Category: Stupidity

People everywhere refuse to learn from history

This isn’t going to end well.

Bolivia’s president-elect said his government plans to seize oil and gas reserves owned by international companies, leaving other assets such as pipelines and refineries in the hands of foreign operators.

“The state will exercise its right of ownership, and that means it will decide on the use of those resources,” Evo Morales told reporters yesterday in Pretoria, South Africa, where he is visiting the country’s President Thabo Mbeki. Oil companies “will be partners, not owners,” he said.

The comments clarify plans Morales has discussed since his election Dec. 18 to “nationalize” Bolivia’s oil and gas reserves and boost government revenue on output. All reserves are now in the hands of foreign companies such as Spain’s Repsol YPF SA, which owns 35 percent of the country’s 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and Brazil’s Petroleos Brasileiros SA (Petrobras), which holds 17.5 percent. Bolivia has Latin America’s second-largest gas reserves.

Morales said he will cancel any contract that gives foreign companies ownership rights to oil and gas. His plans do not call for confiscation of multinationals’ technology or other assets, he said.
…

Bolivia attracted $3 billion of investment for its oil and gas industry since privatizing the state energy company in 1996, helping increase its natural gas reserves sevenfold, according to the Bolivian Hydrocarbon Chamber. Investment in the oil and gas industry dropped to $135 million in 2005 from $236 million in 2004. In 2002, the year Morales lost a presidential runoff against Sanchez de Lozada, investment reached $345 million.

Will socialists ever realize that state-run monopolies aren’t the most efficient method of distribution? Destroy contract and property rights and incentive disappears. The dream is always that everyone will suddenly prosper and receive a “fair” share of the nation’s wealth, but all it does is divide a now-finite amount of wealth. Factor in that most of that wealth transfers to the few in power, the dream doesn’t seem so brilliant.

He who pays, decides. Even in government.

With all of the talk of Jack Abramoff and Congressional ethics lately, I’m amused at how some members of Congress have now found the religion of restraint. Consider:

House Republicans, seeking to recover their standing with voters in the wake of a lobbying scandal, are considering a total ban on privately funded congressional trips, the lawmaker leading the reform effort said Wednesday.

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., said GOP leaders were “seriously considering” the need to eliminate all privately financed travel. “That would be a very strong statement. We want to be bold,” said Dreier, chairman of the House Rules Committee.
…

Current congressional rules prohibit lobbyists from paying for travel for members of Congress and their staff.

But qualified private sponsors can pay for food, transportation and lodging when members of Congress travel to meetings, speaking engagements or fact-finding events in connection with official duties.
…

“There’s a difference between a fact-finding trip that you do with the Aspen Institute and these trips funded by lobbyists and corporations where you do an hour of work and then play golf at St. Andrews all day,” said Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

I’m amazed that such principled individuals needed a scandal to come up with such an obvious proposal, but I’m more stunned that this is somehow “bold”. If a trip is connected to official duties, the people for whom the representatives are acting should pay for the trip. If the people don’t like what their representatives consider official duties, they’ll let their representatives know. It’s not particularly complicated.

Assaulting your own ears is a crime

I’ve written about the basic idea behind Sirius Canada refusing to broadcast Howard Stern because of Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission restrictions. It’s absurd, and a reminder that we’re still free, despite our FCC nonsense. With this decision to definitely exclude Stern’s broadcast from Sirius’s Canadian subscribers, I’d like to point out something I mentioned before. From the article:

Leaving Howard Stern off its 100-channel service will hamper Sirius Canada as it attempts to eliminate a growing grey market of Canadians that [sic] have chosen to purchase U.S. hardware and listen to U.S. satellite radio services.

Canadian law makes it illegal to subscribe to and receive unauthorized U.S. satellite radio signals. But policing satellite radio is far more difficult for Canadian authorities than U.S. satellite TV services that are illegally picked up via stationary dishes in about 600,000 Canadian homes.

I guess the Canadian government doesn’t understand care what Canadians want. Better to impose some notion of the common good than to hope they choose it as their private wish. And if government policy can harm Canadian retailers trying to sell Canadian receivers, I guess that earns bonus points, even though I thought capitalism was somewhat good in Canada. Throw in the tax revenues going to the United States government instead of the Canadian government because many Canadians are “illegally” procuring Sirius, and I can’t imagine how America doesn’t immediately adopt such a policy.

