Wednesday, December 19, 2012

RIP

Robert H. Bork, one of my biggest heroes, requiescat in pacem.

Here are some of my favorite quotes:

    [L]egal reasoning of the sort that served us for centuries is now utterly outmoded, and a verbal formulation can always be devised to reach the correct political result. … If the Constitution is law, then presumably its meaning, like that of all other law, is the meaning the lawmakers were understood to have intended. If the Constitution is law, then presumably, like all other law, the meaning the lawmakers intended is as binding upon judges as it is upon legislatures and executives. … It is here that the concept of neutral principles, which Wechsler said were essential if the Supreme Court were not to be a naked power organ, comes into play. (The Tempting of America, p. 135, p. 145)

    The role of a judge committed to the philosophy of original understanding is not to “choose a level of abstraction.” Rather, it is to find the meaning of a text — a process which includes finding its degree of generality, which is a part of its meaning — and to apply that text to a particular situation. (The Tempting of America pp. 148-9)

    This development can be seen in any number of academic, previously intellectual fields. Sometimes called post-modernism or post-structuralism, the denial of truth is, as Gertrude Himmelfarb says, "best know as a school of literary theory. But it is becoming increasingly prominent in such other disciplines as history, philosophy, anthropology, law, and theology..." It is also becoming increasingly difficult to call some of those subjects "disciplines." In every case — the attack on reason, on the concept of truth, and on the idea that there is an objective reality to which we must attempt to make our words and theories correspond — the impetus behind such assaults comes from the political left. … Nonsense these attacks may be, but, as the history of our century teaches, there is no guarantee that nonsense will not prevail, with dire results. In law, philosophy, literary studies, and history, among other subjects, we are raising generations of students who are taught by the "cutting edge" professors that traditional respect for logic, evidence, intellectual honesty, and the other requirements of discipline are not merely passé, but totalitarian and repressive, sustaining existing social, political, and economic arrangements to the benefit of white, heterosexual males. To change society in radical directions, it is said, it is necessary to be rid of the old apparatus. (Slouching towards Gomorrah, pp. 268-9)

Sunday, December 16, 2012

The blueprint for the ideal enterprise software company in the age of entitlements

As an entrepreneurially inclined software engineer (over the last two decades I have worked for 3 Silicon Valley enterpise software startups that have gone on to successful IPO’s), I have been asking myself lately the following question: What is the blueprint for the ideal enterprise software company in the age of entitlements? In attempting to answer that question, I have assumed that government spending on entitlement programs will only continue to expand (that is, more and more programs will make more and more transfer payments to an ever-increasing army of Julias). So, the problem becomes one of imagining a company that can best profit from the expansion of these entitlement programs. Here's how such a company might operate.

Identify those who are eligible for entitlement programs. Lawyers in the legal department of our ideal company will work together with government policy makers and regulators to clarify the rules of eligibility for the entitlement programs. The goal of the lawyers should be to make sure that the eligibility rules are interpreted as liberally as possible (short of fraud) to maximize the pool of eligible individuals.

Reach out through various channels (including social media) to those who are eligible for entitlement programs and recruit them into the programs. This will need to be a joint effort of the legal, marketing, and engineering departments. The legal department will supply the rules of eligibility. The marketing department will develop marketing campaigns to reach out to eligible individuals. The engineering department will develop the software systems to identify eligible individuals and to execute the marketing campaigns on a vast scale through a variety of social media channels. As but a single example, the software team could set up a system that would cause an advertisement for food stamps to be displayed on a web page whenever a user googled the terms “food stamps;” if a user clicked on the advertisement, their browser would be redirected to a Facebook page with information about food stamps and a form the user could fill out to be contacted by a worker from the food stamps program. Our company could charge a fee for every new individual who submitted one of these contact forms.

Build systems that allow the entitlement program to manage the entire lifecycle of a recipient in a program. These systems will perform such tasks as: enter the recipient into the system; disburse payments to the recipient; remove the recipient from the system (preferably only after several levels of approval). Call centers attached to back office systems can be set up to allow recipients to call in and talk to a program representative if the recipient is experiencing a problem with benefits. For example, if a recipient does not receive a scheduled payment, s/he can call in and complain. These systems should transfer payments to the eligible with lightning speed and with minimal stigma. Perhaps the optimum transfer mechanism without stigma is the EBT card (see below). With such a mechanism, our company can receive a small transaction fee for every transfer processed through the system.

Build additional systems to support the “cross-selling” of additional entitlement benefits to recipients. Over time, our company will build up an enormous database of individuals who are receiving one or another kind of entitlement payment. If an individual is eligible for one kind of entitlement payment, that individual might also likely be eligible for another kind. The software team will build systems that a.) data mine the company’s data to identify individuals who have a high likelihood of being eligible for other types of entitlement payments and b.) reach out to those individuals to recruit them into new programs.

Produce research supporting the continuation/expansion of the entitlement program; lobby in favor of the program; encourage voters to vote for the program. The marketing department of the company will also need to produce "research" purporting to demonstrate that the government entitlement programs are achieving their noble ends and that "catastrophic" consequences will ensue if funds for these programs are cut off. The marketing department will supply the results of their research to company lobbyists in the legal department to help support the lobbying effort to influence politicians to expand/extend the funding for the entitlement programs. In addition, the marketing and engineering teams will once again mine their data to identify individuals who are likely to vote to elect supportive politicians and reach out to those individuals through social media to influence them to vote.

In an article entitled Will Obamacare Spark the Next Tech Boom? Bertha Coombs of CNBC describes how the incentives created by entitlement programs operate to create companies that seek to grow and live off the entitlement ecosystem:


    Big Blue [IBM] has gone after contracts to build out state health insurance exchanges that will play a central role in the rollout of Obamacare in 2014. "In the middle of this, we acquired a company, Curam, that has tremendous strength in this area," Brooks said. ... So far, the Obama administration gave states nearly $2 billion in funding for the development of the exchanges, but analysts say for tech firms the opportunities are still growing when it comes to the build-out of the infrastructure that will be needed to carry out the expansion of coverage under Medicaid for the health care overhaul. ... Xerox won a $72 million contract to the build-out of Nevada's state insurance exchange earlier this yea. Accenture won one of the biggest prizes, a $399 million contract in June to lead the build-out of California's health benefit exchange, with Oracle and Canadian health IT firm CGi Group serving as subcontractors.

IBM’s press release describing its acquisition of Curam states:

    [Curam] expands IBM’s ability to help cities and governments serve citizens better by adopting more intelligent and efficient ways to assess needs, execute social programs, and maximize program results. Curam Software is used by health and human services, workforce services, and social security organizations around the world to deliver welfare, social insurance and both individual and employer based social programs.

That is, a company that develops software systems to help governments administer the welfare state has become a hot startup worthy of being snapped up by IBM to become a cornerstone of its government healthcare initiatives. IBM makes sure to point out in the press release that the name Curam "means 'care and protection' in Irish." A tear rolls down the cheek when one thinks of all those big-hearted Irish software engineers helping to develop systems that minister to the poor.

Another wonderful example of a company retooling itself to profit handsomely by administering entitlement programs is JP Morgan. As Peter Schweizer writes in an article entitled JP Morgan's Food Stamp Empire:

    Why, you may be wondering, would one of the nation’s biggest banks benefit from a bill meant to feed poor children? A closer look at the legislation reveals the answer. The bill mandates that “all state agencies implement Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems by October 1, 2020” for those receiving money through the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. And which company administers nearly half of all states’ EBT programs? You guessed it: JP Morgan Chase. ... “This business is a very important business to JP Morgan,” Christopher Paton, the company’s managing director of treasury services, told Bloomberg News in 2011. “It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale. We also regard it as very important in the sense that we are delivering a very useful social function [to be sure]. We are a key part of this benefit delivery mechanism. Right now volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years or so … The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.” ... Just how lucrative JP Morgan’s EBT state contracts are is hard to say, because total national data on EBT contracts are not reported. But thanks to a combination of public-records requests and contracts that are available online, here’s what we do know: 18 of the 24 states JP Morgan handles have been contracted to pay the bank up to $560,492,596.02 since 2004.

As for the ability of such companies to reach out to voters to influence them to vote to expand the entitlement programs they are already in, we have seen exactly such an operation in action in the last election. In an article entitled Barack Obama's Big Data won the US election, Mike Lynch writes:

    What this tells us is that data mining is changing politics and the Obama campaign micro-targeted potential supporters. ... Everything about a person that can be measured, was measured and, combined with predictive analytics, allowed the campaign not only to find voters but also to determine what sorts of messages would get their attention and what types of people would be persuaded by certain types of messages.

In sum, then, what is the blueprint for the ideal enterprise software company in the age of entitlements? Why, obviously, one that can build the high-tech engines for administering the government's massive entitlement programs and that can marshall its legal, analytical, and social media resources to expand and reach the pool of eligible entitlement recipients and persuade politicians and voters to extend and expand these programs.

Entitlement capitalism is alive and well in Silicon Valley. Invest accordingly. At least, that is, until the government's money runs out.

