit, without either of us exerting physical force against the other. This is the nature of individual freedom.

Meanwhile, many groups use the government to take my money against my will. Through the wonders of government coercion, I fund all sorts of businesses, charities, projects, schools, and wars I disagree with. If I don’t pay for them, people with guns come and take me to jail. Some people are thrown in jail just for smoking marijuana, or trading sex for money, or any number of other victimless crimes that only involve two adults engaged in voluntary trade. This is the nature of tyranny.

I would certainly encourage Ashley and any other transgendered to put themselves out there and convince people to hire them by making rational arguments, changing minds, and setting a good example. Even better, start your own businesses and compete with the bastards that wouldn’t hire you.

But don’t confuse the exercising of freedom with the exercising of political power. If you can’t tell freedom from tyranny, you’re likely to trade the former for the latter. We have precious little freedom left as it is.

Several books later, I had explicitly accepted the basic principles of Objectivism, and this forced me to act. I quit my recreational drug use, ended some unhealthy friendships, quit my crappy job, went through a training program, and got a new job that paid much better and that I actually enjoyed doing. Once I accepted that my highest moral purpose was my own long-term happiness, I had no choice but to turn my life around. It was a direct result of adopting the correct philosophical principles.

It never occurred to me that being gay might be inconsistent with those principles, but I later discovered that Ayn Rand clearly thought it was. In a question and answer session at Ford Hall Forum, Rand stated that all forms of homosexuality are immoral,

because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises. But there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore, I regard it as immoral, but I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it… Morally, it is immoral. And more than that, if you really want my sincere opinion, it’s disgusting.

Now, there are plenty of sexual acts people engage in that I think are disgusting, and it doesn’t particularly bother me if someone, even Rand, thinks mine are. To each his own. However, the question of morality is vitally important to me – as it is to anyone who takes ethics seriously, especially one who considers himself a student of Objectivism.

Unfortunately, Rand never explained her thinking on this issue in detail. In my own thinking, I couldn’t make the connection between the principles of Objectivism and the immorality of homosexuality. How did the hierarchy of concepts lead to this conclusion? The immorality of other parts of my former life – using drugs to escape reality, wasting my ability in an easy job – was obvious to me, and so I changed. But the connection to my sexuality was not so obvious.

Even after many years I still hadn’t figured out this puzzle, but I discovered two books on the subject. The first is “Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation” by Chris Matthew Sciabarra. This book claims to “reclaim [Rand's] legacy for a human liberation that is open to all rational men and women – of whatever sexual orientation.” The second book is “The Hijacking of a Philosophy – Homosexuals vs Ayn Rand’s Objectivism” by Reginald Firehammer, which is basically a rebuttal of the first.

I ordered both of these books from Amazon, and recently I finally got around to reading them. I’d like to use this post to get my thoughts down, and I’d be very interested in any feedback from others who are interested in this topic.

I started reading the Sciabarra book hoping to find within its pages a clear statement of why homosexuality is consistent with Objectivism – or at least why it isn’t inconsistent with it. Unfortunately, the book doesn’t contain any logical argument to make this case. It recounts the opinions of various prominent Objectivists on whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, relates the experiences of various gays in their interactions with other students of Objectivism, and discusses today’s changing attitudes toward homosexuality. But nowhere does anyone present any detailed philosophical argument on why being gay is consistent with the principles of Objectivism. Obviously, I was quite disappointed with the book.

I started reading the Firehammer book with low expectations, and initially, those expectations were justified. At first the book covers tired old territory, asserting that being gay is a choice. I began to fear I had a very long, unpleasant read ahead of me. Then it launches into a series of criticisms of the Sciabarra book. I actually found myself agreeing with much of this part of the book. Finally, I reached a chapter called “What’s Wrong with Homosexuality” and a section called “Mission Concepts”. This is where Firehammer plainly explains his argument. Most of the book could have been distilled down to the next 18 pages.

I will try to summarize his argument here, though the risk of misrepresenting the thesis of an entire book in a brief summary is pretty high. I very much encourage anyone truly interested to read the book for themselves.

