« October 2005 | WILLisms.com | December 2005 »

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 231 -- Lower Taxes, Stronger Economy.

States Benefit From Lower State & Local Taxes-

In earlier Trivia Tidbits (#207: "Lower Taxes, Higher Growth" & #208: "State Income Tax Comparisons), WILLisms.com examined the policy ramifications of state income taxes, or the lack thereof.

The conclusions: states that lacked an income tax saw stronger economic growth, stronger personal income growth, stronger population growth, and stronger job growth, than states with the highest income tax rates. States without income taxes also, shockingly enough (not!), had fewer budget problems than the states with the highest income taxes.

But income taxes are just one part of the tax equation. Let's now turn to a comparison of the ten highest taxed states and the ten lowest taxed states. The Texas Public Policy Foundation crunched the numbers (.pdf), taking income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, alcohol taxes, and all the other state and local taxes to determine the overall tax burden in each state.

Here are the numbers, including the superlative states, those with the lowest and highest state and local tax burdens (.pdf):

From 1994 to 2004, there is a stark contrast in the economic performances between these groups of states. Lower tax burden = better economic performance. Higher tax burden = worse economic performance.

Relative to the average of the 10 states with the highest total state and local tax burden, the average of the 10 lowest taxed states showed:

♦ Faster growth of gross state output (71.7% vs. 62.4%);

♦ Greater personal income growth (70.2% vs. 60.4%);

♦ A much greater increase in total population (12.8% vs. 6.4%), including a net inflow of residents into the 10 low-tax states from other states (3.3% of total population) vs. a net outflow of residents from the 10 high-tax states to other states (2.5% of total population);

♦ Much more rapid job creation (16.9% vs. 12.6%);

♦ Only a slightly higher personal income per capita growth (51.0% vs. 50.7%); and

♦ A slightly higher unemployment rate (5.0% vs. 4.7%).

Viewed another way (.pdf):

We're lucky in America to have 50+ somewhat distinct laboratories in which to compare and contrast actual ideas and policies. Ironically enough, it was once liberals who appreciated that states could be labs for economic and social experimentation. Today, it is (usually, but not always) liberals who seek standardization (via higher taxes and bigger, more powerful central government in Washington). It is now liberals who complain that federal tax/budget cuts mean that states must pick up an unfair proportion of the slack. This was even a common (erroneous, Krugman-esque) theme of the Kerry campaign during the 2004 presidential race:

"President Bush's tax cuts exacerbated the state and local fiscal crisis, forcing them to take steps like raising college tuition and property taxes while cutting health care for children.

This has resulted in a stealth tax increase -- and helped contract the economy."

If only it worked that way. If only states were true independent laboratories of fiscal policy. Federal taxes would be extremely low, liberal states could set their taxes at whatever levels they desire and offer lavish welfare and entitlement programs, and conservative states could keep their taxes relatively low and keep government spending low, accordingly.

Businesses, investors, and individuals themselves could then vote with their feet. States with fiscally-sound policies would flourish; states with untenable German-style fiscal policies would languish. The average American would then need to make a choice. It's difficult to imagine that pro-growth states wouldn't win that policy battle. After a few years or so, the odds are that, upon evaluating the stark contrasts between the high tax and low tax states, Americans would vote with their feet en masse.

And vote with their feet many Americans have done (.pdf):

Let the best policies win, in other words. We still do have this scenario in America to some degree, but the increasing "Washington, DC-ization" of government is diminishing the opportunity to test policies head-to-head.

And don't get me wrong, I don't want high tax states-- or the people in them-- to suffer. I am not advocating the destruction of states that make poor fiscal decisions, nor am I suggesting that we eliminate the federal government entirely. That's not the point.

Here is what would happen under the "50 state lab" concept:

After seeing their populations flee to states with more efficient tax-and-spend circumstances (which are flourishing in every which way), states with poor fiscal policies would quickly change their ways. In other words, state and local governments would form a kind of market. The best policies would rise to the top.

State and local governments with poor policies would copy "what works" to prevent getting left behind. We all know what works. We have pretty clear evidence of what works right in front of us.

Sure, people choose where to live based on more than economic policies and conditions. People may like the beach, or the desert, or the mountains. People may have deep roots in-- or connections to-- a particular part of the country. And some smaller states (Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware) don't exactly have a lot of room to physically grow, while larger states (Texas, Nevada, Arizona) do (and thus benefit). There are many reasons people choose to live where they do, and there are many reasons for growth or lack thereof.

But the evidence before us today indicates that the United States is a highly mobile society, and many Americans are willing to relocate wherever opportunities abound. And people are leaving states with high tax burdens and relocating in states with low tax burdens.

Just take a gander at the net flows of migration in and out of states from 1994 to 2004 (.pdf):

The green arrows indicate a negative net migration to other states. Notice that states with higher tax burdens are more likely to have more people move away than move in.

And it's not necessarily a Republican/Democrat dichotomy, but the trend is pretty clear. States with lower tax burdens are gaining people at the expense of states with higher tax burdens.

Imagine how these numbers might look under a "50 state lab" scenario. One has to believe that the real-world consequences of high or low taxes would become even more apparent than they already are.

Source:
Texas Public Policy Foundation (.pdf).

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Texas Economy.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 November 2005 01:33 PM · Comments (7)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 33.

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

The actual caption:

The warrior and the agent : A Mongolian dressed as a warrior rides his horse past a US Secret Service Agent standing next to a portable toilet during US President George W. Bush's visit to Ikh Tenger in Ulan Bator, Mongolia. (AFP/Luke Frazza)

Surely there's a better caption for this photograph.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, December 6. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at WILLisms@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Winners from last week:

1.

Rob B. (extra points for Scientology humor):

As Bush removed his earphones, he was shocked to realize Tom Cruises' revelation that Xenu had only allowed for "999 points of light", not "1000."

2.

John:

Reacting to anti-American comments, former President George H. W. Bush bends a flexible metal bar with his bare hands while growling, "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." To the astonishment of the conference attendees, he then ripped off his shirt and hurled a papier-mache boulder through a plate glass window before collapsing in exhaustion.

3.

Jason Kallini:

Reporters await comments from Former President Bush on his opinion of Steven Wright's performance of 'The Vagina Monologues.'

Honorable Mention #1

Jim Rose:

Ahhh! Ashlee Simpson!!

Honorable Mention #2

Zsa Zsa:

Aaaaaaaaaaaay! Someone turn that down before I have to start reading everyone elses lips!

Honorable Mention #3

Ironman:

Former President George H.W. Bush reacts to discovering that former first lady Barbara Bush has secretly switched his iPod Shuffle selection from country-western fare to an all Ozzy Osborne format....

Captioning is a holiday favorite for the entire family.

Enter today!

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 November 2005 10:58 AM · Comments (30)

Some Call It A Bonfire (Or Carnival) Of Classiness...

We call it "Classiness, All Around Us."

Click to explore more WILLisms.com.

In no particular order, WILLisms.com presents (an expanded edition of) classiness from the blogosphere:

1.

Bolton's Successes At The United Nations-

Jay Tea offers up an old Barry Goldwater joke and puts it in the context of the claims Democrats made about UN Ambassador John Bolton:

Last spring, when President Bush nominated John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations, his critics all seemed to be singing from the same songbook. Bolton was too temperamental, too mercurial, too undiplomatic, too confrontational to be our representative to that august body. The only way real progress could be made at the United Nations was if the Senate refused to confirm him.

It looks like they were right: the Senate did, indeed, not confirm Mr. Bolton to be ambassador. And look at what's happened, just in the last couple of weeks:

Jay Tea then outlines four distinct and significant accomplishments of Ambassador Bolton over just the past couple of weeks.

Credibility. Democrats have very little of it these days, after making such flailingly absurd accusations and insinuations about Bolton, Roberts, and so many other of the president's decisions. When you claim the sky is falling, when you cry wolf, people eventually stop taking you seriously.

2.