One final observation. One of the complaints one hears most often about government is that it is "inefficient and wasteful." What the above blogpost makes clear is that it may not be the wastefulness of government that is harmful, but rather the very efficiency with which private companies respond to the incentives created by government entitlement programs. Think about for-profit education companies (FPE's). The government made available vast sums of money in the form of student aid. So, FPE's sprang up whose functions were: identify students eligible for this aid, assist those students in applying for that aid, and process those students through educational curricula that met the minimum standards of the government student-aid programs. In other words, the goal of the FPE's was not really to educate our young people, but to process as many student aid recipients through their pipeline as possible, shearing off the student aid funds from each one. In return for providing these "services," the FPE's pocketed the vast sums of money made available through student aid and made enormous profits for their shareholders. The benefit to the students themselves and to society as a whole is less clear. Many of the students are still unemployed (how many minimally qualified "computer technicians" can the market absorb after all) and saddled with burdensome student loans. Similar observations can be made about the way in which banks responded to the incentives created by the government to make subprime loans: that is, the problem was not that too few loans were made, but that the machines for making and packaging minimally compliant subprime loans ran all too well. The argument is often made that the application of technology will reduce costs (for example, in Obamacare). No one ever considers the possibility that the application of technology may increase costs because new high-tech enterprise software systems will streamline and increase the flow of benefits from the government to recipients.

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Give Obama and the Democrats everything they want

I have changed my mind.

I now believe that, when it comes time to vote whether to increase the marginal tax rate on “millionaires and billionaires” (those making over $250K per year in Obamaspeak) to 39.5%, the Republicans in the House and Senate should vote present. Let Obama and the Democrats have their way on this issue.

I now believe that, when it comes time to vote on whether to increase the debt ceiling by $2T, the Republicans in the House and Senate should vote present. Let Obama and the Democrats have their way on this issue.

For years the Democrats and their allies in the media have accused Republicans of being “obstructionists,” opposing all Mr Obama’s enlightened policies out of, say, racial animus. If only the evil Republicans had not always stood in the way, it is claimed, prosperity would have returned, unemployment would be down, the deficit would have been closed, and the national debt would have been retired. Well, it’s now time to find out if all these claims are true.

Mr Obama ran on a platform. The American people voted in favor of that platform. So, it’s time to see whether that platform actually works. Give Mr Obama and the Democrats everything they want and let’s see what happens.

[Just so I get due credit when the time comes, here is what I predict will happen. By the end of 2014, the annual deficit will still be over $1T a year and we will have added another couple of trillion dollars to our overall national debt; entitlement spending will still be out of control and threatening the long-term welfare of the nation; unemployment will still be above the post-WWII average of 5.77%; the growth rate of GDP will still be scraping along below the post-WWII average of 3.2%. Finally, interest rates on Treasuries will have soared because the financial markets will panic when they realize there no longer is any brake whatsoever on Democratic spending and borrowing; not even QE IV, V, VI, ... will be able to hold interest rates down.]

Obama's allies, Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, wage real war against women and minorities

Why isn't President Obama denouncing the actions of President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Everything that Morsi and the Brotherhood are doing is utterly antithetical to the development of a liberal, secular democracy In Cairo. Morsi and the Brotherhood are trying to ram through a constitution that was drafted by an Islamist dominated assembly. Of this constitution, which establishes sharia as the basis of Egyptian society, the Times of Israel writes:

    One of Egypt’s most prominent ultraconservative Muslim clerics had high praise for the country’s draft constitution. Speaking to fellow clerics, he said this was the charter they had long wanted, ensuring that laws and rights would be strictly subordinated to Islamic law.

    “This constitution has more complete restraints on rights than ever existed before in any Egyptian constitution,” Sheik Yasser Borhami assured the clerics. “This will not be a democracy that can allow what God forbids or forbid what God allows.”

    The draft constitution that is now at the center of worsening political turmoil would empower Islamists to carry out the most widespread and strictest implementation of Islamic law that modern Egypt has seen. That authority rests on the three articles that explicitly mention Shariah, as well as obscure legal language buried in a number of other articles that few noticed during the charter’s drafting but that Islamists insisted on including.

As Egypt descends into Iran-like medieval darkness, the Obama Administration stands by and does nothing, presumably "leading from behind" once again. As David Ignatius writes:

    Through this upheaval, the Obama administration has been oddly restrained. After the power grab, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said: "We call for calm and encourage all parties to work together and call for all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue." Not exactly a thundering denunciation.

    "You need to explain to me why the U.S. reaction to Morsi's behavior is so muted," one Arab official wrote me. "So a Muslim Brotherhood leader becomes president of Egypt. He then swoops in with the most daring usurping of presidential powers since the Pharaohs, enough to make Mubarak look like a minor league autocrat in training by comparison, and the only response the USG can put out is [Nuland's statement]." This official wondered if the U.S. had lost its moral and political bearings in its enthusiasm to find new friends.

We heard for months that the Republicans were "waging a war against women and minorities." Now President Obama stands by and does nothing as women's rights and the rights of minorities in Egypt are trampled on.

Monday, December 3, 2012

The Brotherhood's unconstitutional power grabs

In Egypt, President Morsi declares that his decrees should not be subject to judicial review.

In America, President Obama declares that the debt ceiling should not be subject to legislative vote.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Who is responsible for racial polarization in America today?

See Seth Mandel's column "The Washington Post's Dreams of Dixie" and William Jacobson's column "Saturday Night Card Game." A taste from Mr Jacobson's column:

    Everytime I think the Democratic race card players could not get more vile, more deranged, more patronizingly demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Morsi's powers are temporary

President Mohammend Morsi of Egypt gave assurances today that his decree placing all his decrees above judicial review is only temporary. WSJ reports:

    Yasser Ali, a presidential spokesman, ... said Monday that Mr. Morsi assured judges that his decree is "temporary" and limited only to "sovereignty-related issues."

Also in the news today, Iran has given the Obama Administration assurances that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

More Obama ineptitude in Egypt

One day:

    "I want to thank President Morsi for his personal leadership to de-escalate the situation in Gaza and end the violence," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who met Morsi Thursday, said at a Cairo press conference with Egypt's foreign minister announcing the accord. "This is a critical moment for the region. Egypt's new government is assuming the responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone of regional stability and peace," she said.

The next:

    Egypt's highest body of judges on Saturday slammed a recent decision by [President Morsi] to grant himself near-absolute power, calling the move an "unprecedented assault" on the judiciary. In a statement carried on Egypt's official MENA news agency, the Supreme Judicial Council condemned this week's declaration by President Mohammed Morsi placing his decrees above judicial review until a new constitution and Parliament is in place, several months if not more in the future.

So, it turns out that the man that the Obama Administration praises one day as a great statesman turns out the next day to be just another petty Islamist tyrant. Talk about egg on the face.

The President's naivete concerning Mr Morsi's intentions is well-conveyed by the breathless coverage given by the New York Times to the new love affair between the two leaders. Gushes the Times:

    The cease-fire brokered between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday was the official unveiling of this unlikely new geopolitical partnership, one with bracing potential if not a fair measure of risk for both men. After a rocky start to their relationship, Mr. Obama has decided to invest heavily in the leader whose election caused concern because of his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, seeing in him an intermediary who might help make progress in the Middle East beyond the current crisis in Gaza. ... Mr. Obama told aides he was impressed with the Egyptian leader’s pragmatic confidence. He sensed an engineer’s precision with surprisingly little ideology. Most important, Mr. Obama told aides that he considered Mr. Morsi a straight shooter who delivered on what he promised and did not promise what he could not deliver. “The thing that appealed to the president was how practical the conversations were — here’s the state of play, here are the issues we’re concerned about,” said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “This was somebody focused on solving problems.”

An engineer focused on solving problems? Rather an Islamist radical who supports the terrorist organization Hamas and seizes dictatorial power over Egypt. Bracing potential, indeed!

So, we have come full circle. We started with the dictator Hosni Mubarak and have ended up with the dictator Mohammed Morsi. The difference, however, is that Mubarak was friendly to the West and conciliatory towards Israel, while Morsi is a supporter of Hamas. How this state of affairs represents an improvement for US interests remains to be explained by Mr Obama. What it looks like instead is that the Administration hasn't a clue about what is going on in Egypt. Perhaps we should expect Susan Rice to make the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows tomorrow to explain that the new turmoil in Egypt is a spontaneous reaction to an offensive video.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Obama the Amateur. Carter redux, only worse

I have commented in earlier blog posts (for example, here) on President Obama's botched Mideast policy.

Mr Obama has pressured dictators to step down and promoted in their place so-called "democratic" movements, which have often turned out to be controlled by radical Islamist elements that are less friendly to the West. For example, in Egypt, Obama pressured Hosni Mubarak to step down and then supported the Egyption elections that installed a member of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi, as President of Egypt. As Reuters reported at the time, Israeli leaders were shocked at Obama's naivete:

    One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled "A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam." It accused Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks. Who is advising them, he asked, "to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president ... an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?" "The politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the generations ... is painfully naive."