All snark aside, this is the nonsense we see when censors and content nannies try to circumvent the marketplace of ideas. I think Howard Stern is hilarious, and it’s a reason why I subscribe to Sirius. People who don’t think he’s funny don’t have to listen. That’s especially true now that it’s not free. Letting other citizens interfere with private transactions between two consenting individuals, whatever the technology used to conduct that transactions, is absurd. That’s not concern; it’s collectivism, with only a few decision-makers deciding what’s good. It may work in appearance, as Canada can claim with the superficial absence of Howard Stern from Canadian airwaves satellite beams. But those who want what’s denied will find it, becoming nominal criminals in the process. Sure, society is harmed by Stern in Canada this morning, but it’s not those listening who feel the pain.

Spending money wisely is the kindest gesture possible

I’m a strong proponent of students learning a foreign language. Not learning another language before graduating is the biggest regret I have from my school years, by far. I took four years of Latin, which was a waste. It’s a dead language, you know. That doesn’t matter, of course, because I remember so little of it. I followed that with two years of French, but I hated it so I mostly ignored what I learned. I certainly didn’t use it outside the classroom, so I don’t remember the scant words and phrases I collected. I still wonder why I didn’t learn German, which is what I always wanted to learn of the four languages my school system offered then. (Spanish being the obvious fourth.) Regardless, the fault lies with me because opportunities existed two decades ago when I started learning Latin and only my county’s taxpayers paid for my education. So I’m amused by this story:

President Bush announced plans yesterday to boost foreign-language study in the United States, casting the initiative as a strategic move to better engage other nations in combating terrorism and promoting freedom and democracy.

“This program is a part of a strategic goal, and that is to protect this country,” Bush said.

The plans, which represent an expansion of some programs and the start of a few others, aim to involve children in foreign-language courses as early as kindergarten while increasing opportunities for college and graduate school instruction. …

Much of the instruction is intended to focus not on the traditional European and Latin American languages that Americans have tended to study most, but on what the U.S. government has identified as languages “critical” for national security. These include Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Hindi and Farsi, among others.

I appreciate that learning languages such as Arabic and Chinese is a strategic goal. Indeed, it’s even wise. But this plan makes no sense. The federal government has no business funding this, since education is a local task. The government can certainly set incentives for learning necessary languages, not to mention retaining linguists rather than booting them for their sexuality, but this incentive is wrong.

I’ll explain more fully in a moment, but allow me to include these quotes as further foundation:

“When Americans learn to speak a language, learn to speak Arabic, those in the Arabic region will say, ‘Gosh, America’s interested in us. They care enough to learn how we speak,’ ” Bush said.

And …

But in a State Department briefing, officials sought to emphasize general growth rather than individual targets.

“We’re not setting the goals in terms of X number of individuals by Y number of years,” said Barry F. Lowenkron, the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor. “Our goal is to start building capacity.”

What we’ll get out of this is a warm, fuzzy feeling and a new permanent government expenditure. What we won’t get is capable linguists filling defined needs. The government is circumventing the employment market as an incentive, instead promoting some lofty, elusive notion of strategic preparedness and patriotism.

Here’s an idea instead: make the reward for choosing a linguistics career comparable to the need. I’m sure there are plenty of creative ways to do that, but I suspect the uncreative salary is a good starter. Obviously that’s a little tweaked given the military versus private industry nature of government work, so my unimaginative method isn’t perfect. I concede the point. But the military has experience in solving recruiting shortages without resorting to presidential handouts for feel good public relations. Use them.

For a moment, humor me while I return to my opening paragraph. I didn’t retain either of the two languages I studied. Let me suggest why, now that I have fifteen years of hindsight into the experience. I didn’t care. I knew I wasn’t going to need either in college, thanks to exemptions. I knew I wouldn’t need either after college, thanks to my career expectations. So I took both to get a special stamp on my high school diploma. I doubt that’s really helped the United States since I graduated high school in 1991.

More importantly, I would’ve taken Russian in high school if offered, as the President now proposes, because that’s what I really wanted to take. I knew I wasn’t going to join the military, but I would’ve taken it to learn something interesting to me. Scarce taxpayer funding, with only a poorly-defined goal of “building capacity,” would’ve been wasted on someone only interested in learning. Maybe I would’ve used Russian one day while traveling through Eastern Europe, but the federal goverment never would’ve seen a return on that investment. Is that really the best method of allocating money to meet a strategic goal?

