The Moocher's Credo

The "crab bucket syndrome", also known as the politics of envy.

The Moocher's Credo

via The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog by Green Lantern on 9/26/11

Elizabeth Warren has become an instant celebrity among liberals for her rant before what appeared to be a small coffee klatch of supporters captured on YouTube in her bid to replace Scott Brown as the Senator from Massachusetts.
The former Harvard professor, who blazed the trail for President Obama's new Consumer Credit Financial Protection Bureau (although Republicans in Congress blocked her being appointed the first head), puts forth a spontaneous declaration of liberal and Democratic claims on the American economy. I'm going to print the whole thing because I think it's worth deconstructing, word-by-word. You don't have to look any further to see why Obamaism points straight towards Greece.

I hear all this, you know, "Well, this is class warfare," this is whatever." No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own -- nobody.
You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory -- and hire someone to protect against this -- because of the work the rest of us did.
Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless -- keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Got that? OK, let's take a look at what she's saying.
My first reaction on reading this is, "Wow, this is the crab bucket syndrome." It's well known among police officers, social workers and community organizers (like Barack Obama) that one of the most difficult and tragic phenomena in African-American ghettoes is that when one individual starts succeeding at something, like crabs hanging onto the legs of another crab trying to escape the bucket, everybody will impede his or her progress to the point making it impossible for them to escape into the outside world. For a while there was a practice in eastern cities known as "kneecapping," where a young athlete who was showing promise as a basketball player would have his kneecaps broken so that he could not leave his buddies behind. Any student who tries hard to succeed at school is accused of "acting white."
"We're the ones who made you what you are!" "You never would have gotten anywhere without us!" "You owe us!" These are the common cries of people who are afraid they will come up short. And of course all this glides easily into, "You're not going anywhere unless you take us."
It's not an isolated phenomenon. It's common enough in families, particularly the extended families of developing countries. People who study immigration have found that the Senegalese salesmen who sprout on the sidewalks of New York selling umbrellas whenever it rains or the Guatemalans trying to make a living mowing people's lawns are usually sending half their income back home to their extended families in West Africa or Central America. It's an admirable act of loyalty but also a real impediment to any individual success, since workers are constantly being drained of their savings.
Developmental economists who studied the Third World in the 1960s and 1970s found this one of the most difficult roadblocks to growing a commercial economy. It is, in fact, the age-old problem of capitalism -- whenever an individual succeeds at something, they immediately earn the resentment of their neighbors who believe that if someone is getting rich then other people must be getting poor. Anyone who starts a business is immediately overwhelmed by the claims of friends and relatives -- and government officials -- demanding their share.
This produced what seemed an extremely puzzling anomaly -- that throughout the Third World the entrepreneurial sectors were run largely by foreigners, often immigrants from other Third World countries. The small business sector in Latin America was dominated by Japanese and Chinese immigrants. Cuba had a large complement of Chinese entrepreneurs who, when chased out by the Cuban revolution, moved to New York and opened a string of restaurants advertising "Comidas Cubana y Chinoise." The commercial sector in East Africa was run largely by Indian immigrants. The most important step in development, the economists argued, would be to get native peoples to accept entrepreneurial success among their own countrymen. This is what Deng Xiaoping was trying to do when he told his fellow Chinese that it didn't matter what color a cat was as long as it could catch mice.
What Elizabeth Warren is trying to do, then, is bring this Third World mentality to America. "Nobody in this country ever got rich on their own. Nobody!" "You only made it because of the rest of us." Which is to say, "You owe us, buddy -- big time."
To her way of thinking, things such as roads, law enforcement, and education can only be provided by the government. Without the state, every private business in America would be besieged by mobs trying to rip off their inventory and sell their machinery for scrap. (That "community organizers" such as Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama would probably be leading such mobs will pass notice for now.) Let's look at the examples Warren offers:
Roads and transportation. The fact that government now owns most of the roads in the country does not mean without government there would be no roads. It simply means that road building and maintenance are mundane and unimaginative tasks that have been turned over to the government because nobody sees any chance of making money at it-- or rather that the government would undoubtedly prevent anyone from profiting at it if they tried. Many of America's first roads were toll roads built by private companies. Ferries, bridges, and commuter railroads were also private. Eventually people began to resent paying these fares and asked the government to take them over "for the good of the people." Road building has also devolved to the government because, as the landscape becomes more settled, it requires the power of eminent domain to push roads through populated areas. This is a compromise most people accept, although the details of "taking private property without due compensation" are still being worked out in the courts.
Perhaps the best example of this is the New York City subway system. The original subway line -- the Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) -- was built in 1905 on contract by a private corporation and then leased back to it by the city government. The Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit (BMT), built shortly after, was entirely private. During the 1920s the Independent (IND) line was built by the city government to prove it could do things just as well as private enterprise. The big problem was the "5-cent fare." Because the fare had been 5 cents in 1905 when the first line was built, New York City politicians decided it should be 5 cents forever. Whole mayoral campaigns were run around "saving the 5-cent fare." Finally, just before World War II, the 5-cent fare bankrupted both the IRT and the BMT and the city took over. The fare stands at $2.50 today but must be hugely subsidized in order to pay the wages and pensions of the Transit Workers Union.
Police protection. The police power has indeed been ceded to governments for as long as there have been governments. One of the most succinct definitions of government is that it is the "entity that has the official monopoly on force." When those police disperse the mobs outside the factory owner's building, they are exercising the powers of the state. But that does not mean government is the only form of protection. In Haiti, where government authority has completely broken down, a private guard with a machine gun stands outside every shop in what is left of the commercial sectors. All over America, major corporations and many small businesses contract for private security. Nor is it just the business and commercial sector that sometimes looks beyond the gendarmes. One growing practice in upscale suburbs is for subdivisions to wall themselves off with private roads and police forces.
The alternative to government law enforcement is not no law enforcement but private law enforcement. Public authority is simply the fairest and most efficient way of achieving domestic tranquility. But if people find it inadequate, they will not succumb to violence. They will look for private security.
Education. Education? What can we say? Warren may think "the rest of us paid to educate" today's workers but the poor state of education in the workforce is now regarded as one of the greatest vulnerabilities of the American economy. The government monopoly on education is being challenged on all fronts, through home schooling, charter schools, and the campaign for vouchers. People choose these alternatives because they believe the government isn't doing a very good job.
The unraveling of public education corresponds precisely with the rise of teachers' unions, which, like all dominating unions, run a business for their own benefit rather than the benefit of consumers. Teaching assignments are made on seniority rather than merit, labor contracts calculate teachers' break time and lunchroom duties to the second, and colleges of education participate in the charade of awarding graduate credits for courses offered on weekends or during spring break so teachers can move up the "grid" to higher pay. In the classroom, first graders study the rainforest and chant "Man did it" to an honor role of extinct and endangered species almost before they learn their ABCs. For this we should be thankful?
Warren's is making the Hobbesian argument that without the government life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. So shut up and pay. It worked well to justify the absolute monarchies of the 17th century. Forty years after Leviathan, John Locke published Two Essays on Government, which posited the doctrine of Natural Rights. The Natural Rights argument says people have a right to choose differently if they don't like their governments and has proved to be much more compatible with democracies.
The problem with defending "you'd-be-nowhere-without-us" government is that government is no different from any other organization in society -- it seeks its own aggrandizement. AT&T, General Motors, and Microsoft would love to have world monopolies, controlling all the resources and expanding into every corner of people's lives. But they are limited by competition, the dynamics of the marketplace, and the need to win people's consent in order to market their products.
Government is different. It expands by fiat, through legislation, through taking advantage of emergencies, and by declaring that private entities can't be trusted and government intervention is necessary. Most of all it grows by raising taxes and hiring more and more people so that soon its voter base approaches a majority of the electorate. In Greece, 14 percent of workers are employed by the government. In New York City the figure is slightly higher. Add in family members dependent on a government paycheck and you're getting close to a third of the population. And that doesn't even count the people who live off government benefits. When you reach this kind of critical mass, all kinds of things become possible. In Greece, the government is now trying to balance its budget by raising the property tax. It has given up tax collection, however, since evasion is already endemic. Instead it is trying to collect the property tax on the bills from the government-owned electrical company. But the electric workers are unionized and are refusing to collect the tax! Carry mooching to its logical conclusion and you end up where Greece is now.
What Elizabeth Warren is expressing, then, is the moocher's credo, updated to fit contemporary America. In the 1930s, liberals argued that government could run businesses better than private companies. They didn't need to make a profit and could eliminate "greed." They would install college-educated engineers and professionals to replace the ignorant plutocrats and cowboy capitalists that ran corporate America. Now liberals are content to regulate business instead of owning it. They have become parasites instead of carnivores. And so the rallying cry has become: "You couldn't do it without us! Where's our fair share?"
The enemy of all this is individuality -- individual enterprise, individual responsibility, individual initiative, and individual creativity. There is nothing more difficult in the contemporary world than starting your own business -- having the courage to risk your savings and years of work effort and defying some traditional way of doing things by saying, "I'll bet I can do this differently, and better."
It is hard to imagine America without this.