Now, as predicted, the new Islamist regime in Egypt has abandoned Mubarak's conciliatory attitude towards Israel, and declared its emphatic support for the leaders of Hamas, who, emboldened by their new found support in Cairo, have escalated attacks against Israel and launched hundreds of missiles from Gaza into the heartland of the Jewish state. As WSJ reports:

    On Thursday, Mr. Morsi ordered Egypt's prime minister to lead a delegation into Gaza on Friday, Egyptian state television reported. The visit would pose an unprecedented challenge to Israel ... Mr. Morsi's activist response to Israeli-Palestinian violence marks a stark reversal from the more hands-off policies of his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak. ... For many Palestinians, a more supportive government in Egypt would be their first sense of change from an Arab Spring that until now has largely passed them by. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the two retain close ties. ... Many Israelis and Palestinians argue that it was the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt that helped embolden Palestinian factions, including some elements of Hamas, to take a more defiant and confrontational approach to Israel that helped trigger this current flare-up.

The Washington Post writes:

    Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi signaled the extent of the shift on Friday when he sent his prime minister to Gaza in a show of solidarity with Hamas. The move was a radical break from the policy of Morsi’s ousted predecessor, Hosni Mubarak. ... Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil toured Gaza alongside Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, a longtime Mubarak foe, in the highest-profile Egyptian visit to Gaza since Hamas took power in 2007. Morsi, meanwhile, warned Israel of a “high price” for continued military operations in the coastal enclave. “Egypt will not leave Gaza alone,” Morsi said in a speech to a crowd of worshippers at a mosque on Cairo’s outskirts. “I speak on behalf of all of the Egyptian people in saying that Egypt today is different from Egypt yesterday, and the Arabs today are different from the Arabs of yesterday.” ... Morsi, a longtime Muslim Brotherhood leader, came to power this year in elections in which he defeated a candidate with long-standing ties to Egypt’s military, which under Mubarak was a staunch defender of the nation’s peace treaty with Israel.

In sum, Mr Obama's "lead-from-behind" policies have overthrown our ally Mubarak, who played a stabilizing role in the region, and replaced him with the aggressive, radical, Hamas-friendly Morsi regime on Israel's doorstep. As a result, the Palestinians in Gaza have been emboldened and are now attacking Israel once again. And now, the Morsi government's statements have become so bellicose that we should not be surprised if hostilities break out between Israel and Egypt. At the same time, Mr Obama has failed to derail Iran's attempts to obtain nuclear weapons. Syria sinks further into chaos. Al Qaeda is growing stronger in Mali. Our consulate in Benghazi is a pile of smoking ruins and the next step in the deterioration of the situation could very well be further attacks on American embassies and consulates throughout the region. Finally, at this very moment of intensifying chaos, we are in the process of drawing down our troops throughout the Middle East so that we will have no means to project American power and influence there.

Obama, the Amateur. Carter redux, only worse.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Court Asian and Eastern European immigrants, not Latinos

I invite you to consider the following image: a fat, white good ole boy (a real Pappy O'Daniel type), putting his arm around the shoulder of a young Latino and saying: "Hey there, Pancho, why don't you consider voting for the Republican candidate." Doesn't work does it.

Ever since the days of Cesar Chavez and Bobby Kennedy, Latinos have been the natural constituents of the Democratic Party. Given this situation, if a general amnesty were granted to all Latino illegal aliens currently in the US and they all became US citizens, this would simply create more votes for the Democratic Party. Why, for heaven's sake, would Republicans ever want to bring this about?

Now consider the characteristics of the Latinos for whom this amnesty is being proposed: they are, for the most part, very hard working, but poorly educated and with little earning power. They are often gardeners, housekeepers, unskilled construction workers (drive by Home Depot any morning), restaurant busboys, or women providing in-home care for elderly family members. They are often paid in cash, and therefore do not pay payroll or income taxes. A recent article published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis characterizes this population and their disproportionate need for public assistance (in this case, for food stamps) as follows:

    The Hispanic population is growing rapidly in the U.S. generally and in the southern states particularly. This rapidly growing population is characterized by high poverty rates among children and the elderly compared to other races. The Hispanic population is also less educated, characterized by low income, lacks English language proficiency, and has a need for public assistance. Hispanic total and household participation in the FSP [Food Stamp Program] increased rapidly, especially in metro counties. The increase in participation is about three times that of the total population. Participation of Hispanic children in the program was also much higher than for adults. The growing Hispanic population with special needs and requirements and rising participation in the FSP will pose new challenges to food assistance administration to serve this group.

Finally, consider the question of whether a general amnesty would even staunch the flow of Latino illegal immigration. Would not a general amnesty rather simply encourage even more illegal immigrants to come north? The message an amnesty would send would be: Just make it to the US and survive long enough; eventually, you, too, will be granted citizenship. Thus, illegal immigration might actually increase after a general amnesty. Of the amnesty legislation for illegal immigrants of 1986, the NYT writes:

    President Ronald Reagan signed that bill into law with great fanfare amid promises that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all. Instead, fraudulent applications tainted the process, many employers continued their illicit hiring practices, and illegal immigration surged.

So, even if the Republican Party could win additional Latino votes by agreeing to a general amnesty (which, obviously, it cannot), it is not at all clear that an amnesty would be beneficial to society as a whole. It is questionable whether the contribution of a wave of poorly educated, low-income Latino citizens to society would be greater than their burden on it. What's more, it's not at all clear that a general amnesty would even put a halt to Latino illegal immigration.

Instead of courting the Hispanic vote with the promise of a general amnesty, then, I recommend that the Republican Party take a different approach (at least here in Silicon Valley): encourage more legal immigration from Asia and Eastern Europe (from India, China, and Russia, for example) and court these new immigrants as potential Republican voters. For simplicity, I will refer to this group of potential US citizens as non-Latino immigrants.

If the US applied the correct filters, non-Latino immigration would result in an enormous new influx of ambitious, high-tech workers into California. Everywhere you look in Silicon Valley, you see non-Latino immigrants already helping to build the high-tech economy. The education level, technical and engineering skills, and earning power of this population is significantly higher than what is found in the Latino population. Since these immigrants work in high-tech companies with well-defined HR procedures, they are not paid in cash under the table, like many Latino workers are, and therefore actually pay taxes. My guess is that they also make much less use of social services than the Latino population does. As a group, they generally place a very high value on education, so that the school districts where non-Latino immigrant families preponderate often have outstanding public schools, with little gang activity (think of the Mission attendance area in Fremont, where property values are sky high because of the schools). All the software companies I have ever worked for in Silicon Valley have always drawn and continue to draw extensively on this pool of non-Latino immigrants. In fact, these immigrants often form the backbone of software development teams (as they do in the software company I work in) throughout the Valley.

In my opinion, non-Latino immigrants are natural constituents of the Republican Party. My experience is that they have conservative family values. They believe that one should get ahead through hard work, not government handouts. They understand the financial mess the US finds itself in and find it repugnant. Their value system is decidedly entrepreneurial and meritocratic. Statements like President Obama's "You didn't build that" are counterintuitive to them. Try telling the Indian and Chinese high-tech entrepreneurs of software companies like Tibco and Informatica that they didn't build those companies.

In sum, the Republican Party should forget about pandering to Latinos and blacks and instead promote real, global diversity by advocating for more non-Latino, non-black immigration into Northern California. Once these new immigrants from Asia and Europe are absorbed into the American melting pot, they will be far more likely to support the many strands of conservative thought that find their natural home in the Republican Party.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Who has the whip hand?

I have read several commentators on the election express the sentiment that President Obama now has the whip hand. One commentator wrote that Mr Obama’s position was “strengthened by his reelection.” Now that is about the most stupid statement I have ever heard. Yeah, Obama would have been considerably weakened if he had lost.

At any rate, the question remains: Which party now is in the position of advantage and control? My opinion is that the Republicans are in a relatively strong position for one reason: we are closing in once again on the debt ceiling. Any increase in the debt ceiling must pass through the Republican controlled House. If the debt ceiling is not increased, financial chaos will ensue, possibly plunging us back into another recession. Presumably, President Obama will want to avoid that scenario.

It’s time for hardball, Republicans. All you need to do is channel your inner Angela Merkel and just say no. That is, no unless you get substantive reform in return. The argument is easy to make: By continually increasing the debt ceiling without reducing spending and the size of government or reforming entitlements, we are careening towards financial Armageddon anyways. Every well-run business recognizes that there are certain times when there is too much debt on the balance sheet and the level of debt must be reduced. To do anything else is simply to act irresponsibly. Yes, there will be pain associated with reducing this debt, but anyone who tells you this pain is avoidable after so many years of deficit spending is simply lying to you. We cannot delay any longer. The fiscal mess we find ourselves in is enormous and must be addressed now. Presumably, one of the reasons President Obama was reelected was to put our fiscal house in order, not to continue to kick the can down the road to the point where financial catastrophe (a la Greece) is the only possible outcome. It is time for Mr Obama to step forward as a responsible, mature, and capable leader and fix the financial problems that face us. If he cannot, then, probably Bill Clinton's assessment of him as an "amateur" should be accepted as true after all.

In sum, Republicans, you have substantial leverage and a powerful argument to back it up. It's time to use the whip.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Good luck, Oedipus.