Unless President Bush wishes to imply that anyone who learns a language from these newly allocated funds will be subject to a service obligation to the United States government, this program is a worthless waste of tax dollars designed only to make the federal government larger and more influential in every area of life. That, or our leaders are just stupid. Whichever it is, I’m not reassured.

Take me out to the corrupt government

I don’t know what’s more egregious, Major League Baseball preventing bidders from offering to cover cost overruns or this political pissing contest within the D.C. City Council:

[D.C. Mayor Anthony] Williams continued to meet with council members yesterday to try to win support for the stadium lease agreement. He stepped up the pressure on the council in a statement criticizing council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) for supporting the use of public money to help build a parking garage for a future Target store in his ward while opposing public funding for the stadium.

“His actions are inconsistent and shortsighted,” Williams said. “It’s time for Mr. Graham and other council members to stop holding up our agreement with Major League Baseball.”

Graham said the Target project was different because the costs are much lower and the use of public funds far less. “I hope the mayor is not in meltdown mode,” he said.

How can two people be so far apart on an issue, and be so wrong in the same way? The size of the infraction doesn’t matter, since they both have their hands in the City’s fiscal cookie jar to offer private businesses a free gift. Qualitatively, both are stealing from the taxpayers for inexcusable bribes to businesses. Who cares if one does it to buy votes and the other to buy a legacy?

Misdirection quote of the day

Smarter people have already skewered the President’s faulty logic on allowing NSA surveillance of domestic communications without a court order, so I won’t pile on unnecessary commentary other than to say that President Bush is wrong. Instead, I want to highlight this quote from Vice President Cheney where he refutes the notion that Congress didn’t know that’s it legislated this in 2001. Consider:

“It’s been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we’ve been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law,” Vice President Cheney said yesterday in an interview with ABC News “Nightline” to be broadcast tonight. “It’s the kind of capability if we’d had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11.”

I remember a little something about the FBI being tipped off that something big was going to happen and that information sitting around unused. Yet Vice President Cheney is saying that We didn’t have that kind of capability before 9/11. He’s lying spinning. He should just be honest and say that we’re too lazy now to bother with the Constitution and civil liberties. As long as we’re safe, that’s what matters. I’m not buying it, but I’d respect the honesty. Instead I’ll roll my eyes at the farce he’s perpetuating.

How about a “Bridge to Everywhere”?

In an editorial in today’s Washington Post, Felix G. Rohatyn and Warren Rudman propose a solution to decaying infrastructure in America. Specifically, they highlight two examples.

On the Gulf Coast, the failure to invest adequately in the levees of New Orleans and to prepare for or manage the resulting disaster was obvious to the world.

On the Pacific Coast, in the state of Washington, a quieter crisis loomed. The region’s infrastructure had been outstripped by growth. But the new governor, Christine Gregoire, had the courage to impose a phased-in motor fuels tax to repair the state’s dilapidated and congested roads and bridges. Her opposition tried to repeal [ed. note: Initiative 912] the legislation with a ballot initiative, but thanks in part to the support of the state’s most powerful business leaders, voters stood by her and supported the tax, which would cost the average driver about $1 a week. They appeared to understand that this is a small price to protect lives threatened by bridges such as Seattle’s Alaskan Way viaduct, a twin deck freeway that is used by 100,000 vehicles a day and that could collapse in an earthquake. Their last-minute intervention may have prevented one more disaster for now, but the opposition will undoubtedly be back.

I only know the general details of how Gov. Gregoire imposed the motor fuels tax, and I’m not impressed by the idea that raising taxes is courageous, but I’m fine with the facts mentioned so far. Infrastructure is in dangerous condition. Something needs to be done. Admittedly I don’t remember the last major earthquake in Washington state, but deteriorating infrastructure is still bad. However they pay for it, the improvements seem wise. However, as I stated in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, fixing the problem at the local level, where information will be most accurate and current, is best.

I’m also aware that Washington isn’t the only location in America with infrastructure problems. Any short drive through the D.C. area will provide the same revelation, though I don’t know of anything specifically in immediate danger of falling down. As with the Wilson Bridge, though, proactive is best. So how do Mr. Rohatyn and Sen. Rudman arrive at this conclusion within a few short paragraphs?

Americans may not want “big government,” but they want as much government as is necessary to be safe and secure. Today state and local governments spend at least three times as much on infrastructure as the federal government does. In the 1960s the shares for both were even. Even so, increases in state spending have not been enough to check the decline in many of our public assets. A new type of federal involvement would be a powerful initiative and would require a new focus. Rebuilding America is a historic task; we have the means to do it.

