Voter ID laws should not be controversial. A few points:
--You must have a government-issued ID in order to drive. --You must have a government-issued ID in order to fly. --You must have a government-issued ID in order to ride a train. --You must have a government-issued ID in order to enter this country and almost any other. --In many venues, you must even have a government-issued ID in order to buy alcohol, buy tobacco, and be admitted to bars and clubs. Voting is an even greater responsibility than any of those. Why, then, is it so controversial to require a government-issued ID in order for a person to vote in government elections? Voter fraud isn't a significant problem in this country, but it also isn't non-existent--and any fraud is too much fraud. Requiring voters to present a valid form of identification is one of the easiest, cheapest ways to eliminate one avenue of engaging in fraud.
Many argue that it discriminates against Hispanics and other demographics that are less likely to have government-issued ID's. In my mind, there are two responses to this.
First, all laws affect demographic groups differently. There is no such thing as a law that affects everyone in precisely the same manner. This isn't by itself a reason not to enact a law. If it were, then we could have no laws at all. (For example, even speed limit laws disproportionately impact demographics with higher rates of automobile ownership. Federal minimum wage laws disproportionately impact states with more low-wage earners. And so on.) Fundamentally, however, there's absolutely nothing standing in the way of anyone in any demographic of getting a government-issued ID. We commonly associate ID's with driver's licenses, but that's a misconception. It is definitely true that not everyone can get a driver's license, but not everyone needs one. States also issue plain ID's. That brings me to my second point: cost. If state ID's cost $15,000, then there may be validity to the discrimination argument. They don't though. In some states, ID's are completely free, and in most others, they cost no more than $10. If you're a citizen, then you can get one of these ID's at little or no cost. Thus, the only people who truly are locked out of voting by ID laws are people who are not U.S. citizens, and it's illegal for them to vote anyway. Many counter this by saying, "True, but low-income and less educated demographics frequently do not know how to get these free ID's." Come on, folks: Individual responsibility is an important value in this country. If you don't know how to do something that you need to know how to do, then you must take some initiative and figure that something out. Acquiring a state ID is simple, and figuring out how to do it doesn't even require an Internet connection.
Here's an idea though. Every election cycle, liberal and conservative activists engage in an implicit competition with each other by shoving as many voter registration forms into the hands their favored demographics. They've figured out how to quickly and simply explain to people how to register to vote and then how to actually vote--both of which are more complicated than getting a state ID. Why don't these groups simply hand out one additional form at the same time: a form explaining how to get an ID. This isn't rocket science. You don't even have to know how to sign your own name in order to get a state ID.
This brings us to the real reason many of these activist groups oppose voter ID laws: politics. Having to hand out an additional form and then have people engage in one additional step before voting would have an impact on the number of people they could smash into the polls after telling them who they should vote for. This, my friends, isn't a good reason for opposing a very basic, common-sense measure that would add just a bit more integrity to an electoral system already under assault by Russia and by dishonest allegations of "millions of fraudulent votes" by one of the very highest officials in our government. This Texas voter law actually is quite a relaxed voter law. It doesn't even require a government-issued ID at all. You can also use bank statements or even utility statements as forms of ID. You simply have to sign an affidavit explaining why you couldn't obtain an actual ID. Because it no longer requires a certain form of ID, some are opposing it on the grounds that there are consequences for lying on one's affidavit. Seriously?
Of course there are consequences for lying--again, common sense. Why wouldn't there be? What would be the point of having people sign a document at all if there were no consequences of lying on the document? That would simply waste taxpayer money to print the affidavits in the first place.
Any system in which anyone can walk in off the street to take part in the most critical function of our system on the basis of nothing more than his own word is a system that can never be of complete integrity. Much as we may hate to admit it, some people's word is worth less than a little. Our system should be as watertight as possible, and that starts with a very basic, cheap (even free) requirement already in force for so much else in our society: showing a form of ID. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
0 Comments
When it comes to U.S. foreign policy challenges, four countries really stand above the rest: Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. While we stumble from one dysfunctional episode to the next here at home and create leadership vacuums by retreating further from the global stage, those countries are consolidating their power--and their challenges to American interests.
(1) Iran is now more powerful than it has been since it was known as Persia. No longer balanced by Iraq, Iran is able to project influence all the way to--and through--the Levant. Iranian influence pervades the Iraqi government and society and is paramount in Syria and Lebanon. They're engaged in a successful proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, pose a severe threat to Israel via Hezbollah, and are now even looking east to a place where American troops are directly involved: Yes, Iran now appears to be providing support to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
(2) North Korea is closer than ever--perhaps mere months away--to having a nuclear warhead that is small enough to fit onto the tip of a ballistic missile and to having the delivery system to carry that warhead all the way to the U.S. This is the first time that a country has both directly threatened to use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. and been so close to having the capability to do so. Though not certain, it is not unreasonable to think that North Korea could complete its nuclear deterrent before 2019.
(3) Emboldened by having successfully interfered in our 2016 elections (and having not been punished for doing so) and preparing to do so again in this year's elections, Russia is rapidly consolidating a new sphere of influence that extends into the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe in ways not seen since the days of the Soviet Union. Like Iran (and Pakistan), Russia also appears to now be providing assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its military involvement in Ukraine is no closer to a resolution than it was years ago. Now Russian President Vladimir Putin appears set to be overwhelmingly reelected in an election that the Kremlin would never allow him to lose in the first place. He is, in effect, a lifetime autocrat; carefully managed elections are allowed in order to maintain a veneer of "democracy." Make no mistake though: should a majority of Russian voters ever desire to remove Putin through the ballot box, they would not be allowed to do so.
