The Liberal Order

Ain't It the Truth

Apparently, Hillary Clinton sees government, and her preferred role as president, as Santa Claus doling out goods and services provided by little elves.

Citizen Ruth

While reading this story, I couldn't help but think of this exceptional movie.

NB: This is NOT a statement on the abortion issue; it is a statement about politics and power.

How Washington Works

A good story of the inner workings of Washington by explaining the workings of one government contractor, Concurrent Technology. In a nutshell,

In a July 17 speech on the floor of the House, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) unsuccessfully sought to strike a $1 million earmark proposed for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure, to be run by Concurrent. Flake said he could find no evidence that the center existed.

"Concurrent Technology has been the recipient of millions upon millions of dollars over the years," Flake said during his floor statement. "The executives in Concurrent Technology contribute handsomely to members of Congress. So it receives a lot of earmarks. It seems to be an earmark incubator of some type, an earmark that begets more earmarks."

Kill the Data

Let's say that you own a company. This company produces some good (say, gas grills) that, after discussing with your employees, you find out poses a greater safety threat than what was previously thought. Even though this threat is small, you find out that it's still greater than you had been revealing to the public.

What should you do? Should you warn your customers of the potential problem, knowing that as information spreads about this increased risk it might hamper sales and thus reduce your profits? And, if you decided to destroy the information specifically to protect sales, wouldn't the government like a word with you, not to mention the lawyers?

What if the entity seeking to destroy the information was the government?

MOFFETT FIELD, California (AP) -- An unprecedented national survey of pilots by the U.S. government has found that safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than previously recognized. But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits.

Subsidizing Education for the Rest of the Country

Michigan's governor, Jennifer Granholm, the democrats in the State House, and some members of the media are pushing for increased state funding of higher education. Given the results of this poll of University of Michigan students--60% plan to leave Michigan following graduation--they might want to rethink their plans. Only twenty percent plan on staying.

The question was: "Will you be moving out of the state after graduation?" Red = yes; blue = no; yellow = unsure.

Global Warming

Prior to George H. W. Bush's presidency, government funding for global climate research was about $170 million. Twenty years later that figure is about $2 billion. This is from MIT Professor Richard S. Lindzen, who is interviewed in this interesting BBC documentary.

How Washington Works

The Washington Post has a fascinating, if not disturbing, account of Washington's most lucrative lobbying firm, Cassidy and Associates. It's well worth the read.

Cassidy's career has spanned an astounding boom in the lobbying business. When Cassidy became a lobbyist in 1975, the total revenue of Washington lobbyists was less than $100 million a year. In 2006 the fees paid to registered lobbyists surpassed $2.5 billion; the Cassidy firm's 51 lobbyists earned about $29 million. In 1975 the rare hiring of a former member of Congress as a lobbyist made eyebrows rise. Today 200 former members of the House and Senate are registered lobbyists. Two of them, tall, gregarious men named Marty Russo and Jack Quinn, work for Cassidy, and at the 30th birthday party they worked the crowd with relish.

The business involves giving as well as receiving. As lobbying became more and more lucrative, Cassidy realized that members of Congress who helped his clients could be thanked with campaign contributions. "You can't be in this business and not give," he once explained.

He encouraged his colleagues to give, and he gave prolifically himself. In the quarter century leading up to his party, Cassidy, his employees and their spouses had personally given at least $5.3 million to candidates for the House and Senate and to the two major parties. Cassidy and his wife, Loretta, donated more than a million of that themselves. The lobbyists of Cassidy & Associates had received many times that much in fees from their clients - almost always in the form of monthly retainers. The clients had received hundreds of millions in earmarked appropriations and other benefits worth hundreds of millions more.

To keep this lobbyig income figure in perspective, $100 million in 1975 is equivalent to about $375 million today, nearly one-seventh the $2.5 billion lobbyists stole collected in 2006..  No wonder it's so difficult to compete in political campaigns in terms of fundraising. It's all controlled at the top.

Draft Taxpayers

Charles Rangel continues his push for reinstating the draft. As part of his message he argues:

"I dare anyone to try to convince me that this war is not being fought predominantly by tough, loyal, and patriotic young men and women from the barren hills and towns of rural and underprivileged neighborhoods in urban America where unemployment is high  and opportunities are few.  As we see who are the troops coming home wounded and killed, I challenge anyone to tell me that the wealthiest have not been excluded from that roll call.

Rangel may indeed be correct; with no children of their own in battle, the wealthy have little incentive to temper their taste for war and we end up with inefficient wars.

Similarly, Rangel must then agree that we should reinstate the income tax on the bottom 50% of income earners in this country. By not incurring a cost for expansive government, the poor have little incentive to temper their taste for big government and we end up with inefficient government programs.

Vilsack Quits Race for President

From CNN:

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Friday he is pulling out of the 2008 Democratic race for president, citing financial difficulties in a campaign that lasted 15 weeks.

Vilsack, 56, said he would have continued if it weren't for the large amounts of money he would need for a a campaign.

"The reality, however, is that this process has become to a great extent about money, a lot of money," he said. "And it is clear to me that we would not be able to continue to raise money in the amounts necessary to sustain, not just a campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, but a campaign across this country.

"It is money -- and only money -- the reason we are leaving today."

The money required to wage a successful campaign for political office is directly correllated to the size of the government's budget. If you want to get money out of politics you first have to get politics out of money.

Former North Carolina Speaker of the House, Jim Black, just pleaded guilty to corruption charges stemming from payoffs he received from special interests and bribes he paid to colleagues in order to retain his speaker position. North Carolina's Governor Easley (both Democrats) blamed Black's behavior on "human frailty." No, his behavior was not exogenous, but was instead endogenous to the size and scope of the state's government. As government controls more and more of the productive capacity of a nation or a state there's an increased incentive to accept bribes from special interests seeking some of the loot or legislation giving them an unfair advantage over their more efficient competitors. Political corruption at all levels will increase (not necessarily get caught) the more we coordinate the activities of society through the political process and away from voluntary cooperation and association. This will of course attract more and more of the worst elements of society seeking to control the levers that produce payoffs and bribes.

Vote For Me

From Tyler Cowen's blog on whether or not you should vote.

I fondly recall Gordon Tullock's point: "The paradox is not why people vote, but why everyone doesn't vote for himself."

Actually, I do. In most every election in which I've voted I have written myself in for some position, and always for president. Unfortunately, I can never convince  my wife to  write me in so that I get at least two votes. She claims that she doesn't want to waste her vote.