First, Firehammer’s argument relies on the idea that homosexuality is a choice. To the extent that something is metaphysically given, it is not a moral issue. Firehammer argues that even if homosexual desire is not a choice (though Firehammer repeatedly argues that even that is a choice), the choice to act on that desire is, and thus the act of having gay sex is a moral issue. Obviously, no student of Objectivism would argue that one’s actions should be based on desire – emotion cannot justify an action, only reason can. Let me quote from page 81,

We have already shown there is no such predetermined orientation, but even if there were, it would not justify any chosen behavior. If there were such an orientation, it would only be an inclination, a tendency, a ‘felt’ preference, a passion or an emotion. If tendencies, preferences, inclinations, and ‘orientations’, justified choices, on that grounds, necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, and self-mutilation must all be considered, ‘other orientations’, and perfectly justified and normal.

I have no real disagreement with this part of his argument. Of course, I think my sexual orientation (Firehammer thinks “sexual orientation” is a false concept, but I’m having trouble finding a replacement term) is not a choice. Pardon the graphic explanation, but I have never been able to choose who will get me sexually aroused. They are invariably men and not women. Not all men do, but everyone who does is a man. It is more than a simple ‘preference’ – I physically cannot have sexual intercourse with a woman unless perhaps I filled myself with Viagra. Of course, I do not automatically have sex with anyone who gets me aroused – that part is a choice, and thus falls under the province of morality. If by saying “homosexuality is a choice” you mean “having sex with others of the same sex is a choice”, then I agree.

The second part of Firehammer’s argument rests on the idea that homosexuality is not “normal”. In this context, Firehammer defines “normal” as “that behavior which is appropriate to the nature of an organism.” Let me quote a few important paragraphs. Then I will point out how I think Firehammer gets tripped up on this point.

Since normal behavior is automatically provided by instinct for all other creatures, only man must discover what the requirements of his nature are and what behavior is appropriate (normal) to that nature.
…
Normal use of our body’s organs is based on their natural function – normal use includes any use that conforms to an organ’s natural function or functions, including any harmless variations and extensions of those functions, but excludes any use that is opposite or contradictory to their natural function and any use that is harmful to the organs themselves or to the body in general. Since the genitals are provided to carry out sexual intercourse, everything about their nature will be to successfully perform that act.
…
Physiologically, those organs have the exact characteristics required for carrying out that act successfully, including the fact that it is simultaneously beneficial and harmless.
…
The only way they can be used outside the heterosexual context is in some way that contradicts their natural function and is both dangerous and harmful.
…
For an explicit example: the female vagina walls are several cells thick, ‘designed’ for sexual intercourse. The walls of the anus are only one cell thick, and easily damaged. The anus is not a sexual organ and has one specific natural function, the dispelling of waste. The common practice of male homosexuals called ‘anal intercourse’, is an opposite, contradictory, and harmful use of the anus, and a totally abnormal use of the male sex organs.

I’ll return to the issue of physical harm shortly, but here I want to focus on the idea that bodily organs must be used for their natural function. There are a few questions here that I wish Firehammer had explicitly addressed, because I am very curious if he really takes this argument to its logical conclusion – that all anal sex and even oral sex between a man and a woman is abnormal, and thus immoral. After all, the mouth is not a sexual organ – it has a specific natural function that has nothing to do with sex. Oral sex is not generally harmful, but that’s not the main point of this part of the argument – the point is that using the mouth to perform a sexual act “contradicts its natural function”. That’s what makes it “abnormal”, and he explicitly states that it is immoral to act in an abnormal way – that is, in a way that contradicts one’s nature.

I find this argument… hard to swallow (couldn’t resist that one). Just because a mouth has the “exact characteristics” required for eating and drinking, are we to limit human creativity by ruling out its use in a sexual context since that isn’t its “natural function”? I think not, and I wish Firehammer had explained his position on this point in more detail. This is not a convincing argument.

The third and final major leg of Firehammer’s argument is that “homosexuality is physically detrimental to those that practice it.” He cites the increased risk of STDs, rectal trauma, anal cancer, etc in men, and breast cancer, bacterial vaginosis, etc in women. This is the most convincing part of his argument because, of course, it’s true. There’s plenty of scientific evidence documenting the dangers of gay sex. Of course, this also implies that truly safe gay sex would not be immoral. For instance, what if two gay men with no diseases have only safe oral sex in a monogamous relationship?

Is this the only real moral challenge to homosexuality – the physical danger? Back on page 26, Firehammer admits, “It is certain those aspects of homosexual practice that are obviously immoral, irrational, and self-destructive, are not typical, if exhibited at all, among Objectivist homosexuals.” Indeed. This leads me to conclude that if I’ve minimized the physical danger, this really is not a very big moral issue, if it’s an issue at all. Ultimately, the book’s weak support of its main thesis leaves me with a stronger conviction that homosexuality is not inconsistent with Objectivism after all. The book actually comes across as more of a criticism of the Sciabarra book than of homosexuality as such.

While I do not agree with his overall thesis, I found the Firehammer book fairly helpful. He does make some disappointing mistakes along the way, such as trotting out the old faithful (and I’m paraphrasing here) “homosexuals don’t reproduce and thus there can’t be an evolutionary benefit”. He would do well to read some evolutionary theory such as Richard Dawkins’ work, which would help him avoid such mistakes on this topic. But overall, I liked this book because it attempted an answer to the question that’s been bugging me for years.

I can’t agree or disagree with the Sciabarra book because it doesn’t contain an argument. The Firehammer book does contain a specific logical argument, and though I disagree with its ultimate conclusion, that makes it a far more useful and interesting book.

There’s a lot more I could say about different parts of both books, but if I keep going, this post is going to turn into a book. I’ll probably return to this topic in a future post.

“This is the biggest test that the 401(k) plan has seen to date, and it has failed,” says Robyn Credico, the head of defined-contribution consulting at Watson Wyatt Worldwide, noting that many baby boomers are ready to retire. “We’ve put people close to retirement in a very challenging position.”

The most obvious pitfall is that 401(k) plans shift all retirement-planning risks — not saving enough, making poor investment choices, outliving savings — to untrained individuals, who often don’t have the time, inclination or know-how to manage them.

I want to focus on the usefulness of 401(k) plans, but first I must digress for a moment and comment on this last statement. Claiming that you don’t have the “time” or “inclination” to manage your retirement savings is a ridiculous cop out. If you don’t have the time or inclination to acquire food and shelter, you rightly starve or die of exposure. Similarly, if you don’t have the time or inclination to plan for your retirement, you should rightly be denied that retirement. To claim otherwise is to claim that the responsibility for oneself should fall on someone else. The article doesn’t quote anyone who actually claims this; it seems to be an assertion on the part of the writer. In any case, it is a careless and stupid statement.

But let’s get back on topic. We already have a retirement system that supposedly shifts all retirement-planning risks away from untrained individuals. It’s called Social Security. So we can all relax and not worry about our retirement, right?

That these individuals are “untrained” is a valid point. Of course, considering the performance of every major financial institution over the past couple of years, I’m not convinced the professionals would do much better. As for the government, the blatant mismanagement of Social Security by every Congress and presidential administration since its creation demonstrates the government’s ability to manage retirement finances.

The article continues:

“That seems like such a fundamental flaw,” says Alicia Munnell, the director of Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research. “It’s so crazy to have a system where people can lose half their assets right before they retire.”

This makes me wonder if Alicia Munnell has ever heard of Social Security. Alicia, do you realize we have a massive compulsory ponzi scheme which is so underfunded that its future existence is very much up in the air? Workers are contributing 12.4% of their pay (6.2% is visible on their pay stubs, while the other 6.2% is matched by the employer and thus hidden from the worker) into a retirement plan that will provide little if anything in retirement. Think about that – 12.4%! If we want to sustain the program, the tax will have to be increased even further. Social Security also shifts the responsibility of supporting retirees from one generation to the next, which is a monstrous breach of morality by any rational ethical standard. If the 401(k) system is crazy, what is the Social Security system?

The article mentions some alternative proposals that would provide workers with a safer, more fool-proof retirement vehicle:

One such plan called for establishing accounts that would receive annual contributions from the federal government and would offer a guaranteed, but relatively low, rate of return.

Let’s get a few things straight.

No one can be guaranteed a comfortable retirement. One can briefly imagine that the government could guarantee a nice retirement income for everyone, but it should only take a moment for that thought to lead to the next question – where does that money come from? “Contributions from the federal government” sounds appealing because it makes it seem like the money just appears from nowhere, but that money has to either come from current taxes, government debt (future taxes), or printing money (inflation).

There is an amusing comment on wsj.com that demonstrates the failure to understand this:

What needs to be done, contrary to existing thinking, is to significantly increase Social Security benefits, make Social Security coverage universal and have it funded by all stakeholders including employers, employees and the federal government.

This commenter suggests three separate sources of funding: employers, employees, and the federal government. However, the federal government can not fund anything since it does not produce anything. It can only tax the producers (employers and employees). Making employers pay the bill sounds good, since that provides employees with ‘free’ retirement savings. But again, it should only take a moment of thought to lead to the question – where does that money come from? Shareholders will pay via reduced profits, employees will pay via reduced wages, or customers will pay via higher prices, depending on how the companies deal with the tax burden (see tax incidence for an introduction to this topic). Since the company must stay profitable to stay in business over the long term, the cost of taxation becomes an expense that has to be paid for somehow. Ultimately, corporate tax is just a hidden tax on investors, employees, and consumers.

As the Social Security shortfall demonstrates, funding retirement through taxation makes those benefits dependent on the ability of others to pay that much in taxes. Funding it through government debt just makes it harder for the next generation to pay a double dose of those same taxes. This is clearly no guarantee.

As the current pension plan shortages demonstrate, relying on pension plans makes your retirement dependent on the ability of professional money managers to get a good return. They struggle with the market just like individuals do, so once again, this is no guarantee.

Fortunately, not everyone is as short-sighted as Alicia Munnel or the commenter I quoted above. Another article on wsj.com quotes:

“There is no risk-free system,” says Brigitte Madrian, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. “You can argue for expanding Social Security, but we will end up paying higher taxes. You can try to revive defined-benefit pension plans. But due to bankruptcies, we’ve seen employee pension benefits cut substantially.”

401(k) plans do have their drawbacks. Over a year ago, I listed some of the problems with 401(k) plans in The Legislative Bias Against Saving. Why should you have to get one through your employer? Why should your employer choose the investment options? Why should your contributions be so limited, especially in an economic environment like today? The default stance of the U.S. government is to punish saving as a general rule and to encourage it only in narrow, complicated vehicles like 401(k) plans. It’s hardly a wonder that few people have much savings in any vehicle.

But 401(k) plans still have one big thing going for them: when you put money in them, you know you’ll have something to show for it 30 years later, because the account is yours. With pension plans imploding and Social Security hopelessly underfunded, this one aspect of 401(k) plans makes them a comparative success.

General Motors Corp. said it may lose as many as 500 dealers in its home market this year, an increase from 350 last year, as the largest U.S. automaker works toward a goal of cutting 1,700 by 2012.

I am quietly smiling to myself reading these stories. Why? I have a long memory.

Almost a decade ago, the dealerships mounted a unified effort to screw consumers by preventing auto manufacturers from selling direct to consumers via the Internet. Reports such as this one document how, in the late ‘90s, dealerships convinced state legislatures to tighten regulations that prevented direct-to-consumer sales. These laws have kept the sales of new cars in the dark ages, insuring that consumers will continue having to pay the high cost of the middlemen in order to get a new car. Meanwhile, used car sales over the Internet have exploded.

I still remember being disgusted by the actions of the dealerships as it was all happening. So, as I think of all the money wasted on pointless middlemen who propped up their business model through lobbyists and legislation, I only hope that every car dealership that took part in these lobbying efforts goes under. Once they do, maybe we can get these ridiculous laws repealed and let car buying enter the 21st Century.

It’s nice to see a tiny bit of justice in the midst of the bailout craze.

“You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism,” McCain said Saturday.

McCain also said in his radio address, “At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are up front about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it’s just another government giveaway.”

This is all true. But it’s also - and I apologize for the cliche - the pot calling the kettle black. The Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006 and the presidency from 2000 until now, and there was still plenty of wealth redistribution going on. Consider a few examples:

• Social Security – One of the oldest and largest methods of wealth redistribution in America, this massive ponzi scheme has been around in one form or another since 1935. To his credit, Bush did try to push through a privatization reform, but failed even with Republican control of both houses of Congress, because Republicans in general support this socialist program.
• Medicare – Signed into law by LBJ, a Democrat, this massive socialist program is now a much bigger problem than Social Security, especially after being expanded by Republicans under Medicare Part D – the prescription drug benefit. This program, combined with the employer insurance mandate and other regulations, has been distorting the health care market and driving up medical care prices in the US for decades.
• Farm subsidies – American taxpayers have the pleasure of paying about $16 billion per year to subsidize the production of feed grains, cotton, wheat, rice, soybeans, sugar, and other products. These farm bills have been repeatedly passed by both Republican and Democratic administrations since the 1930′s.
• Corporate welfare – This report by the Cato Institute shows that in FY 2006 alone, taxpayers paid $92 billion in subsidies to private entities such as Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric. This was, once again, under a Republican administration.
• The recent massive bailout for the financial sector – This one really takes the cake. I never thought I would see Republicans so blatantly abandon their supposedly ‘free market’ principles, but I was wrong. Republican support was somewhat weaker than Democratic support, but the bill still passed with Republican help and was signed by a Republican president.

These are just a few examples. The truth is, many of the federal government’s redistributive programs are quite popular with voters. It’s hard to get elected to Congress, much less the Presidency, without supporting at least some socialist programs.

But it’s time that Republicans admit to themselves that they are not the defenders of capitalism and free markets that they imagine themselves to be. As far as economic policy, the only real choice in this election is one of degrees. You can vote Republican and get a good helping of socialism, or you can vote Democrat and go back for seconds.

If you want to vote for the free market, your only real choice is the Libertarian Party. The poor showing of this party in national elections shows you how popular capitalism really is in the U.S.A.

I had misgivings about putting them in public school, of course. As any reader of this blog knows, I am politically libertarian, which means I don’t think the public school system should exist at all. Even so, I don’t have any problem taking advantage of it – my tax money helps pay for it, after all. My problem with public schools is that they are full of kids that don’t want to be there with parents who have no real investment (financial or otherwise) in the education of their children. This doesn’t apply to all children and parents, of course, but as long as a sizable fraction of the school population is made up of these people, I think it brings down the quality of education. That’s my opinion based on my own experience in the public school system, anyway. I want something better for my kids.

Unfortunately, private schools are prohibitively expensive for most people. If I had been planning for children, I would have started saving for their elementary education early so I could avoid the public school system as much as possible. These two girls came into my life a few months ago, which didn’t allow much time to rearrange my finances in such a way as to fund a private school education. So here we were with two girls who needed to start school and most of our income already spent. Thus, public school was the choice. I knew I would probably have issues with that choice sooner or later, but I was hoping it would be later.

I didn’t get past day one.

The 9-year-old came home from school and explained that the supplies we bought her had been taken from her and distributed to other students. For instance, we bought her four folders as instructed on the school supply list – she came home with one. We bought her several glue sticks – she came home with one, smaller glue stick. All the students were told to stack these items up, and then the teacher went around and redistributed the items. Apparently, their first class was Socialism 101.

Here is the letter we sent to the teacher:

Ms [Teacher],

I would like your take on today’s events regarding school supplies. I have a real issue when my daughter comes home and tells me that she needs more folders and other items – school supplies that I spent hours trying to locate to complete her entire list. I bought her good quality supplies because I understand how rough kids are on their supplies.

I sent [my daughter] to school today with all of the supplies we were told she would need for the school year. She came home with only one of the several folders and only one small glue stick of the several large glue sticks, and I’m not sure what else might be missing. I’m told these were taken from her and then handed out to other students.  

I want these items returned. I bought these for [my daughter] – not for other students. If you intend to confiscate any other property from my daughter, I would like notice in advance so we do not send her to school with any such property. If you wish to ask me to donate supplies for other students, please do so in an upfront and honest manner rather than taking property I specifically bought for my daughter.

If these items are not returned, I suppose I have little recourse. However, I certainly will no longer be buying the requested school supplies for the first day of school in any future years.

Thank you for your time.

The original version was a little shorter and more direct, but my other half thought it best to soften the tone slightly. Still, I think it makes the point nicely. I do not want my children taught to sit meekly by while their things are taken from them, or that taking another person’s hard-earned property is ok, or that they are entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor when they show up unprepared. If one wants something that belongs to someone else, one should have to ask.

If a private school pulled this stunt, I would remove my child from that school and the school would lose out on my money. I could send my child to a school that doesn’t do this, and the problem would be solved. I only wish I could pull my tax dollars from this public school.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would think that this was a purposeful attack on the concept of property rights – an effort to turn the children into good little subjects that don’t question their leaders when their earnings are taken and spent on foreign wars, corporate welfare, or ethanol subsidies. I don’t give the school that much credit, though. I think this is likely an unconscious side-effect of the mentality required to work for the public school system. The whole system is based on the idea that everyone pays for the schools, even if you disagree with what they teach, how they teach, or don’t even have kids or use the system. You can’t opt out and fund a school you agree with or choose to send your kids to some other public school. You’re trapped based on where you live, unless you’re fortunate enough to have the financial means to pay for a private school (on top of the taxes you already pay to support the public schools).

Of course an institution based on those ideals wouldn’t have kids ask other kids if they could have or borrow what they needed. If they had to ask, maybe they would get what they needed, and maybe they wouldn’t, but they would learn that voluntary association and trade is the proper way to conduct themselves – the very foundation of a free society and what makes our economy work. Instead they learned the basis of a welfare mentality – don’t worry about providing for yourself, because you won’t even have to suffer the indignity of asking for something. It will be taken from others and given to you.

Apparently plenty of students came to class without the listed supplies – probably the children of other parents who had more experience with the public school system. We won’t make the same mistake again.

In the future, we intend to make sure the girls have enough of an allowance to cover their school supplies with their own money. Then, if they want to, they can give away the supplies they bought. Or, they can say no, and we will back them up if the teacher has a problem with it. Or maybe they will choose to simply not bring the supplies. The point is that it should be their decision – not an automatic thing or some subtle trick played by the school district.

Needless to say, we will be working hard to come up with the money for a private school.

Usually I can at least rely on the Libertarian party to have a candidate on the ballot who I can vote for in good conscience. This year, though, I’m even cringing at that option. Bob Barr, former drug war advocate and Defense Of Marriage Act author? This is the guy on the LP ticket? Yes, I realize he’s changed his tune on both of those issues lately, but this guy is 59 years old. When it takes someone that long to finally come around to a somewhat consistent view supporting individual freedom, it does not give me much confidence in his core values.

So today, the day after George Carlin’s death, though I disagree with many of his political views, his commentary on voting really hits home.

However, the Center for Responsive Politics has found some interesting data from presidential campaign donation records:

Republican Ron Paul, an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, continues to draw the most contributions from uniformed service members, pulling far ahead of the rest of the presidential hopefuls by the end of 2007. Paul raised a total of $213,000… Democrat Barack Obama, who stresses his opposition to the Iraq war since its start, is still the number-two recipient with $94,000. Obama was also the favorite at the Department of Defense, collecting $14,000 from employees there.

I totaled up their data for all donations from members of the US Army. Assuming that Paul, Obama, and Clinton are seen as anti-war and all other candidates are pro-war, that means roughly 70% of donations from the US Army went to anti-war candidates. It would seem that our troops who are donating have a very different idea of what “support” entails.

I participated in an email thread with someone who had an interesting theory of his own:

Back when I served, we had a concept known as ROADS.  When a Sr. Enlisted or Middle-Level Officer realized he/she was not destined for greatness in the service, they’d Retired while On Active Duty Service.  They were waiting to fulfill their 20yr obligation to get their lifetime retirement.  These folks were typically no-loads and worthless.  They’d do enough to keep themselves out of trouble.  Common trait among them is they’d be bitterly pissed when they had to do some work – like go make war, or play cop on foreign soil.

If I had the mindset – I’d donate to get myself out of the pickle I was in.

Now it all makes sense. Either 70% of the US Army is worthless, or the few worthless ones are the only ones willing to donate to presidential candidates. Either way, the implications are pretty sad. Personally, I prefer the theory that most troops just want to come home. But then, I’ve never been in the military.