(4) The greatest strategic challenge of all comes from China, however. They pose the greatest threat to our allies, to our economy (jobs, etc.), to global norms, and so on, and they are one of the few remaining expansionist major powers. While we've had our heads turned, Xi Jinping has gone from merely the next Chinese President to the first Chinese dictator in decades. Like Putin, he is an autocrat. Unlike Putin, he is increasingly unconcerned with maintaining any veneer of democratic processes. China's rubber-stamp National People's Congress has formalized Xi's status as a lifetime ruler, and all indications are that one of Xi's top priorities will be to use his and China's growing power to ratchet up challenges to U.S. interests. These aren't abstract interests either: they directly affect American "Main Streets'" jobs and security. The days when China spoke often of its "peaceful" rise appear to be behind us.
These are some of the toughest problems we face, but they are far from the only problems we face. The global commons is incredibly complex and increasingly hostile and volatile. This is not the time to disengage from allies and/or to fall into total dysfunction at home.
We should get our house in order at home so that we can present a strong, united front. Then we should robustly re-engage with our allies abroad. Shrinking in the face of growing challenges isn't strong leadership. It isn't, in fact, leadership at all. The days when the U.S. could simply retreat into itself and prosper as before are over. We no longer have the preponderance of power that we once did and, like everyone else, are partially dependent on other countries in order to maintain our security and our standard of living. It's time for us to rise to the challenge. Editor's Note: I'm a Liberty Lover that believes we shouldn't be actively countering foreign powers that aren't currently undermining our national security or liberty. What are your thoughts on the geopolitical mandate that requires the United States to continually slay dragons to ensure we stay on top? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot In the wake of the tragic school shooting in Parkland, FL, I've been thinking a lot about the issue of guns in this country, which is really, in some ways, unique. I'd like to say something first to conservatives and then to liberals. For ConservativesIt's time to take our positions in this argument to the "next level." So many of us relegate ourselves to grossly oversimplified clichés and conspiracies that range from misleading to wrong to simply unhelpful. They don't actually do anything to further healthy debate. For example, how many times have we or someone around us said something like, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"? There's a kernel of truth to this--but only a kernel. That's why it's misleading. Kernels of truth don't bring us closer to solutions. There are logical fallacies with all of these clichés too. For instance, to the extent that guns don't kill people, nuclear bombs don't either. As with guns, nuclear bombs don't harm anyone until people decide to use them. Should this then be an argument that all 325 million Americans should have their own nuclear arsenals? Of course not. There's more to it than these little clichés indicate, so stop undercutting our own arguments by tossing these soundbites around. Frankly, it's simpleminded to begin and end your argument with an overworked cliché. Another common one: "Guns are the private citizen's fundamental protection from an overbearing government." Saying this makes you immediately sound as though you have no credibility to the very people you're trying to convince. Practically, the government kills FAR fewer Americans than private citizens kill. More often than not, the government--via the intelligence community, law enforcement, the military, etc.--is in the business of saving lives, not taking them. There's also a stone cold practical reality here: When the Second Amendment was written, the arms that the citizens owned were the same ones that the government owned. When you joined the military, you may well have simply grabbed your own musket and headed off to fight. In case we've failed to notice two centuries of changes, things are a little different now. If the government decided to come for you today, you wouldn't be facing muskets. The balance of power of weaponry between government and citizenry has changed dramatically--in the favor of the government. Guns no longer offer us protection from the government. No matter how many rifles, shotguns, pistols, or AR-15's you own, you'd be powerless against tanks, heavy armor, missiles, jets, 50-caliber armor-piercing machine guns, and various types of chain guns that can lay down over 80 pieces of lead every single second in your direction. Your best bet would simply be to lay down your guns and surrender. So, seriously, let's drop this impractical, conspiratorial argument. The days when it applied have come and gone. (Besides, considering all the murders and terrorism that take place today, there are probably more important threats to protect ourselves from than a federal government that kills almost no one, so let's stop defeating ourselves by repeating this conspiracy theory.)
Finally, we call ourselves "strict constructionists"--meaning that we see ourselves as the side that literally interprets the constitution, relative to the liberals who take all sorts of liberties with it.
Let's look at that through the lens of our prior nuclear weapons example. The Second Amendment simply says that we have the right to keep and bear "arms." It doesn't define that term, however, and never mentions "guns," which are just one type of arm. Therein lies the difficulty in always strictly applying something written in the 18th Century to events in the 21st Century. Most of us conservatives agree that private citizens should not be able to own nuclear weapons--or cruise missiles or any other arms like these. How many of you have a confrontational relationship with your neighbors but would still be perfectly happy with their having nuclear bombs, cruise missiles, and tanks sitting in their backyard pointed at your house? I didn't think so. We also agree that people who've committed mass murder with a gun shouldn't be able to buy anymore guns. (Yes, one mass murder each is probably enough, right?)
Wait though: In agreeing to prevent private ownership of nuclear weapons and to prevent mass murderers from buying anymore guns, we're taking a less-than-strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. It simply says "arms," not guns.