The Joy Luck Breakfast Blog Club-

The Media Lies blog explains what he'd do if he were a rich man:

.... I'd start a readers club. There would be charter members and sustaining members and we'd all fly somewhere, all expenses paid by me, once a year to spend a day or two (a long weekend?) discussing life and politics face to face over drinks. There would be plenty of time to relax, and each year some of my readers would be featured speakers, expounding on a subject of their choice.

I've often thought the same thing. It would be great to get together with a few of my readers and just chat about anything and everything. One thing I've noticed about my readers is that they are smart. Very smart, actually, with a great variety and quality and breadth and depth of life experience.

3.

Entertainers & Politics-

Dean Esmay finds it hard to get worked up about those little Nazi pop star girls (called "Prussian Blue"), since he has been desensitized by years of pro-totalitarian entertainment:

By all means, let's kick around "Prussian Blue." Let's especially kick around their parents and their producers. These 13 year old twits likely have no idea what they're talking about, but the adults in their lives have no such excuse. But while we're doing it, let's remember all the other cases of covering up for, even romanticizing, hateful totalitarian ideologies. I think we'd be doing more good in the long run that way.

Indeed. There has been so much nonsense spouted from actual popular mainsteam (and thus influential) entertainers over the years that it's curious that this thoroughly irrelevant Prussian Blue duo would even get any ink.

4.

Iraq-

The Confederate Yankee blog points out yet another success story out of Iraq:

139 terrorists killed. 256 terrorists captured. Operation Steel Curtain ends today as a success.

Did I mention that a substantial number of the soldiers fighting for the coaltion were locally-recruited Iraqis?

....

The Iraqi government goes forward, insurgents get killed as things wind down, and we leave Iraq with a democratically elected government.

Yeah, I can get behind that.

And that's the point. People need to remember that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. We're not even to 2006 yet. The progress in Iraq in such a short time frame has been nothing short of miraculous. It would be terrible to cut and run and make all the lives, treasure, time, effort, and other resources go to waste. We're so close. Let's not forsake the mission now, let's not sit down in the 20th mile of the marathon.

5.

FDA Red Tape-

Different River blog explains how the quest for safe medical procedures and drugs may be preventing the kind of rapid progress technology and science could be giving us:

I’m sure most of the FDA’s employees are hard-working scientists, doctors, and bureaucrats who do the best they can with what they’ve got. But these are human beings we’re talking about. In addition to processing millions of pages of material for every new drug application, they have their own lives to live – they have to get their oil changed, mow their lawn, drive their kids’ carpools, take out the garbage, and do all sorts of other things that will not be the impacted in the least if some patient they never heard of dies because some piece of paper is sitting on their desks.

The problem is the fact that Congress and some bureaucrats decided a long time ago that people ought to die if those papers are still on those desks.

It's well-known that it takes many years for a drug to be approved by the FDA. Is this too long? I don't know. But it sure seems like it.

6.

Fact Check-

IRIS blog notes that the media have been stealing/sharing each others' errors:

Set 1:

1. "Egypt, a political trendsetter that accounts for more than half the Arab population" (Oct. 19 Washington Post)

2. "Egypt represents more than half the population of the Arab world" (Nov. 13 New York Times)

3. "Egypt, which accounts for more than half the Arab world's population" (Nov. 13 Washington Post)

The truth is that Egypt represents about a quarter of the population of the Arab World's 22 countries. Anyone familiar with the Middle East, certainly a reporter who spent 12 years in the area, should have noticed these errors immediately. It's analagous to claiming half of Americans live in California. I e-mailed the Times on Nov. 13 and a correction was printed today.

It's amazing how many errors appear in mainstream journalism today. Sloppiness/laziness certainly plays a role. But often the errors drive some kind of agenda, and the corrections are often too little, too late.

7.

Tit-For-Tat-

Ankle Biting Pundits points out that billions spent by President Clinton on inner city job creation ultimately led to the loss of jobs:

If anyone thought that giving inner city governments (almost all of whom are controlled by Democrats) large block grants to "create jobs", with little or no oversight was going to lead to job creation, rather than corruption and local politicos having more "walking around money", then you must have been on crack. These handouts were nothing more than legalized bribery designed to keep the inner city governments, on whom the Democrats rely for support and encouraging turnout, happy.

Bingo. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

8.

Political Jiujitsu-

PoliPundit outlines a political strategy for 2006:

For the last several months, Democrats have done everything they can to bring about a speedy defeat for the United States in Iraq. To this day, they persist.

....

And, in 2006, we can use Democrats’ instinctive defeatism against them. I’m thinking of commercials like this one. Only a strong offensive will allow the GOP to gain the upper hand over the cut-and-run Democrats and their pals in the Lying Liberal Media. Otherwise, I fear for America’s future.

One can't help but think that the defeatist rhetoric from Democrats will eventually catch up to them... when people are actually paying attention again.

9.

Good & Bad Lawyers-

Powerline blog offers a succinct summation of Ramsey Clark and Raed Juhi, noting the highs and lows:

Low would be Ramsey Clark, the lunatic lefty who has trafficked for forty years on the fact that Lyndon Johnson, in what Johnson described as his most appalling mistake, appointed him Attorney General. Clark has now showed up in Baghdad to volunteer his legal assistance to Saddam Hussein. Clark is one of those lefties who never met a dictator he didn't suck up to.

Useful idiots still abound, perhaps more than ever. Then again, maybe not.

10.

The Elites-

Captain's Quarters blog explains the ramifications of the divergence of public opinion between the elites in academia, the media, the military, as well as the general populace, on Iraq:

Until the media starts reporting honestly from Iraq, the divergence will continue to grow as civilians continue to operate from ignorance, while the military operates from a position not only of intelligence but from experience. The real danger presented will be the self-fulfillment of the Starship Troopers (movie, not book) paradigm, where the only people qualified to control the military are the military themselves -- and the press will have created that atmosphere based on their short-sighted adherence to their anti-military and anti-Bush biases.

A great post. Let's hope that the upcoming elections are covered more thoroughly and fairly than the last round, which received almost no coverage whatsoever.

11.

Media Distortions-

Speaking of unfair and unbalanced coverage of events, Ace has a great post on Dana Milbank:

RESOLVED: Partisan leftists like Dana Milbank hate Republicans so much that they'd rather see America lose a war than Republicans win a midterm election.

And this is starting to sink in with Americans. People realize that the criticisms from the left have become more about taking down the GOP than about what's in the best interests of America. It's just a shame that media hacks like Dana Milbank still wield so much power and influence in this country.

12.

Fleeing Ohio-

BizzyBlog notes that Ohio's cities are actually losing population, and explains why:

When people “vote with their feet,” they do so even though it’s a time-consuming and costly process. Human inertia being what it is, most people want to stay where they are unless there are compelling reasons to go elsewhere. It’s clear that in the past 40 years, hordes of individuals and families have decided that Cincinnati’s poor schools, high crime, and high taxes have gone beyond the level of endurance (and similar hordes have decided not to move in for the same reasons).

And guess where those folks are moving? Mostly to low tax, pro-growth havens in the South and Southwest.

13.

China's Environmental Fallout-

Publius Pundit explains the political ramifications of China's recent environmental disaster:

The big but unsurprising news out of China is that — golly gee! — the government tried to cover up the huge chemical spill in the Songhua River that has closed down water supplies for nearly four million people in the city of Harbin.

....

The problem for the government is that its unaccountable top-down power structure inherently prevents it from reforming quick enough to deal with issues; meanwhile, problems continue to be covered up by local officials who take bribes in exchange for their silence. It’s important to realize that this is more than an isolated event, and even more than a trend dating back to past the SARS coverup. This corruption is an epidemic that is quickly leading to the discrediting of the communist government in the eyes of the Chinese people themselves. What happens when 2010 rolls around?

Hopefully, China will embrace more than just the *ostensibly* market economy. Hopefully they'll begin to embrace human rights, democracy, and political freedom as well.

This country, China, recall, was not included in the now-infamous Kyoto agreement. Hmm, yeah.

14.