The Greeks had a word for it: Até. It is a kind of blindness or self-delusion. At the very moment a man thinks he is at the pinnacle of success, Até clouds his mind and prevents him from seeing that he is actually on the threshold of ignominious disaster. Até benighted the mind of Oedipus. The great king thought he was the brightest man within the city walls, the exceptional man, the one man who could save the city from destruction, only to find out that he himself was the cause of the pestilence that beset his people.

This is the situation our Democrats find themselves in. They have won the presidential election. In California, they have raised taxes, preserved the power of the public service employee unions, and achieved a supermajority in the state legislature. Surely, these are great victories.

The problem is that now the Democrats must govern. Now they must solve problems. Now they must find common ground with an enemy that they have been demonizing for years, but that controls the House of Representatives and has absolutely no motivation whatsoever, for example, to raise the debt ceiling. Now, in California they are free to raise taxes to pay off the public employee unions. But, how long will it take for even stupid Californians to wake up and realize that the public employee unions are bankrupting the state?

Now the Democrats and their president must figure out how to bring down unemployment, avoid another recession, increase the growth of GDP to a more normal rate, reduce the deficit and debt, reform Social Security and Medicare, bring down the price of gas, recover America's AAA credit rating. And they must do all this while continuing to pander to unions and minorities on the one hand while at the same time trying to get a hostile opposition party to cooperate.

Now the President must figure out how to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons without leading America into war and sending the cost of gas through the roof. He must "lead from behind" the nations of the Middle East, newly liberated from dictators, but teeming with Islamic extremists, into a new era of peaceful relations with the West. And he must do this while preserving relations with Israel, a nation he has done nothing but insult throughout his first term.

Is being elected into this situation really a cause for celebration? It is true, gay marriage and women's rights to contraception and abortion paid for by the state have been preserved. Illegal immigrants need not fear. Food stamps will be sent every month. But, how much longer can this charade last? How much longer can trillion dollar deficits not have an effect?

In all his victory photos, Obama has the proud, smug look of affirmation on his face. Not a trace of humility there. Rather vindication. He has won. But now let him try to govern. He barely squeaked out a victory. The 70 percent approval ratings from his first term are a distant memory. This time he has no store of goodwill to draw on. Besides, even stupid Democrats won't buy the "It's all George Bush's fault" excuse forever.

In his moment of triumph, is Obama on the threshold of ignominious disaster? Good luck, Oedipus.

Obama's special understanding

Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East can be summarized as follows:

    I, Barack Hussein Obama, have a "special understanding" of the Nations of Islam. This special understanding is the result of the environment I was raised in (my father was a Muslim by birth and my stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, brought me to live in Muslim Indonesia when I was young). Because of my special understanding, I have a sensitivity to the injustices perpetrated against the Nations of Islam by prior US administrations and to the legitimate grievances those Nations have against the United States.

    I have therefore determined that the US government, as now personified by me, will "reset" its foreign policy towards the Middle East. This reset will include taking the following actions:

    • expressing regret for the policies of prior US administrations,
    • refusing to continue such policies,
    • withdrawing all American troops from the Middle East,
    • supporting Islamic-based "democratic" movements against dictators in the Middle East, and
    • refusing to treat Israel as a special ally.
    As a result of this reset of US policy, I expect that the Nations of Islam will respond to my beneficence and drop the grievances they hold against the US and that democratic governments friendly to the US (because friendly to me) will spring up across the Middle East.

One can see why the attack on Benghazi represented the utter failure of Obama's policy. If Obama had a special relationship with the Nations of Islam and his reset of US foreign policy was supposed to usher in a new era of harmony between democratic Muslim governments and the West, then why did terrorists in newly liberated Libya murder the US ambassador? If the Obama narrative was to be upheld, the attack on the US ambassador could not be construed as an act of violence directed against the US government (as embodied by President Obama), but rather it had to be interpreted as the understandable (if extreme) expression of outrage at a disgusting and reprehensible video produced by someone in no way affiliated with the US government. This is the reason why Obama and UN Ambassador Rice were so adamant about attributing the attack to the video. If they had been forced to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack directed at the US government, they would have been forced to acknowledge that Obama's foreign policy of soothing the "legitimate" animosity of the Nations of Islam against the West had been all for naught and that Obama had no special relationship with the Middle East whatsoever. In other words, the Obama administration's entire characterization of the attack in Benghazi was determined by its need to deny the reality of what had happened and to insist that its foreign policy was still bearing fruit. In reality, it was a bitter harvest. The attack in Benghazi was a slap in the face to the US government. How else could the murder of a US ambassador be interpreted than as an assault against the sovereignty of the United States?

Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East is now in a shambles. Allies have been betrayed. In their place have come to power fundamentalist Islamic regimes whose friendliness towards the United States (whether Obama-of-the-special-relationship is in charge or not) is highly suspect. Like the Shah of Iran before him, Hosni Mubarak, a faithful ally of the United States (if also a brutal dictator) has been overthrown and replaced by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who has to be prodded to express regret at attacks on the American embassy in Cairo and who lectures the US President on how to suppress videos that are offensive to Muslims. Israel has been insulted. Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons have not been stopped. By 2014, all American troops will have been removed from the Middle East, we will have no military resources their to project American power, and we will thus have squandered all the hard fought gains we spent so much American blood and treasure to win. Afgahanistan (and perhaps other countries) will fall back into the category of "failed state" and the lack of a US presence there will allow Islamic extremists (like the Taliban) to regain strength in the vacuum created by American retreat. In another 10 years, we will be right back where we started: The Arab Street will still hate us and we will have no military assets to exercise our influence in the Middle East. Even worse, as Obama continues to rack up trillion dollar deficits, we will have no money to spend on military assets anyway.

The new era of harmony that Obama expected to bring about between America and the Middle East through his "special understanding" of Islam will prove, just like Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time," the illusion of a fool.

God speed you to a special ring in Hell

My wife is a teacher in California and, thus, forced to be a member of the California Teachers Association (CTA). This morning Dean E. Vogel, president of the CTA sent a letter to all CTA members celebrating the CTA's "victories" in California yesterday. Some excerpts from the letter are:

    Last night, we achieved a monumental victory for our students, our union and our State. Because of the outreach done by our members, California voters demonstrated their willingness to invest in our public schools and colleges [the CTA's characterization of Prop 30, which raises taxes] and also rejected a deceptive ballot measure aimed at silencing educators, other workers and their unions [the CTA's characterization of Prop 32, which proposed to do away with mandatory union dues].

    Thanks to you, our schools and colleges will avoid $6 billion in trigger cuts, our local communities will receive funding to keep police on the street and our state can begin to pay down the wall of debt it's amassed during the recession.

    And, with the defeat of Proposition 32, we sent a message that Californians believe in the rights of unions to speak out on behalf of the middle class. We sent a message that you can't buy California because we're not for sale. This hard-fought victory for democracy exposed the real agenda of the corporate special interests behind Proposition 32. Those millionaires and billionaires never cared about the checks and balances of our democracy, only the checks they could write to buy even more political influence in Sacramento and Washington.

My wife showed me the email and I was moved to send the following reply back to Mr Vogel:

Dear Mr Vogel,

You write: "Those millionaires and billionaires [only cared about] the checks they could write to buy even more political influence in Sacramento and Washington." This is a description not of the Kochs, or of Karl Rove, but of the modus operandi of the teachers union: use dues from teachers to line the pockets of politicians so that they, in return, fatten up the already fat pensions of teachers. The reason, Mr Vogel, why the State of California has amassed a “wall of debt” is because it has been governed for decades by profligate, union-coddling Democrats, bought and paid for by the CTA. And the truly disgusting part is that, as you enrich public union employees at the expense of the general taxpayer, you claim to be acting “on behalf of the children.” A tear rolls down my cheek as I think about your dedication and selflessness.

As for our wonderful public servants, the police and firemen, Chuck Reed, the Democratic mayor of San Jose, has this to say about them:

    "Our police and firefighters will earn more in retirement than they did when they were working. ... When did we go from giving people sick leave to letting them accumulate it and cash it in for hundreds of thousands of dollars when they are done working? There's a corruption here. It's not just a financial corruption. It's a corruption of the attitude of public service."

    Michael Lewis, Boomerang, Travels in the New Third World

A corruption of public service, yes, the same thing can be said about you. You are not a selfless public servant, acting on behalf of “schools, kids, and communities.” Far from it. Rather, you are just a corrupt union thug, stealing from the general taxpayer all you can so that you can pay it out to your own special interest group, the teachers, and pay off Democratic politicians to keep the money laundering scheme going. Corrupt public unions are transforming California into The New Third World, effectively bankrupt, but nevertheless rushing headlong to spend ever more and more and more on benefits for public employees. We don’t need to look at faraway Greece; it’s happening right here in California!

A special ring in Hell is reserved for political hacks like you who speak falsehoods so shamelessly. I wish you: God speed there! You may have won a victory this time by spending millions of dollars to deceive a gullible California electorate. But your time is coming to an end. The house of debt will soon collapse. And your new Democratic supermajority in Sacramento and your newly reelected, trillion-dollar-deficit President in Washington will only hasten the coming debacle. And, when the end finally comes, the citizens of California and the United States will take a pitchfork to the Democrats and union thugs who brought them low and chase them out of town.