It also says that our right "shall not be infringed"; it doesn't say "shall not be infringed UNLESS..." So, by default, we're already not strictly interpreting the Second Amendment. It's intellectually dishonest to say that restricting gun ownership in any way is a violation of the Second Amendment but that restrictions on nuclear bombs, felons, children, etc. aren't. Let's be honest about that: It's our interpretation. It isn't an objective fact. The truth of the matter is that we have no idea how people like George Washington would have reacted to nuclear bombs, mass shootings of children in schools, etc. We can have a more effective place in this debate if we begin by being honest with each other and with ourselves. Where does this leave us? Frankly, it probably leaves us with the reality that some sort of restrictions are justified and, regardless of justification, are coming. That should be clear: both at the state and federal levels, restrictions in some form or fashion are coming. If we scratch and fight against ALL reforms, then all we're doing is simply locking ourselves out of having any influence in the discussion since public opinion has turned so decisively against us. Policymakers are going to start responding to that change in opinion. If we drop our clichés and shaky, convenient Second Amendment arguments, then we could earn ourselves a seat at the table in these debates and have real impact on the types of reforms that are eventually enacted. For Liberals
Get off your moral high horses. I mean, seriously, what's wrong with you?
The current gun debate highlights very well why so many conservatives have given up trying to discuss difficult issues with you: you turn every issue into both an indictment and a conviction of someone's morals. Christian opposition to gay marriage? Immoral and homophobic. Republican support for corporate tax cuts? Immoral and corrupt. GOP efforts to reduce the cost of our welfare system? Immoral and cold. Conservative concerns about abortions--especially certain types of abortions? Immoral and sexist. Anyone who disagrees with you about anything at all? Immoral and unethical. (I mean, there couldn't possibly be any other reasons for any of these positions, could there?) The same goes for Second Amendment rights. Those who support them? Immoral--murderers even. The NRA? They're murderers. (Because of course they are.) Marco Rubio? He's a murderer too. (Didn't you know?) Anyone who receives NRA donations? You guessed it: murderers. (Because the cash that most of us use is harmless, but NRA cash is that rare kind that kills people. New cliché for us: "People don't kill people; NRA cash kills people." Quick! Someone put that on a sign and go march around outside in the street with it!) How can you expect anyone to engage you in a healthy discussion when you're asking them to wade through a bunch of water that you've already poisoned? If they make it through, then they still have to yell up at you on top of your ivory tower. That's no way to have a productive discussion. Stop it. When you encounter clichés and conspiracies from the Right, you have an opportunity to listen, to try to understand, and to address them factually as I've just done. Instead, you ridicule and belittle. It's time for some real soul-searching on this. As I said above, I agree that something must be done. Should we take away everyone's guns? Absolutely not. That is indisputably unconstitutional, and even if the government ordered us to turn them over, I and many others would refuse. Are there some reasonable, less Draconian restrictions that may be helpful though? Yes, absolutely. Be intellectually honest about it though: The cold, hard reality is that none of the restrictions under discussion are likely to have much impact on shootings. --Enact a "waiting period" after gun purchases? (Most people who shoot another person have had guns for months or even years. A waiting period won't make much difference.) --Ban bump stocks? (Sure, but how many shootings involve the use of bump stocks? Las Vegas? Which others? Not many. It also isn't clear how much difference not having a bump stock would have made in Las Vegas. The shooter would have fired fewer rounds for sure, but his fire would also have been more accurate.) --Prevent mentally ill people from buying guns? (I agree it should be done, but let's be honest: How many shooters have mental illness diagnoses? Very few.) --Limit gun buying only to those over the age of 21? (Most shooters are over 21. Las Vegas anyone?) --Ban semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. (Sure, but how many shootings involve semi-automatic weapons? Most don't.) That's really where we are. There are 350 million guns in this country, so restrictions like those can really only nip around the edges. They can't fundamentally change the reality here. There's this mythical idea floating around that if we just "ban guns," then we'll all live happily ever after, perhaps even while holding hands. Some things aren't very clear, but this is: That wouldn't solve the problem. Sure, it might help some, but it won't solve the problem completely or even come close. One unfortunate reality of going too far with restrictions can be seen in your (liberals') own arguments on another issue: legalizing certain drugs. The argument goes that legalizing these drugs undercuts black markets for drugs and increases government tax revenue. That can be applied to guns as well: banning them would lead to the creation of a healthy black market for guns and would deprive governments of some revenue. So the issue really is complicated. Let's stop pretending that it's as simple as just defeating conservatives and getting some sort of severe restrictions on gun ownership. It wouldn't work out quite like that. For everyone