The “Christianist” Nightmare: It’s Just A Bad Dream | Via Meadia

The “Christianist” Nightmare: It’s Just A Bad Dream | Via Meadia

About that booing at the debate...

http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com/2011/09/truth-about-booing-at-debate.html

The standard seem to be that any person at a large event is responsible for everything anyone in the crowd says or does.  I wonder how even-handely this standard will be applied....

--

The Wheel of the Year: Now available on Amazon Kindle

The Official Manual for Spice Cadets: Now available on Amazon Kindle

More on Warren

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/128434/

Yup.

Also this:

Group of friends of Stanford football post on a board called thebootleg.com On the current events board, we have debated the Warren comments. here was my response:



“You built a factory out there? Good for you,” “Built a factory” is a summary for a lot of work. Put up equity, designed a business, took risk to buy land, get permits, pay property taxes and use taxes and permit fees. Then, bought a bunch of equipment and had it installed …and paid sales taxes. Hired some employees and paid them a bunch of money and paid payroll taxes on top of that. Bought a bunch of raw materials from companies that paid a bunch of salaries and a bunch of taxes. Building a factory is a huge private investment that pays the public a lot of taxes for the right to be built.



“But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.” Between fuel taxes, license fees, tolls and various taxes on transportation related activities, the roads budget is smaller than the total tax take.



you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; No, you did not educate them. You babysat them for 12 years. Then I hired them, taught them how to be responsible and show up for work, taught them how to communicate in clear sentences, taught them that there are rights and wrongs and (unlike with your schools) wrongs have consequences in the workplace. Then paid for extended education for my employees so they could continue to improve themselves and better add value to what we do around here.



“You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” Funny, my factory has 24/7 security guards because the last time it was broken into, the police did not even bother to take a report, they just said “call your insurance company”. As for fire? The closest fire department is 10 miles away. My insurance company requires that I have a full wet sprinkler system to qualify for insurance because there is no local fire protection.



“You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.” Well, that is not exactly true. When the AFL-CIO tried to unionize my workforce, they staged three days of noisy protests outside my factory. The police forces just stood around and watched as the protesters intimidated my workers, vandalized their cars and destroyed my property.



You say “we” like the government and society are the same. They aren’t. My company and my community and you politicians are not “we”.

Warren on prosperity and taxes

Elizabeth Warren's Non-Sequitur

If you spend any time on a social network, you're bound to come across this video of Elizabeth Warren, who's running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. In her remarks she says:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Just goes to show, you can start with a valid premise and end up with an invalid conclusion.

As Rush Limbaugh once proposed, it's time to Tax The Poor. 

The rich may benefit from public services, but they can afford to buy their own services.  The poor benefit much more directly, and in much greater proportion, than the rich do.  Let them pay a proportionate share of the upkeep.

The Texas Miracle Is No Myth - John R. Lott Jr. - National Review Online

The Texas Miracle Is No Myth - John R. Lott Jr. - National Review Online
A look at some of the underlying numbers, and why "high poverty rate" is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

The Texas Story Is Real

Unless declared integer.

 The Texas Story Is Real | Newgeography.com

Actually, lots of charts.

Texas Governor Rick Perry entered the Republican presidential nomination race bragging about the job creation record of Texas during his term as his primary pitch to a nation starved for jobs. This triggered a flurry of debate on whether or not Texas is really all Perry claims for it. But while there is certainly nuance in numbers, and Texas doesn't win on every single measure, on the whole it seems indisputable that Texas did very, very well during the 2000s.

Tim Groseclose - Ricochet.com

Tim Groseclose - Ricochet.com

Saddam: What We Now Know - Jim Lacey - National Review Online

Saddam: What We Now Know - Jim Lacey - National Review Online

9/11 and the Successful War

9/11 and the Successful War | STRATFOR

The United States has done as well as can be expected. Over the coming years there will be other terrorist attacks. As it wages war in response, the United States will be condemned for violating international laws that are insensate to reality. At this point, for all its mistakes and errors — common to all wars — the United States has achieved its primary mission. There have been no more concerted terrorist attacks against the United States. Now it is time to resume history.

Burning Man: The Ultimate Celebration of Capitalism

» Burning Man: The Ultimate Celebration of Capitalism - Big Government

I suggested that my Marxist friend might have things exactly backwards. I proposed that there is no such thing as “excess” in a capitalist system; what he had identified was actually “surplus.” And it is the very concept of surplus that enables events like Burning Man. Around the country, Burners are productive enough fifty-one weeks a year to spend the fifty-second “gifting” the bounty that they have accumulated. No one leaves for Burning Man, I noted, wondering whether the gifts they are distributing would render them incapable of affording food or rent upon their return. Furthermore, I suggested that the manner in which Burning Man motivated artists to conceptualize grand installations, trained numerous organizers in logistics, and promoted the professional development of event planners, DJs, and lighting specialists throughout the year, was precisely the capitalist system in action.

My Marxist friend hung his head. It seems that at no point in his academic career had anyone ever suggested that capitalism did any of these things. But to my surprise, my survey of the crowd—heavier in sex educators, radical lesbians, aficionados of fine pharmaceuticals, and spiritual healers than academics—revealed a fair amount of head nodding. While they may not have characterized it as such, they all seemed to possess an inherent understanding of the importance of motivation and surplus.

How Bias Works

How Bias Works: Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Tim Groseclose is spending the week guest-blogging his new book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.  In one of the posts he recounts his experience with a distorted LA Times article which made it seem as if the underrepresentation of blacks at UCLA after the passage of Prop 209 was much more dramatic than it actually was.  Groseclose attributes this to liberal media bias; some of his critics in the comment attribute it to the time pressures of reporting.  As it happens, I think they're both right.

While it's undoubtedly true that some reporters consciously repress facts which threaten their ideological priors, I don't think that's really the issue in most cases.  What bias does--in science, in media, in any situation where information is gathered--is affect what questions you ask.