I'm back

My faithful readers (all one of them) may have noticed a dearth of posts over the past several months. I have been too depressed to write. It started when John Roberts, in a fit of ... I know not what ... declared Obamacare constitutional. It was at that moment that I sensed the election had slipped away. Things were beginning to snowball against Obama, but Roberts reversed everything. I have been pouting ever since. Yesterday seems to have delivered something of a catharsis to me.

Mitt Romney is a decent man. I voted for him yesterday. I genuinely like the awkward, Mormon geek. But, he was not conservative enough for me.

Besides, in a way, I am glad that Mr Romney did not get elected. We are in a terrible mess and I would rather see the Democrats get the blame as things go from bad to worse. Hopefully, the coming collapse of the welfare state will arouse the mass of the American populace from their slumbers and move them to run the Dems out of Washington and Sacramento forever.

At any rate, I hope to start posting more now. Lord knows the next four years will give me plenty to talk about.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

The Debate

I love the spin from the Dem talking heads this morning: Yes, Romney won the debate in spite of the fact that everything he said was full of shit.

That is, if only a real debater had shown up last night instead of Obama, the real debater would have kicked Romney’s ass.

Once again, we are being told that there is nothing wrong with the President's policies, which have crushed the economy, created chronic high unemployment, and added trillions to the national debt. Rather, it is just that the President has not been able "to communicate his policies clearly enough."

The Dem talking heads do not seem to realize that, by jumping in this morning with attempts to refute this or that statement of Romney's, they are merely confirming the President's ineptness: he can't make the case himself, but needs his flacks to make the case for him.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Simon vs Angela, Newt, and Grover

Simon Johnson, the professor from MIT, is a left wing advocate masquerading as an even-handed moderate.

In his recent column and in his book (with James Kwak), White House Burning, Johnson tries to make the case that our current budget/debt crisis is the fault of Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, the Tea Party, and other "extreme Republicans," whose tactics of "fiscal confrontation" (that is, their stubborn refusal to raise taxes) are undermining the dollar and destabilizing the American economy and global markets.

Johnson conveniently ignores the fact that much of our current financial distress is the result of actions taken by well-meaning, but economically naive Democratic Presidents and Congresses decades ago. Medicare and Social Security, the two entitlement programs that threaten to blow up government finances in the near future, are essentially creations of the Democratic Party. Social Security was given to us in 1935 by FDR and the 77th Congress, in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the Senate 69 to 25 and in the House 322 to 103. Medicare was given to us by LBJ and the 89th Congress, in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans 68 to 32 in the Senate and 295 to 140 in the House. And now there is Obamacare, once again passed by a Democratic President and Congress, and destined to become yet another expansive entitlement program that -- pace the scores from the OMB -- will end up imposing enormous new costs on American tax payers and businesses. To blame our current economic problems on one former Speaker, a lobbyist, and the-catchall-for-all-left-wing-accusations, the Tea Party, while ignoring the massive state entitlement programs created by Democratic Presidents and Democratic majorities in Congress is simply dishonest.

The finances of the Federal Government are in a shambles today not because taxes are too low, but because programs introduced by Democrats are causing Federal spending to rocket out of control. It is this spending and the borrowing required to finance it, and not a bunch of stubborn Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling, that threatens to plunge America into extreme financial volatility in the not too distant future. In fact, just about our only hope is that Republicans will take a page out of Ms Merkel's playbook, continue their intransigence, and use the leverage they have to get real reductions in spending and to restore order to our fiscal house.

In the meantime, people like Mr Johnson will continue to try to persuade you that, oh, you had better watch out; all this stubborn, nutso, Tea Party resistance is going ruin America; much better to raise taxes to avoid all these nasty consquences; yes, if we don't raise taxes, the White House will burn again!

The wonderful thing about Grover Norquist is that he is completely unpersuaded by such dishonest pleading. He will listen to all the arguments of the MIT professor and still refuse to raise taxes. He recognizes that America is already on the road to financial perdition as a result of decades of Democratic tax/spend/borrow policies and that our only salvation is to reject these policies and dismantle the entitlement state. The sooner we get down to the business of doing that, the better off we will all be.

Yes, our only hope is if Angela and Grover hold their ground and the American electorate starts to see through the masks of people like Professor Johnson.

Friday, August 17, 2012

For Hillary's sake, Dems should withhold vote from Obama

Democrats need to imagine what the situation will be like for Hillary in 4 years if they vote to reelect Obama now.

Americans will have experienced 4 more years of a stagnant economy, high unemployment, massive deficits and ballooning debt, and government intrusion into our lives. Obamacare will be kicking in: people will be losing their current insurance and doctors, Medicare will be getting cut, and hospitals will be overloaded with tens of millions of new patients added to the insurance rolls by the ACA. States like Michigan and California, which have been dominated by the Democratic Party for decades, will have had 4 more years to deteriorate. (Can you imagine how much more devastation Democratic rule will wreak on California over the next 4 years?)

Hillary will have been an active member of Obama's Democratic administration. Obama's will be the record that Hillary will have to defend. The voter fatigue with the Democratic Party will be simply overwhelming. There is no way that Hillary will be able to be elected under such a scenario.

So, Democratic voters had better decide whether they want to hitch their wagon to Barack for another term and thereby guarantee defeat for Hillary 4 years from now or whether they would rather withhold their vote from Obama this November and at least give Hillary a fighting chance in 2016.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

The Dems are toast on Medicare

The Dems' complete misunderstanding of the state of the argument over Medicare is simply stunning. In today's NYT, Roger Cohen writes:

    [T]he line of Democrat attack against [Romney] and Ryan is so clear: They are the heartless would-be destroyers of Medicare, the health insurance program for retirees (who abound in battleground state Florida), and Medicaid.

The problem with this line of attack is that the biggest threat to Medicare is posed not by Romney and Ryan, but by Obamacare, which requires that Medicare be cut by $700B to pay for some of the cost of adding tens of millions of new people to the insurance rolls. For example, John McDonough writes in the Boston Globe:

    [I]t is undeniable that Congressional Democrats and the Obama White House chose to pay for nearly half the cost of the ACA by reducing Medicare's expected rate of growth by about $450 billion between 2010 and 2019. The number, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is now up to around $700B because three early no-or-little reduction years have been supplanted by three full impact years (2013-2022).

(By the way, as I pointed out in an earlier blog post, the rest of the cost of adding those tens of millions of people to the insurance rolls will be paid for by tax increases.)

To be fair, the Democrats will argue that the $700B in cuts will result from cost savings brought about by the wonderfully enlightened provisions of Obamacare. For example, Ezra Klein writes in WaPo:

    [I]n Title III, you’ll find dozens of different efforts to achieve these [cost-cutting] goals. The most famous of them is Section 3403, which establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). ... . And then there are the subsequent reforms the administration has proposed to save more money. Those can be found on pages 33-37 of the president’s 2013 budget proposal.

In effect, the Democrats are telling seniors: Don't worry. Be happy. Yes, Obamacare does require us to cut $700B from Medicare, but wait until you see how much money IPAB and a couple of other enormous new bureaucracies are going to save us.

Here's where a little "senior" common sense will come in handy. Seniors will ask themselves: When was the last time the federal government created an enormous new bureaucracy and it saved $700B? And then they will say to themselves: And, if the savings don't materialize, real cuts will have to be made to Medicare (after all, those tens of millions of new insureds are definitely coming on board and will have to be paid for) and seniors will be screwed.

Yes, this is the "devastating" argument the Dems will be able to make to all those seniors who abound in battleground state Florida.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Coming out

After much soul searching, I have decided to follow the example of such noteworthy celebrities as news anchorperson Anderson Cooper and come out of the closet and publicly declare my sexual orientation to the whole world: I am a heterosexual. Yes, the fact is: I am a guy.

This was not an easy decision for me to make. Living as a guy in the Bay Area can be very trying at times, in particular, when one has the added pressure of being a socially conservative, white guy. There is so much intolerance for guys in Northern California. I have been subjected to so many hurtful and insensitive guy-bashing comments over the years. In spite of this, I have decided to stand up for my guy rights and let the world know who I really am.

It has been difficult for my family to accept my public declaration of my sexual orientation. Many family members have been ashamed of me for years. Some called me a butch jerk. Some said that my heterosexuality was just a bad choice or a passing phase; with adequate conversion therapy, they claimed, I would be able to overcome my guy impulses. But, when I stood my ground and made clear to them that guy is what I am by nature, little by little, they came around. After all, they only want what will make me happy. Over time I think I have gained their grudging respect. My dream is for all of us one day to be able to walk arm in arm down Market Street in San Francisco in a Guy Pride parade.

I just want everyone to know that I would not have been able to take the enormous step of coming out of the closet and declaring my open guyness without the loving support of my partner, Nancy. In spite of all the vilification that is heaped on heterosexual married couples these days, we have remained monogamous and devoted to each other for over 20 years, dispelling the common misconception that heterosexuals are unable to remain in stable, long-term relationships or raise children. I love, and I am loved.