Our focus right now is on "supply side" (gun) solutions. Too many guns? Too few? Too many restrictions? Too few? This is understandable. Guns drive ratings, so the media has much incentive to harp on them. The Second Amendment mentions arms (which we limit to "guns" today), so it makes sense to talk about guns. These mass murderers are using guns, so, again, let's talk about guns, right? Wrong. I do believe that some restrictions on gun ownership are overdue. We should expand background checks. We should bar mentally ill people from buying guns. We should ban bump stocks. That said, those reforms would have only a very, very small impact. Is it worth it? Of course. I'd never tell a parent that his murdered child was only one and that one wasn't worth saving. All are worth saving. Something feels missing though. Is saving just a few the best we can do? Well, if we're only focused on "guns," then, yes, it is. Saving only a few is the best we can hope for. Our focus should be on the other side: defense. Another cliché goes like this: "The best defense is a good offense." In real life, that usually isn't true. That best defense in most things in life is simply good defense. (Gosh, we humans love our clichés though! It's hard to let go of them.) The truth of the matter is that regardless of what we do with guns, schools will remain extremely soft, high visibility, undefended targets for people who have a bone to pick with society. An AR-15 isn't necessary to wreak havoc. A calm person with a revolver could walk into a school with six bullets and leave six young bodies in his wake. It would be small comfort to those parents to say, "Yes, but you should feel better. We banned AR-15's, so thankfully only yours and five others were killed. It could have been more. Pat me on the back now please." That wouldn't go over well, but that's, in effect, what some the proposals mean. My proposal Yes, enact reasonable restrictions on gun ownership like those I just mentioned. Don't kid yourselves though: It's time to focus on defense. The only way to stop these things on school campuses is to defend school campuses. The way to prevent a soft target from being attacked is to make it no longer a soft target. This is, quite honestly, very basic. I don't know the right way to handle this, but I do know that this is where we should be looking. You could arm a certain proportion of teachers. You could hire contracted security officers. You could have local police and sheriff's departments pick up security duty at schools. You could set up trained volunteer security units (like trained volunteer fire departments). You could send all kids, teachers, coaches, etc. through metal detectors before they're allowed onto campuses. There are any number of proposals with varying costs and other pros and cons. Some may not work at all. Some may work quite well. Some may not be feasible, while others certainly are. This is were we have to look though. We have to make schools harder targets. Is it sad that we need to do this? Of course it is, but it would be even sadder to refuse to do this either for ideological reasons or simply because we don't think we ought to have to "in this country." The fact of the matter is that this country has a problem with gun violence, and the best way to combat it is to make common targets much more difficult to hit. No matter the restrictions placed on gun ownership, if someone really wants to carry out a shooting at a school, they'll be able to do so--unless they can't. They'll be able to do so unless schools' defenses are such that it's just far too difficult. We can't completely keep dangerous people from getting guns, so we have to make sure that when--yes, when--they do, they're not able to attack our schools with them. That's where real solutions lie. No, it won't win ideological fights. No, it won't drive media ratings. It will save lives though. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
I can't help it: I just have to say something about the "Tide Pod Challenge."
Look at all of those lawmakers prancing around in front of the cameras proclaiming that Proctor & Gamble (the company that makes Tide) is at fault because their Pods look too much like candy. Seriously? Think about that for a moment... (1) We literally have lawmakers who think that the government should be involved in pressuring or even forcing companies to make their laundry detergents look a certain way. Kim Jong-un and Josef Stalin would be proud.
(2) This is part of the blame-corporate-America-first crowd. Only people who live at the very top of the proverbial ivory tower--not just in it but on the very top floor--could believe that the Tide Pod Challenge is linked to a corporation's desire for profit. "Hey, marketing guys, I have a great idea for profit: How can we convince people to eat our laundry detergent so as to sell a few more of these?" Ridiculous. (Plus, since when did "profit" become a dirty word in this country? In an attempt to profit, I may found my own company one day and see no need to apologize for that. Even so, the hypocrisy of rich politicians who profit handsomely from their offices while criticizing others' market-based profits isn't lost on me.)
(3) We have lawmakers who seem to be trying to score political points from the deaths of people who've eaten detergent. (4) The implications of what these lawmakers are saying is really preposterous when you think about it. By default, they're arguing that some seemingly normal people who are in their teens and even early 20's cannot help eating poisons if those poisons look like candy. I mean, seriously, how can we expect teens to know that they shouldn't eat soap when that soap just looks so darn delicious? ("Hey, honey, before we head out on vacation, I just want to make sure that you put the antifreeze where the dog can't get into it--oh, and that you put the Tide Pods where little Johnny can't get into them.") I must consider myself fortunate, I suppose; I don't know any otherwise-normal/healthy 20-year-old people who gobble up everything that's colorful out of a mistaken belief that they are getting a yummy piece of candy. One wonders how these people survived exposure to Crayons in kindergarten. If this describes you, then you have bigger problems and should probably refer to the image above. I mean, seriously, don't eat soap. I'm pretty sure that that isn't rocket science and am equally sure that, in any event, people who eat detergent "candy" don't have future careers in rocket science--nor should they. The last thing an astronaut needs to hear before blasting off into space is that his mission controller was the 2017 runner-up in the Tide Pod Challenge. Houston, we have a problem, and it isn't the way our detergent looks. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
MLK Jr. Would Not Accuse Trump's "shi*thole" Comment as Racist, but "Racial Ignorance" (DMR)1/13/2018
I know that I'm going to start a firestorm with this post, but I think that this is a conversation worth having. It seems that not a day passes that headlines don't carry news of accusations of racism. To be sure, racism certainly is alive and well; I do not want to give the impression that I'm downplaying that reality. It is alive, and it cuts more than one way.
