Free to Choose - Milton Friedman's Legacy

For those of you who have missed airings of "Free to Choose" on PBS, here is a site where you can view it for free.  PBS also recently aired a biography of Dr. Friedman called, "The Power of Choice" 

In my opinion, this should be required viewing in all high school economics classes.

The Document Formerly Known as the Constitution

Several key members of our Congress seem to be of the impression that Congress has the ability to remove the "Commander-in-Chief" role of the Executive branch and place it squarely upon the oversized heads in Congress - despite what the Constitution says. According to them, it is they that are able to command our military through committees and political posturing - not the President. Indeed, apparently the President has no power at all when it comes to the military save one thing: the sole power to accept responsibility for defeat. And that is exactly what the President will face responsibility for when the Middle East erupts into chaos as a result of the soon-to-be proposed resolution by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) to defund the military's presence in Iraq within 6 months. This to be done regardless of the resolution's strategic merit. It will not be Russ Feingold who faces the heat for the eventual defeat in Iraq as a result of his bill, it will be President Bush whose "failed policies" caused the defeat.

Spend, Spend, Spend

Well the breath of fresh air in Congress is over and they're back to doing what they do best: spending our money.

Spending like this almost guarantees some tax hikes in our near future.

UPDATE: Redstate has put up a copy of the appropriations bill in PDF format.

Missile Defense System One Step Closer

Reagan's idea of a missile defense shield came one step closer to a reality on Saturday with a successful test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD). This is good news for the U.S. and bad news for the likes of Iran and N. Korea who seem to be actively trying to develop ICBM's.

While this is good news, the system doesn't however, provide any protection against nukes that are simply walked across our naked southern border.

UPDATE: The Washington Times has an article that talks about the ICBM programs in Iran and North Korea and how there may be cooperation between the two nations to develop them.

Mahmoud's Great Obsession

It probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense to most Americans - nor to most outside of the Middle East - what would prompt Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conquest for nuclear weapons in Iran.  That is at least until you read this.

From the article:

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

Collection of Iraq Updates

IED Protection for Iraq

The Pentagon is looking to procure some 4100 vehicles designed to be resistant to mines and IED's which will be used to replace many unprotected vehicles already in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

Baghdad is Key

National Security Advisor to the President, Stephen J. Hadley, writes in an informative article at the Washington Post that the key to securing Iraq is securing Baghdad.  The article also discusses some of the details of the President's new strategy in Iraq.

 

Historic Iraqi Security Agreement Between Al Sadr and Sunnis

Gateway Pundit points to an article at the Aswat Al-Iraq ("Voices of Iraq"- VOI) news site that indicates that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are working together to increase security conditions in the country.

 

Bush warns Iran over Iraq 'interference'

President Bush says, "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly."

 

Iran Shot An Arrow...

Investor's Business Daily reports that that Iran is seeking to convert it's longest range missile into a satellite launching device.  The problem is, once Iran has this technology they would be able to build an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capable of placing warheads anywhere in the world.

 

Tehran's Declaration of War

In another article, Investor's Business Daily discusses how Iran is positioning itself to take over in Iraq should the U.S. leave.

 

Iran in an Apocalyptic Mood

Ynet is carrying an article saying that mutual assured destruction through nuclear war or otherwise is actually "an incentive, not a deterrent" to Iran.

Myths of the Iraq War

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20070128.aspx

A top ten list debunking many myths surrounding the Iraq war.  A lot of this is stuff I've been touting myself for the last few years but this article lays out the details plainly and simply. 

Recommended reading - particularly if you are under the impression that America had no business in Iraq.

Iraq: Premature Pullout is Not an Option

Since roughly the summer of 2005 we in the U.S. have heard the constant call for pulling the troops out of Iraq.  Supporters of this strategy point to the 3000+ dead US soldiers and countless more civilians that have died since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March of 2003.   They also point to the many insurgent groups and militias that bring violence and murder to Iraqis and U.S. troops.  They cite delays in getting the Iraqi government to take control of vital areas of the country - particularly in parts of Baghdad.  Each of these criticisms is valid and the facts behind them are generally truthful.  But one thing missing in this strategy of pulling out of Iraq is what the consequences would be.  Politicians seem to dance around the issue when asked.  Typically they skirt the question by redirecting the topic to President Bush's current "failed" strategies or turn the focus to the numbers of dead U.S. soldiers or other violence in Iraq.  They support this pullout strategy by indicating reasons why they support it but they don't give any indication of what the consequences would be.

So the question still remains - What would be the consequences or ramifications be of a troop pullout in Iraq?  If it is a strategy that is to be taken seriously obviously knowing the consequences of such an action would be a basic requirement.  Yet in searching through news about this "strategy" and listening to and watching many interviews from those who tout this policy I find little mention or even acknowledgement of consequences.