So, yes, I have embarked on a new era in my life, an era where I shout to all the world unashamedly: I am a heterosexual! I am looking into taking classes in Guy Studies at my local community college to increase my guy awareness. I have also decided to become more politically involved and to dedicate my life to the struggle for guy rights. I call on the members of our government, and, in particular, on President and Mrs Obama, to announce their unqualified support for the guy life style. Only when our leaders are not afraid to step forward and defend all of us, including guys, will tolerance and diversity finally blossom.

I hope that by coming out of the closet and living as an open guy I will help to serve as a role model for other Bay Area heterosexual men and help them take the difficult, yet liberating, step of acknowledging publicly that they, too, are guys.

NYT's take on Paul Ryan

Here's what the NYT editorialized about Paul Ryan this morning:

    As House Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Ryan has drawn a blueprint of a government that will be absent when people need it the most. It will not be there when the unemployed need job training, or when a struggling student needs help to get into college. It will not be there when a miner needs more than a hardhat for protection, or when a city is unable to replace a crumbling bridge.

    And it will be silent when the elderly cannot keep up with the costs of M.R.I.’s or prescription medicines, or when the poor and uninsured become increasingly sick through lack of preventive care.

What's missing from the Times' diatribe, of course, is any discussion of how a government with $15 trillion of debt on balance sheet (and hundreds of trillions of dollars more off) might actually pay for any of these things. Liberals never seem to be able to understand that it doesn't matter how wonderful and compassionate their vision for social spending is if the government can't actually pay for those programs.

For example, it would also be a wonderful act of compassion, no doubt, if the government bought every US citizen a new car ("Cash for Clunkers" on steroids), but that would raise the question: How would the government pay for this? Or the government could buy us all a new house (that would certainly help underwater homeowners). But how would the government pay for this? Or the government could simply provide permanent unemployment benefits for everyone so that no one would ever have to work again. But how would the government pay for this?

In Democrat la la land all the wonderful benefits of compassionate social programs simply materialize for free. It's as simple as just taxing the rich more or borrowing more money from China. Does any sensible person really believe this is how the world works?

Democrats are children. The addition of Paul Ryan to the discussion brings another Republican adult voice to the table. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has actually grappled with the hard question of how to finance government spending. Senate Democrats have not proposed a budget in 1200 days. Mr Ryan, on the other hand, has introduced budget legislation to the House every year since President Obama took office. Mr Ryan's experience in government finance complements wonderfully Mr Romney's experience from the private business world.

Romney's choice of running mate sends a clear signal that Romney is going run his campaign this fall by wrapping himself in the mantle of fiscally responsible Republicans, like Ryan and Republican governors Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels. The contrast for the American people could not be more stark. Do they want to vote for the party of Romney, Ryan, Daniels, Christie, and Walker? Or do they want to vote for the party of Obama (with his trillion dollar deficits and 8.3% unemployment), Jerry Brown (with his bankrupt California government, and $100B train to nowhere), the Senate Democrats (who have not passed a budget in years), and the public service employee unions (whose extravagant pay, benefits, and pensions are bankrupting our municipalities)?

It remains to be seen whether Americans are the country of my parents' generation or whether they have become a bunch of spoiled, whining Greeks?

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The incestuous relationship of Obama's Treasury and the Fed

My last blog post was an email to my son about Obamacare and the deficit. I copied a couple of friends on the email. One of those friends, Gene, sent a reply to me and my son with some general comments about how both liberals and conservatives are to blame for the financial pickle we find ourselves in. Here is a new email I sent to my son commenting on Gene’s email and clearing up some of the things he said.

Dear Son,

Gene always likes to masquerade as a kind of Solomonic figure: fair, impartial, apportioning equal amounts of blame to both ends of the political spectrum. But, come November, he will toe the line and vote for Obama and the rest of the Democrats. And, whenever I point that out to him, he flies into a rage.

There is one thing, however, that I do agree with Gene about: the Federal Reserve, under the stewardship of Ben Bernanke and in conjunction with Obama’s Treasury Department, is continuing its massive devaluation of the American dollar. Here’s how they do it.

The Obama administration continues to spend dollars it doesn’t have, running up trillion dollar deficits. When it comes time to pay the bills, the Obama Treasury Department borrows money by issuing debt. That is, the Treasury prints up a bunch of fancy-looking, gilded Treasury certificates that say: "The Treasury Department solemnly promises to repay the face value of this certificate, say, $1000, with interest after 10 years." The Federal Reserve then buys a bunch of those certificates, crediting the Treasury Department’s account with $1000 for each certificate the Treasury Department sells to it. So now the Treasury Department has additional dollars in its account and the Obama administration can keep on spending.

Where, you might ask, do the dollars come from that the Fed credits to the Treasury Department’s account? Excellent question. The Fed creates them out of thin air, with the stroke of a pen (or, in this day and age, with the flow of a few bits over the Ethernet). In other words, the Fed simply declares that now the Treasury has $1000 more in its account, and, voila, $1000 appears in Treasury’s account. This is what is called "fiat money." The Latin word "fiat" means "let there be," as when God said "fiat lux" or "let there be light." So, "fiat money" is money that is created out of nothing; the Fed simply declares "let there be dollars" and the dollars are created.

If this sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. As with anything, the more you have of it in the marketplace, the less it is worth. Likewise, the more dollars that are circulating through the economy, the less each individual dollar is worth (that is, the less it can buy). This is inflation. There are individuals, like Paul Krugman, who scoff at the threat of inflation, and, so far, they have had the better part of the argument, since inflation has remained relatively tame. But, the signs of increasing inflation are already starting to show up (for example, I spent $4.59 on a loaf of fucking Columbo French Bread in Sacramento the other day and I spent $3.65 this morning to buy your mother a Chai drink at Starbucks; also just look at how much the price of gas has soared over the last ten years). But, regardless of what the current level of inflation is, what normally happens when you flood the economy with enormous amounts of new money is: eventually, hyperinflation rears its ugly head. And, there is no good reason to believe that the Fed’s current actions will not have the same outcome.

Another consequence of the Treasury and Fed's incestuous activities is that, as the Treasury Department issues more and more Treasury certificates, there will be fewer and fewer outside parties that will be willing to buy them. This is already happening, as countries like China have cut way back on their purchases of Treasury certificates. Eventually, the only party that will be willing to buy these certificates will be the Federal Reserve. But, even the Federal Reserve’s capacity to absorb Treasury debt is limited since, as already noted, buying too much of this debt will flood the economy with dollars and trigger hyperinflation. Eventually, the only way the Treasury will be able to sell new debt to outside parties will be by promising to pay higher and higher interest rates. But this will just make potential buyers suspicious that the US will not be able to repay all this debt and will eventually default. And this suspicion, in turn, will just make those buyers even more reluctant to buy Treasury certificates and demand even higher interest rates. This is what’s called a “vicious circle” and is precisely what is happening in Greece, Spain, and Italy right now. Those governments need to keep borrowing more and more money to keep their governments operating, but fewer and fewer parties are willing to buy that debt because they realize how much debt is already outstanding and how shaky the governments already are. Consequently, interest rates for Greek, Spanish, and Italian sovereign debt spiral ever higher, weakening those countries even further.

So, financial Armageddon is coming. As noted, it is already happening in Europe. The Europeans are better off than the Americans, however, in that at least the Europeans are already standing at the edge of the abyss and consequently are actually trying to implement austerity measures that will keep them from plunging in. As Paul Krugman points out, these austerity measures will cause tremendous short term pain in Europe since the European economy will contract and there will be a recession or even a depression there as the governments cut back on their spending and borrowing. But, at least there is some recognition (primarily in Germany) of the problem and some hope that over the long term Europe will eventually get its fiscal house in order and emerge from the other side of this economic minefield. Americans, on the other hand, still delude themselves into thinking that somehow they are special, that the normal laws of economics don’t apply to them. They mock the Germans for fearing hyperinflation and for insisting on austerity. They laugh at Greece and Spain and Italy and say things like: “Nothing like that could ever happen over here.” Americans are like people who have smoked, drunk, and eaten fatty foods all their lives and think that, simply because they have not yet gotten cancer or sclerosis of the liver or had a heart attack, they are healthy. Ha!

The only people who really sense the impending doom are Republicans like Ron Paul, who has been preaching the evils of the Federal Reserve and fiat money for years, or Paul Ryan, who, unlike the Democrats in power, actually proposes a budget, or Grover Norquist, who sees through the "one dollar in new taxes for every three dollars in cuts" bullshit the Democrats always try to pull (they add the one dollar in taxes, but the three dollars in cuts never materialize). So, don't believe for a moment anyone who, like Gene, tells you that the Republicans are just as responsible for the fiscal mess we find ourselves in as the liberal, tax and spend Democrats.

Loving you always and firm in my belief that as your mind ripens you will abandon the liberal path (LYAAFIMBTAYMRYWATLP),

Dad

Update:

Gene replied: "The Fed does not buy Treasury notes directly from the Treasury. That is illegal. Likewise it cannot "credit" the Treasury"s account by purchasing notes directly."