That said, I think that the frequency of knee-jerk, reactionary accusations of racism against people for equivocal remarks causes society to be far too sensitive and even unable to recognize true racism when it manifests. (In other words, if everything is racist, then nothing is racist.) It diminishes attempts to address indisputable and/or egregious displays of racism, thus undermining the very goal it means to achieve. Yes, I have in mind Donald Trump's calling Haiti and African nations "sh*tholes." To be sure, I am NOT excusing that remark. Should he have said it? Absolutely not. Was it Presidential? No. Was it a racist remark though? I'm not so sure--certainly not sure enough that I think it should dominate headlines as such. Trump is a tactless man with a small vocabulary, and the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he communicates this way on a broad range of topics, including on many that are not even tangentially related to race. Furthermore, he did not proactively bring up Haiti or African nations, and he probably wasn't talking only about them (Central America also apparently was an intended target). His remarks were in response to their being mentioned both in the immigration bill and orally in the meeting.
Additionally, Trump's remarks were not directed at individual people, nor were they directed at specific demographics. They were quite clearly directed at countries--at geographic political entities. As far as I can tell, this is how Trump conveys that he believes that these are countries with significant problems.
In order for that to be a racist idea, it would need to be discriminatory and wrong. It isn't though. There is a reason that Americans aren't beating down the doors of Africa in an attempt to move there. It is invariably true that Haiti and a large number of African nations have problems that would lead many good, accepting, open-minded people to think--perhaps in different words--what Trump said. Race and tribal warfare. Religious violence. Rape as a weapon. Infanticide. Economic and kinetic warfare against populations by their own governments. Apartheid (until appallingly recently). Extremely high unemployment rates. The use of women and children as instruments of terrorism. Abject poverty. AIDS. Do these describe all of Africa? No. Do they apply to all African countries? No. One or a combination of them do, however, apply to a too-large number of African countries--disproportionately so. There is much to love about Africa. The picture there is far from universally negative, but it remains true that problems like these are relatively more prevalent there. This is not to say that there is anything lesser or inadequate about Africans themselves. There isn't. They are victims of extremely poor governance and of circumstances that frequently are beyond their control. They need our help. Alleged Trump racism isn't what's causing these problems though. Extractive, kleptocratic leadership in many African countries is the primary cause of these problems. (For example, can one really look at the Congo and at its horrendous leadership and objectively believe that only racism could possibly cause someone to develop a negative opinion of it?)Additionally, Trump's remarks were not directed at individual people, nor were they directed at specific demographics. They were quite clearly directed at countries--at geographic political entities. As far as I can tell, this is how Trump conveys that he believes that these are countries with significant problems. Trump should not have said what he did for many reasons, including the reality that it will probably harm our relations with some African countries. The remark was cold and unwarranted. Was it racist though? I don't think that we can say for sure that it was. I agree with Martin Luther King, Jr: Trump's remark probably wasn't a sign of racism. Rather, it was probably just a sign of "racial ignorance." Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Here's something to consider regarding the U.S. economy.
The pace of job creation slowed dramatically in Obama's last year, and it slowed even more during Trump's first year. (I point this out to show that job creation generally has very little to do with a President's policies even though all Presidents will take credit for gains and blame someone else for losses.) These days, we are constantly bombarded with one politician or another claiming that his or her new policies, regulations, or tax plans will "create new jobs." Why should we renegotiate trade deals? "Create new jobs." Why should we cut taxes? "Create new jobs." And on and on.
While creating new jobs isn't a bad thing, of course, a lack of jobs also isn't a problem facing our economy right now. There are more than 5 million unfilled jobs in our economy--employers literally cannot fill them all. The problem, therefore, isn't too few jobs; rather, the problem is too few workers. There simply are not enough participants in our labor force to fill even those jobs that are currently available.
Cutting tax rates and reducing regulatory burdens are important (though spending should be cut as well in order to keep these things from piling up more debt for us), but these will not solve the labor force problem. What can we do then? One avenue is to enact policies that increase the labor force participation rate. This is frequently cited as one justification for the need to reform our welfare system. Indeed, our welfare system does need to be reformed: it is too expensive and does not do enough to encourage its recipients to reenter the workforce. That said, increasing the labor force participation rate is a short-term solution--a Band-Aid. Why? Because that means increasing the number of workers out of the population that currently exists. Therein lies the real problem: regardless of our labor force participation rate, the absolute size of our potential labor force is now shrinking. In order for the labor market to continue growing organically, each American woman must have MORE than 2.1 children. That hasn't been the case in this country in a long time, and as of today, each American woman has an average of only 1.5 children. That means that our organic labor force is shrinking--more and more older people and fewer and fewer younger people.
For a while now, the overall size of our labor force has been growing because of immigration. Americans no longer have enough babies to keep it growing, so we've used immigration to grow. Now immigration is quickly falling off as well, so not only will our labor force resume its overall shrinking, but our population as a whole will begin to shrink. This will mean slower economic growth (perhaps even stagnation eventually), lower government revenue, more debt (all else equal), and standards of living that either don't rise or that rise only very slowly.
If we want to lower our debt, increase our standard of living, increase the rate of economic growth, and increase government revenue without increasing tax rates, then we must ensure that our labor force continues to grow. (This is especially true when one considers how much larger China and India's labor forces are than our own, something that could give them a considerable advantage over us over the long term.) Thus, there really are only two types of policies that we should be pursuing to this end: those that encourage families to have more babies and those that encourage more immigration.* *Caveat: "More immigration" doesn't mean no-holds-barred, beat-down-the-borders immigration. It means tailoring immigration quotas annually to the needs of our economy and issuing visas based on these needs. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
There's some good news and some bad news as we roll into Christmas vacation.