Of course, I don't know that the author of that article thinks affirmative action is swell, and Proposition 209 was a bad idea, one gets the strong feeling from the article that this is indeed the case.  What I'm fairly sure of is that she wasn't a supporter of Proposition 209.  Because if she had been, she would have looked harder for evidence that things might not be all that dire.  She would have discovered, for example, that the number of black transfer students had actually risen, so that the total number of blacks enrolled at UCLA was about the same (up by 2 students, in fact).

I don't know that this is the "right" way to tell the story, or that these are the most important omissions.  But Groseclose is almost certainly right that her ideological priors greatly influenced what facts she found, and the stories she told.  And at least as presented by Grosclose, that that story did, in fact, objectively overstate the extent of the problem.

I think that she did not report those facts because she didn't know they existed.  Unless you know a whole hell of a lot about the California public college system, there was no particular reason to wonder whether almost half of UCLA undergraduates are transfers rather than incoming freshman, or whether the NCAA had changed its rules about academic standards  for athletes in a way that reduced the number of African American athletes could admit.  The thing is, someone who supported Proposition 209 would have gone looking to see if there was a deeper story here, rather than looking at the obvious superficial metrics.

Before I was a journalist, I used to wonder why journalists were suppressing obvious important facts; after I became a journalist, I realized that it's often incredibly hard to know that there's a fact you're missing.  I seem to recall a scathing editorial about mortgage financing in maybe 2005, in which the outraged writer pointed out that banks were booking the asset value of the loans as if they were going to realize 100% of the payments . . . even though some of those loans would go bad!  Fraud!  Malfeasance!

. . . er, accounting.  Anyone who knows anything about accounting knows that what the writer was saying is absolutely true . . . and that if you look on the other side of the balance statement, you find that they have booked a corresponding allowance for bad debts.  You can argue that in 2005, those allowances weren't big enough--hell, I think at this point, it's not an argument, but a fact.  Nonetheless, the opinion column was ludicrously wrong.

And yet, understandably wrong.  I'm sure that the writer had been fed the story by a consumer activist (I can probably name the group).  He looked at the financial statements, and the numbers checked out.  He'd never heard of such a thing as an allowance for bad debts, so how was he to know it was there?

Bias matters not because liberals deliberately slant their stories, but because they are much more likely to interrogate the facts that contradict their ideological beliefs, than the ones that support them.  When they come across an uncomfortable fact, they'll go out of their way to figure out why it isn't really true.  When they come across a fact that confirms what they believe, they'll be more likely to accept it at face value.

I'm not claiming that liberals do this more than conservatives (I think that being human, they're equally prone to this phenomenon)--only that in the media, liberal bias is mostly what matters, because the media is overwhelmingly somewhere to the left of the American center.  Even if you have a conservative reporter prone to insufficient interrogation of convenient facts, those same facts are going to set off alarm bells with his editors, who are quite likely to question the whole story.

This is why I think liberal media bias is worrisome--not because it's a vast conspiracy, but because it creates a giant store of pseudofacts that "everyone knows", like all those ludicrous statistics about abortion and domestic violence that used to appear everywhere.  And new pseudofacts are being created, or resurrected, all the time.  Longtime readers of the blog have endured my jeremiads against Republicans who say that cutting tax rates raises revenue.  A few weeks ago I was flabbergasted to find out that a very smart left-of-center blogger I admire seemed to think it was common knowledge that there's really no evidence that tax cuts provide stimulus . . . a belief that I then find out seems to be common among some of the left commentariat.  This is not at all what any mainstream economist I'm aware of believes (the debate is over the relative size of secondary and tertiary effects of various kinds of stimulus, not whether tax cuts are stimulative at all.)  But somehow this belief had become common . . . presumably because in the milieu where it was transmitted, no one was disposed to question something that fit so neatly with what they already believed.  Add in a few hundred repeitions from people you like, and voila, "Everyone knows . . . "

This is not a problem that can be overcome by us all resolving to be better, which--along with denial--is the usual response to conservative complaints about the media's skew.  Journalistic ethics, a committment to truth, and so forth, are supposed to compensate for the fact that yes indeed, 95% of my peers vote Democratic in almost every national election.  

But intention is no substitute for that fiery, almost angry "that can't be right" reaction which drives us to dredge for more information--you'll quickly get a pretty sophisticated rebuttal of Laffer Curve nonsense from a run of the mill liberal blogger, and I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't have taken an ordinary conservative blogger more than half an hour to learn enough Keynesian economics to be able to explain why the same model that shows that deficit spending stimulates the economy, also shows stimulative effects from deficit-financed tax cuts.  

But we don't investigate things that everyone knows--reporters do not start off each new story by checking if gravity is still in operation.  The more things that everyone knows, the more unnoticed holes there will be in stories.  And there is no one without blind spots--the best you can achieve is getting together a bunch of conscientious people who all have different blind spots.

For all the laments over partisan media, there are actually ways in which it is a check on this sort of blindness.  Of course there's no guarantee that at any moment, the partisans raising questions will be right--and often they aren't.  So of course they're reviled by people who are sick of contesting, over and over, questions that, um, everyone knows the answer to.

But the process itself is healthy--yea, even though it frequently produces its own misinformation.  A while back, a friend of mine asked what he called an "epistemological question" about the journalism of the financial crisis.  A lot of things, he pointed out, are reported only once, and then they become the basis of other reporters' stories. How, he asked, do we prevent wrong "facts" from entering into the data stream and corrupting our understanding of what happened?

I had two answers, neither of them perfectly satisfactory. The first is that journalists are competitive, and overturning, say, Andrew Ross Sorkin's account of an important meeting is a pretty major journalistic coup.  But the second is that this is actually what ideological journalism is good for: when facts appear that contradict peoples' world views, partisans frequently go out and exhaustively investigate those facts to see if they can be in any way mitigated or disproven.

Both of these things have ugly side effects, of course.  But in the end, I think that both of them provide the only check we have against the tyranny of the things we all know that ain't so.

What Darwin Said About God

Articles: What Darwin Said About God

Darwin did mention a Creator and God in the last edition of The Origin of Species. But he did not say that God created life or specifically created man. Those who oppose Darwin do not want to allow for the possibility that Darwin brought a Creator (with a capital C) into the picture. But he clearly did.



Perhaps Darwin was being more liberal in allowing others to choose to believe in God or not. Perhaps he had more respect for believers and atheists than they have for him. As a scientist, he felt that a priority should be placed on describing the changes to life we see in the natural world as proceeding along natural "law" which, in his time, was the a topic for the investigations of the naturalist. For example, Newton describes the "laws" of motion. Darwin sought to find those laws in the early forms of life.



In the final view, Darwin's work is like a Rorschach inkblot test: people will see what they want to see, what is consistent with their beliefs. However, as readers of his work we must factually report what he actually said, not what we want to believe he said. Critics of Darwin's work are then attacking him for not believing the same thing they believe, rather than for what he actually wrote.

Symposium on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog

Announcing symposium on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog

In our third symposium of the summer, guest bloggers will examine the future of the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 at the Court.

Marriage equality state by state

William Eskridge, Professor of Law at Yale, explains why the Court should tread lightly if it considers the merits of a constitutional right to same sex marriage.

William Eskridge is the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence at the Yale Law School. He is the author of The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996), and dozens of other books and articles arguing for the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities.

Marriage equality: religious freedom, federalism, and judicial activism

Robert Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, refutes thematic objections commonly made against same-sex marriage.

Bob Levy is chairman of the board at the Cato Institute and a board member at the Institute for Justice, Federalist Society, and George Mason law school. Bob received his Ph.D. from American University and JD from George Mason. His latest book is The Dirty Dozen: How 12 Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.

What’s rational about rational basis review?