My response to Gene: Technically, that is correct, but the outcome is the same as I described even if the transactions take place in the open market. The Fed is monetizing Treasury debt like crazy. Lawrence Goodman, a former Treasury employee, wrote in WSJ in March:

    Last year [2011] the Fed purchased a stunning 61% of the total net Treasury issuance, up from negligible amounts prior to the 2008 financial crisis. This not only creates the false appearance of limitless demand for U.S. debt but also blunts any sense of urgency to reduce supersized budget deficits. … The Fed is in effect subsidizing U.S. government spending and borrowing via expansion of its balance sheet and massive purchases of Treasury bonds. This keeps Treasury interest rates abnormally low, camouflaging the true size of the budget deficit. Similarly, the Fed is providing preferential credit to the U.S. government and covering a rapidly widening gap between Treasury's need to borrow and a more limited willingness among market participants to supply Treasury with credit.

The fact that the Fed and the Treasury conduct their activities through open market operations is just an enormous money laundering scheme.

Obamacare reduces deficit. Indeed!

My son, whose mind, I fear, is still afflicted by the liberal virus, sent me a link to a New York Times story with the headline "Budget Office: Obama's Health Law Reduces Deficit" and asked me what I thought. Here is my answer.

Dear Son,

Start by asking yourself a common sense question: Is it possible to add tens of millions of people to the insurance rolls at no additional cost?

Now, reread the article closely. The CBO’s only finding is that Obamacare will not “increase the deficit,” not that it will not “cost the taxpayer a lot of money.” Look at these quotes from the article:

    The law's mix of spending cuts and tax increases would more than offset new spending to cover uninsured people, Elmendorf explained. … Thirty million uninsured people will be covered by 2022 … That brings the total cost of expanding coverage down to [a mere] $1.2 trillion, from about $1.3 trillion in the previous estimate. … Actually, the government will spend more. It just won't go onto the national credit card because the health care law will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. [emphasis and sarcasm added]

So, "thirty million" new people will be added to the insurance rolls at an additional cost of "$1.2 trillion" and these costs will be paid for by "new spending" by the government. But the additional money the government is going to pay out has got to come in from somewhere. The CBO assumes it will come from a mix of "spending cuts" and "tax increases." So, yes, according to the CBO’s model, the deficit will not increase because the additional money going out will be offset by additional money coming in.

But, ask yourself if you believe the spending cuts will really take place, or whether a couple of years down the road Obama and the Democrats will tweak the law to eliminate these spending cuts. Since many of these planned cuts are cuts to Medicare, it is highly likely that the government will change the law and rescind the cuts. After all, what politician wants to cut Medicare for old people?

So, what you are finally left with is this: the $1.2 trillion cost of adding tens of millions of people to the insurance rolls will be borne by new taxes on you, me, and everyone. Even if you assume that the spending cuts will, in fact, be made, you are still left with the best case scenario that Obamacare's additional spending will be paid for through some cut in current services and some increase in taxes.

Obama and the Democrats have always made a big deal of how Obamacare will be “revenue neutral.” In making this argument, they assume that the American people are so stupid that they don’t realize that “revenue neutral” is not the same thing as “it won’t cost them anything.” All “revenue neutral” means is that the additional spending that results from Obamacare will be offset by additional revenues coming into the government. That way, the deficit (the national credit card) will not increase. But that doesn’t mean that these additional revenues are going to magically materialize out of thin air! Someone is going to pay. And that someone is you, son.

Finally, consider how utterly misleading the Times' coverage of this story is. The headline reads: "Budget Office: Obama's Health Law Reduces Deficit." The lead sentence is: "President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will shrink rather than increase the nation's huge federal deficits over the next decade, Congress' nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said Tuesday, supporting Obama's contention in a major election-year dispute with Republicans." Sounds pretty good, no? It's not until the end of the article that the reader finds out that the government is, in fact, going to "spend more." And people say that Fox News is biased!

Loving you always and firm in my belief that as your mind ripens you will abandon the liberal path,

Dad

Friday, July 20, 2012

Who is the real "outsourcer-in-chief?"

Mr Obama says: Mitt Romney is the "outsourcer-in-chief," meaning thereby that Mr Romney is responsible for the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.

Mr Romney should reply to Mr Obama by explaining to him some basic facts about the modern global economy.

American jobs are outsourced overseas because products for the American market can be produced by overseas labor at the same or better level of quality or for the same or lower price than they can be produced by American labor.

Why are American workers not more competitive? One of the main reasons is because of the inefficiencies and rigidities introduced into American labor markets by unions.

Every American industry that has a highly unionized workforce eventually founders. What has been the most pernicious influence in the automobile industry over the last several decades? The unions. Why has the American steel industry shrunk to a shadow of its former size? The unions. What is bankrupting state and municipal governments? The extravagant salaries, pensions, and benefits of workers in government unions.

Aside 1: (According to WSJ, the annual cost of pay and benefits for a member of the United Steel Workers union averages $170,855 per year: "Charles Bradford, an analyst with Bradford Research Inc. said the larger integrated mills that make steel by melting raw materials, including iron ore and coal, need to cut production costs "or they just won't be able to compete," he says.)

Aside 2: (On GPS this week, Fareed Zakaria, hardly a hard-hearted conservative, described the situation with public service employee unions as follows: "At its heart, the [municipal] bankruptcies you keep hearing about these days aren’t about taxes being too low or spending on city services being too high – they're about pensions. California's pension-related costs rose 20-fold in the decade since 1999. This frightening trend is true almost everywhere in America. And it’s simply not sustainable. A recent Pew research survey found that the gap between state assets and their obligations for public sector retirement benefits is $1.38 trillion. It rose by 9 percent in 2010 alone – and it will likely keep rising until these obligations are renegotiated. The truth is America is sacrificing its future to pay for its past. To keep up with burgeoning pensions, states and cities are slashing services. It's also feeding into the unemployment problem. State and local governments have 445,000 fewer workers today than in 2007. For decades now, local governments have doled out patronage by increasing pension benefits – these costs impact the budget years later, when the officials who gave the benefits are safely retired themselves. We're now having to reckon with those choices. I'm not saying bankruptcies are a good thing. But they are a mechanism that allows us to admit an emergency and renegotiate the deals that are, well, bankrupting the country." In other words, one of the main factors contributing to unemployment in America is the fact that pensions and benefits for public workers are too rich.)

And yet, instead of attempting to break the stranglehold the unions have on American businesses and government, President Obama lines his pockets with union contributions and does everything in his power to strengthen them and prop up union pay and benefits.

He hands over to the United Auto Workers union tens of billions of dollars in bailouts, all paid for by American taxpayers. And then he has the audacity to claim that these bailouts were a great success. Yes, they were a great success for the workers of the UAW, who gave up nothing, but they were a disaster for American taxpayers in general, who footed the entire bill.

State and municipal governments have been cutting government jobs like crazy for the last several years because they can't afford to pay their current employees while at the same time funding the extravagant benefit and pension packages given to retired union workers. What does this President have to say about this? Instead of working for the reform of government unions (as Republican governors Chris Christie of New Jersey, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Mitch Daniels of Indiana have), the President says the "private sector is doing fine; we need to send more money to state and local governments to hire more government union workers."

Why is the economy in Silicon Valley booming these days? Could it be that for all intents and purposes unions do not exist there, management and workers are not adversaries, and instead their interests are aligned through the distribution of stock options?

So, instead of insisting that American workers man up and improve their competitiveness in either quality or cost, Mr Obama would rather spoil and coddle them. His attitude can best be summed up in the whine: "American businesses have an obligation to support American workers, even when it isn't the best financial choice. Profits and efficiency should not trump generosity. After all, we are all in this together."

This is, simply put, sheer madness. In a fast-paced, quickly changing global marketplace, unless businesses focus laser-like on profits and efficiency, they rapidly perish, and all jobs are lost.

In all my years in Silicon Valley, I have never heard anyone say: "I have an American software engineer in Palo Alto who is producing low-quality software, for which I am paying him a high salary. There is an Indian software engineer in Bangalore (or a Czech in Prague, or an Irishman in Dublin) who is just as well educated, writes software of better quality, and is willing to work for less. Nevertheless, I'll keep my American software engineer instead of hiring the Indian (Czech, Irishman) because we Americans are all in this together and I have an obligation to be generous to my fellow American." If American businesses adopted this attitude, they would all rapidly go belly up. Every person who works in the business world understands this intuitively. But, our President, whose only prior experience is as a community organizer and college professor, cannot seem to grasp this point. He would rather spoil and coddle American workers, doing everything he can to preserve their "purchasing power." But, by propping up union salaries, Mr Obama only makes American labor too expensive relative to the cost of labor elsewhere in the global marketplace and thereby actually hastens the flight of jobs overseas.

So, let's be clear about the reason why so many American jobs are being outsourced overseas these days. American labor cannot compete because it is being made more expensive and less productive by the frictions and bloat introduced into labor markets by unions. The "enabler-in-chief" of these unions is Mr Obama, aided and abetted by the entire Democratic Party, bankrolled by the unions themselves. So, if anyone is responsible for the loss of American jobs overseas, it is Mr Obama and the Democrats, not Mr Romney.

Monday, July 9, 2012

The monstrous machines created by good-intentions

According to my Thesis 8:

    If the government decides to spend money on some noble-sounding program, there will step forward countless businesses and organizations that will be all too happy to "assist" the government in achieving its "noble end." These businesses and organizations will figure out a way to channel a large portion of the government dollars into their own pockets. They will then use a portion of these monies a.) to produce "research" purporting to demonstrate that the government funding is achieving its noble end and that "catastrophic" consequences will ensue if the funds are cut off; and b.) to lobby and influence politicians to continue and even expand the program. Oftentimes, the businesses and organizations involved make use of the latest technological and financial innovations available to maximize the flow of as many government dollars as possible to themselves. In the end, the well-intentioned government program is transformed into a monstrous machine that spins out of control with pernicious results for all of society.

We have seen several examples of this phenomenon over the last several years:

  1. The government decided that not enough low- and moderate-income families were able to afford homes. So, the government changed its affordable housing (AH) goals and saw to it that abundant credit was made available to these families. As Peter Wallison and Edward Pinto write:
      The AH goals required Fannie and Freddie to meet certain quotas when acquiring mortgages. The GSE Act had initially specified a quota of 30 percent; that is, 30 percent of the GSEs’ mortgage purchases had to be loans that were made to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers, defined as borrowers at or below the median income in their communities. During the Clinton administration, HUD increased this quota to 42 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000. HUD’s tightening continued in the George W. Bush administration so that by 2008 the main LMI goal was 56 percent, and a special affordable (SA) subgoal had been added requiring that 27 percent of the loans GSEs acquired be made to borrowers who were at or below 80 percent (and, in some cases, 60 percent) of the median income in their communities.

    The banks were all too glad to help out, creating exotic subprime loans and packaging them into mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. What was the result of the massive increase in credit that the GSE's brought about? Housing prices soared, making them even less affordable to LMI borrowers, and those LMI borrowers who did manage to obtain loans were financially devastated later when the housing bubble burst. The American economy still has not recovered from the debacle that ensued.

  2. The government decided that not enough low-income students were able to afford college. So, the government made available low-interest loans to those students. Predictably, education mills, like Apollo and Corinthian Colleges, sprang up, who were less interested in educating our young people than they were in soaking up all the loan money that the government was putting in students's pockets. The results have been that the cost of a college education has skyrocketed and many students end up graduating from college with a mediocre education and crushing debt.
  3. In the last couple of days, several news stories have surfaced about food stamps. Now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, food stamps are another government program designed to achieve a noble-sounding end, namely, that of putting food on the table of low-income families. But, a significant side effect of this program has been that the giant food and beverage companies of America have benefited handsomely. Time magazine reports:
      Sure, poor Americans who get food on the table for dinner, partly with the assistance of SNAP, must appreciate the program. But major corporations and food groups, including Pepsi, Kraft Foods, Kroger, Coca-Cola, and the Corn Refiners of America, also warmly embrace SNAP. All, in fact, have lobbied Congress and/or various states to expand SNAP and make sure that recipients have the most freedom possible in deciding how to use their allowances, including the unlimited purchase of soda and junk food.
    The government has replaced the old food stamps with new high-tech debit cards, so that it is easy and stigma-free for Americans to participate in the program and so that the money from the program flows at the speed of light into the coffers of the food and beverage companies (with a little slice flowing to JP Morgan, the bank that administers the debit cards). Government agencies run ads encouraging Americans to apply for food stamps and giving them instructions on how to do so. One can even find information about SNAP on Facebook. As Time reports:
      Roughly 46 million Americans now get SNAP benefits, up from just 17 million in 2000, and the costs associated with the program have risen from $17 billion in 2000, to $30 billion in 2007, way up to $78 billion last year.
    The end results? An American tragedy. As food and beverage companies grow ever richer, 1 in 7 Americans is now dependent on food stamps and an epidemic of obesity has broken out among those low-income families who use the program.
Progressivism always starts with good intentions. The devil is always in the implementation. There are always businesses and orgranizations out there that are all too happy to soak up all the money the government wants to spend. In the process, well-intentioned government programs are transformed by cutting-edge technology and finance into monstrous machines that accelerate the flow of goverment dollars into their own pockets. These machines eventually spin wildly out of control and threaten to destroy the entire society.

These are the monstrous machines created by the good intentions of Progressivism.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Civil society: an "us" or a bunch of "I's?"

NPR just published an article describing how, in this age of budget cuts, large donations from private individuals are keeping California state parks open. For example, Dan McCranie, who made a substantial fortune in the semiconductor industry, donated $750K to help keep Henry Coe State Park open. According to the article:

    McCranie figures that now that private donors have stepped up, state money will never come back to Coe Park. So it will be up to them [the private donors] to create an endowment fund big enough to keep this park open in perpetuity.

The really interesting part of the article is the reaction of Rob Reich to Mr McCranie's donation (Mr Reich is co-director of Stanford University's Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society and no relation, apparently, to former Labor Secretary Robert Reich):

    Getting the state off the hook for funding parks may also set into motion a slippery slope, says Rob Reich ... "You get lots of people like [McCranie] or others who do this who have great intentions and are civically minded and spirited," Reich explains. "But acting one by one by one, they set into motion this dynamic ... where suddenly we're not acting collaboratively or collectively as a public. We're acting individually as philanthropists to benefit the thing we're most passionate about. And suddenly we don't have a civic sphere anymore. We don't have political participation. We don't have an 'us.' We have a bunch of 'I's.' "

First of all, let it be noted that Mr Reich seems somewhat confused inasmuch as he calls Mr McCranie "civically minded" and yet characterizes his actions as leading to a situation where "we don't have a civic sphere anymore." Nevertheless, it seems clear that the predominant sentiment expressed in Mr Reich's comments is that the only kind of action that is legitimate is action taken by the state; actions taken by an endowment fund established by a bunch of private citizens are somehow second-rate, suspect, and undesirable.

And yet, why should the actions of private individuals, unaffiliated with the state, be undesirable? After all, there are certain thinkers, for example, Albert Jay Nock, who consider the state to be the enemy of its citizens and all state actions to be usurpations of the prerogatives of private citizens and institutions. For example, in his book Our Enemy, The State, Mr Nock writes:

    [E]very assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power. ... Instead of recognizing the State as "the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men," the run of mankind, with rare exceptions, regards it not only as a final and indispensable entity, but also as, in the main, beneficent.

Let us consider the following two alternatives:

    a.) the individual sends his hard-earned money off to the central government so that one or more apparatchiks may substitute their own judgment for the taxpayer's and decide how that money should be spent (often in some way the taxpayer objects to);

    b.) the individual, acting as a philanthropist, spends his money directly "to benefit the thing [he's] most passionate about."

Why should option a. be viewed as automatically superior to option b.? This is the thinking of a man who has become accustomed to a society in which all institutions besides government have atrophied under the totalitarian pressures brought to bear by the leviathan state.

In an article earlier this year, Yuval Levin describes the process by which private institutions (in this case, the Catholic Church) are being "cleared out" by the Obama Administration:

    [D]oes civil society consist of an assortment of efforts by citizens to band together in pursuit of mutual aims and goods as they understand them? Is it an extension of the state or of the community? In this arena, as in a great many others, the administration is clearly determined to see civil society as merely an extension of the state, and to clear out civil society—clearing out the mediating layers between the individual and the state—when it seems to stand in the way of achieving the president’s agenda. The idea is to leave as few non-individual players as possible in the private sphere, and to turn those few that are left into agents of the government.

Bill Kristol expands:

    As Yuval Levin noted in National Review Online ... institutions such as the Catholic church [or, say, an endowment fund run by a bunch of private citizens] represent a mediating layer between the individual and the state. This layer, known as civil society, is one of the principal differences between Western liberal order and the socialist view.

In Mr Reich and Mr Obama's world view, all institutions besides government are inherently suspect and undesirable. Only "collective" actions undertaken by the state are legitimate. This attitude is best summed up by the mantra Progressives keep repeating: "We're all in this together." For example, Robert Reich, the former Labor Secretary, has written:

    Obama must show America that the basic choice is between two fundamental views of this nation. Either we're all in this together, or we're a bunch of individuals who happen to live within these borders and are mainly on their own.

Obviously, I prefer to believe that we are a bunch of individuals acting on our own. In the socialist, collectivist view, on the other hand, all action must be taken by the people acting collectively. The problem with this view, of course, is that it is an illusion. The actions will not be taken by some mythical "us acting together." Such an entity does not exist. Rather, a small cadre of government bureaucrats located in a far off capital will impose their personal judgments on us all. What's more, the policies they impose on us, although funded by taxes expropriated from all of us, will often benefit only a small special interest group who, in turn, are supporters of the apparatchiks themselves.

What is especially ironic about this situation is that many of the Progressives who now adopt the socialist, collectivist world view and see government as the solution to every problem, were hippies back in the 60's and then viewed the government as the root of all evils.

The fact that private individuals have stepped forward to spend private funds to support what previously had been a function of government should not be viewed as a regression and relapse to a less advanced state, but as the healthy reengagement and revitalization of individuals and institutions that operate independently of government. It is these individuals and institutions that constitute civil society proper.

Let a thousand I's bloom.