Since I like to end with good news whenever possible, I'll start with the bad.
The first topic I wanted to mention is the GOP tax plan. Actually, the news isn't all bad. For this one, it's both good and bad--a mixed bag. There are two parts to this: how the plan was constructed and the merits of the plan itself.
The way in which the plan was constructed is one of the universally negative aspects of the bill and is a prime example of how poorly Washington functions. The bill, whose partial initial purpose was to simplify our tax code, ballooned in a matter of weeks to nearly 500 pages and many hundreds of thousands of words. (So much for simplification, right?) On top of that, it was written entirely by Congressional Republicans. There was no attempt to reach across the aisle. There was no attempt to seek the CBO's input. In fact, the bill was thrown together so quickly that the CBO didn't have time to score it, most think tanks didn't get a chance to weigh in on the entire text, and members of Congress--Republicans--were admitting that they didn't have time to read much of it. This is a reform effort that will dramatically impact both our economy and our government's finances, and it appears to have been done in haste and without much due diligence. As evidence of this, consider what happened 20 December. Only after having voted for the bill did the House discover that portions of it violate Senate rules. Now the House will have to vote on it again on 21 December. Businesses don't run this way. Most Americans don't run their lives this way. Our government shouldn't run this way either. That said, the bill that emerged actually wasn't all bad. So what about its merits? First and foremost, it thoroughly overhauled our corporate tax system. It may well be the most significant corporate overhaul ever. Among other things, it reduced the corporate tax rate to 21% and switched the U.S. to a territorial rather than a global tax system. It created incentives for companies to bring cash back to our country too. This is universally a good thing. Our corporate income tax system was incredibly uncompetitive. Even with these major changes, we're not even close to the most competitive country out there. We're in the thick of the pack now though. These changes were long, long overdue. This will promote growth, increase the number of jobs, and could increase investment as well. (That part remains to be seen. There are good arguments both ways.) There were also substantial changes to the personal income tax system. This is where the both-good-and-bad part starts to come into the equation. There were many changes to the way that our personal income tax system works. For the first few years after the bill's passage, most Americans will see a very small reduction in their tax bills. That's where the good part ends though. Some Americans will actually have their tax burden increased. Even though their income tax rates may fall, the fact that so many deductions are being eliminated means that they may still end up having to pay more than they did before this bill (we're looking at you Californians). Even for those Americans who do experience a reduction, it is likely to be relatively small. After around 2020, almost half of Americans could actually be paying more in taxes than they would have under the "old" system. Unfortunately, the half of Americans who are having their tax burden increased are the half who earn the smaller amount of income. Those who earn more will get to keep their reduced burden for longer. By 2025, almost all of the personal income tax changes will then expire. That's right: The personal income tax deductions were not made permanent. They are temporary. This means that whether the personal income tax changes were a good or a bad thing isn't immediately obvious. Clearly most Americans would agree that having more money--even in one year--is good for them. There's quite a bit of evidence, however, that temporary tax cuts have very little impact on the economy, can create imbalances and even bubbles, and can even harm Americans who plan their budgets around their new tax rates only to find them shoot up again shortly thereafter. I believe that politicians at that time will just extend the tax cuts permanently (they are seeking reelection, after all). This will throw off all of the accounting tricks that make this bill ONLY cost an additional $1Trillion in debt... It will then cost more. On the whole, the bill makes a large number of necessary, long overdue changes. I can't shake the feeling that this was also an enormous missed opportunity though. The original goal of simplifying the tax code wasn't met. Both the corporate and individual codes remain as long and as complicated as they've ever been. On top of that, as I said, many of the bill's provisions are temporary anyway. This brings me to my last point and the one point that is unquestionably bad: Why are those provisions temporary? The short answer: They almost certainly had to be. This last point is my primary concern with the bill and is the only true reason that I question the wisdom of the bill as it is currently written. (There are ways to reform our tax code without piling trillions of dollars in additional debt onto our backs.) The previous sentence is the point: This bill adds a tremendous amount of new debt to our government. At an absolute minimum, it will add an additional nearly $500 billion to our national debt (according to The Tax Foundation). Most other analysis puts that total closer to $1 trillion or even $1.5 trillion. Bear in mind that that is debt above and beyond what we'd have already accumulated. We'll still be accumulating the "other" debt too. Republicans are now up against a harsh reality. They've campaigned for years on cutting the tax burden. For years--decades even--our government had a small enough debt load that we could easily have done this without significant adverse impact. The cold, hard reality now though is that we have such an enormous debt load (105% of GDP) that we're actually quite constrained in how much--and for how long--we can reduce people's tax burdens without causing government solvency problems. Thus, Republicans opted to have most of this tax bill's changes expire in less than a decade in order to slow the accumulation of debt.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
This is why Republicans have actually added more to the national debt than Democrats have. We want to increase military spending, increase infrastructure spending, and keep welfare spending the same (apparently) but reduce the government's revenue. If that's what you plan to do, then there's only one way to fund it: more debt. In other words, young people today and people yet to be born are having their futures mortgaged. This is IMMORAL, even if it means we save 4% on our tax bills, personally.