French Delusion-

Clive Davis notes that French anti-Americanism is nothing new, and Benjamin Franklin even had to deal with it:

...I can't resist highlighting Berman's brief account of the theories of Buffon, 18th century godfather of anti-Americanism:

Buffon postulated that, in the New World, the Biblical flood had taken place much later than in the Old (which, by the way, is a notion that lingers on in Tocqueville, though he gives the deluvianism a positive spin). And, because the flood had taken place not so long ago, the New World was still a bit soggy. Animals and plants were feebler and less fully developed than in Europe. Trees were stunted. Dogs did not bark. Humans were hermaphroditically less sexual. Men's breasts lactated... All of nature degenerated in the disgusting sogginess, and people who came from Europe were bound to degenerate, as well.

So now you see where modern authors like Thierry Meyssan get their spiritual nourishment.

And how did Benjamin Franklin respond? In his characteristically no-nonsense style:

Franklin, at a dinner in Paris, asked all the American men to stand up, and likewise all the French men, in order to demonstrate that Americans were taller, not shorter, than the French--which was a devastating refutation of the naturalist theory of biological degeneration, and a genial display of American wit, to boot.

Benjamin Franklin is known as America's greatest diplomat... ever. Can you imagine how today's American media would frame Franklin's actions? Likely something like: "Franklin Wrecklessly Ruins Trans-Atlantic Ties."

15.

Free Tookie-

GOP Vixen wonders whether Tookie Williams, the founder of the infamous "Crips" gang which ravaged generations of urban America (and also led directly to the creation of the "Bloods"), is manipulating people:

After reading these and other Tookie writings -- and reading between lines -- it leaves little doubt that he's used the same skills of manipulation that made him a successful gang leader to rally liberal activists to his cause.

Duh. The guy may be one of America's worst criminals ever, but he's not an idiot. And he knew what it would take to get a "FREE MUMIA" type of campaign on his behalf.

------------------------------------------------------------

Also, don't forget to check out all the old Trivia Tidbits Of the Day, the Reform Thursday series, the Quotational Therapy sessions, the latest Pundit Roundtable, and the Wednesday Caption Contest (entries are due each Tuesday at 11:59 PM Central Standard Time).

Last Week's Classiness Certification from WILLisms.com:

*November 8, 2005.

WILLisms.com offers a classiness roundup as a bi-weekly feature, every other Tuesday, with 10 blog posts deemed classy. The criteria for submissions: incisive original analysis, quirky topics nobody else (especially the mainstream media) is covering, fantastic graphics, or other posts that took a lot of work. We love to spread the word on upcoming blogs, being that WILLisms.com also fits that description. If you would like to nominate a post on your blog or another blog for inclusion, email us at WILLisms@gmail.com. Write "Classy Nomination" in the subject. You can also utilize this page to make your submissions. The deadline is every other Monday at 11:59 PM Central Time.

Classy.

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 November 2005 12:35 PM · Comments (6)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 230 -- Texas Economy.

Not Just Cattle, Oil, & Cotton, Anymore-

Back in high school in Midland, Texas (MHS Bulldogs), we had an annual prom dating back to 1929 called "Catoico." Catoico was short for "Cattle, Oil, & Cotton." In 1929, those three pillars dominated the Texas economy; even decades later, into the 1980s, those three pillars still dominated the Texas economy. When cattle, oil, and cotton did well, the Texas economy boomed. When cattle, oil, and cotton suffered, the Texas economy bonked.

But today, the Texas economy is as diverse, dynamic, and prosperous as nearly any in the country-- or the world, for that matter. Transportation, telecom, high tech, service, manufacturing, finance, real estate, insurance, health care, mining, retail, construction, education, agriculture, tourism... Texas is no longer a three-trick pony. The energy industry is still important in Texas, but not as important as it was a quarter century ago, when a spike in oil prices was great for Texas but bad for the rest of the country (Dallas Fed, .pdf):

In 1981, oil and gas economic output constituted 20% of the Texas economy; today, that number is only about 6%. In terms of employment, in 1982 oil and gas jobs accounted for 5% of Texas employment; today, only 2% of employed Texans work in the oil and gas industry.

But even economic diversity is no guarantee against cyclical downturns (.pdf):

High-tech production in Texas grew six times as fast as the state’s overall output. During the recession, Texas high-tech manufacturing lost 107,400 jobs, nearly a third of its employment. Even though California started with a higher base and therefore grew less in percentage terms, more jobs were created in Texas. During the buildup, total high-tech manufacturing jobs increased by 47,000 in Texas, while they rose by only 17,000 in California. In semiconductors, for example, California added 22,000 jobs, while Texas added 35,000. Texas also grew faster than the nation in telecom services, adding 50,000 jobs during the ’90s, then losing 30,000 during the recession.

9/11 also hit Texas particularly hard in the transportation sector (think airline headquarters). Of all the jobs lost in Texas in the brief recession earlier this decade, 62% were in either high tech or transportation.

Despite these setbacks, the Texas economy has generally outpaced the U.S. economy in recent decades:

Growth in population and income in Texas has outpaced growth in the United States in recent decades; however, Texas per capita income remains at 94% of the national average (up from 88% in 1969).

Interestingly, from April 2000 to July 2003, 44% (or, 699,685) of Texas' total population growth (1,259,945) was attributable to the natural cycle of more births than deaths. 34% (or, 430,048) of the growth, meanwhile, came from foreign immigration, and 10% (or, 130,212) resulted from migration from other parts of the United States. Texas' population growth over that 3-year period accounted for more than 13% of the overall population growth in the United States.

Diversification seems to have worked well for the Texas economy. Pro-growth, relatively low tax policies didn't hurt, either.

"The Face of Texas: Jobs, People, Business, Change" (.pdf)
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, October 2005.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Government Spending & GDP.

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 November 2005 08:29 AM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 229 -- Government Spending & GDP.

Bigger Government, Weaker Economy-

The Brussels Journal has a great piece titled "The Myth of the Scandinavian Model," in which the correlation between government spending and economic growth is noted.

Indeed, in OECD countries over the latter half of the 20th century, the correlation was very significant:

This data is not terribly shocking, but it's worth saying, because the stakes are so high:

The higher the level of taxation, the lower the growth rate. The explanation for this phenomenon is as logical as it is simple. The higher the tax level, the lower the incentive for people to make a productive contribution to society. The higher the fiscal burden, the more resources flow from the productive sector to the ever more inefficient government apparatus.

Now, let's look at the rates of public spending in specific countries:

How interesting that 2004 GDP growth rates followed the graph rather well. Ireland grew the fastest, followed closely by the United States. European countries, with their large rates of public spending, meanwhile, grew much slower.

Now, let's take the United Kingdom and break it into separate economic pieces. One could argue that the UK is divided into "Wealth Creating Britain" and "Dependency Britain," all within the same country. The divide takes us back to the "health care, not wealth care" scenario.

Take a look at these important numbers:

Total government spending in Wealth-Creating Britain comes to only 32% of GDP, below even low tax-and-spend countries such as Ireland (34%), America (36%), Switzerland (36%) and Australia (35.5%), despite the fact that those are all usually considered to be low tax-and-spend economies. Indeed, according to a new report from London brokers Williams de Broë, if it were an independent country, the South-East of England would boast the ­second-lowest public expenditure burden in the OECD (after South Korea, where government spending is a mere 27.7% of GDP), while Dependency Britain Wales approaches Swedish levels of state spending (57% of GDP), as does the North-East of England (56%), which means these parts of Britain are essentially socialist economies. But über-Dependency Britain Northern Ireland exceeds them all: public spending has now reached a fantastical 64% of GDP in Northern Ireland, the kind of number associated with a miserable People’s Republic of the 1970s. By contrast the size of the state in Scotland (50% of GDP) and the North-West of England (47%) is more in the European social democratic mainstream – though there are pockets in both where the size of the state approaches Soviet proportions, such as Ayrshire, where government accounts for over 70% of GDP.

Not surprisingly, Wealth Creating Britain is carrying the load of the more socialist regions of the country:

Wealth-Creating Britain, which takes up only 16% of the British landmass, nevertheless generates 42% of Britain’s economic annual output with 35% of the population.