Ruthann Robson, Professor of Law at the City University of New York, discusses the legitimate interests at stake in cases involving DOMA or Proposition 8.

Why timing is crucial in the ongoing same-sex marriage cases

Rutgers law professor Carlos Ball argues that it would be better for marriage equality supporters if the Supreme Court hears a DOMA case before it considers Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The following is an essay for our same-sex marriage symposium by Carlos A. Ball, professor at the Rutgers University School of Law (Newark). Professor Ball is the author of The Right to be Parents: LGBT Families and the Transformation of Parenthood (NYU Press), which will be published early next year. He is also the author of From the Closet to the Courtroom: Five LGBT Lawsuits That Have Changed Our Nation (Beacon).

Same-sex marriage: The tortuous road to the Supreme Court

The Marriage Law Foundation’s William Duncan describes obstacles to U.S. Supreme Court review of the constitutional claim for same-sex marriage and explores the implications of the way these cases seem likely to be presented to the Court.

William Duncan is the director of the Marriage Law Foundation. He has represented amici in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Commonwealth v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, two federal constitutional challenges to laws defining marriage as the union of a husband and wife.

The true marriage divide

Bob Barr, former Congressman and DOMA author argues that individuals should not need the government’s permission to marry.

The following contribution to our same-sex marriage symposium is written by Bob Barr. Bob represented Georgia’s 7th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003. He blogs at The Barr Code.

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em

Brian Raum, Senior Counsel and head of marriage litigation at the Alliance Defense Fund, argues that the litigation strategy of those supporting same-sex marriage should pay heed to the narrow scope of the Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

Brian W. Raum is senior counsel and head of marriage litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund and is a member of the ProtectMarriage.com legal team defending the California marriage amendment in the federal lawsuit Perry v. Brown.

Perry as Politics

Dale Carpenter, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, considers the political costs of litigating same-sex marriage state by state, starting with California’s Proposition 8.

Dale Carpenter teaches constitutional law, the First Amendment, and sexual orientation and the law at the University of Minnesota Law School. He is a contributor to the blog, the Volokh Conspiracy.

Why the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA

Northwestern Law School’s Andrew Koppelman argues that the Supreme Court will probably declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Andrew Koppelman is John Paul Stevens Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University. He has written many books and articles, including Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale U. Press 2006).

The time for marriage equality has finally arrived

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Professor of Law at University of California, Irvine, predicts a narrow same-sex victory at the Court.

Erwin Chemerinsky is Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law. Previously, Dean Chemerinsky was a professor at Duke Law School, University of Southern California Law School, and DePaul College of Law. He is the author of seven books and over 100 law review articles. Frequently, Dean Chemerinsky argues appellate cases, including in the United States Supreme Court.

States’ rites? Federalism and marriage litigation

The Supreme Court is a legal institution, and it is generally to state laws that the Court says it looks when it is adjudicating fundamental rights, not to Gallup polls.

David B. Cruz is a Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. David teaches and writes on constitutional law and sex, gender, and sexual orientation law. He is also a General Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and a co-President of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, and Intersex Law Association (ILGLaw), and he blogs at cruzlines.org. The views expressed in this post are solely his.

Balancing marriage equality with other social goods

Robin Wilson, Professor of Law at Washington and Lee, argues that a decision from the Court should take care to accommodate individual states’ legislation.

Robin Fretwell Wilson is the Class of 1958 Law Alumni Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University School of Law and a co-editor of Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., & Robin Fretwell Wilson, eds., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008)

Why the Court can strike down marriage restrictions under rational-basis review

NYU Law School’s Kenji Yoshino argues that the Court can apply the more stringent form of “rational-basis” review to restrictions on same-sex marriage.

Kenji Yoshino is the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law. He has written many books and articles, including Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights (Random House 2006).

The right to marry, and the right to remain married

Steve Sanders, visiting assistant professor at University of Michigan Law School, reminds us that if the Supreme Court agrees to decide the question of same-sex marriage, it will also affect the lives of many couples who are already married.

Steve Sanders teaches Constitutional Litigation, Sexuality and the Law, and Family Law at the University of Michigan Law School. He formerly practiced as a member of the Supreme Court and appellate group at Mayer Brown LLP, and represented twenty-three law and history professors as amici in Varnum v. Brien, which legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa.

The constitutionality of traditional marriage

John Eastman, professor of Law at Chapman University, questions whether the Court should hear a marriage equality case.

John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University School of Law in Orange County, California. He is the founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, on whose behalf he has participated in the Proposition 8 litigation.

Marriage equality: protect or promote?

Robert Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, responds to Brian Raum as part of our same-sex marriage symposium.

Bob Levy is chairman of the board at the Cato Institute and a board member at the Institute for Justice, Federalist Society, and George Mason law school. Bob received his Ph.D. from American University and JD from George Mason. His latest book is The Dirty Dozen: How 12 Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.

Marriage does not consist of straw men

Brian Raum, head of marriage litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund, replies to Robert Levy as part of our same-sex marriage symposium.

Brian W. Raum is senior counsel and head of marriage litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org) and is a member of the ProtectMarriage.com legal team defending the California marriage amendment in the federal lawsuit Perry v. Brown.

The courts, the political process, and DOMA

Harvard law professor and former Solicitor General Charles Fried argues that although a legislative solution would be ideal, a narrow ruling invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act is preferable to a broad ruling in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Educated at Princeton, Oxford and Columbia Law School, Professor Fried is the Beneficial Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he has taught since 1961. He was Solicitor General of the United States, 1985-89, and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1995-99. His scholarly and teaching interests have been moved by the connection between normative theory and the concrete institutions of public and private law. As a private lawyer he has argued appeals in many courts, including the Daubert case in the Supreme Court and the case deciding whether the attack on the Twin Towers was one occurrence or two.

Marriage equality: A question of equality rather than liberty

Deborah Hellman, Professor of Law at the University of Maryland and Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, responds to recent posts in our symposium by both Erwin Chemerinsky and William Eskridge. She argues that the Court should not use the Due Process Clause in ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 but that the Court should instead prefer equal protection analysis for reasons of principle rather than reasons of policy.

Deborah Hellman is Professor of Law, and the Jacob France Research Professor, at the University of Maryland. She is the author of When Is Discrimination Wrong? (Harvard Univ. Press) and several articles on discrimination and equal protection. She is currently a Visiting Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

The constitutional inevitability of same-sex marriage

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe argues that based on precedent, the Court will ultimately have to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School, where he has taught constitutional law since 1968. A widely admired advocate as well as a distinguished academic and the author of 115 books and articles, Tribe has prevailed in most of the many appellate cases he has argued, including 35 in the Supreme Court. His treatise, “American Constitutional Law,” is the standard work on the subject, and Chief Justice Aharon Barak of Israel called his latest book, “The Invisible Constitution,” a “masterpiece.” Recipient of ten honorary degrees, Tribe was recently elected to the American Philosophical Society and served in 2010 as the Obama administration’s first Senior Counselor for Access to Justice

Collusion in the marriage cases?

Northwestern University’s Andrew Koppelman responds to posts from William Duncan and John Eastman for our same-sex marriage symposium.

Andrew Koppelman is the John Paul Stevens Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University. He has written many books and articles, including Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale U. Press 2006).

Balancing away marriage equality

University of Maryland School of Law professor Jana Singer responds to Robin Wilson as part of our same-sex marriage symposium.

Jana Singer is a Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law. Professor Singer teaches Family Law, Constitutional Law and Contracts. She has written widely on family and children’s issues and is the co-editor of Resolving Family Conflicts (Ashgate, 2008).