After all of this new debt is accumulated, what will happen? Well, our rates will go right back up again. We'll be back where we started, only with a lot more debt. What, then, did we really accomplish for individuals? In all likelihood, we've hurt them over the long term for one reason. Mark my words: Our debt load is so large and growing so quickly, that bickering over the temporary nature of tax cuts will one day seem to be a luxury. Unless we get our fiscal house in order, we are only borrowing from people's futures. A day is coming when our tax rates will have to be RAISED in order to keep our government solvent. Eventually our debt will impose realities like that. This is what we are setting ourselves up for. The Republicans like to think that their tax cuts generate enough new growth to pay for themselves. The reality, of course, is that they don't. Even the most politically conservative analysis supports me on this. They do cause some additional growth, but they don't cause enough to fully pay for cuts, and they never have. Not a single tax cut package has ever fully paid for itself with new growth. That's why you must cut spending. Cutting spending is how you make the equation balance. We tell ourselves that our tax cuts mean that we don't have to cut spending because the lower tax rates will generate enough new growth to pay for themselves. This is only a psychological need: We tell ourselves this so that we feel better about the long-term problems we know that our debt accumulation will cause. We want to believe it. The problem is that it simply isn't true. (On a side note, we're likely to experience even less growth from this tax bill now than we would have a couple of decades ago when we first started talking about it because our labor force is now shrinking. Regardless of tax rates, there's only so much new growth that can be generated from a shrinking labor force. We don't have enough babies and now also discourage immigration. There isn't a third way to grow a population or a labor force over the long term.)
Anyway, I said that I'd end on a positive note, and I will. The new national security strategy that Trump announced yesterday is tremendous. It places additional emphasis on jihadist networks, as well it should. It shines a spotlight evermore directly at North Korea, as well it should.
The most important aspect is this though: It labeled China a "strategic competitor." You can bet that that is absolutely true. China is not a friend of the United States or of the global trade and sovereignty rules whereby the U.S.-led system operates. China sees themselves very much in competition with the U.S., and it's time we stepped up to the plate. China plays on a market field that has no foul lines. It's time for us to level that playing field. While many Americans are complaining about Mexico's impact on our economy (which, contrary to much of what is shared on Facebook, actually provides an enormous boost to our economy), China steals our long-term prosperity. When it comes to engaging with the rest of the world, China looks out for China first. Thus, when it comes to engaging China, we should look out for ourselves first. Sometimes diplomacy is called for, but most of the time you need to call something what it is. The era of holding China's hand and pretending that they're are our friend must end. China is a competitor that plays by its own rules at the expense of Americans' economic interests, and it's time for us to meet that challenge head on. I applaud Trump for making this change. It's time. Let's gear up and fight for our long-term economic wellbeing. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
The elections last night were, to be honest, a disaster for Republicans.
This should serve as a wake-up call to the GOP and to Republicans everywhere. There are two problems here. 1. Republicans like to campaign on fiscal responsibility, cutting spending and repealing ObamaCare. Once in power, we find it's business as usual. 2. There is now a remote possibility that these results were only a prelude of what's to come in the even more significant mid-term elections just one year from now. The problem isn't that we might have less Republicans (or conversely more Democrats). The problem is the messaging that will be shoved down our throats when Democrats begin to re-balance power back in their favor. "The People Have Spoken!" "Conservatives can't Govern!" "Single Payer for All!" Virginia used to be a largely conservative state. Then for many years, it was a reliable swing state. Now it is probably more a Democratic state than anything else (not solidly so--but still). The point: Virginia is continuing its long-term slide to the Left and won't be the last state to do so. As has been said many times, the Republican Party must think about their strategy and, crucially, about how they communicate with the public. It's a challenge for Google to find a time when Republicans actually reduced the size of government but that might be a starting point. Republicans cannot expect to overcome that challenge by doing the same things they've always done. They need to give serious thought to how we should be reaching out to voters in this day, time, and environment. For those of you who still support the Republican Party, I understand why your allegiance hasn't shifted to the Democratic Party. But when do you think the Republicans will start to represent you? At what point will you realize that reducing the size of government and reducing spending isn't going to happen? At this rate, I assume it's when we either a) hit $23 Trillion in Debt (2020) shortly followed by a Democratic President or b) $28 Trillion in debt (2024) and shortly followed by a Democratic President. At that point, it will be too late and the Republican Party will have to take a long look at itself and decide if it even holds limited government as a principle, or if it ever did. My worry is that, when the Republican Party goes through it's next soul-searching period, the Democratic Party (shortly to be the outwardly proclaimed "Socialist Party") will wreck havoc on this great country. Vote Libertarian in the meantime. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
I've provided a link to "Manners and Political Life" by Dr. George Friedman.