Meanwhile Dependency Britain threatens to drag the rest of the country down with it:

Scotland is a pretty good case study in how not to run a country, which probably explains why the rest of the world ignores the socialist excesses of its recently devolved parliament in Edinburgh. Last year the state employed 28.4% of the Scottish workforce, according to unpublished ONS Labour Force Survey data; on top of that 17% of Scots were either unemployed or claiming incapacity benefit – in other words almost 50% of the potential Scottish labour force depends on the state for its income. Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city and once such an industrial powerhouse it was known as “Second City of the Empire”, is now the undisputed capital of Dependency Britain. More than 50% of Glaswegian households have no earned income, the highest ratio in Britain and a new high watermark for the dependency culture. According to some estimates, state-financed health spending per head in Glasgow is now higher than any other city in the world.

Conservatives who seek smaller government aren't doing it arbitrarily. They understand that a smaller government will lead to prosperity. Want greater wealth and higher standards of living for everyone? Every day, we're seeing perpetually more proof that a socialist welfare state is not the answer. Shame on most Democrats and some Republicans for actively working to take us down the self-contradictory, untenable fiscal road of Old Europe.

Policies matter. Ideas matter. The United States no longer has the luxury of competing against a gargantuan Marxist dystopia, which masked the deficiencies our own big government tendencies. We now compete-- mostly amicably, of course-- against Ireland, China, India, Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Wealth Creating Britain, Singapore, and the rest of the emerging world. Even Russia could get right back in the game with the right policies, compounded over another ten years or so.

The bottom line is that the American economy must maintain its comparative advantage over the world. To maintain market share in the global economy, you've got to stay better, relatively, than the other countries. That means lower taxes and lower spending. That means Social Security reform. That means Medicare and Medicaid reform. America's future depends on it.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Wasting Food.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 November 2005 01:21 PM · Comments (0)

Quotational Therapy: Part 62 -- Newt Gingrich, On Medicaid.

Newt Gingrich, Battling With Actual Ideas-

With visits to New Hampshire and Iowa, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is leaving the door open for a 2008 run for president. Much like Hillary Clinton, though, he has almost no chance. His negatives are simply too high; his personal baggage is too cumbersome.

But I like Newt quite a bit. He's an idea guy.

Idea guys are rare in Washington. People actually willing to offer solutions to problems and explain them in depth are rare, indeed.

So, without further delay, here's Newt, on Washington, DC:

This is a city where everybody jumps up in the morning and their idea of real change is whatever the gossip is that relates to the politics of the personalities who are maneuvering to occupy seats. But if you come in and say now let's talk about real change, they rapidly shrink the concept to the smallest, narrowest, and, frankly, least relevant component. And so my underlying theme -- and you'll see it in this paper when you get it -- is to think of this city today as trapped in a box of 19th and 20th century institutions.

And Newt, on Medicaid:

I want to talk today about Medicaid. If you combine Medicare and Medicaid, there are at least 39,000 pages of regulations, not counting what we believe are 15,000 pages of waivers at the Medicaid level, and not counting 50 states full of laws and regulations.

And one of my challenges to the Congress is to get all the documents together in one room -- (laughter) -- because it will make the case on the -- you'll look at it and you'll say this is silly; it can't possibly work. We told the Soviets this for 70 years: large centralized command bureaucracies don't work. Guess what? We were right, they were wrong. They disappeared. (Laughter.) But we won't take our own medicine.

This point is so true. The United States won the Cold War for a reason, and now many folks want to forget the lessons of why America won.

Ideas have consequences, too:

...20 years ago, the average German earned 26 percent more than the average Irish. Today, the average Irish earns 28 percent more than the average German. That is a change of relative income of 54 percent in 20 years. And it's a sign that good policies work, and people have more money and more happiness and more take-home pay; and bad policies fail, and people are more miserable and more unhappy.

And so if we're going to compete with China and India -- and I think my grandchildren have no choice. If we want to be the leading country on the planet, we have to transform litigation, regulation, taxation, education and health. If we don't transform those five, we will not compete.

Read the entire August 21, 2005 speech on, among other things, Medicaid reform, here.

-----------------------------

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

Bush In Mongolia.

The right quote can be therapeutic, so tune in to WILLisms.com for quotational therapy every Monday and Friday.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 November 2005 10:55 AM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 228 -- "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Registry.

Stifling Telemarketers-

I get loads of telemarketing calls (at least 2 or 3 per day, sometimes more), and many of them are recorded calls, so I am unable to tell them to stop calling.

Apparently, the Do Not Call list is working:

A survey of U.S. adults found 92 percent of those who signed up for the Do Not Call registry had received fewer telemarketing calls since signing up.

Twenty-five percent said they had received no calls since signing up for the registry, the survey by Harris Interactive said.

I guess I should have signed up for the Do Not Call registry long ago.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Wasting Food.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 November 2005 04:15 PM · Comments (4)

Pundit Roundtable

Hi everyone, and welcome back to PUNDIT ROUNDTABLE, our weekly roundup of pundit opinions. I am your host, Ken McCracken.

I hope everyone had a turkeylicious holiday week.

Our topic this week is a vital one:

The Senate has recently voted on a non-binding resolution admonishing the White House to provide a clearer picture on the situation in Iraq, and for the prospects for pulling our troops out. Is the time right to begin reducing troop levels in Iraq? If not now, then when? What needs to happen there before the United States can pull out its military presence there?

Our first guest is a Roundtable newcomer, Dr. Steven Taylor, who operates a favorite blog of mine, Poliblog. Dr. Steven, what do you think?

While I have been paying attention to the general debate, I have not written much about the issue of withdrawing troops from Iraq. Indeed, I have only dedicated one post (here: http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=8726 ) to the subject in the last several weeks. That post pointed to the political games being played by both parties. If there is a theme that surrounds the entire situation it is that: politics (of an electoral nature). The pending 2006 elections, though almost a year from now, hang heavy in the air in terms of their effect on the political class.

I vacillate in my own mind as to what the appropriate troop levels should be. Part of me thinks that Senator McCain is correct—that we need more troops to contribute to stabilization. Another part of me thinks that a lesser prominent American presence might allow for more focus on the Iraqis, both militarily and governmentally.

However, I do not believe that the elimination of US troops will equal the cessation of violence, as some have argued. While one of al Zarqawi’s goals is the total withdrawal of US troops, I think that the larger goal is the destabilization of the nascent Iraqi state. Assaults on the government will simply intensify when the US leaves.

Witness that a large number of attacks have been aimed at Iraqi security forces, especially at men lined up to apply for jobs with the police. Also there was that attack a few weeks back on a restaurant known to be a police favorite. Such attacks are not about the presence of the Yankee Imperialist Infidels, but are aimed at the development of a key pillar of state construction: the basic security apparatus.

What I fear is that the politics of Iraq, and the need for the Republicans to say that there will be a phased withdrawal and the Democrats’ need to at least semi-call for a total, immediate withdrawal (a simplification of both positions, to be sure) is what is driving the agenda, such as the vote in the Senate, rather than good policy planning or proper military assessments. Sadly, the entire administration Iraq policy feels adrift at the moment and members of both parties in the Congress see it simply in terms of campaign politics.

Also, I would note that the term “withdrawal” may ultimately be misleading. I can foresee a drawdown of troops (i.e., a significant reduction in boots on the ground) but I continue to think that there will be some US military presence there for some time to come.

What I continue to be amazed by is the lack of a serious, publicly articulated plan from the Democrats. Indeed, that lack has baffled me for over a year and a half now. I am further baffled by the administration’s inability to articulate a clear policy beyond “staying the path.” Moreover, I do no understand why a more constant effort to articulate the importance of the policy isn’t being undertaken by the administration.

---

Our next guest is a previous Roundtable participant, Reliapundit of The Astute Blogger. What do you say, Reliapundit?

I agree with the Administration and the Pentagon that withdrawal has to be conditon-based and not time-based. Only when conditons are met can withdrawal safely occur. "Conditons" includes the general level and pace of attacks and casualties, as well as the numbers of Iraqi defense forces, border forces and policing forces which are independently operational. Also, conditions means progress on the political front. And these things interact.