A winner-takes-all approach to state same-sex marriage laws is self-defeating

Washington and Lee University School of Law’s Robin Fretwell Wilson responds to Jana Singer for our same-sex marriage symposium.

Robin Fretwell Wilson is the Class of 1958 Law Alumni Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University School of Law and a co-editor of Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., & Robin Fretwell Wilson, eds., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008)

Reflections on a dialogue: Getting to marriage equality

Written by the University of California, Irvine’s Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, this is the final post in our online symposium on same-sex marriage. The whole symposium is available here.

Erwin Chemerinsky is Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law. Previously, Dean Chemerinsky was a professor at Duke Law School, University of Southern California Law School, and DePaul College of Law. He is the author of seven books and over 100 law review articles. Frequently, Dean Chemerinsky argues appellate cases, including in the United States Supreme Court.

Tim Groseclose at The Volokh Conspiracy

The Volokh Conspiracy hosted Tim Groseclose as a guest blogger. Prof. Groseclose discussed his book
Prof. Timothy Groseclose (UCLA Political Science) Guest-Blogging

I’m delighted to report that Prof. Timothy Groseclose of UCLA’s Political Science Department will be guest-blogging this week about his new book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. The topic (captured well in the title) will surely be controversial, but Prof. Groseclose is an experienced and sophisticated political science scholar; and though the book is written for the general public and not an academic audience, it reflects his expertise.

My New Book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind

This week, thanks to the invitation of my friend and colleague Eugene Volokh, I will guest-blog about my book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. I am extremely honored and grateful for the opportunity.

An Unplanned Response to Comments about my book, Left Turn
Trying to Understand the Methodology of “Left Turn”
My Reply to Orin Kerr
Methodologies
Why Do Politicians Cite Think Tanks?: A Reply to Groseclose

If I’m right about these differences, then comparing journalist-citations and politician-citations seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Of course, I would imagine the two correlate somewhat. It’s easy to see why. If a journalist has very liberal views, they will probably see the range of reasonable opinion as tilting to the left; and if a politician is very liberal, they will probably only find liberal think tanks to support their views. So a correlation makes sense. But as I understand it, the paper is not assuming that the two correlate. Rather, the paper assumes that the two measure exactly the same thing, and then seeks to show that that the media is biased because journalist-citations don’t exactly match the citation practices of a centrist politician. That seems like a weak assumption given the very different reasons journalists and politicians cite think tanks.

Case Study of an L.A. Times Article
Case Study of an L.A. Times Article

As I explain, the bias in the article came not from any false statements that the author wrote but from true statements that she omitted.

My Response to Prof. Kerr’s Reply to My Response
An Update on My UCLA-Admissions Controversy
Orin Kerr responds with Assumptions Built into the Proof of Media Bias

“Corporate Media” Theory
This is the theory that media outlets are corporations, corporations are conservative, and therefore there is no liberal media bias.
Well, media bosses aren't all that conservative, and even if they were...

Suppose you were the journalist’s corporate boss. And suppose you had complete control over what she wrote. Even if that were true, how would you know the facts that she failed to report? And if you didn’t know those facts, how could you force her to report them?

My Last Post as a Guest Blogger: Thanks and Adieu

I can announce today that as of next Monday (Sept. 5) I will become one of the official bloggers for Ricochet.com.

Can Rick Perry Survive the Smear Merchants?

Articles: Can Rick Perry Survive the Smear Merchants?

The Obama Administration's Lone Star Mistake — The American Magazine

Opponents of Governor Perry are taking pot shots at Texas's schools.
How bad are they?
Not very.
The Obama Administration's Lone Star Mistake — The American Magazine

...Texas does a lot better than Duncan gave it credit for. In eighth grade math Texas is at the 88th percentile, meaning it beats almost nine out of ten states. Overall, Texas is at the 71st percentile, which isn’t shabby at all.

....

....while Texas’s test scores are in the 71st percentile nationwide, its per pupil spending is in the 26th percentile—meaning that it performs better than roughly three-quarters of states while spending less than roughly three-quarters of states. Put another way, Texas’s education system generates scores that the average state would spend an extra $6,350 per pupil to produce.

....

....Finally, let’s look at high school graduation rates. After all, Duncan said that “Far too few of [Texas] high school graduates are actually prepared to go on to college,” for which I presume that graduating high school is one important prerequisite. Across all racial groups, Texas graduates a greater percentage of its high school freshmen than the U.S. average. In one case, Asians, Texas’s graduation rate is well above average—99 percent versus 91 percent nationally. And in the case of Native Americans, Texas’s graduation rate is massively higher—85 percent versus only 61 percent nationwide.

William Happer: The Dubious Science Of The Climate Crusaders

William Happer: The Dubious Science Of The Climate Crusaders

Wallis Simpson, the woman for whom King Edward VIII renounced the British throne, supposedly said, “A woman can’t be too rich or too thin.” But in reality, you can get too much or too little of a good thing. Whether we should be glad or worried about increasing levels of CO2 depends on quantitative numbers, not just qualitative considerations.

We would be perfectly healthy in a world with little or no atmospheric CO2—except that we would have nothing to eat and a few other minor inconveniences, because most plants stop growing if the levels drop much below 150 ppm. If we want to continue to be fed and clothed by the products of green plants, we can have too little CO2.The minimum acceptable value for plants is not that much below the 270 ppm preindustrial value. It is possible that this is not enough, that we are better off with our current level, and would be better off with more still. There is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.

In our efforts to conserve the created world, we should not concentrate our efforts on CO2. We should instead focus on issues like damage to local landscapes and waterways by strip mining, inadequate cleanup, hazards to miners, and the release of real pollutants and poisons like mercury, other heavy metals, and organic carcinogens. Much of the potential harm from coal mining can be eliminated, for example, by requirements that land be restored to a condition that is at least as good as, and preferably better than, when the mining began.

Shocker. MSNBC Dishonestly Edits Video to Make Rick Perry Look Racist (Video)

Shocker. MSNBC Dishonestly Edits Video to Make Rick Perry Look Racist (Video):
Disgusting. MSNBC host Ed Schultz used a deceptive edit to distort the content of Gov. Rick Perry’s speech in Iowa yesterday. Schultz claimed that Gov. Perry was calling President Obama a “black cloud hanging over America.” However, the truth was that Perry was talking about the national debt… not Obama.
Breitbart TV reported:

NewsBusters added this on Ed Schultz, “The host edited Rick Perry – in mid-sentence, mind you! – to falsely accuse the Texas governor of making a racist remark.”

Thinking in harmony with Dennis Prager

Thinking in harmony with Dennis Prager:

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the Ten Commandments.  Today, Dennis Prager published a long, deeply analytical, intelligent article about the Ten Commandments.  He’s right.  I’m right.  They are the Big Rules for a functioning society, and that is true whether you believe in God or not.  (That’s true even for the first rule, about believing in a God, because as a facebook commenter wrote, the big rule prevents us from our “God” being the face we see in the mirror, which is always a dangerous mindset.)

Palin criticism for grownups

Palin criticism for grownups: "

It seems that whenever I fault the news media for going overboard about Sarah Palin, any Palin-hater within earshot will rebuke me for demanding that people refrain from criticizing the accomplished Alaska reformer.  They contend I wish to silence Palin critics. Heck, I don’t even seek to silence the rabid Palin-obsessives, just lament that those who criticize the charismatic conservative celebrity (more often than not) exaggerate her flaws, if not make up (or truncate) comments she has made or views she holds, all while refusing to acknowledge Sarah Palin’s strengths as an individual and her record as an office-holder.

Why can’t some people just express their disagreement with Mrs. Palin in a civil tone — and take the time to familiarize himself with her actual arguments?  Those who question her competence to hold office should at least consider her actual record in office.  But, some in the news media would rather ask gotcha questions than inquire into that record.

Despite the ignorance of many Palin critics of what that Republican woman actually did in Alaska, she was an accomplished reformer who had worked with Republicans and Democrats alike while governor of the Last Frontier.  Before questioning Palin’s qualifications to lead, Ann Althouse did just that when commenting on a movie based on the Alaskan’s accomplishments:

The material — which impresses some people, even to the point of getting confused into thinking that the movie is good — shows Sarah Palin’s rise to power in Alaska and her excellent achievements and immense popularity as governor. The problem is that all of this happened in the context of boldly and bravely challenging the corrupt Republican establishment. This made her very popular with Democrats in Alaska. She worked in a bipartisan way, mainly to extract money from oil and gas resources in Alaska, and that was popular with everyone, pushing her ratings above 80% in Alaska. She was raking in money for Alaskans and challenging the big corporations (and their inside dealings).

Althouse stresses that “Governor Palin’s greatness came through working with Democrats”, but wonders how a President Palin would “work with congressional Republicans? It can’t happen now. What made her great in Alaska is now lost. It was lost in Alaska, after the ’08 election, which is why — the movie shows this — she had to resign as governor.”

The woman who, in Alaska, bridged the partisan divide has, on the national stage, become a partisan cheerleader.

That, in a nutshell, is Althouse’s point.  But, let’s also look at how that blogress makes it.  First, she acknowledges Palin’s accomplishments in Juneau, then explains why she believes Palin can no longer make similar accomplishments in Washington.  She doesn’t attack Mrs. Palin nor even label her.  She just looks honestly and her record in office and her current status in American politics.

Would it that more Palin critics could do the same.

"

How Media Bias Is Revealed and What to Do About It

The problem with this is, journalists don't care to do anything about it. They don't perceive any bias. Everything they write lines up perfectly with their worldview, and with that of everyone around them, so it can't be biased.

How Media Bias Is Revealed and What to Do About It:
Newsweek magazine has brought the subject of media bias to the forefront with this week’s cover photo and headline.  It features a photo of Republican congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann with a crazed look behind the intentionally nasty headline, “Queen of Rage.” Even the most naïve reader could not believe the article would be anything close to an evenhanded look at who Ms. Bachmann is and what she stands for.
This might surprise some journalists, but readers/viewers are much smarter than most of them think they are. They can spot media bias a mile off even when members of the media think they are getting away with it. Here are seven transparent ways media bias is detected by readers/viewers and what journalists can do about it.
Context: A journalist might edit down a 25-word comment into five-words to make someone they don’t like look foolish.  What to do about it: Be honest and keep quotes and themes in context.
Facts: Recently MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow played a quote by radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh which she said was “made earlier this week.”  It wasn’t. It was made over a year earlier, and it is highly likely the host knew it when she played it. What to do about it: Report the facts even if they are not as you want them to be.
Freaks and fringers: Media bias is spotted immediately when a journalist seeks out the most ridiculous representation of a subject or group they are covering. It happened many times with the media coverage of the tea party rallies as well as the Wisconsin state legislature’s battle over union issues earlier this year. What to do about it: Get your information from serious representatives and not freaks and fringers.
Lead or bury: Your bias will be established by what you lead with and what you bury or fail to report. It’s not always about what you say but what you don’t say that reveals your bias. What to do about it: Tell the whole story, not just the part you want told.
Bogus spokesman: Just because someone says they are conservative or liberal does not make them so. The con usually comes from people who claim to be conservative when they are not. Meghan McCain and David Frum come to mind. What to do about it: Don’t be naïve and check credentials before assigning labels.
Headlines: Newsweek’s “Queen of Rage” headline is a glaring example of media bias but there are many, many more. The front page of The Washington Post on August 3, 2010 reads, “Va. Driver had Record of DUIs Before Fatal Crash.” The story was about a drunken illegal alien who killed a nun but the headline writer did not like the sound of that headline. What to do about it: Write honest headlines.
Photos: You can tell the bias of an editor by looking at the kinds of photos he/she selects. Newsweek’s choice of the stern Bachman photo displayed their bias. A pro-Obama editor will use a charming picture of him while an anti-Obama editor will use an unattractive photo. Once again, they may think the readers/viewers don’t know what’s happening but they do. What to do about it: Use photos that tell the true story.
Don’t think you can sneak your bias into a story unnoticed. Your readers/viewers are smarter than you think and may even be smarter than you. Treat them with honest news coverage and recognize their intelligence. They will reward you with their loyalty and read your stuff with confidence.
If you can’t do that, admit your bias up front. Your candor will be refreshing to your readers.

Economics for The Rest of Us

Economics for The Rest of Us

via Big Government by Lawrence Meyers on 8/8/11

I get tired constantly repeating myself to my fine friends who are on the Left side of the political spectrum when it comes to economic, fiscal, and business realities.  It's not their fault.  I used to be the same way.  However, following up on a good article about economics for dummies, I thought I'd add some basic concepts that everyone should understand — regardless of political beliefs.
This stuff isn't that hard to understand.  My old high school math teacher would just drill me over and over on something until I got it.
Risk, Reward, and Investment
A rich person makes all his income, more than $250,000 each year, from investment income only.
Investment involves taking a risk.  In exchange for that risk, an investor is rewarded.  The greater the risk, the greater the reward.

Imagine two cups.  Under one is a dollar.  You bet one dollar and choose one cup.   The odds of picking the right cup are 1-1.  If you are right, you win one dollar.
Imagine ten cups.  Under one cup is ten dollars.  You bet one dollar but choose only one cup.  The risk of choosing the right cup has gone up to 9-1 against you.   Don't you think you deserve a higher reward for choosing that one right cup?
If you don't think so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Investment works the same way.

The IRS charges a capital gains tax on investment income.  If Mr. Rich Person makes an investment, and sells it in less than one year, he gets taxed at the highest rate (35%).  If he holds it longer than a year, he is taxed 15%.  Why?  Because 1) holding an investment for a longer period of time is riskier than for a short period of time, and 2) the government wants to encourage people to invest for long periods of time in things that build the economy, instead of speculating on short-term profits.
If that lower tax rate were raised or eliminated for long-term investments, what do you think Mr. Rich would do?   Think about it for a moment.  What would you do?
Would you make the investment anyway?  Maybe, but the stock market would see even more volatility, since more people might speculate rather than invest, moving money in and out, buying and selling.  Volatility creates uncertainty.  Uncertainty encourages people to keep their money on the sidelines, where it does not contribute to the economy's growth.
Some investors would be less likely to sell their profitable investments and trigger the higher capital gain tax.  That keeps money in investments that grow the economy.  But then the government collects no taxes, so tax revenue would fall, creating a wider federal budget deficit.  Furthermore, never selling increases risk, and you may not be inclined to invest in the first place, keeping your money again on the sidelines.

Instead of investing, would you spend it instead?   No.  Why?  Remember, you make all your income from investments, and now you're not investing, so you have no income.  So instead, your money sits on the sidelines.
How Does Investment Help The Economy?
Suppose you have a great new company with a revolutionary portion-control product that will help people lose weight.  Somebody invests in you.  Now you can expand, so you will need to hire workers.  That creates jobs.  Who invests in the company?  Rich people.  Why?  To make money.  How much investor dollars could there possibly be in start-up, or what's known as "middle market", companies"?   The most recent statistic:  $2 TRILLION.   I should know.  I broker some of these deals.  Think how many jobs could be created with that money.
Suppose capital gains taxes increase.   A lot of that investment money vanishes. Why?  See above.
The same idea applies to stocks.  The more money invested in stocks sends stock prices higher.  A higher stock price means a company is worth more.  A more valuable company can borrow money against its value to expand and create jobs.
How to Spook Investors

The higher unemployment is, the fewer jobs people have.  Fewer jobs means people have less money to spend.  If people have less money to spend, they are going to stick to necessities.   Demand for treats like vacations, Tiffany's, and cars will fall.   When demand falls, companies make less money,  profits fall, and stock prices decline. Companies cut back, and workers are the first to go.  That starts a vicious cycle.  Now those people have less money to spend…and so on.
It gets worse.  Investors don't want to invest money in companies when profits are falling!  Would you invest money in a bowling alley if fewer people came to bowl?  Investors hoard their cash.  Now there's less investment, so new small companies can't find money to expand and hire. Some investors may even sell their investments to avoid these hard times, sending stock prices lower, and making it even harder to borrow money to hire people.
Why Government Spending Usually Fails

If rich folks won't invest, why can't government fill the gap?
Here's an idea!  The government gives big tax credits to solar manufacturing and installation companies for every worker that is hired for a period of 3 full years.  These people are trained to manufacture solar panels, and to install them on residences in areas of the U.S. that receive the highest number of sunny days each year.   The panels are offered at an affordable rate to homeowners, and even subsidized by the government.  Not only are thousands of jobs created, but the solar company makes a fortune, pays less taxes on them thanks to the credits, homeowners see energy savings, and we've reduced our dependence on foreign oil.
That would really be something.
And it could never happen.  Because government spending doesn't create many jobs, and the ones it does create cost more than just paying someone off the street a regular salary. Why?  Government spending wastes taxpayer money because politicians are self-serving.
By every single metric, stimulus money was wasted.   Visit www.stimuluswatch.org.   The "most expensive" items went to states for "government services" and "education funds".  What does that mean? Who got that money?  Where are the jobs? Why was this money just thrown to the states without any oversight whatsoever?

Were any jobs created?  From late 2009 through mid-2010, private sector employment increased 1%.  Government jobs increased 2.5%.  Those gains have since been lost.
How much money has been wasted?  The national debt went from $5.3 trillion on the day Bush took office to $10.6 trillion the day Obama came in — an increase of $5.3T.   As of July 31, the debt was $14.3 trillion — Obama has increased it 70% of the amount Bush did in 30% of the time.
How can anyone believe the idea that government spending creates jobs, given how much has been spent, and where unemployment and the economy are today?

Who Cares About The Debt?
A credit rating agency just downgraded the quality of US debt for the first time in history. Why? Because there is concern that the US must spend so much money just to pay interest on its debt, that there is just that much more concern about certain debts not getting paid.  The cost of borrowing (interest) for the US goes up because it is riskier to loan to us.
That's bad for you and me.  Why?  Investors will be that much more afraid about buying or holding U.S. bonds.  So they will sell those bonds.  When the price of a bond goes down, the interest rate goes up, because you must incentivize new investors to take on greater risk and earn those greater rewards.
When U.S. bond interest rates go up, all interest rates go up — mortgages, credit cards, car loans. etc.  Now it's harder for businesses to borrow money to hire people and expand.  It's harder for people to borrow money to buy a house (as if the banks weren't tight enough).
Why Not Raise Income Taxes on The Rich?

Okay, so I've lambasted all the spending.  Why not raise more revenue?
The answer lies in the discussion on investment above.  The more money you take away from the rich (or anyone else), the less money there is for investment.  Now if this money went directly into government spending that would unquestionably create jobs, you might even find some rich people agreeing to a tax hike!  But I've just shown that the government has been a very poor steward of our money.   Not to mention that some of that money has to be used to pay the interest on the debt!
What else happens if you raise taxes on the rich?  One study suggests they decrease their charitable contributions (unless you are a Democrat, in which case you give less than Republicans anyway.  And if you're Joe Biden, you barely give anything at all).
What about the argument that "the rich don't pay their fair share"?  Define "fair share". What is it?  How is it calculated?  Is it an absolute dollar amount or a percentage?   How  much more is "fair", exactly?  Enough to make things "fair"?  What does that mean?
You've heard this before: The top 1% pay 38% of federal income taxes, while the bottom 47% pay no income tax at all. So who isn't paying their fair share?  Seems to me that 47% of America is getting a free ride.  Why aren't they paying more?
About Loopholes
Do rich people use "loopholes" to avoid paying personal income taxes?
With few exceptions, I have prepared my own taxes each of the past twenty years.  I know the tax code better than some accountants.  In my high-income years, I always seek out a highly-regarded accountant who can help shelter income from taxes.  Every year I get the same answer: except for contributions to retirement plans, there isn't any way to do it.
I can put up to 20% of my income into a 401K ($49,000 maximum) and not pay taxes on that amount.  However, when I retire and withdraw that money, I will be taxed on it.  The government gets their take no matter what.
There are no "loopholes". If you know of any legal ones, PLEASE tell me.  I want to exploit them.
Conclusion

The economic disconnect between Liberals and Conservatives stem from two basic concepts.
First, America was never designed to be fair.  It was designed to be just.
Justice is resolving disparities based on what happened.  Fairness is resolving disparities based on why something happened.   Our justice system was created around the blind weighing of facts, not feelings.  Liberals insist on feelings and fairness.  Conservatives insist on facts and justice.
Second, you can have anything you want, you just can't have everything you want.
The shocking truth is that most Americans are bleeding-hearts.  We do care what happens to our fellow man.  However, not every single problem can be attacked, much less solved.  Government can attack some problems — ideally ones that bring help to many people.  Medicare, for example, is a good idea.  The elderly have contributed much to build our nation.  We should take care of them within reason.  Charity can help fill gaps on other problems.   However, we simply do not have the money to solve every single problem.
What the Constitution did was to create a republic where the government was supposed to be limited, given that America was breaking free from a tyrannical King.  The beauty of America is that if there is a problem that someone wants to solve really badly, nothing stops them from devoting their time, effort, and money to tackle it.  They themselves can have anything they want, if they want it badly enough.   They just can't have it all.

The Sleeping Giant Awakens

The Sleeping Giant Awakens

I tried my best to explain all of this to Gail; I pleaded with her to reconsider her automatic pilot vote for Obama. I pulled out all of the stops: I explained in painstaking detail what life was like in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco under the radicals. I told her about walking a gauntlet of paranoid, drug-addled derelicts on Telegraph Avenue, about the frequent attacks on tourists in San Francisco. I reminded her of my own mugging, and informed her that everyone out here has a similar story -- or knows someone who does.

And, I told her, the worst part of it is that no one seems to care -- that citizens have become so programmed in the dogma of white privilege that they offer themselves and their children up as sacrificial lambs. Like the hostages of Stockholm, Berkeley-ites defend their abusers, protecting them rather than guarding themselves.

And finally I explained that Obama was cut from the same radical cloth -- that he surrounds himself with the type of militants who hold Berkeley captive. And, I warned her, should Obama be elected, the antisocial behavior that is tolerated in Berkeley will become the new normal all across the country.

Gail listened politely, though ultimately she voted for Obama. While she listened, she didn't really understand. Of course, she didn't -- how would she?

This wasn't her world. When you live in a safe, sheltered reality, you have no idea what it's like for people in Berkeley or Oakland or Detroit. You can't grasp what it's like to hear story after story of horrendous crime; of what it's like to attend a meeting at work one day and hear gunfire outside, as I did; or how it feels to walk to a restaurant on a cloudless blue-sky day and find yourself lying prostrate minutes later, with nose broken and two black eyes.

....

Gail told me this week that her only child, Justin, was playing basketball in the well-manicured park down the street with his college-aged friends and his girlfriend. Suddenly they were surrounded by a group of black guys from somewhere else who began taunting them, invoking racist language.

Her son and his friends yelled at them to go away, but one young male lunged at Justin, punching him in the face. Justin fell and was knocked unconscious. The hoodlums then ran away; luckily, one of the kids got their license plate. I hope and pray that small-town USA takes unprovoked street violence more seriously than places like Berkeley.

Justin became conscious again after a few minutes, but he sustained a deep gash that required several stitches. Any head injury is potentially serious. But perhaps even more worrisome than his physical wounds are the emotional ones sustained by Justin and his friends.

These are good kids, well-raised, polite, and tolerant. They have held no malice towards anyone based on the color of skin.

But will racial hate now be planted in their hearts? Will it corrupt their trusting souls? Of course, everything that is happening right now, whether in New Jersey or Wisconsin, is purposeful.

The radicals want to promote anarchy. But it's more than this: they want the hate that blackens their souls to warp others as well.

My dear friend, Gail, was in tears, shell-shocked, incredulous. She kept repeating over and over again, "How could this happen? How could this happen?" She struggled to find the words for such barbarism; she had not a clue of how it could invade her insular world.

I spoke to Gail tenderly, as though I were calming down a frightened child stirring from a deep sleep.

"I'm so sorry, sweetie. This is horrible. Justin didn't deserve to be treated this way, and his friends didn't need to see such brutality.

"But, Gail, it's not just happening in your small town, but it's happening all over the country, and it's getting worse every day. There have been random mob violence against white people in Iowa, Chicago, Atlanta, in Wisconsin, where dozens of white people were beaten up, even pulled out of their own cars."

"But why?" Gail asked me plaintively. "Why is this happening now?"

"It's Obama," I explained. "It's what I told you a few years ago. This is what happens when you put someone in power like Obama. Something spreads, like a virus. It's subtle; it's almost invisible. But it poisons one person, and then another and another, until soon the whole country is corrupted.

"It's a sickness called hatred, Gail. Most black people are good, law-abiding, moral people. Obama comes from a far-left fringe group of militants who hate America and want to drag us down. Those same people have degraded and exploited poor black kids for years. These radicals use them as their foot soldiers. Obama would never get his own hands dirty.

"I know these militants, Gail; I live among them. They hate America; they want to devolve us back into some primitive brute state. This is why things are getting worse and worse in this country: the economy, the Middle East, and hate crimes against whites."

After I finished, Gail was quiet for several seconds. Then she said, sounding heartbroken, "But he made so many promises. He seemed so nice."

"Yes, that's true, sweetie," I answered. "But people aren't always as they seem."

Three years ago, I sounded the clarion call to my friend Gail to wake up and discern the person behind Obama's carefully crafted mask. I tried to make her see what would happen to this country if the radical left seized power.

Back then, she didn't understand what I was saying; she simply couldn't.

She is starting to understand now.

On Marcus Bachmann and “conversion therapy”

On Marcus Bachmann and “conversion therapy”: "

Before I post on the accusations leveled against the “Christian counseling business” of Michelle Bachmann’s husband Marcus, an outfit that (allegedly) uses “a controversial therapy that encourages homosexual patients to change their sexual orientation,” let me reiterate my views on such outfits.

First, Christian groups have every right to set up such companies, provided they do not coerce anyone to enter treatment.

Second, critics of such outfits continue to have the freedom to question the methods of said companies and should continue to exercise that freedom.

While many programs do claim some success in “converting” their charges, they are dealing with a self-selected group; those who have “succeeded” in changing their orientation may have already been disposed to such change, that is, their sexuality is more fluid that it is for most of us.  Whereas in their youth, they found themselves drawn to their own sex, as they age, they find themselves drawn to the other sex.

Could it be that they didn’t so much convert them as they helped them accept the change that has already taken place?

The only objective studies I have read of such programs show they have a “success” rate (as defined by them) no greater than 33% (and even that number is likely inflated).  And that, let me stress, is not 33% of all gay people, but 33% of those who seek counseling in such facilities. Some who seek out such treatment may feel uncomfortable describing themselves as “gay” because the label which once worked for them no longer does so, that is, their feelings have changed.

All that said, that doesn’t diminish my skepticism of the “ex-gay” movement.  Those who parade about telling about how they were “saved” from their homosexuality seem to be trying not so much to convince the world about the merits of their ministry, but to convince themselves of the effectiveness of its therapy.

If it had been so effective, why would they need to talk about it so much?

RELATED: Alexander’s Erotic Impulses & Human Sexuality"

“Reparative Therapy” & the Fluidity of (Some People’s) Sexuality

“Reparative Therapy” & the Fluidity of (Some People’s) Sexuality: "
In a thoughtful critique/commentary of my post on On Marcus Bachmann and “conversion therapy”*, Jim Burroway explores those programs’ supposed one-third success rate.  Let me stress that in my post, I provided multiple caveats because I believe it to be inflated.
While I don’t agree with everything Burroway says in that post, I do recommend it as he raises a number of important issues.
In his first paragraph, he writes that I “didn’t exactly defend ex-gay therapy per se”.**  I trust he recognizes that my expression about the right of Christian groups to set up such programs stems from my basic libertarian principles, the rights of individuals to establish their own organizations and associate with whom they please.
That said, as per my previous post, I remain dubious about the effectiveness of these programs.  I believe it is an open question whether their “therapy” is even effective in the handful of successful “conversions.”  Were they successful in changing these individuals sexuality or would that change have occurred organically, that is, without their intervention?
Given the complexity of human sexuality, I lean toward the latter view, that some people have a more “fluid” sexuality than others.  And these individuals seek out such programs because they feel that while the word “gay” once described their emotional/sexual longings, it no longer works to describe their changing emotions.
*I should perhaps have used the term “reparative therapy” in quotes.
**In a subsequent post, I will address his point about coercion.
FROM THE COMMENTS:  rusty offers an observation well worth considering:

Frankly, I find that a gay person’s degree of self-loathing and personal insecurity is directly related to their vehemence against reparative therapy. It’s almost as if they have to demonize it as an excuse for their own inability to accept their own choice and responsibility for their behaviors.

If we’re comfortable in our own sexuality, why would we feel threatened by “reparative therapy”?

Today In The Annals Of Democrat Party Governance

Today In The Annals Of Democrat Party Governance: "
Today in 1993, President Clinton signed one of the most landmark anti-gay rights laws ever passed in the United States of America — the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.
Gay leftist revisionist history types like to blame Republicans in Congress for *making* Clinton sign a law.
FACT: Democrats controlled the US House under Bill Clinton until 1995
FACT: THE leading elected official advocating for outright ban of gays in military and then DADT was US Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA)
FACT: Bill Clinton ran radio ads in his 1996 re-election campaign heralding his support of DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act
Facts are stubborn things.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
"

GayPatriot » Military Chaplains & The End of DADT

GayPatriot » Military Chaplains & The End of DADT
In the wake of the end of DADT, will military chaplains be allowed to pass on what their religions say about homosexuality?

GayPatriot » To The Gay Left, Is Marriage Only A Means To A More Radically Polarizing End?

GayPatriot » To The Gay Left, Is Marriage Only A Means To A More Radically Polarizing End?

Basically, separate marriage from its "baggage" of fidelity, monogamy, and anything else that makes it special.

In the end, same-sex partners will have "marriage", but "marriage" won't mean anything more than "civil unions" does now.