Opponents to the idea of pulling out of Iraq do mention consequences but only in a vague sense.  They commonly refer to the consequences of pulling out as "disastrous."  In some cases they mention that it would lead to an all-out civil war there and that all of Iraq's neighbors would end up getting pulled in.  Supporters of a pullout counter by saying Iraq is already in a full-blown civil war and that things wouldn't be any worse if U.S. troops were there or not.

Just to note, all six Joint Chiefs of Staff (heads of all the armed services in the United States) at the Pentagon oppose an Iraq pullout.

Although the consequences haven't been sufficiently spelled out by supporters of a pullout or those who oppose a pullout, anyone who really looks at the situation should be able to piece together a general idea of what would happen should the U.S. pullout of Iraq.

Turkey, Iraq's neighbor to the north, has urged the United States not to leave a "power vacuum" when leaving Iraq or allow it to be split up.  Turkey's Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, says that Turkey would be forced to get involved should the U.S. leave Iraq and allow it to plunge it into a "real civil war."  He says that all of Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia would get involved in Iraq if this were the case.

Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has faced criticism for not pulling Australia out of Iraq.  He has resisted these calls for pulling out stating that pulling out of Iraq would unleash conflict not only in Iraq but particularly in Israel and Lebanon.  He states "It would undermine Saudi Arabia, it would undermine Jordan, it would create a whole new crisis within the Middle East."

Indeed, Saudi Arabia has indicated it would support the Sunni population in Iraq if the U.S. were to leave.  King Abdullah told Vice President Dick Cheney that the Saudis would back the Iraqi Sunnis against the Iraqi Shiites should the U.S. pullout.  Considering Sunnis are a significant minority to the Shiites they would certainly need the support should violence escalate between the two factions.

Iran is already providing significant backing to Iraq's Shiites including Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army.  Should stability falter to the point of all-out civil war, it can be expected that Iran will significantly increase its involvement - particularly so if the Saudis pour support to the Iraqi Sunnis.

Syria has simultaneously actively contributed to the violence inside Iraq and called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq - certainly conflicting positions to take.  Syria also has very heavy involvement in Lebanon including backing the militant Hizbollah terrorist organization and the assassination of Lebanese leaders.  It would be unlikely to assume they wouldn't significantly increase their involvement inside Iraq if the U.S. weren't there to counter their resources.

Iraq is sort of in a central place, nestled between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Kuwait.  With Shia holy sites, three very different populations of people, and a healthy supply of oil it isn't hard to imagine how quickly things could devolve into chaos following a U.S. troop pullout.  This type of degeneration is very likely to cause a full-scale war in the region involving several nations and could spill into other areas of conflict including Palestine and Lebanon.

While it is fair to criticize certain aspects of the war in Iraq, I think it is important for people to understand the very fragile situation in the Middle East as a whole and how the war in Iraq figures into it all.  It is simply not possible to treat Iraq as a separate entity.  They are all connected.  Victory in Iraq could mean a significant step towards a peaceful Middle East.  Failure could be equivocally disastrous.  Regardless of what strategy is adopted for U.S. involvement in Iraq, the consequences of that strategy must be taken into account.  And pulling out early is certainly not an option.

In a recent interview, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger commented about the war and the importance of telling the American public the consequences of quitting the war in Iraq.  He  said, "`Who is for the war?' nobody can be for the war.  But if you can put to the American public this proposition: that if we quit the war the following consequences are likely - I think they might have a different view."  He went on to state that an exit strategy "has to be assessed in terms of the consequences of failure - not in terms of what excuse you will use for doing it.  That's what, in the end, he [President Bush] will be judged by.  But the Congress, too, has an obligation to understand that internal American fights cannot be the only occupation of the president. He cannot indefinitely fight against the Congress and the public."

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."  -Leon Trotsky

The Quagmire at Home

I saw a good but somewhat depressing editorial over at the Wall St. Journal's OpinionJournal website today and it caused me to pause for a moment and consider a lot of things.  Where are we as a nation anymore?  What is the nature of our character?  What beliefs make up the foundation of our decisions?  It used to be that we stood for something.  What happened to that hard-working, moral backbone that used to characterize Americans?

We seem to be a nation on stilts.  Hoisting our haughty selves above the rest of the world as if we weren't a part of it.  We claim to be a compassionate people always willing to give comfort and aid to those in need and those who are suffering.  And to some flimsy extent that's true.  If it requires picking up the phone and dialing a hotline to donate a few pennies from our bank account then yes... I suppose we do aid others - as long as that's all the effort it takes.  But when it comes to really sacrificing to help people who are suffering we really can't be bothered.  At the end of the day, we're too selfish to pony up.  Too comfortable with our two cars, two kids, home in the suburbs, smokes, beer with our buddies, hobbies, workouts at the gym, trips to the tanning salon, closets full of clothes, running hot and cold water, reliable power, appliances, babied pets, computers, and so on.  We truly live the lives of kings here.  Even if things are tight for us financially, nearly all of us live a life of opulence compared to most of the rest of the entire world.   And despite it all,  we're a bunch of spoiled crybabies when you boil it all down.

So turning on the news and seeing some politician do everything he can to discredit his political opponents instead of doing his job isn't exactly a breath of fresh air to me.  There is not a single excuse someone can give me as to why after roughly 3 years of complaining we don't have a single politician in Washington who cares enough to step aside from party politics and really try and work to get the job done in Iraq.  Nothing but complaints and calls for pulling out of Iraq after 3 years.  Nothing.  No one willing to try and work with others at all.  Just offer criticism.   I honestly can offer no defense for that.  It really says a lot about the caliber of people we have elected in Washington and of Americans as a whole.  And I'm sure it sends a wonderful message to the rest of the world.  If you want to know why we are so looked down on in the rest of the world you can start your search in Washington DC.  You know, the immature children you see bickering on TV all the time.  Nothing like seeing a bunch of wealthy millionaires throwing criticisms and insults at each other on national television all claiming to represent us.  No images of intelligent men sitting around a table working to come up with solutions for these problems.  Instead we see sly insults and bickering.  I would spank my child silly if I heard them saying some of those things to their peers.  Respect is something long gone from Washington.

There is no consideration to the future in politics either.  At least not what the rest of us might consider the future.  The future to our politicians is tomorrow or the next election cycle at best.  So they have no care to the long term effects of the decisions they make or the legislation they pass - say 30 or 40 years in the future.  What they really care about is the effects on the next election and how they can look good and the other guy look bad.   Everything that is said and done and every piece of legislation and every vote is weighed and calculated for political capital.

Far be it from any of these people to honestly sit down in a room and try and come up with ways to address these colossal issues that face our nation without degrading into "my party versus your party."  Or trying harder to prove the other guy wrong than to actually work with him to find a solid solution for something.

Everything is about what can I say or do to make him look bad and make me look like the good guy.  There isn't going to be any room for good solutions in that kind of environment.  Let me do something against the other guy's will - almost just to spite him - and then pat myself on the back for it and toot my own horn because I'm the good guy and he lost out.

So reading that article today really drove home how far gone our politicians are.  And how screwed we are as the general public.  What exactly is the benefit of passing a resolution in our Congress that goes counter to our Commander-in-Chief's war plans?  Why have a Constitution if we're just going to place all the power squarely on Congress?  Why do we even need  a President or an Executive Branch?  And when did the people bestow this power upon Congress?  Because the Constitution is pretty clear on the President's duty in a time of war.  They didn't leave a lot of room for misinterpretation when they wrote that part.  They didn't say the President has to run all his war plans through Congressional committees.  No.  The President is THE Commander-in-Chief.  Not the chairman in chief of the war committee.  The buck stops with him.  Right or wrong.

But it's not even about that.  I understand why they are pulling these political stunts.  It's the same reasons the opponents of the President have continually postured against everything he's done.  Doesn't matter what the subject is or what the President's position is, it's wrong.  If he says less troops, there aren't enough.  If he says more troops then it's an escalation.  If he says he's keeping Rumsfeld then he's an idiot.  If he replaces him then it's proof his policies were a failure.  If he sticks to his strategy then he's too inflexible if he changes his strategy then it's the wrong strategy.  It really doesn't matter what his strategy is/was/or will be - it's always a failed one.  Man I've got this figured out.  This game is easy.  And the greatest part about this game is that because the President is responsible for the war - no one in Congress has to take the heat for anything that goes wrong; only the President does.  So endless criticism is the perfect political weapon.  Because there are no consequences for those in Congress if we fail in Iraq.  It'll be time for mountains of "see I told ya so."  There is truth in saying "it's the President's war" even though it's really ALL of our war.  There will be consequences for us all if we fail - not just for the President.  I don't see how it's possible to assume that we can just go ahead and leave Iraq without having any consequences to face as a result.

Bringing the troops home before the job is finished would be the single greatest gift a President has ever given his political enemies.  Far and beyond even Watergate.  The resulting chaos in Iraq and the rest of the region and the impact that would have on the world would be the stuff of legends.  How can we assume that everything would be fine if we left?  What kind of callousness do we have ingrained upon ourselves to be ok with that action?  How can we assume we wouldn't pay a very heavy price in the long term for such folly?  I think people far underestimate the determination of the people behind the violence and the bloodshed in Iraq.

And what does that say about us that so many of our politicians are pushing for a strategy of "get the troops out of Iraq"?  What the hell kind of military strategy is that?  And how do you just ignore the ramifications of that?  This has nothing to do with my party is better than your party or who's going to win in 2008 and EVERYTHING to do with coming up with a solid plan to win this conflict in Iraq versus finding a way to lose everything we hold dear.  It's amazing the nature of a human being that can actually assume that his life won't change significantly if things collapse in Iraq. 

Are we the kind of insensitive people that are willing to sacrifice an entire nation for political gain?  That we're willing to essentially negate the deaths of those soldiers who gave their very lives for a cause that we ultimately decided... eh.. nevermind?  And how in the world does it not dawn on any of us that this bickering and slinging mud at everything the President says might be the catalyst to infuse more resolve and more support into our enemies?

If I was the commander of a small force with absolutely no chance of defeating my enemy in a toe-to-toe battlefield fight, I would certainly be encouraged in seeing those supporting my enemy engaged in such bickering.  My outlook would turn from grim to perhaps hopeful.  Anything I could to do continue the discord would work to my advantage.  I could use the evidence of the discord in my enemy to encourage my supporters and get them to send more resources in hopes of victory.  I could use it as propaganda to boost the morale of my fighters.  It would become by greatest weapon and my greatest resource.  Is it any surprise at all that we're still engaged in this conflict in Iraq considering the message we've been sending?

There are an incredibly large number of "compassionate Americans" who are just out to help the little guy and those in need but in whatever messed up kind of logic were just fine with leaving Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.  That is truly hypocrisy plain and simple.  You are either compassionate towards those who are being oppressed or you aren't.  You don't get to say "well I'm for people who are oppressed - but only in this country."  That's completely absurd.  No one has ever questioned Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people when he was ruler of that nation.

And what of the Iraqis?  Don't they have some small stake in this too?  Yet they are left silent in our news.  It's all about Democrats and Republicans and dead soldiers and the President's failed policies and lies.  Funny how the very people with the most to lose in all of this bickering have no voice at all in our media.  More proof to me that we really don't care about them in the end.  Regardless of what people might say about "supporting the Iraqis" or "supporting the troops", the proof is in our actions.  And our actions seem bent on pulling out of Iraq regardless of consequences for the troops, the Iraqis, and even ourselves when all is said and done.

When these politicians speak about a quagmire, they're totally correct.  But the quagmire is here in the United States - not in Iraq.

Why Heroes Volunteer to Join the Military

Michelle Malkin posted a note about a soldier named Mark Daily who was recently killed in Iraq.  Mark was a 2nd LT and was struck down by an IED in Mosul.  There is a story about it at the OC Register.  Mark had posted an entry in his MySpace blog back in October spelling out why he joined the army and volunteered to go to Iraq.  It's a good read and I think it is something that should be shared.  I'll repost it here but the original can also be found on his MySpace page.  If you visit his MySpace page, please be sure to read the comments left on the main page and on his blog entry.  The words of his friends and family about him speak to his character.

I don't dare try to summarize or plagiarize what he said so I'll just post his words here.  May he rest in peace; a true American Hero.

 

WHY I JOINED
Current mood: optimistic

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

The Return of the Fairness Doctrine

The "Fairness Doctrine" was a policy adopted by the FCC in 1949 that forced broadcasters to give equal time to contrasting points of view for any controversial issues they might air. The policy was ended under the Reagan administration in 1987 and hasn't been reenacted since. For a brief history of the "Fairness Doctrine" and a good description of what it is visit this article at the Museum of Broadcast Communications.

The argument for implementing this "Fairness Doctrine" was that there were a relatively limited number of broadcast license slots available for a particular area. To ensure that in the public interest all points of view were represented, the FCC forced broadcasters to allow equal opportunity to air various points of view for issues that might be controversial.

Over time a sort of "chilling effect" happened as reporters simply steered away from controversial issues to avoid this requirement of finding various additional points of view when compiling their stories.

Eventually, with the advent of cable television and the many more channels it brought, the FCC determined that the "Fairness Doctrine" was no longer necessary.

This analysis done in 1997 by Thomas W. Hazlett, professor at UC Davis, and David W. Sosa, student at UC Davis, demonstrates the harsh effects this policy had on programming and the subsequent dramatic increase in available programming after the doctrine was lifted. The true effects of the "Fairness Doctrine" really lent to limiting available programming options for the public. This was certainly not the FCC's intended effect by enacting the policy. This "chilling effect" shows up every time freedom is hindered in anything but is blatantly apparent in economics. These types of limits on freedom impede our growth as a society as is obvious in the above analysis by Prof. Hazlett and David Sosa.

Despite the advent of satellite television, digital cable, satellite radio, and the Internet since 1987, there is still interest now in Congress to pursue legislation that would make this "Fairness Doctrine" law. This wouldn't be the first time Congress has attempted to pass such legislation. Congress passed a legislative version of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987 (it was only FCC policy prior to that) - the same year the FCC ended its own "Fairness Doctrine" policy. President Reagan vetoed the legislation and it lacked support in Congress to override the veto. It was passed by Congress once again under the first Bush administration but George H.W. Bush too vetoed the bill and again there was insufficient support to override his veto.

A couple of weeks ago Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) appeared at the National Conference for Media Reform and stated that he would be heading up a House subcommittee focusing on bringing reform to the FCC and would bring back into consideration the "Fairness Doctrine." It can be assumed that once again President Bush will veto any such legislation.

This does bring into question the reason for bringing forward such legislation. The following points can taken into account:

• The "chilling effects" of the previous policy
• The availability of such a wide variety of sources for various viewpoints through regular television, cable television, satellite television, satellite radio, and the Internet via blogs, news sites and other resources
• The possibility that this sort of policy or legislation limits free speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment (as was noted in the FCC's Fairness Report in 1985)

It would seem that given those points the "Fairness Doctrine" wouldn't have a lot of support in Congress. There is one major source that is fueling this resurgence in this type of policy: conservative radio.

Rush Limbaugh's AM talk show was first syndicated nationally in 1988 - following the abolishment of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative talk show host and leads the pack in ratings with 13.5 million listeners. The top 5 talk radio shows are dominated by other conservative talk radio hosts:

1. Rush Limbaugh (Conservative)
2. Sean Hannity (Conservative)
3. Michael Savage (Conservative)
4. Dr. Laura Schlessinger (Conservative)
   
5. Laura Ingraham (Conservative)

(source: Talkers Magazine Top Radio Audiences)

The rest of the top 40 contains many other conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Jerry Doyle, Michael Medved, G. Gordon Liddy, Mark Levin, Michael Reagan, and Hugh Hewitt.

This isn't to say that there are no liberal talk show hosts. The country is smattered with various liberal talk shows with a few reaching the top 40 like Al Franken and Alan Colmes. But the difference in listenership between conservative and liberal talk shows is very stark. It is this difference in audience size that has prompted certain members of Congress like Dennis Kucinich to look to legislation to try and forcefully balance the tables.

Certain markets enjoy sizable ratings for liberal talk shows and others do not. Seattle for instance has a sizable liberal talk show audience.

Recently Air America, a nationally syndicated collection of liberal talk radio programs (which includes shows like The Al Franken Show) filed for chapter 11 protection. In spite of the considerable effort and backing behind Air America, it failed to reach a sizable audience. This not because of any misdoings by conservative programs but due to simple economics. Air America's programs failed to gain popularity in the markets where it was present and subsequently were pulled from the air to be replaced by more profitable programming. This may have been due to improper market research prior to being rolled out in those markets or due to audiences not accepting the particular shows that were aired.

The effects of the "Fairness Doctrine" being reinstated in some form are bound to have a negative effect for all political talk shows. Audience members in Seattle are likely to be turned off by the inclusion of conservative viewpoints when listening to their favorite liberal programming. Perhaps turned off to the point that they choose to instead turn to a music station or other programming. Just as audience members in Dallas may be turned off by the idea of listening to liberal idealists on their conservative programing. This is not to mention regular TV programming which conservatives have long complained is biased towards liberal viewpoints. Imagine having CBS forcefully required to have a Rush Limbaugh style co-host delivering the latest conservative views during evening news programming or Sunday talk shows. The negative effects of this policy are certain to be profound and far-reaching. And in the end it's unclear that anyone would be a "winner" with this legislation.

Overall, our current system is based on freedom. Freedom for station owners to choose programming that works for audiences in their market; freedom for talk shows to feature whatever kind of content they wish; freedom for audiences to choose the programming that best suits them; and freedom for advertisers to have their products and services featured on programs that suit their interests or target demographics. The government involving itself in regulating (hindering) this freedom is bound to only have a negative effect for all involved parties. In fact, when is hindering freedom ever a positive thing for America? Again, look to the effects from the historical use of policies like the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" as a testament to this.

Tough Reform for Congress

I'm fairly happy to report that some tough reform bills have been passed by both chambers of Congress. These are a couple of things that I've harped on for some time now and finally we have some action.

In the end this Senate reform bill (S.1) passed 96-2 with 2 not voting. But it was a bit of a rocky journey getting there.

One of the provisions of the bill is a definition of an "earmark". An earmark is an appropriation of money by the Congress to be used for a specific project. Earmarks are often used by Congress to give business to their constituents or certain businesses in their district. Earmarks can total a fairly sizable amount of money during the course of an entire session of Congress. They can be a considerable problem for balancing the budget and controlling the deficit.

The original version of the Senate reform bill, as proposed by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), provided a very tight definition for earmarks that would have only included about 5% of earmarks in Congress. Sen. James DeMint (R-S.C.) sponsored an amendment to the bill that would broaden the definition of "earmarks" which would include closer to 95% of earmarks. DeMint's modification of this language brought the bill very close in line with a similar bill recently passed by the House. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) made a motion to table (kill) the amendment but that motion was struck down 46-51.

The section in this bill covering earmarks basically ensures that the names of the Senators proposing them is attached to the bill and that information will be made publicly available on the Internet 48 hours prior to the final vote on the bill. The bill however does not place limits on the number or costs of earmarks. So I believe there is still room for further reform but this is still a much needed step in the right direction.

The also bill includes many ethics and lobbying reforms. These reforms include requirements for disclosure of lobbying activities, travel restrictions, bans on gifts from lobbyists, and disclosure of travel. Certainly these are all positive things for the American public. I'd like to see further efforts made to reform the ways in which members of Congress interact with lobbyists and special interest groups. I'd also like to see more work done on ethics in Congress. But these steps are a welcome sight indeed.

At one point there was a measure that would have a negative effect on grassroots lobbying groups. The measure would have discouraged groups from organizing drives to contact Congress members about certain bills or issues. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) proposed an amendment that would strip this provision from the bill. His amendment was passed 55-43 and the measure was removed.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CN) proposed an amendment that would add an Office of Public Integrity. This new office would take some of the work of investigating Congress members and put it in the hands of members of the public instead of having Congress watch itself through the ethics committee. Recent scandals helped fuel the request for such an office. Ultimately the Senate rejected this measure for the second year in a row, 71-27.

Republicans tried to have a provision added that would grant the President a sort of virtual "line-item" veto power with regard to finance bills. The measure would provide the ability for the President to strike out specific items from large finance bills without having to veto the entire bill. Congress would then have the ability to approve or deny the President's changes. I have been a supporter of this type of legislation since I first heard of it in the mid 90's. I believe it would make Congress more accountable to their spending instead of being able to slip earmarks for their district into larger spending bills. The larger bills are normally destined to pass Congress and be signed by the President to appropriate money for normal government function. The addition of these other earmarks to the bill is a bit underhanded. Congress people aren't likely to vote down the bill due to a few earmarks within it as they would be accused of trying to undermine the bill as a whole. The same goes for the President. It's hard to veto an entire bill that is necessary to fund certain government programs for the sake of a few smaller earmarks. If the President were allowed to line-item veto the earmarks and sign the bill, that would give Congress the opportunity to debate the earmarks themselves and decide if they are necessary or not. They could either vote to accept the President's veto of those items or deny his vetoes and the bill would be enacted accordingly.

The bill stood at a stalemate due to Republican insistence on this veto measure until Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) offered a compromise to the Republicans allowing them to bring the line-item veto measure to the minimum wage bill which would be debated next week. The Republicans accepted this compromise and the bill was passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties.

Iraq: From the mouths of Iraqis

Here is a link to a video about the situation in Iraq from some Iraqis themselves. It's a very compelling video and I encourage people to pass this link around. I doubt any of this will make it to the main stream media. The views of Iraqis are rarely shown on our media for some reason. The unfortunately side-effect of this is that people are then free to make assumptions about how Iraqis must feel about us being there and about the war and how things are going. I would assert that it's likely most of these opinions - good or bad - are wrong. The only way to know how Iraqis feel is to give them a voice. Not keep them silenced and leave people to make their own - probably bad - assumptions.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/19/Iraqis-speak-to-America/

Social Programs - Or How to Keep the Poor Poor

With the Democratic Party now in control of the House, the Senate, and vying for control of the White House in 2008 I think it's relevant to discuss a popular issue with Democrats:  Social Programs. 

Social programs provide some means of financial support or some other type of service to a group of people labeled as disadvantaged.  Typical groups with the "disadvantaged" label are: the poor, the elderly, the young (students), or anyone who is disabled in some way.  Funding comes from tax income into the government which of course comes ultimately from the people.

Now the idea of assisting those less fortunate folks who may be poor or elderly or disabled is a fairly universal desire.  Regardless of ones political beliefs I think it can be said that nearly everybody wants to see all people live a healthy, comfortable life and not be lent to suffering or poverty or any other malady.  The means by which any assistance is applied and funded is source for contention however.

The main school of thought involved in social programs is providing something which a particular demographic of people don't have or cannot afford.  If you're poor, then you can have money (welfare), if you can't afford healthcare then it will be paid for you, if you can't afford a house then your housing can be paid for, if you cannot afford education then it will be provided, etc.  So if you fall into one of the unfortunate categories of the disadvantaged, you can prove that you are part of the target demographic for a particular program and the government raises the necessary funds to provide you with required assistance.  Depending on where you live and the type of service applied for there may be some additional strings but in general this is how it works.

Supporters of social programs claim this is the best way of addressing these ills in society.   Take money from those who are able to provide for themselves and use it to provide for those who can't.  After all, we're all in this together.  And as previously mentioned, no one wants to see other people suffer.

With supporters of a thing always comes critics of that thing as well.  And critics of social programs bring forward many points to consider.

Human beings don't respond well to getting something in return for little or no effort on their part.  It's just an unfortunate aspect of human nature.  People don't tend to appreciate things they didn't pay for themselves.  This isn't a hard and fast rule of course but in general it is true.  If you have worked very hard to obtain something you are more likely to appreciate it versus something that was gained through little or no effort at all.  So there has to be a barter involved in providing someone something in order for it to be worthwhile.  This not only increases the intrinsic value of whatever good or service is being given, but it provides something in return for the giver.  This principle however, isn't the only piece sometimes missing from social programs.  Some do include some form of give and take from the recipients.

Another problem is that people become slaves to handouts.  Giving someone something one month means you're likely to have to give it to them again next month.  And the next and the next and so on.  It's the old "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" principle.  So simply providing a benefit without some provision for helping the beneficiary provide it for themselves in the next month only ensures the likelihood that the beneficiary will return once again for the handout.  Some social programs have attempted to address this problem with some varying levels of success.

Before going any further I feel compelled to bring one obvious point to the table : the money the government spends is not just free money.  It comes directly off the shoulders of everyone who works in this country.  Many of them with families of their own and their own sets of problems -   who would likely benefit just as well from keeping that money than to give it to someone else.  Think about how much more of the "American Dream" you could afford if you even were able to keep half of what the government takes from your pay.

When these social programs fail - or at least fail to produce any significant impact on the people they aim to help  - the reaction is usually to throw more money at it (at all of our further expense of course) or develop more programs to address the deficiencies of the other programs (again at our expense).  The logic behind sinking more money into something that isn't working or at the very least isn't producing any significant results is quite baffling but it's a surprisingly common strategy in politics for whatever reason.

The New Deal was a very broad sweeping set of social programs aimed at reducing poverty and unemployment and other social ailments during the Great Depression.  Although many of those programs didn't survive past WWII, there are still significant elements that survive today from the New Deal such as Social Security and unemployment insurance.  Despite this extensive effort, poverty was still a big enough problem in 1964 that Lyndon Johnson saw the need to push his Great Society set of social programs.  The Great Society programs were very broad in scope just as the New Deal programs were.  Addressing many areas such as education, healthcare, transportation, culture, urban development, poverty, housing, and the environment.  With these programs it was Johnson's goal to "end poverty completely."  One would have thought that within a period of time poverty would have been nearly eliminated through this massive effort.  And that we'd live in some near utopia with vibrant inner cities, low unemployment, and high wages. It shouldn't be a stretch to think that many of society's ailments would have long been gone by now in 2007 as a result of all that the Great Society programs brought.  Sadly, the results were dismal and by the 80's many of the Great Society's programs had been eliminated or suffered major cuts in funding due to lack of positive results.

So why is this the case?  Looking at the details of the programs that were passed it appears that the lawmakers were really trying to address the ailments of society in a thoughtful way.  Not simply giving things to people but trying to assist them in becoming productive members of society and giving them the tools to carve out their own piece of the American pie just like everyone else.  The Great Society programs hit all the major areas you hear about from politicians.  Healthcare, poverty, unemployment, everything.  And yet, no drastic results were to be seen from them.  We sit here today in much the same position as we were in 1964 with regard to poverty and other social woes.  If you ask a politician... well a Democratic politician anyway, they'll probably say that we've never done enough for any of these programs to be effective.  Or they'll spout some numbers claiming that they were effective somehow... in some way.  The reality isn't that these weren't good "social programs" as social programs go, it's the mindset that was created as a result of these social programs.  And therein lies the fundamental problem as well as a bit of a paradox.

The truth can be found in the numbers.  Without regurgitating what is already quite well stated by Thomas Brewton in this article (please read this entire article - it contains the all important numbers!!), I can sum it up by saying that social programs have taught people that they are entitled to things - not that they have to work to achieve them.  Sadly this entitlement syndrome still prevails today.  So the end result of all the social programs passed from the 30's to the 60's is the creation of an entitlement class of society.  Effectively creating a mentality that serves to keep impoverished people impoverished.  And paradoxically the very programs aimed at aiding them keep them just comfortable enough to keep them from striving for something more. 

The side benefit of all this is that it creates political opportunity.  Someone needs to come to their rescue.  Someone needs to be their champion.  Nevermind that all previous attempts at helping them through government aid have failed.  More government aid is bound to work.  If nothing else more programs will serve to keep the idea of entitlement alive and well and send the message that "something" is being done to assist them - even if 20 years from now nothing is different except higher taxes as a result.  And as they become slaves to the programs that keep them in their condition, they become loyal followers of those that keep them that way.  It's a golden deal for somebody.  And that somebody so far has been the Democratic party.

Politicians spew blame in all directions except where it is truly applicable.  This blame game permeates into the hearts and minds of the disadvantaged subjects of these social programs and gets regurgitated and indoctrinated into their kids - ensuring a new generation of this entitlement society and a new generation of votes; a new generation of targets for more social programs.  It's a vicious cycle that is incredibly hard for these people to break out of.  The entitlement syndrome creates kids that don't even try in school almost ensuring they'll end up on social programs.  As the rest of the country continues to prosper and sees more and more people moving into the upper middle class, this element of society is left behind.  Left there by their own sense of entitlement and by the politicians who keep them thinking that way.

Democrats don't care about poor people.  They care about votes.  The proof is in the pudding.

Tax Revenues Surging - Economy Still Strong - Minimum Wage Going Up

The Washington Post is reporting that tax revenues are up 8.2 percent over last year - far outpacing inflation which was up only 2% for the 12 months ending in November.  These high tax revenues over the first three months of the budget year have caused the federal deficit to fall to it's lowest rate for that period since 2002.

The government says that sales for December were up a strong 0.9% which beat out the expected gain of 0.7%.  Average wages are up 4.2% over last year - again far outpacing inflation.  The government is also reporting that 167,000 new jobs were added in December which keeps the unemployment numbers at a low 4.5%.  The new jobs in December bring the total new jobs added in 2006 to 1.8 million.

All in all the economy is doing pretty well with the stock market near an all time high, low inflation, low unemployment, and rising wages.

Despite all these good numbers all is not perfect.  The new job total for 2006 was 200,000 shy of jobs created in 2005.  While still good, it's a trend in the wrong direction.  Also, even with tax revenues on the increase the Bush Administration is still predicting a deficit of over $300 Billion for fiscal 2007.  It should be noted however that this number is likely to be revised down once the administration posts it's 2007 budget numbers.

Government spending is up only 0.7% over the same quarter last year but it should be noted this number is affected by $15 billion in government airwave auctions.  The House of Representatives has passed bill that has some harsh earmark reform that should curb Congressional spending to some extent.  It remains to be seen if the Senate will follow suit or will pass a much tamer version of the bill.  Controlling earmarks is a big step towards controlling spending and reducing the deficit.  Another factor is the cost of the war in Iraq.  Increased troop levels will undoubtedly cost more in the short term but if it can in effect cause reductions in troop levels by this time next year we might be able to see further cuts into the deficit for fiscal 2008.

The obvious hope is to continue to nourish the strong economy while reducing government spending in hopes of achieving a balanced budget.  Democrats have hinted at increasing taxes via one form or another - perhaps by reimplementing some of the things cut during the Bush tax cuts.  The impact on the economy will largely depend on how taxes are increased.  Regardless of which, a negative impact can be expected which will in effect reduce tax receipts into the Treasury although that is simply speculation at this point.

An increase in the minimum wage has passed the House and can also be expected to pass in the Senate and be signed by President Bush.  The expected increase will go from $5.15 currently to $7.25 under the new legislation.  The impact on the economy is hotly contended.  Critics claim the increase would have a profound effect on small business owners, restaurant owners, etc. and may cause an increase in the cost of goods and services to reflect the increased costs of employees.  They also claim it may lead to employers hiring fewer employees to curb the additional costs.  Supporters claim that these are just scare tactics and that business owners will easily be able to foot the additional wages without having to increase prices.  They also say that the increased wages will help America's poorest families. 

The US Dept of Labor reports that minimum wage earners tend to be young - with about 1/2 of them being under the age of 25.  Also, married workers are less likely to earn minimum wage or less.  And workers earning minimum wage or less are more likely to be part-time employees than full-time employees.  So the assertion by the Democrats that an increase in the minimum wage will "help America's poorest families" is likely a bit off target.  It might help some of America's poorest families is maybe a more accurate statement.  Mostly it appears it will help America's part-time youth.  The impact that will have on business owners and the economy as a whole remains to be seen.

It would appear that this increase in minimum wage is more a victory of political appearance than a victory for the economy regardless of how you cut the details.  This will be a moral victory for Democrats with those who assume that increasing the minimum wage is good for the little guy.  Even if it ends up increasing costs to the poor in the end.