Because questions (1) & (2) pose the issues in terms of TIME - "is the time right"/"if not now, when" - I'd have to say the questions are biased and propagandistic; as long as the question is posed that way - as long as the issue is framed that way - the anti-Bush Doves of the Left have a virtual win, because the Administration is put on the defensive in a debate which it should NOT have.

Question (3) frames the issue correctly, as a "WHAT" question and not a "WHEN" question.

What must happen is simple: The Iraqis - through their duly constituted and democratically elected government - must say that they are ready to start taking over.They should say this privately and withdrawal should not be publicized. As long as they want military help we should give it to them. DITTO financial aid.

LOOKIT: I was an anti-Vietnam War dove/Lefty, something I am ASHAMED of now. And my worst fear it that, IF EVER GIVEN THE CHANCE, the Dem/Left will abandon the Iraqis the way they did the Soouth Vietnamese and ther Contras. Prof of the is the constant quagmire refrian and the fact that the same scum is involved: Ellsberg, Hersh, Kennedy, Kerry, Chomsky, et al. They were wrong them and they are wrong now.

I still have a few Lefty dove friends, and whn I ask them how many US combat troops were in Vietnam when Saigon fell to the Vietcong they say between 500,000 and 100,000. In fact, there were NONE. The last US combat troops were withdrawn on 3/29/73 - A FULL TWO YEARS BEFORE SAIGON FELL. Vietnamization WORKED. The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason that the SVG fell was that the McGovernite Democrat Party which controlled Congress pulled the plug on financial aid to the SVG. They way they did to Contras 4 years later.

We all know the horrific repercussions of the fall of South Vietnam: Boat People, the Killing Fields, Vietnamese "re-education" camps... etc... (Ironcially/sadly, the Vietnamese government now wants NO BEGS for USA investment. Pity. The waste. Had the North Vietnamese NOT been a Marxist totalitarian tyranny, they could have had American investment for the last 40 years, and WITHOUT condemng 3 million of the own to die trying to stop that very thing!)

The Dem/Left will abandon the Iraqis - and Afghanis - the moment they get the chance. That's why 2006 is so EFF'N important. We mustn't let the Pelosi/Dean/Kennedy/Kerry crowd of Lefty McGovernite doves get control of either body of Congress. (Right now, the only Dem I would trust with our nation's defense - or the defense of the free World is Joe Lieberman. The rest of the so-called Democrat centrists are all PHONIES.)

That being said, I believe that withdrawals will begin by next spring. Things are going well there, now - have been for many months.

BTW: I have a relative who is being deployed for the first time. He is a fine man, well-trained and proud to serve. And we are proud he is serving. And worried. We pray EVERYDAY for his safety and for the success of his mission. And the mission of all our troops and the troops of our allies.

Ultimately it is the success of the mission which will determine our troop levels and NOT the calender - at least as long as the GOP has the final say. I MEAN THAT, AND I AM STILL A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT! Have been since 1974.

I saw an article today which sated that 70% of Iraq (geographocally) is now ONLY patrolled/policed by Iraqi forces. I believe that - based on current trends - that number will be 100% by 2007. Which is to say, based on current trends I would expect conditions allowing for complete withdrawal should be met by then.

THEN - with the best trained, best equipped and MOST BATTLE-HARDENED FORCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD - we can muster a more credible devastating threat against the remaining foes: Syria (if Assad has somehow managed to hold on), Iran and North Korea.

Reliapundit also adds this from a recent post of his:

Fellow blogger and frequent commenter PASTORIUS suggested I make this bit, from an earlier post, the lead (NYTIMES):

(NYTIMES) On Monday, Iraq's interior minister, Bayan Jabr, said American-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, adding that the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the United Nations Security Council earlier this month could be the last, The Associated Press reported. "By mid-next year, we will be 75 percent done in building our forces, and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," Mr. Jabr told Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news channel.

RELIAPUNDIT: Let's get this straight, President Talabani, Deputy PM Chalabi and the Interior Minister have NOW ALL GONE ON RECORD and all confirmed this goal. THAT'S GREAT. They feel that with the GREAT US help they're getting - in defending their nascent democracy and training them to defend themselves - they will soon be able to dio just that. GREAT: We must do whatever we can to make sure they meet it.

So, er... um... what the heck are the Murtha/McGovernite Dem-Lefties whining about!?

---

Dan Morgan of NoSpeedBumps.com is our next guest, making his second trip to the Roundtable. Dan?

The rush to make plans for a withdrawal from Iraq is misguided. It is understandable that people want to reduce American causalities, we all want this. But we are still in a war, and there are right ways to end wars and wrong ways. Consider some examples.

We invaded Germany and Japan and ended dictatorships there. We have kept bases in those countries for 60 years now. Germany and Japan have emerged as thoroughly democratic, their citizens are free, and by the end of the 20th century these countries had achieved the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world.

Now consider a country we left early: Vietnam. We withdrew in the midst of an unstable situation. We also then withheld critical U.S. military support that was promised, for example air support for the South Vietnamese army. The end result is that the Vietnamese have now lived for 30 years under a brutal dictatorship, citizens have no freedom, and the country has remained poor.

A hasty and complete withdrawal from Iraq will undoubtedly mean a drawdown of support in many areas, just like it did in Vietnam. A bloody civil war is a likely outcome - and a democratic government surviving this war is unlikely. The hopes for Iraq serving as a model for democracy for other countries in the Middle East will collapse. Autocrats in the region will then feel emboldened to re-tighten their grips on power. Thus, the oppression and economic corruption that fuels Islamic terrorism will all be left intact. A hasty withdrawal from Iraq will mean abandoning a key component in the war on terror - the component that is most directly dealing with the root causes of terrorism over the long term.

The appropriate strategy in Iraq is to maintain military bases there for as long as needed to assure a democratic Iraq. However, Iraqis must take over most patrols and ground operations against the insurgents. After the upcoming elections, American troops can gradually stay more on bases so that they are much more out of harm’s way. The U.S. troop levels stationed in Iraq can also gradually be significantly reduced.

But keeping U.S. bases in Iraq is critical because these bases will provide local air support, logistics help, intelligence support, advanced training, as well as making certain that Iraqis stay on the path to democracy. Within the protected zones, the U.S. and our allies can continue to provide help with on-going advising and training on how to nurture democratic institutions and advance the rule of law.

Like it or not, we will likely still have bases in Iraq five years from now. A key is to begin demanding that Iraqis take over security. The goal should be for the U.S. to gradually fade into a background role, just like we did in Japan and Germany. And some day, long after the anti-war protests have faded, we can finally withdraw.

---

Our next response is from Will Franklin, founder of this very blog. Will?

Watching Tim Russert and his clique on NBC this morning for the first time in a long time, it dawned on me just how difficult this situation is for President Bush. Essentially, everyone in the Washington media establishment has put unreasonable demands and expectations on the situation. No matter how much tangible, verifiable progress is made, when these folks get together, the consensus quickly moves toward the following: 1) the entire situation is a disaster; 2) Bush and his administration are exclusively to blame for the alleged disaster; and, 3) nothing can be done to solve this alleged disaster.

This media consensus is unfortunate, and it is the reason Democrats feel so emboldened lately on demanding the cut and run from Iraq, as well as the reason why many Congressional Republicans are distancing themselves from the GOP agenda more generally. It also demonstrates just how supremely influential the establishment media remain today, regardless of blogs and talk radio and so on.

Another unfortunate side-effect of this defeatist consensus is that pulling, say, 30 thousand troops out of Iraq in the next several months might indeed be the right tactical thing to do, as Iraqis are increasingly able to handle security. I don't know. But if President Bush brings 1/5 or 1/4 of the American troops home, it may appear like he is conceding to the media consensus, making him seem weak and unserious.

In two and a half weeks, Iraqis will go to the polls to send 275 members to the Iraqi Assembly. This election will not be any kind of panacea, but it will mark an important milestone, and it will move us closer to the mission of helping Iraqi democracy help itself. A little perspective is in order, too. The year is 2005. The U.S. first went into Iraq in 2003. Training Iraqi security forces and helping to set up a self-perpetuating, functioning democracy in 2-3 years is nothing short of miraculous. It seems unreasonable to give up so soon.