If you don't want to read it all, then just scroll down and read the part under the heading "Authenticity." As you read it, think of examples of politicians and other public figures who foment animosity and who seem to see the "other side" not as well intended opponents but as enemies. Be honest with yourself: think of some both from the other side and from your own side. Can you? Then be even more honest with yourself: Do you respect those who disagree with you? Can you discuss political issues without becoming angry and eventually slinging insults? Even if someone else does it to you, do you refrain from responding in kind? I watch Facebook discussions frequently, and I must say that it isn't only some of our politicians who create division and discord. Many of our fellow average citizens engage in hostility toward the other side--and reward politicians who do the same. Therein lies our greatest challenge as a nation. Democrats aren't our greatest challenge. Republicans aren't our greatest challenge. Donald Trump isn't our greatest challenge. Hillary Clinton isn't our greatest challenge. The truth is that all four of these thrive on hostility, but they aren't thriving on their own hostility. They are thriving on the anger and hostility of an electorate that uses the ballot box to reward them for their intransigence. In a sense, the political discourse among our citizens--not our politicians--is the most fundamental problem. We pride ourselves less on coming together to forge solutions and more on on our ability simply to prevent the other side from accomplishing anything. We spend less time trying to improve our own side and more time trying to show that we're not as bad as the other side. Republicans cannot complain that Democrats call them "ignorant" when so many Republicans call Democrats "un-American." Democrats cannot complain that so many Republicans call them "baby killers" when so many Democrats blanketly label all Republicans "racist." If you want to know which side is at fault, look at your own. If you want to see a person who is at fault--or at least could do better--then look in a mirror. The next time you find yourself disagreeing with someone, try to understand what the other person is really saying. Do this without simultaneously trying to decide how to respond. The most important thing, after all, isn't your response; it's your listening. When you do finally respond, discuss issues and facts, not each other. The issues are important, and solutions are desired. Your opinion of someone's character is neither important nor desired. The point isn't for you to win an argument against an enemy, which, even if it occurred, would serve no purpose other than your own vanity. If you really want to win an argument though, I assure you that you're more likely to do so when you and the other party respect each other than when you do not. At the end of the day, if disagreement persists, then guess what: That's okay. This is America, where the right to disagree is Constitutional. Learn from the exchange, and move forward with dignity. Even though you disagree with each other, you may have helped to create the trust and space necessary for solutions to eventually take hold. Read George Friedman's Full Column Here
Purchasing your Amazon items through this search box supports libertyLOL and doesn't cost you a penny more at checkout!
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain (beta) Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
I've been watching the health care debate over the last few weeks very closely. It's one of the most important policy challenges facing this country--second only to the national debt and the economy. So far, it seems that the GOP's strategy can best be summarized in the following manner.
PLAN A: Quickly, quietly, and in the most partisan manner possible, secretively draft a very bad piece of health care legislation and then rush it out for a vote before the rest of Congress or the public can read it and see how bad it is. Result: Failed (in a matter of days). PLAN B: Quickly, quietly, and in the most partisan manner possible, secretively draft a very bad piece of health care legislation that makes only the bare minimum of improvements on Plan A's bill and then rush it out for a vote before the rest of Congress or the public can read it and see how bad it is. Result: Failed (in a matter of days). PLAN C: Simply give up on any sort of reform at all and instead just repeal Obamacare. Result: Failed (the very next day). PLAN D: Simply give up even on efforts to repeal Obamacare, hope it fails (no matter how many Americans that hurts), and then see if we can quickly, quietly, and in the most partisan manner possible, secretively draft a very bad piece of health care legislation and then rush it out for a vote before the rest of Congress or the public can read it and see how bad it is. Result: Does it really matter? (If the plan succeeds, then the country fails. If the plan fails, then the country fails.)
CAVEAT 1 TO PLANS A THROUGH D: If possible, vote on bills before the CBO has had a chance to evaluate them because when you've written bad bills, objective assessments are not your friend.
CAVEAT 2 TO PLANS A THROUGH D: If possible, convince junior members of Congress to ignore the fact that insurance companies, doctor groups, patient groups, government researchers, university researchers, and non-profits all oppose the bill--a rare instance of complete unity across the health care stakeholder spectrum. (In other words, convince more junior members of Congress to ignore the fact that the only people who support these bills are the more senior members of Congress who paid staffers to write the bills for no other reason than to be able to say that they fulfilled a campaign promise. They might as well just pass a blank sheet of paper that says "Obamacare Repeal" and then pat themselves on the proverbial back.) The political calculation of Mitch McConnell, who is quite possibly one of the worst Republican leaders currently living--and very near the worst even if we also include those who are no longer living as well as those who have never lived--also is absolutely impossible for more rational minds to grasp. First he decides to put up for vote a bill that stands no chance of passing. No surprise here: It fails. Then he calculates that drafting another bill that stands no chance of passing is just what the doctor (no pun intended) ordered. Lo and behold, it fails too! Finally, he decides simply to repeal Obamacare outright, and what do you know: This effort failed before he'd even written the bill. He has now nearly single-handedly assured the GOP, which is running the least productive government in history, of a significant black eye in next year's elections. Let's be honest: Even though I'm a Republican, I'm well aware that since the GOP took control of the government, absolutely nothing has happened that would give the American people any confidence that we are actually able to govern. The GOP can't pass bills through Congress even though we control BOTH houses of Congress, and we certainly aren't bothering to lift a finger to bring on board any Democratic support. (They did this to us, so we should do it to them, right? The American people are paying us large salaries simply to do unto the others as they did unto us, right?) What ever happened to reaching across the aisle, sitting down in good faith, and speaking in terms of what is good and bad for the American people? What ever happened to setting aside partisanship and simply committing to drafting the best piece of health care legislation possible? What ever happened to the idea that it's better to do something right or to not do it at all? What ever happened to the idea that it's better to do something right than to do it fast? What ever happened to wanting to craft into legislation ideas that would garner overwhelming support, not ones that are considered an utter blowout if they can pass one house of Congress by just one vote? What ever happened to the fact that the point of being in office isn't to defeat the other side but is to win for the American people? "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
|
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |