Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays

There has been a great deal of backlash in the past few years against many retailers and others replacing the traditional "Merry Christmas" greeting with the more generic, PC "happy holidays", or the even more generic "season's greetings". Personally, I am not immediately offended whenever someone greets me with "happy holidays", but I definitely share in the sentiment that it is symptomatic of a broader trend to try to marginalize the obvious spiritual aspect of the Christmas holiday.

Although, as many correctly point out, Jesus was probably not actually born on December 25, the holiday is of course the traditional celebration of the birth of Christ (ergo the name: "Christ Mass"). Over the centuries, its celebrants have grown to include many who are not believers in Christ, but who have accepted the more general message of "Peace on earth, goodwill toward man" that is associated with the holiday. (Incidentally, the term "holiday" itself means "holy day", so even the "happy holidays" greeting inadvertently recognizes the sacred aspect of the day.) Unfortunately, the current trend is that some non-believers wish to divorce the peace and goodwill sentiments from the sacred, thereby in essence appropriating the holiday for themselves. Even more unfortunately, some seek only to retain the commercial aspects of Christmas and discard all of the other, potentially offensive, "religious" stuff. The sad irony is that either of these approaches robs the day of the very thing that sets it apart from all other days of the year. Eventually, as I think is already evident, the good will, peace, and eventually the profit will go away as well. Christmas is special simply because it is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Without that, it is just another day.

So, how should one handle the "offensive" thing? The most common argument for the PC greetings is that someone who is not a Christian might be offended if wished a "merry Christmas". Personally, I don't see this - I would certainly not take offense at being wished a happy Hanukkah, or what have you. I'd appreciate the sentiment. (I like one comment I heard on the radio: "2000 years later, and Jesus is still intimidating people!") However, I think the following solution is appropriately respectful of people of other faiths while retaining the integrity of ones own reverence for Christmas: Wish someone a "merry Christmas". If they say "I'm Jewish", then say, "Oh, well then happy Hanukkah". If they say "I'm Muslim", then say "then happy Ramadan" (or whatever the appropriate greeting is for that holiday). If they say "I'm an atheist", then just say "happy nothing." Problem solved.

Some thoughts for Thanksgiving

I think it is always good to reflect on the things for which we should be grateful, particularly at this time of the year. With the country in an economically troubled time, we should be particularly thankful for our blessings. It always amazes me, for example, that, with all of the regions of the world where food and drinkable water are hard to come by, we can go into a restaurant where someone will come to our table and take our order, then pile more food in front of us than we can (or should) eat! Not everyone, even in America has this luxury, though. Not everyone has shelter and health and family. Some people (we call them "liberals"... had to get one jab in there!) think this should make those who have these things feel guilty, but I think it just should make us all the more thankful, and determined to help those without, since the blessings we enjoy are only by God's grace.

Nobel Prize... seriously?!

I woke up this morning to the news that President Obama has just received the Nobel Peace Prize. As if we needed more proof that the Peace Prize awards process has been completely politicized after Al Gore's movie won him the award, ostensibly beating out a lady who risked her life to rescue Jewish children from the Nazis during WWII.

What is typically required to win such a prestigious award? Nelson Mandella spent years in prison for fighting the injustice of Apartheid in South Africa; Desmond Tutu risked his freedom for the same cause. Begin and Sadat ended a long period of hostility between their nations, Israel and Egypt; ultimately, Sadat paid with his life for this accomplishment. Jimmy Carter, terrible president though he was, at least brought Begin and Sadat to the table, and he has also been busy building Habitat homes and has a diplomatic track record since leaving the presidency. Mother Teresa embodied Christ's "no greater love..." in giving her life to the service of people living in gut-wrenching poverty in India. MLK led the movement for equal rights for Blacks in 1960s America, and did it through peaceful means. George Marshall devised the "Marshall Plan" which set the gold standard for how America treats its vanquished enemies. Woodrow Wilson founded the League of Nations, the predecessor of the modern UN (which was a good idea at the time).

So this year's winner is.... President Barack Obama, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". What "efforts"? I'm not saying he may not have some laudable accomplishments 4 or 8 years from now, who knows? But he doesn't have any such accomplishments yet; he's only been in office for 9 months, and, quite frankly, aside from doubling the deficit, he hasn't done a whole lot in that time! Add to this the fact that nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were due only a couple of weeks after President Obama's inauguration, and the "short list" of potential winners is prepared over the following two months. In essence, Mr. Obama was nominated and made the short list before his feet were even wet!

Obviously, I'm not placing blame on the president for this, since I can't imagine how he could have had any role in his winning this prize, and I certainly would not expect him to graciously decline the award; hey, if they're handing out free Nobels (which is basically what this amounts to), I might be in line myself -- after all, there is a $1.4 million prize that goes along with the award! But, as I often have been over the past year or so, I am again puzzled over the almost messianic following that Mr. Obama enjoys among American and European liberals. That aside, however, I find it saddening to see an award that once carried such prestige being rendered utterly meaningless.

Think Washington Will Listen??

I enjoyed reading this account of the March on Washington. I hope his take is correct!

Here is another one.

Diagnosing and Treating What Ails Health Care

I've had a pretty busy summer, so I haven't posted in awhile. Not that there has been any shortage of material! I've been chomping at the bit to weigh in on the ongoing saga of the Democrats' quest for health care "reform". I put quotes around the word "reform" (there, I did it again) because the Democrats' plan would do anything but "reform" health care in America.

In fact, what the Democrats have been proposing to do, rather than treat the disease, would actually provide more of the pathogen that has led to the health care system being in its current condition. Before we try to cure the disease, we need to identify its causes, because I think it is abundantly clear that most of the politicians (including some Republicans) have not taken a close enough look at the patient to make a diagnosis. (As you may have guessed, I shall be using a lot of medical analogies in this post!) Let us start by looking at the symptoms...

The primary symptom is that medical costs are rising much faster than inflation. In fact, because nearly every other symptom of the current state of health care, such as accessibility, can be tied directly into this one, I will deal exclusively with this one in this post. Now, what can cause this particular symptom? Econ 101 anybody?? I can think of three relevant potential causes:

(1) Restrictions in supply, i.e. a large decrease in available health care facilities or doctors, or a tax or some other cost that makes it more expensive to treat patients or produce medication (or a glut of frivolous lawsuits);

(2) Increased demand, such as might occur when people get health care at either a reduced cost, or if the cost to them is in some way hidden, such as where their insurance pays for doctor visits, leading to only a marginal increase in premiums over time, or if the cost is entirely borne by someone else, as in the case of Medicare/Medicaid (I can cite many examples of seniors who, simply responding to the incentives created by reduced cost, use unnecessary doctor visits for a social outing). Note I am not saying that people are going to the doctor because they are suddenly a lot sicker than they used to be; what I'm talking about is people going to the doctor for a common cold, or to the emergency room for a hangnail. Okay, slight exaggeration on that last one... I hope.

(3) Lack of information and/or competition. That means that, because health care is such a necessary service for people when they are really sick, they tend not to care too much about whether Dr. Smith is more expensive than Dr. Jones. Add to that the fact that neither Dr. Smith or Dr. Jones don't tend to let on to their patients how much they charge for, say, wound irrigation, and you wind up with consumers who are not only non-responsive to price, but who are ill-informed about price. Insurance is a big one here, too -- many people see health insurance as a necessity, plus there isn't a whole lot of competition between insurance companies to bring prices down.

So, what is the cure that the Obama Administration et al propose? A "public option" to compete with private insurance. Actually, on the surface, the competition angle at least sounds like a good idea. The problem, of which public option proponents tend to be dismissive when confronted with it, is that private insurance companies really can't compete with the government in terms of, well, the ability to print their own money. Plus, employers can hardly be expected to continue to foot the bill for providing insurance to their employees when the government will pick up the slack for them. Hence, the public option really just winds up being public provision of health care.

So, back to the point... the Democrats propose to cure the problems caused by excess demand and lack of competition by ultimately (1) providing universally-accessible health care that is (from the perspective of the consumer) virtually free, and (2) actually reducing competition by crowding private insurers out of the market.

Now that we have a diagnosis, what is the appropriate cure? My US Senator, Jim DeMint, has proposed a health reform plan that gets closer to the point, but I don't believe it goes quite far enough, plus I don't like the idea of shoveling TARP money into health care -- repaid TARP funds should go directly to paying down the debt that they created. Here are a few ideas that I've been chewing on -- I'll start with some that are already being discussed in other conservative health care reform plans:

(1)Tort reform... it's like the weather; everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it! It is such an obvious part of reducing health care costs that I really see no need to discuss it further. Democrats ignore this important aspect of reform... given the number of liberal attorneys in the Democratic Party, I can't imagine why... hmm...

(2)Allow competition between insurance companies across state lines. This is a component of Senator DeMint's plan, and others.

(3) A tax credit or expanded deductions to help families pay for insurance premiums. Again, this is part of several other plans.

(4)Follow Wal-Mart's lead and start placing nurse-practitioners in retail pharmacies for handling minor ailments. This will reduce the patient load on primary care physicians and emergency rooms and will introduce a little competition, which will both have the effect of bringing down prices. This of course is a private-sector component, and not one of policy, unless there are any restrictive regulations that need to be altered or removed.

(5) This one was my Father's idea: Doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, etc., should be required to post their prices for consumers. This is simply a matter of empowering consumers with information to make good decisions, as in any other facet of the free market. Why are prices clearly posted for cabbage in Food Lion, but you go into the hospital with no idea how much your gall bladder surgery is going to cost? That creates an environment in which consumers (or insurance companies, as the case may be) can all-to-easily be taken advantage of.

(6) Do away with HMO's. They were created by the government, anyway (in a previous ill-fated attempt at "reforming" health care), and no one likes them. Plus, they reduce the ability of patients and doctors to determine appropriate treatment.

(7) This is probably the only one of my proposals that would increase government oversight into the private sector, which I hate, but if the goal is to bring down excessive demand for medical care it is an important component: Do away with comprehensive insurance (i.e. no deductible/copay). Allow insurance companies to adjust deductibles according to income level, but anyone who visits the doctor using private insurance has to pay something. This will make costs more visible to the consumer, and reduce the incentive to go to the doctor for frivolous stuff, like a paper cut.

(8) Here is my big one: Stop direct government payouts of medical benefits through Medicare/Medicaid. Use a portion of the savings from the reduction in costs of direct payouts and bureaucracy to provide Medicare/Medicaid recipients with monthly reimbursements for premiums to purchase private health insurance. The same rule applies regarding deductibles and copay as above, so that everyone but the most destitute will have to pay something for a doctor visit.

Again, these suggestions are just that -- they are certainly open for discussion and revision. And there are still some issues that these points still don't entirely address. However, I hope that they will underscore the point that we need to seek solutions that will address the underlying problems with health care, and not just blindly follow the "more government" mantra of the Left.

(Thanks to my friend, Dr. Michael Mikota, who allowed me to bounce some of these ideas off of him and provided some really good feedback!)

Torn Over Sanford Affair

Almost immediately following Governor Sanford's (R-SC) mea culpa over his GWOL (gallivanting without leave) in Argentina, people started debating whether he should resign his position. Impeachment was mentioned as well, but so far there appears to be no legal grounds for taking that route. Although I was deeply disappointed by this revelation (I have been a Sanford supporter from the beginning), I was initially inclined to think that he should stick it out for the remainder of his term; I felt this way largely because I didn't feel that it would be good for the state to have the 2010 gubernatorial election all but decided before the campaign even begins. (Lt. Gov. Bauer, who has already indicated that he will likely run for the office next year, would be elevated to the governorship in Sanford's place, making him the de facto incumbent.) I felt that it was very important for SC voters to hear all of the candidates' positions and to make their selection, rather than have one person with such a massive edge coming out of the gate.

However, in the days that followed, Governor Sanford performed a very public meltdown, fessing up to not only his Argentinian affair, but to "crossing the line" with a number of other women in the past (although not "that" line apparently). He also further compounded the immediate situation by taking the "poor me" angle by painting himself as lovelorn for his denied lover, basically dealing his wife, who has shown substantial poise through this whole situation, a proverbial slap in the face. If Sanford showed abysmal judgment before, this behavior was a whole other level.

I am leaning toward thinking that he should resign at this point, and let the gubernatorial election fall as it may next year. I think right now, the embarrassment that he brings to the state (such embarrassments carry consequences when you're competing with other states for economic development) outweighs the consequences associated with his leaving the office. At least one consolation prize would be that Lt. Gov. Bauer's elevation to governor would require President Pro Tempore of the Senate McConnell to vacate his senate seat in order to take over as Lt. Governor, which would potentially open his seat to someone hopefully more conservative and reform-minded. One can hope.

All of this aside, I do hope we will all remember the human aspect of this situation. My sympathies go not just to Mrs. Sanford, but especially to their four sons. Let us pray for healing for each of them.

Jim DeMint on the Extra-Constitutionality of Obama's Administration

This op-ed by Senator DeMint (R-SC) does a great job of encapsulating what is wrong with Obama's ambitious agenda. One parallel I would draw (this will make sense after you've read the article) is with some of the more questionable provisions of the PATRIOT Act under the previous administration -- many conservatives had no problems giving those powers to President Bush, but ignored warnings from other conservatives and libertarians that Bush would not always be president.

'We the People' vs. 'I Won'

100 Days Later... Toldja So.

During the presidential campaign last year, conservatives warned that then-Senator Obama was a bad choice for president for a number of reasons. Now, only three months into his administration, all of our concerns about the president have been confirmed. Here are a few examples:

1. He's too inexperienced. Obama supporters pounced on Governor Pailin after she was chosen as McCain's running mate for her supposed lack of experience. However, it is President Obama's naivete that has come to be obvious. The outrageous and moronic stunt of flying Air Force One at low altitude over New York City, inspiring visions of 9-11 in terrified New Yorkers, in order to capture a photo of the plane flying past the Statue of Liberty, is typical of the capriciousness with which the Obama Administration has approached the presidency. Poorly thought-out and inappropriate gifts to foreign dignitaries is another example: the DVD set given to the Queen of England, not to mention the returning of the bust of Churchill, effectively insulting one of our greatest allies. Add to that such diplomatic fumbles as bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia and allowing Hugo Chavez to steal multiple photo ops with the president. It makes one shudder to think of what might happen once the president decides to have a sit-down with Ahmadinejad. In fairness, many of these snafus have been failures of members of the president's staff, but when these types of occurrences become the norm, it reflects on the man in charge, because either he is approving of them, or he is sufficiently out of touch with what is happening in his own administration so as to be unaware of them.

2. He's too liberal. We now have trillion-dollar stimulus bills and pork-laden budgets that dwarf the out-of-control spending of the previous eight years. The president complains of the massive debt that he inherited from the previous administration even while doubling that debt in his first 100 days in office. In the meanwhile, he opines on the need for fiscal discipline and pledges deficit reduction; this is much like the fox saying "we really need to put a lock on this hen house". In addition to outrageous spending, the president has advanced an unprecedented expansion of presidential power over the private sector, including the firing of the CEO of General Motors and a proposal to convert government bailouts to common stock that would make the government the majority shareholder in U.S. automakers. We perhaps should revise our warning of his being too liberal to saying that he is in actuality a European socialist.

3. His involvement with organizations like ACORN. Democrats poo-pooed this concern during the campaign, calling it "guilt by association". Now we see ACORN, which was being investigated prior to the election for illegalities in its voter registration practices, is now involved in recruiting workers for the 2010 Census.

A Sad Loss

I just learned that one of my colleagues was one of the victims of a shooting in Athens, GA today. Tom Tanner was a really cool guy and a brilliant economist. He and I had a similar sense of humor (frighteningly enough), and he was one of the few people that always caught on to my obscure Star Trek references. I am deeply saddened by his loss, and I ask for everyone to join me in offering prayers for his family during this tragic time.

Miss CA Brouhaha Emblematic of Liberal Culture

Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, has taken a lot of heat for her answer to a judge's question at the Miss USA pageant regarding whether states should institute gay marriage, with some speculation that her answer may have lost her the crown. Normally, I wouldn't give a second thought about who won or lost Miss USA or pretty much any other pageant unless I actually knew one of the contestants, but the rancor surrounding Miss Prejean's statement that, according to her beliefs, marriage should consist of one man and one woman, along with the judge's ensuing video blog rant in which he referred to the contestant with some rather unflattering epitaphs, has caught my attention for the following reasons.

First of all, the negative reaction to her answer demonstrates one feature of the political correctness advanced by liberal extremists and that has permeated our culture: According to them, you have a right to hold and express your opinion unfettered in the public arena; it's your sacred First Amendment right.... but only if you agree with them! If you dare hold an opinion that has not been deemed acceptable by the liberal establishment, then you are branded as either "mean spirited", "intolerant", and/or just plain stupid. Clearly, none of these descriptions apply to Miss Prejean, as her answer was very respectful in its tone, and in subsequent interviews, she has proven herself to be a thoughtful and intelligent individual. This trend is not only patently antithetical to American political culture, it quashes the free exchange of ideas that the Framers saw as integral to a free society, and, as John Stuart Mill so eloquently put it, to "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth".

Finally, if the judge was so sensitive about hearing an answer with which he did not agree, perhaps he should have not asked the question. In fact, that question should have not been allowed to begin with, because, regardless of the answer given, it would have politicized the event. They should have just stuck with "world peace".

What Now: Toxic Drywall?!

Okay, seriously, why are we buying anything from China anymore? What more exactly do they have to do to sufficiently alienate consumers?

Chinese Drywall Poses Potential Risks...

Grasping for Feathers

I've been trying to think of a good metaphor for the Obama Administration's economic policy. From bailouts (which in fairness began under the Bush Administration, but has been perfected over the past three months), to wild spending on who-knows-what, to the latest outrage where the president literally fired the CEO of General Motors (cementing the socialist direction in which they are taking the nation)... well, it leaves one wanting for a suitable metaphor.

My first inclination was the imagery of someone throwing darts at a dartboard while blindfolded and basing policy decisions on wherever the dart lands. That seemed too random, though; economic policy hasn't been so much "all over the place" -- there is too much of a common theme for that analogy to apply -- as it has been "everything and the kitchen sink"... which was my second metaphor idea, but it was too unoriginal.

I think the better analogy is from a classic cartoon: Do you recall the Looney Toons cartoon where Sylvester was chasing Tweety, who had gotten into Dr. Jekyll's "Hyde" formula and kept transforming into a large monster-bird? At one point, while Tweety was in "monster" form, he picked Sylvester up in his talons and began flying off with him; however, in mid-flight, he transformed back into Tweety at which point he was no longer able to carry Sylvester's weight. Terrified of falling, Sylvester begins grasping at Tweety's tail feathers, trying to get enough feathers in his hands to flap as wings to break his fall (remember this is a cartoon). Needless to say, he wasn't very successful.

This is the image that I have of the Obama Administration. They are grasping at every policy that they can get their hands on, regardless of cost, and regardless of whether or not it has a snowball's chance of actually working. It seems that they have believed their own rhetoric about "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" to the point that they are nearly in a panic. (As I have said before, just how bad the current recession will be remains to be seen, but regardless, the Chicken Little mentality is far from helpful.) Of course, it also affords them the chance to trot out every big-government program that Washington liberals have wanted to enact for the past thirty years. Even some European leaders, hardly known for their laissez-fair capitalist tendencies, are beginning to look askance at the furious rate at which the president is transforming our economy into a state-run enterprise.

Nonetheless, I stand by my analogy: When it comes to economic policy, the Obama Administration is grasping for feathers.

Federalism Repealed?

I got home from the gym the other night just in time to hear President Obama repeal federalism. Okay, maybe, hopefully, that is an exaggeration. But consider the following from President Obama's speech before a joint session of Congress -- to put it in context, he was speaking of maintaining accountability as to how the funds authorized under the "stimulus" package are spent:

I have told each member of my Cabinet as well as mayors and governors across the country that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend. I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud.

First of all, this underscores the reservations coming from governors and state legislatures regarding the strings attached to the "stimulus" money going to the states. The broader implication however seems to be that mayors and state governors work for the president. They do not; while state governments are subject to certain federal laws under the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, they are not mere subdivisions of the national government the way that provincial governments are in European countries. The Tenth Amendment was intended to guarantee that states maintain sovereignty over powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. This was intended to provide a check on the power of the national government. This has been substantially weakened over the course of the past 190 years, but liberals in Washington seem bent on finishing off the job. Finally, a number of states are beginning to buck. The language is that of nullification.

Nullification is the doctrine that states can declare a federal law to be unconstitutional and therefore declare that law to be null and void. The Framers saw nullification as a valid means of checking federal power. Consider the following thought from James Madison, considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", as stated in Federalist #46:

...should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States... or even a warrantable measure be so... the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised... [emphasis added].

Greenville Tea Party

The Upstate Young Republicans sponsored a "Tea Party" yesterday in Greenville, South Carolina. Here are the pictures that someone posted to Flickr. I hope we will see more events like this, and more importantly, I hope that the American people remain opposed to the creeping (or not so creeping) socialism coming out of Washington these days in the name of "saving" the economy.

Crusades vs. Communism

The other day, I heard for about the 1,000,000th time that "more people have been killed by religion than by anything else", with the usual citation of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. I will not presume to undertake a comprehensive review of history here, particularly when it comes to comparing the death toll attributable to all of the world's religions. But since these two examples are so often cited, I decided to look into the number of casualties resulting from these two tragic events.

Records are not very good from these periods, so exact numbers are hard to come by. However, estimated casualties from the Crusades number around 200,000 over the space of about 200 years. The number of people killed in the Inquisition are estimated to range between 3,000 and 5,000.

Communism, noted for its elevation of atheism as the "state religion", is believed to be responsible for the deaths of a minimum of 40 million people between 1900-1987.

I'm just saying....

Stimulating Spending (and little else)

The Obama spending plan has been passed. The sheer size of this monstrosity should raise eyebrows; even more so when one considers the hodgepodge of new spending contained within it, and the amount by which it will run up our national debt.

The thing with this "stimulus" bill is that, despite the sales job coming from the White House and congressional leaders, many items contained in the bill have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Even some parts that seem to be more suited for true economic stimulus are probably not going to have the desired impact. Transportation, for example, is typically a good investment, because it builds infrastructure, which expands future productivity. However, a good portion, probably most, of the spending on transportation in this bill is aimed at repairing existing roads and bridges. This is not a bad thing in and of itself; we of course found out through the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis that our highway infrastructure is well overdue for repair. However, so far as economic stimulus, the long-term impact comes from expanding infrastructure, not simply from repairing it. So, while repairing highways and bridges is a good thing, its impact on the economy will likely be a short-term boost from the immediate jobs created through the construction projects themselves, with little effect on the nation's long-term productivity.

However, substantial portions of the bill have little or nothing to do with economic stimulus, but are rather a wish-list of programs that liberals had been looking for a chance to implement. For example, $20 billion for digitizing health records will have no stimulative effect on the economy whatsoever, and even if electronic health records do generate benefits for patients, this change in policy should have been considered on its own merits rather than hidden in a massive spending bill that was ramrodded through Congress with little time for examination by legislators. Likewise, preventive care is very important, but the $4 billion allocated should have been considered in another bill; it simply has nothing whatsoever to do with stimulating the economy. $650 million for digital converter boxes (the DTV transition coupon program) and over $1 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) are two more examples.

Granted, the bill does contain tax incentives for improving the nation's electrical grid and investing in new energy technology, as well as some tax cuts for families. If the bill had focused squarely on these types of provisions, particularly those aimed at stimulating private investment which is what leads to job creation, it could have had a much smaller price tag and have had a far better chance of actually stimulating the economy. As it is, the massive debt threatens to crowd out private investment and drive up long-term interest rates, and the massive spending will doubtless create significant inflation. Hopefully, the economy will actually start recovering before all of this kicks in (as is often the case with government stimulus programs -- there is a substantial lag between policy implementation and the manifestation of its effects in the economy), but what we have sacrificed with this exercise in exuberance is our future productivity.

See? It's Not Just Me!

Why This Recession Seems Worse Than '70s and '80s

Kudos, Lindsey Graham

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) deserves a big pat on the back for his speaking out against the pork-laden "stimulus" bill that the Democratic congress is attempting to foist on the American people. When Senator Graham was questioned by Senator Boxer (D-CA) on whether he ever so vociferously opposed the Bush Administration when they sent a bill "twice as big as this one", his reply was a home run. (BTW, as unrestrained as spending was under the Bush Administration, this pork-fest outweighs any single item that came out in the past eight years.)

See the video here.

NOW It's Official

In an earlier post, I complained that the NBER had essentially redefined what we call a recession. By way of review, the problem I had was, first, we use definitions for a reason, i.e. to help us compare events over time -- how can we compare the current economic downturn to previous downturns if we keep changing the standard we use to compare them? Secondly, I felt that the NBER pronouncement was emblematic of the "talking down" of the economy being carried out by the media and some in the government; I certainly was not advocating burying our heads in the sand, but simply that we do not need to exacerbate the problem by creating further anxiety.

That said, with the release of fourth quarter GDP estimates by the BEA, we can officially declare ourselves to be in a recession. This makes it somewhat easier to compare current economic conditions with those of the past. According to the BEA release, preliminary numbers show GDP to have decreased by 3.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008 (note that these numbers are reported as an annualized rate -- in other words, if the fall in GDP seen in the last quarter continued for a full year, it would be a 3.8% decrease). Recall that GDP decreased by 0.5% in the third quarter. In terms of GDP, the current trend so far most closely resembles the beginning of the downturn in 1990-91. In the third quarter of 1990, inflation-adjusted GDP was unchanged from the previous quarter; this was followed by a 3% decrease in the fourth quarter of that year, and a decrease of 2% in the first quarter of 1991 with the resumption of moderate economic growth in the second and following quarters. Unemployment, however, is nearly a full point higher than it was at this stage of the 1990-91 recession; this could be a cause for concern. However, the current recession does not (again, so far) look to be following the trend of the recession of the early 1980's, which started off with a much deeper drop in GDP (7.8% in the second quarter of 1980) and higher unemployment.

So, we do have a recession, and just how bad it will be and how long it will last remains to be seen. We may have some hard knocks to take before it's over with. But, again, I hope that those in government and the media will refrain from doomsday speculation and hyperbole and just report the facts.

Addendum (27-Feb): The BEA revised their estimates for the fourth quarter to a 6.2% drop in real GDP, which makes the current recession look somewhat closer to the recession of the early 80's. It remains to be seen if it will be as protracted as that recession. Again, however, I reemphasize the importance of the media and government not "talking down" the economy, thereby making things worse.

Thoughts on Obama's Agenda: Hate Crimes

The Obama White House has posted the president's agenda for America. Some of the president's goals listed on the page are laudable, for example, expanding the use of drug courts for some first-time nonviolent offenders allowing them to avoid prison time, and the imposition of harsh penalties for those practicing voter fraud (I'm curious how vigorously this will be enforced against ACORN). However, many of the listed goals are exemplary of the far-left social agenda that many of us were concerned that Mr. Obama would seek to advance.

Among these is an expansion of hate crimes legislation. As heinous as crimes carried out against people strictly because they are "different" are, laws imposing special punishment on so-called hate crimes are not an acceptable remedy.

Anyone who commits murder or violently assaults another human being is motivated by hate in one form or another; anyone convicted of any such crime should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. However, to pick out certain groups of people in order to impose harsher penalties on those committing the same crimes against them is morally wrong and constitutionally indefensible. It is morally wrong because it singles out certain groups as more highly valued by the government than others: if you murder Person A, you will receive X number of years in prison, but if you murder Person B, you will serve X+n years in prison. This is no less immoral than imposing less of a sentence on someone who murders a homeless person than on someone who murders a wealthy corporate CEO.

It is constitutionally indefensible because it is a violation of Equal Protection under the Law ensconced in the Fourteenth Amendment. It also carries First Amendment implications, insofar as it criminalizes the holding of certain ideals or beliefs. The First Amendment protects our right to hold our opinions and beliefs and to express them; it does not discriminate between those that are true or correct and those that are not. In fact, according to John Stuart Mill it is the interaction between truth and error and the resulting "clearer perception and livelier impression of truth" that freedom of speech was intended to protect. Beliefs are not restricted but practice of those beliefs may be -- but only if that practice in and of itself infringes upon the rights of others or is damaging to public order.

Hate crimes legislation, however, turns this standard on its ear, working backwards to go beyond the practice itself to the held beliefs or the thoughts behind them. Under existing precedent, the belief itself is not criminalized, but only actions that are harmful that happen to spring from that belief -- it is important that those actions would be illegal regardless of the beliefs behind them; the law cannot single out a single set of beliefs (this applies particularly to religious beliefs, but conceptually it extends to other types of beliefs). Under hate crimes laws, it would be the beliefs themselves that are criminalized; actions that are already illegal will be punished more harshly based upon the beliefs from which they sprang. Imagine for instance if polygamy were more harshly punished for Mormons than for anyone else (that polygamy laws did not single out a particular group was an important fact considered by the Court in the Reynolds case in 1879). This would clearly be unconscionable.

While one can hardly find sympathy for anyone who treats those different from him as as less worthy of human dignity, hate crimes laws constitute a very real threat to all of our freedoms. They in essence make the holding of certain opinions -- opinions deemed by the State to be impermissible -- a crime.

Looking Ahead to Inauguration

I have always been fascinated with the thought of witnessing history being made. Furthermore, I hope, perhaps against hope, that the breaching of the race barrier in the nation's highest office will lay to rest some of the animosity that has lingered in our country from the wrongs of the past. I hope, again perhaps against hope, that our country has by and large grown to the point that we no longer judge men "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". On the other hand, this is clearly not the president that I was hoping to see being sworn in, and I have very serious reservations about Mr. Obama on a number of levels (see a good summary of some of these written by Fred Barnes), and about the policies that he advocates.

All of this aside, we have to wish Mr. Obama the best -- for the good of the nation; if he falls on his face, we may get the White House back in four years, but the country will suffer in the meantime. I do, however, anticipate continued, vigorous disagreement with him (while keeping an eye open for a suitable Republican challenger in 2012). The caveat for Democrats is that Obama-mania, which reached a messianic fervor during the campaign (consider a Maryland state senator's recent statement: "It doesn't matter if the state of Maryland is broke, so long as Barack Obama is president"), will very quickly meet reality. Obama cannot live up to the hype -- no one could. For this reason, I anticipate that Obama will follow the trend for most Democratic presidents since LBJ to serve only one term. But I suppose it's still early for handicapping the next election.

Opposing "Fairness Doctrine"

Senator DeMint (R-SC) is co-sponsoring a bill to prevent liberal Democrats from re-instituting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which would require broadcasters to present programming that supports both liberal and conservative positions. In other words, a radio station broadcasting conservative programming would be required to broadcast an equal amount of liberal programming. Senator DeMint and his cosponsors are absolutely correct in taking a stand against this Doctrine.

The Doctrine would clearly impose a burden on the broadcasters, insofar as radio programming is determined by the market, i.e. what people want to listen to; therefore forcing stations to run program mandated by the government will cost them listeners and therefore advertising money. Infinitely more important, however, is the blatant infringement of the First Amendment that such a rule would constitute, because, essentially, determining what constitutes "acceptable" programming would become, much like Pravda in the old Soviet Union, the prerogative of the government. The protection of free speech, especially political speech, is a bulwark of the American political system. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (a Democrat) once said: “The Framers knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.” Not to put too fine a point on it, but perhaps we can interpret his words as a warning of impending tyranny when the government tries to restrict freedom of the press.

Here is Senator DeMint's press release on his Broadcaster Reform Act, along with more historical information about the Fairness Doctrine.