The host's last word: reducing troop levels now would be a mistake, if anything we should be sending more troops to Iraq, to ensure our mission succeeds. We simply must make this experiment work and see it through - this task is as important as democratizing Japan and Germany were after the end of World War II, perhaps even more so. This is our chance to revolutionize the entire region, and we have already seen some of this occuring in Lebanon, and in the kifaya revolutions in Egypt and elsewhere.

The necessary condition for a complete troop pullout from Iraq is nothing less than a complete paradigm shift in the middle east - but I do feel that we are much further along on that course than our defeatist media would have us believe. The arab street did not rise up to support Saddam again our 'neocon' adventure in Iraq - but the arab street has risen up against Bashar Assad in Lebanon, and against Zarqawi in Jordan. The arab street is becoming enthralled with the spirit of democracy, and the old paradigm of the strongman ruler playing on ethnic and xenophobic fears to maintain his power is falling by the wayside.

If we americans lose our faith in the ability of democracy to transform Iraq and the rest of the region, how can we expect the arabs, kurds and persians to keep the faith? Our experiment in Iraq is not simply about Iraq, but about the entire middle east. Perhaps we need the equivalent of a new NATO in the middle east, anchored by a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, to ensure the continued stability of Iraq against the depredations of Zarqawi and a reactionary Tehran. Even more so, we need to overtly and covertly contribute to the downfall of the remaining anti-democratic states there (including Saudi Arabia) still trying to hold back the tides of history, and the inevitability of self-governance for all peoples in that region.

That's it! Thank you, pundits, and come back next week for our next installment of PUNDIT ROUNDTABLE!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 27 November 2005 01:01 PM · Comments (6)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 227 -- Wasting Food.

Taking What You Can Eat, But Eating What You Take-

I know I am sometimes guilty of this:

* The US Department of Agriculture estimates that 27 per cent of total food production in the US is wasted every year

* Timothy Jones, who conducted a ten-year study for the University of Arizona, estimates that the amount that does not get eaten is as much as 50 per cent

* A typical household wastes 14 per cent of all food purchased

* Fifteen per cent of that includes products still within their expiry date but never opened

* An average American family of four throws away meat, fruit, vegetables and grain products worth $590 (£345) a year

For me, it's difficult to buy exactly the right amount of food for the week (or sometimes longer). It's difficult to know how often eating out might happen.

I wonder what, if any, differences there are between and among generations. The generation(s) that lived through the Great Depression might be less likely to waste food, while those of us who have grown up in an era of plenty might waste more food, more often.

That's my guess, at least.

I also wonder about how the rise of women in the workplace has impacted these numbers. Less families today have full-time homemakers, whose duties include-- among other things-- running the kitchen. Busier lives and less family dinners might contribute to the wasting of food.

Finally, you have to wonder about the effects of the cheapness of food. Today, most staple foods are relatively inexpensive and readily available. Adjusted for inflation, many grocery items are actually cheaper than they were decades ago.

On the other hand, we have better storage techniques, technology, and expertise. We have better refrigeration (at every stage), better cleanliness (food workers wearing gloves, cleaning machinery, wiping down countertops with cleaning products, etc.), more efficient distribution networks (thanks to the our expanded transportation system and large box store chains), and better storage methods (air-tight plastics and single-serve packaging). We also have genetically modified and irradiated foods that last longer, not to mention more preservatives than in the past.

In other words, not everything about modern life contributes to the wasting of food. I'd be interested to learn about the rate of food wasting in the past, as well as the rate of food wasting in other cultures.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Higher Taxes = Less Tax Revenues.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 November 2005 02:16 PM · Comments (5)

Welcome, Duncan Wilson.

Duncan Graham Wilson, a law school student at Wake Forest, will now be contributing (stuff like this) occasionally to WILLisms.com. He's guest blogged a bit in the past. Glad to have him aboard. Here is the previous introduction of Duncan, back in early February.

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 November 2005 07:20 PM · Comments (2)

Quotational Therapy: Part 61 -- President Bush In Mongolia.

Bush, On Overcoming Communism & Islamic Radicalism-

Most of you don't know this, but when I was in high school, I would send out bloggish emails to some of my fellow high school students with-- among other things-- random Mongolian trivia that I'd find in books or on the internet. Nerdy? Oh, yeah. But everyone seemed to love those emails. Especially the Mongol trivia.

So this quotational therapy is particularly fun. Our President, George W. Bush, visited Asia last week, and one stop on his journey was Mongolia. When critics say the President has turned the world against the United States, they are really only referring to the once-relevant "Old Europe." Germany. France. Countries with their own domestic dysfunctions. But in the newly free world, George Bush is treated like a hero. Mongolia is one of those countries. The U.S. is forging unprecedented ties with nations around the world, gaining immense respect, gratitude, and loyalty.

President Bush spoke in Mongolia on November 21, 2005:

Like the ideology of communism, the ideology of Islamic radicalism is led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the masses. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism teaches the innocent can be murdered to serve their brutal aims. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. And like the ideology of communism, the ideology of Islamic radicalism is destined to fall because the will to power is no match for the universal desire to live in liberty.

Free people did not falter in the Cold War, and free people will not falter in the war on terror. We see the determination to live in freedom in the courage of Iraqi and Afghan citizens who defied the terrorists to cast their ballots. We see it in the bravery of ordinary Lebanese who waved cedar flags and drove an occupying power from their borders. And we've seen it in the daily courage of the Mongolian people who claimed their freedom 15 years ago, and are now standing with others across the world to help them do the same.

Read the entire speech here.

-----------------------------

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

Tony Blair.

The right quote can be therapeutic, so tune in to WILLisms.com for quotational therapy every Monday and Friday.

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 November 2005 05:49 PM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 226 -- Higher Taxes, Weaker Government Revenues.

Higher corporate tax rate : Relatively less taxes collected from corporations :: Lower corporate tax rate : Relatively more taxes collected from corporations-

Need to raise money for entitlement programs, schools, national defense, and roads?

Just raise taxes, right? Wrong.

This concept will not surprise those who read WILLisms.com regularly, but the act of raising taxes is almost always a mere short-term fix. Higher taxes consistently drive down tax receipts in the medium-term and long-term.

When an additional unit of work (an hour, or day, or whatever) or output is taxed exorbitantly, it may not make much sense to do additional work or create output. High taxes also encourage creative accounting (usually totally legit) to avoid paying Uncle Sam.

Higher taxes also stifle economic growth. Lower economic growth means less commerce, less earning, less production. Ergo, lower levels of tax collections.

Interestingly, countries with higher corporate tax rates derive less of their overall tax receipts from those higher corporate taxes. Counterintuitively (for some), countries with lower corporate tax rates derive a greater share of their overall tax receipts from those lower corporate taxes.

Indeed, the Tax Foundation has the data (.pdf):

With the highest overall corporate rate in the OECD in 2005 (third highest in 2003), one would expect the U.S. to be collecting comparatively high corporate tax revenues and to be heavily dependent on them. This is not the case. In fact, during 2003 he U.S. ranked 15th in the OECD in corporate taxes collected as a percentage of total taxes collected.

The countries that rely most heavily on corporate tax receipts are Luxembourg (19.1 percent), Norway (18.5 percent) and Australia (16.7 percent). Interestingly, all three of these countries have below-average corporate income tax rates. The countries that rely the least heavily on corporate tax receipts are Germany (3.5 percent), Iceland (3.9 percent), and Sweden (5.0 percent).

Similarly, comparing corporate tax rates and corporate taxes collected as a percentage of GDP paints another picture of the inverse relationship between corporate tax rates and the robustness of corporate tax collections. Economists at the OECD demonstrated that countries with high corporate tax rates – such as the U.S., Germany, Japan, and France – tend to have lower corporate tax collections as a percentage of GDP than the OECD average.

When will this stuff stop being so surprising and counterintuitive?

Source:
The Tax Foundation (.pdf).

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Thanksgiving Factoids.

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 November 2005 11:00 AM · Comments (0)

Strict Constructionism

Originally published in the Wake Forest School of Law Hearsay

In our democratic republic, judges are entrusted with great power: the power to review the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature. In many instances, they are the last line of defense to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

This power however, is not mentioned in the constitution. The document does not expressly provide for judicial review. Courts have reasoned that the power is implied from the very nature of the court system, but it stands to reason that the founders, in their wisdom and their affinity for limited government power, would have intended judicial review to remain a limited power. It further stands to reason that the founders would never have envisioned the courts would use the sweeping powers they exercise today.

Interpretation of the constitution based upon strict construction is far easier, much more reliable, and makes our nation much more secure. When judges usurp power it often leads to disastrous results. For example, in Dred Scott v. Sanford the court far overstepped its bounds to declare that even free blacks were not citizens and declared that congress could not regulate slavery in new territories.
The justices claimed that they were protecting the property rights of slave owners. The right to hold slaves is not mentioned in the constitution. The justices in effect manufactured a right where the constitution did not provide one, and it took a civil war and several amendments to undo the horrible decision made in Dred Scott.
Under a strict interpretation of the constitution the justices would have realized that congress can regulate commerce in federal territory, and at that time slavery was classified as commerce. They would have further held that finding a free man to be a non-citizen based on his skin runs counter to all aspects of the constitution. However, the justices in Dred Scott made their decision and then tried to shoe horn that decision into the law and the constitution, thereby making new laws. That is the very definition of an activist court.

Interpreting the constitution in a way that strictly adheres to what the laws say, not what the judges want the laws to say creates better legislation. It forces legislators to pass clearly worded laws, and thus puts issues back in the hands of the electorate. When a judge creates law people generally feel that it is beyond reproach, but when an elected official votes on a law, people are motivated to re-elect or replace that official.

Broad interpretation of the constitution has also been responsible for dreadful inaction. Allowing unconstitutional laws to stand is often worse than an activist court creating pseudo-rights. In Plessy v. Ferguson the Supreme Court upheld the separate but equal doctrine of segregation, despite the fact that segregation is squarely at odds with the constitution and the 14th amendment. If we are going to have laws, if this constitution is going to truly mean something, it must remain clear and interpreted as written. Judges must remain more dedicated to the constitution than to any cause.

If this had been the case, the court would have found that separate but equal could never have been constitutional. I’ve often heard that this is a nation of laws, not of men. Despite what any judge may personally feel, they should interpret laws and the constitution as is, not as they wish it were. Dred and Plessy were blatant examples of judges broadly interpreting the constitution to fit in with their or societal biases. Under strict interpretation there is no room for personal or societal bias, only the law. Laws should be made by legislatures, and then held accountable by the people. Broad interpretation disconnects the people from the laws that govern them, and that is unjust. Only under strict construction interpretations of the constitution is the maximum amount of liberty achieved.

Posted by · 25 November 2005 10:28 AM · Comments (0)

Happy Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving, from WILLisms.com.

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 November 2005 10:28 AM · Comments (6)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 225 -- Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving Trivia: By The Numbers-

256 million

The preliminary estimate of the number of turkeys raised in the United States in 2005. That's down 3 percent from 2004. The turkeys produced in 2004 weighed 7.3 billion pounds altogether and were valued at $3.1 billion. (Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service)

44.5 million

The preliminary estimate of the number of turkeys Minnesota expects to raise in 2005. The Gopher State is tops in turkey production. It is followed by North Carolina (36.0 million), Arkansas (29.0 million), Virginia (21.0 million), Missouri (20.5 million) and California (15.1 million). These six states together will probably account for about 65 percent of U. S. turkeys produced in 2005. (Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service)

More great Thanksgiving trivia at Political Calculations (U.S. turkey production and Thanksgiving By The Numbers).

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: General Motors, Layoffs, Europe, America, Jobs, Capitalism, Health Care & Wealth Care.

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 November 2005 10:07 AM · Comments (1)

Social Security Reform Thursday: Week Forty-One -- Demographics & The Failing Pyramid Scheme.

Thursdays are good days for reform, because they fall between Wednesdays and Fridays. And reform is a long-haul process, not a fleeting event. So we're going to keep plugging along with the case for reform, even as the issue goes off the political radar screen.

That's why WILLisms.com offers a chart or graph, every Thursday, pertinent to Social Security reform.

This week's topic:

Unsustainable Demographics: Social Security Pyramid Scheme.

Another week, another Democrat-obstructed reform try.

The demographics have not changed. There are less workers paying for each retiree. Over the past several decades the answer has been to raise the payroll tax rate and expand the payroll tax base. With a pyramid scheme of funding crumbling underneath itself, Social Security required higher and higher taxes. In theory, a constantly growing base of younger workers would have paid for retirees.

Sort of a forced generational pact.

But it didn't quite work out that way, as the Baby Boom gave way to falling birthrates. The Boomer generational bulge is now beginning to retire. There just aren't enough workers to feasibly support all those tens of millions of retirees.

The demographics aren't getting any better, either. And they're not going away.

The pyramid scheme is crumbling.

It's time to do something about it.

It's time for reform.

The clock is ticking.

--------------------------------

Previous Reform Thursday graphics can be seen here:

-Week One (Costs Exceed Revenues).
-Week Two (Social Security Can't Pay Promised Benefits).
-Week Three (Americans Getting Older).
-Week Three, bonus (The Templeton Curve).
-Week Four (Fewer Workers, More Retirees).
-Week Five (History of Payroll Tax Base Increases).
-Week Six (Seniors Living Longer).
-Week Six, bonus (Less Workers, More Beneficiaries).
-Week Seven (History of Payroll Tax Increases).
-Week Seven, bonus (Personal Accounts Do Achieve Solvency).
-Week Eight (Forty Year Trend Of Increasing Mandatory Spending).
-Week Nine (Diminishing Benefits Sans Reform).
-Week Ten (Elderly Dependence On Social Security).
-Week Eleven (Entitlement Spending Eating The Budget).
-Week Twelve (Benefit Comparison, Bush's Plan versus No Plan).
-Week Thirteen (Younger Americans and Lifecycle Funds).
-Week Fourteen (The Thrift Savings Plan).
-Week Fifteen (Understanding Progressive Indexing).
-Week Sixteen (The Graying of America).
-Week Seventeen (Debunking Myths).
-Week Eighteen (Debunking Myths).
-Week Nineteen (Reform Needed Sooner Rather Than Later).
-Week Twenty (Global Success With Personal Accounts).
-Week Twenty-One (GROW Accounts: Stopping The Raid).
-Week Twenty-Two (Millions of Lockboxes).
-Week Twenty-Three (Support for Ryan-DeMint).
-Week Twenty-Four (KidSave Accounts).
-Week Twenty-Five (Latinos and Social Security).
-Week Twenty-Six (AmeriSave).
-Week Twenty-Seven (Cost Of Doing Nothing).
-Week Twenty-Eight (Chile).
-Week Twenty-Nine (Entitlement Spending Out Of Control).
-Week Thirty (Reform Better Deal Than Status Quo).
-Week Thirty-One (Social Security As A Labor Cost).
-Week Thirty-Two (Social Security And Dependence On Government).
-Week Thirty-Three (Social Security, Currently A Bad Deal For African-Americans).
-Week Thirty-Four (Longer Life Expectancies Straining Social Security).
-Week Thirty-Five (Howard Dean & Salami).
-Week Thirty-Six (Growing Numbers of Beneficiaries Draining Social Security).
-Week Thirty-Seven (The Crisis Is Now).
-Week Thirty-Eight (Disability Benefits).
-Week Thirty-Nine (Broken Benefit Calculation Formula).
-Week Forty (German Social Security Disaster).

Tune into WILLisms.com each Thursday for more important graphical data supporting Social Security reform.

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 November 2005 09:52 AM · Comments (3)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 224 -- General Motors, Michigan, Health Care, & Wealth Care.

European Labor Conditions In America-

Almost immediately after GM's announcement yesterday that it was eliminating 30,000 jobs, the Democrat demagogue patrols pounced.

Because Democrats and leftists control the establishment media and Republicans and conservatives *ostensibly* control the government, there is rarely any sort of balance to reporting on America's robust, thriving economy. Anecdotal bad evidence (such as mass manufacturing layoffs) always trumps statistical good evidence (such as every economic indicator out there), even overwhelming good evidence.

Within hours of the GM announcement, my email box was cluttered with messages from liberals and leftists and Democrats and socialists and communists-- it's getting harder to differentiate anymore-- declaring that the General Motors layoffs were evidence of "Bush's failed policies" and of a struggling, terrible economy, caused by those heartless, greedy, fatcat Republicans.

Let's be serious, here, though. Layoffs are difficult to deal with for any community, or any family. These particular GM job cuts are concentrated in Michigan but will impact communities all over the country:

Click image for larger version, or go here and click the multimedia graphic on the lefthand side.

Republican politicians are rightfully wary of bringing up that whole Schumpeterian "creative destruction" thing, because in an era of diminishing and diminutive political soundbites, it's easy to be taken out of context. It's easy to be painted as a heartless, greedy fatcat, for deigning to suggest that a company should have the right to hire and fire as it sees fit.

The medium- and long-term forces of creative destruction, however, are amazingly powerful-- and positive:

Economist Joseph Schumpeter taught us years ago that gales of creative destruction generate more than usual growth, profits, and real wages, with lower-than-usual inflation and interest rates. Schumpeter’s gales are blowing.

In the United States, unlike in countries such as Germany or France, we have quite a bit of creative destruction. It goes on mostly under the radar screen. Companies make constant tweaks, hiring and firing, expanding and streamlining, and ultimately innovating. Innovation creates new jobs. It's no wonder that the U.S. has created tens of millions of jobs in the past couple of decades, while Europe has not.

America, relative to Europe, has unleashed the forces of creative destruction. In America, unlike, say, Germany, a company can fire an employee with relative ease.

Harsh?

No.

Because that same company is willing to hire more readily, as well. Other companies are also willing to hire more readily. And bad, inefficient companies are replaced with good ones. The free enterprise system replenishes itself vigorously, like blood through the cardiovascular system.

Take a deep breath. No, really. Do it. Breath in as deeply as you can.

Feel the oxygen scattering frantically through your arteries, your veins, your capillaries, replenishing your muscles and skin with freshness.

Not to go all yoga instructor on you, but now imagine that it was harder to replenish those bits of fresh air in your bloodstream. Maybe there's a blockage somewhere in there. Maybe you promised those little oxygens they could stay in your body forever. You can't inhale, because you are not allowed to exhale.

Diagnosis: Eurosclerosis.

It's real. It's debilitating. It's not just a labored analogy. Eurosclerosis is caused by many factors, ones discussed here quite often, but stifling labor regulations that erect disincentives and barriers to the gradual, perpetual tweaks of creative destruction are a major cause of Eurosclerosis. Pie-in-the-sky promises on pensions and benefits, mortgaged to pyramid scheme funding structures, don't help much, either. "Safety net" job bank programs that pay idle employees not to work are reminiscent of some of the stories from the Soviet Union (workers paid to perform meaningless jobs as if they were actually contributing), and the costs of guaranteed employment are staggering:

Guaranteed employment is enticing, but the only real guarantee is that it will lead to an untenable financial situation for any company that allows labor unions to dictate such a silly policy. What's more, it costs GM roughly $1500 per vehicle to cover health care costs for its employees. Promises, promises.

Interestingly enough, non-union U.S. automobile plants are doing better than you might imagine (underlining mine):

While GM struggles, America’s automobile industry as a whole is doing quite well. Last year, American workers in U.S.-based automobile plants assembled 12 million cars and light trucks. That compares to an average of 10.6 million a year in the decade before enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. In the past decade, the total volume of automobiles and parts manufactured in the United States has grown by 40 percent, according to the Federal Reserve Board. All that means that production and jobs have not been shifting from GM to rival automakers abroad, but to its rivals inside the United States....

According to the UAW contract in force until 2007, GM’s hourly workers pay only 7 percent of their total healthcare costs, compared to 27 to 32 percent paid by the average U.S. salaried worker....

In contrast, most foreign-owned auto plants in the United States are non-unionized. Their workers are not as generously compensated as GM’s workers, but they are relatively well-paid with good benefits. And because their employers are not saddled with the uneconomic pension and healthcare costs of a UAW contract, they can produce cars at a more competitive price, creating more opportunity and job security for existing workers. Michigan-based GM’s toughest competition these days is not from Japan, but from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina and the other states where foreign-owned auto companies have established production facilities.

Let's make one thing clear. Creative destruction does not have to be so abrupt, bursting, painful, and dramatic. If, over the years, GM had not been overrun by union rules and regulations, it could have made more minor adjustments here and there, shedding unnecessary jobs, innovating, investing in itself, creating better products, capturing more market share, rolling in profits, and then adding other jobs (perhaps more and better jobs than were gradually shed before).

So what does all of this mean?

It means that bumper stickers like this one I snapped a couple weeks back while on a bike ride...

... incidentally, not found on an American brand of car...

... are completely clarifying.

This bumper sticker is trite, sure, but it sums up everything you need to know about Democrats and Republicans today.

Democrats wants us to become more like Europe, economically. Wealth, for Democrats, is bad. Making it. Nurturing it. Praising it. Bad. Bad. Bad. Wealth is icky.

But health care, presumably socialist universal health care, for Democrats, is awesome.

Paying for it? P'schaw. Whatever.

It never dawns on the Democrats that creating wealth, expanding wealth, extending wealth, and otherwise treating wealth like the good thing it is, could help pay for that health care. Wealth care is the best health care policy. Wealth care creates jobs. Wealth care creates innovation. Wealth care produces advances in technology and medicine. Wealth care makes health care more effective, more miraculous, and more accessible than ever before.

Some have claimed that the high costs of health care General Motors pays out should be picked up by the rest of us. If only GM had the government paying for those benefits, GM wouldn't have to send those jobs overseas (nevermind that those jobs aren't going overseas), to countries that have wonderful "free" health care. Many Democrats want this marvelous "free" health care not only for General Motors, though. They want it for everyone.

No, thank you. If we go down that road, as so many seem to want us to, we'll essentially be extending the GM/Europe model to the entire American economy, rather than the other way around, as it ought to be. We'll see Americasclerosis rather than the sort of vigorous job growth we've had in recent years. Health care will become less efficient, with less breakthroughs, slower advances, and an overall poorer standard of health care for most Americans.

Bad.

Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.

Indeed, is it any wonder that over the past year, from October 2004 to October 2005, jobs were created all over the country (with the exception of Katrina-hit Louisiana and Mississippi), even manufacturing states, while lonely Michigan lost jobs (.pdf):

Lonesome, lonesome Michigan, where the unions roam free, where health care is more important than wealth care, where Democrats have reigned now for so long. How ironic that organizations principally devoted to improving the lives and jobs of workers have become the cause of such uncreative destruction.

Want a worker's paradise, with lots of jobs, high pay, good benefits, and decent job security? Thinking that more unionization, less trade, more protectionism, less free enterprise, and more Europeanism is the answer for America's economy in the 21st century? Think again. Just look at Michigan. More extremely, look at Europe. Even more extremely, look at Cuba and Angola and the former Soviet Union. We need to make America-- all of America-- more American. This country was and is great because of our free enterprise engines of commerce, not because of untenable European conditions.

Let's learn economic lessons from the evidence before us. Let's not import European labor rules and regulations into the whole of America, as Michigan did. Let's not focus on health care to the detriment of wealth care.

Let's instead continue to lower taxes, let's reform our government's entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), and let's encourage the kinds of policies that distinguish us from-- and set us above-- Europe.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Dangerous & Safe Cities.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 November 2005 03:28 PM · Comments (23)

Some Pre-Thanksgiving Ted Kennedy Humor.

Uber-funnel.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 November 2005 09:36 AM · Comments (1)

Wed