I suspect that the authors haven’t noticed the federal deficit lately. Otherwise, I doubt they’d say we have the means to do this at the federal level. Regardless, it wouldn’t be a powerful initiative, but rather, a power-grabbing initiative. The federal government did this with the levees in New Orleans. How well did that work?

More interestingly, doesn’t the Washington example show that state and local governments are better equipped to know which infrastructure projects are most urgent? We can argue about whether or not an increased motor fuel tax is the way to pay for upgrades, but I’d rather Washington’s residents determine that. I also expect them to pay fund them. Just like my fellow Virginians and I should pay for road improvements in Northern Virginia.

After proposing the expansion of federal control, the authors offer a funding scheme that, in all honesty, I’m not quite sure I understand. It involves something about a national investment corporation (NIC) and “self-financing” bonds with a federal guarantee. It sounds more like Social Security IOUs than anything. If someone cares to read the article and decipher how the NIC would work, I’d be happy to listen. For now, I’m resigned to regarding it as a central planning sleight-of-hand that would transfer control and decision-making from where local knowledge resides to Washington, while spreading tax obligations everywhere. I’m not persuaded.

By the end of the editorial, the authors acknowledge that they’ll face opposition, although they fail to understand why:

There will no doubt be opposition to solving this problem. Advocates of “small government” will characteristically oppose government’s performing its valid, historical role. Critics will accuse the NIC of being a “new bureaucracy” when, in fact, it might be the only practical approach to reform in the existing bureaucracies.

I don’t oppose solving this problem. Claiming that “small government” advocates characteristically oppose this is incorrect. “Small government” advocates expect the government to perform its necessary, appropriate tasks. However, building roads, bridges, airports and water projects are for state and local governments. Just because we’ve historically violated that does not mean we should continue to do so, adding more bureaucracy and impossible-to-deliver promises to the government heap.

Seeing nuance where no justifiable nuance exists

From The Corner at National Review Online comes this tidbit on torture. I won’t recap the whole discussion because it mostly veers off into a tangent about what sort of physical endangerment one would choose if captured, but there is a telling explanation made in the process. First, a basic assumption for torture from Jonah Goldberg:

And don’t tell me the analogy doesn’t work because the criminals are choosing torture of their free will. The terrorists in these hypotheticals choose torture too — when they decide not to divulge inforrmation [sic]. Everyone agrees that torture or even coercion for reason not directly tied to pressing need should never be tolerated.

Fine, terrorists choose torture when they don’t talk. What about American soldiers captured in the field of battle? If they’re tortured by their captors, do we dismiss it because they followed orders to reveal only name, rank, and serial number? Or do we denounce the torture as a gross violation of human rights and international standards of war? I agree that there’s a distinct difference between terrorists and American soldiers, but the underlying assumption of how a captor should treat a captive remains the same, I think.

As an aside, I don’t think everyone agrees that torture or coercion should never be tolerated without the ticking time bomb scenario. Many of the debates around the blogosphere reveal particularly nasty examples of people taking glee in the idea of torturing terrorists because the terrorists are bad. Modify the last sentence to “reasonable people agree” and we can move on.

Later, in response to reader reaction, Mr. Goldberg responds with this:

Moreover, innocent people would not choose torture. They would give up the information needed. Of course there is a very real and legitimate danger of torturing innocent people because we wrongly don’t believe they’re innocent, which would be awful — again just like killing or imprisoning innocent people is awful. But for the terrorist who knows that innocent men, women and children are about to be murdered and chooses to stay silent, I simply haven’t read a principled argument that makes the moral case against coercing this accomplice to murder that I personally find convincing. Contrary to what a lot of people think, that alone doesn’t make me “pro-torture.” It makes me unpersuaded by some of the more high-minded arguments of the anti-torture crowd.

I concede that that doesn’t make Mr. Goldberg “pro-torture,” but I still have a question that should seem obvious. How would an innocent person give up needed information? If he’s innocent, he doesn’t know anything to give up. How long do we torture him for withholding information before we realize he’s innocent? Does the torture inflicted remain justified after he’s no longer a suspect because he was thought to be a terrorist at the time of the torture? We know we’ve imprisoned suspected terrorists in the last four years who’ve turned out to be innocent individuals.

I simply haven’t read a reasonable argument that makes the legal case for torture compelling. That it’s also morally and politically devastating to the United States should also factor into what should’ve been a short debate. Senator McCain’s amendment should pass the Congress unchanged. President Bush should sign it.

Congress is turning tricks again

Good news from Congress: we no longer need think that pressure from constituents or logic might influence them into some notion of sanity. Hooray! Just think of all the time we’ll save that would normally be spent bitching about how irresponsible they are. Again, hooray!

The House passed three separate tax cuts yesterday and plans to approve a fourth today, trimming the federal revenue by $94.5 billion over five years — nearly double the budget savings that Republicans muscled through the House last month.

GOP leaders portray the tax bills — for the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, affluent investors, U.S. troops serving in Iraq and taxpayers who otherwise would be hit by the alternative minimum tax — as vital to keeping the economy rolling.

“Our economic policies have done the trick,” said Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio). “We are in the middle of one of the strongest economies this country has ever seen.”

In order: qualified yes, qualified yes, qualified yes, and absolutely. It might be surprising that I’d offer a qualified yes or absolutely to all proposals, yet still insist that it’s bad news. Allow me to explain.

Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. A friend who visited New Orleans recently on business returned with a clear understanding that the devastation is far worse than it appears on television. Something must be done. But I don’t trust Congress to do it correctly, especially when its idiocy got us into the situation where only the Federal government could fix the problem. Destroy market forces (insurance, flood walls, etc.) that would make population and business decisions more in line with the inherent risk in the Gulf Coast and a federal response is all that’s left. My reservation stems from that. Congress doesn’t get to take credit for fixing a problem it created. Also, handing out gifts tax breaks to businesses, only to exclude less-favored, “sinful” businesses, is an awful form of central planning. Let the people of New Orleans decide. But I understand that goes against every belief Congress currently holds. In the end, a qualified yes because we have little choice.

Next, concerning affluent investors. I’ve already addressed this, so I won’t go much further with the issue. Congress needs to stop thinking in terms of poor vs. rich and start thinking in terms of smart economic policy and stupid economic policy. We’re nowhere close to smart policy, but this is a small step. I don’t pretend that this is being done for the right reasons, though, so it gets a qualified yes.

Next, U.S. troops serving in Iraq. I don’t have much information on this tax break, but it “would extend a provision allowing members of the military to use their combat pay to claim the earned income credit.” Fine. At a cost of $153 million, it’s a blip in our fiscal health. It’s qualified because it’s probably more to promote a warm fuzzy feeling of helping our troops. If I gave it a no, I’d probably be unpatriotic. I wouldn’t want that. Merry Christmas!

Finally, the Alternative Minimum Tax is a travesty. Anything that reduces its impact is a bonus. Congress should abolish it immediately. No member has the brains to that, so I’ll settle for this. It doesn’t change the reality that an indiscriminate tax on taxpayers who have no intention of evading taxes (illegally), without any sense behind it, is wrong. And the rich paying their fair share is obscene. Just one more soak the rich policy, which is not soaking the not-really-rich. Get rid of it. This is a small positive step.

None of that changes my original idea that this is bad news from Congress. Cutting taxes by almost $100 billion is wonderful, but without an equal or greater reduction in spending, the deficit will grow. It’s insanity and this doesn’t make me think differently:

“By cutting taxes, you grow the economy, and you generate an enhanced flow of revenues to the Treasury,” said Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Rules Committee.

I like that argument as much as anyone, but it’s not generating an enhanced flow of revenues to the Treasury I’m interested in. I want more money left with the people who earn it. The government should get what it needs, not what it wants. Does anyone believe that Rep. Dreier intends to use that enhanced revenue only on necessary, appropriate expenditures? Our tax policies should be adjusted to meet that criteria, while spending according to the revenue we’re generating, not what we hope to generate through more targeted central planning. Congress doesn’t understand that, even though it’s simple. Cut taxes. Cut spending. Reduce the government’s size and reach.

If only we had a Constitution

A few months ago, I wrote about Congress deciding that no one should be left without television when digital broadcasting becomes required. It’s still on track and still stupid. Nothing new is out about this fiscal misadventure, but George Will has an excellent take on the story in today’s Washington Post. Read the whole thing, but I want to point out my favorite line when I read the article this morning on the train. Enjoy:

… the timeless truth that no matter how deeply you distrust the government’s judgment, you are too trusting.

I’d be very proud of myself if I’d written that.