patrick stephens at psjs.net

Inanity from Wired:

Note to Next President: Modern-Day WPA Will Save the Economy

Beyond providing jobs — analysts say every $1 billion spent on transportation projects creates 35,000 jobs — a modern-day WPA would produce lasting benefits….

A country that’s gridlocked, crumbling, and collapsing isn’t going to serve us well. Spend the money now, enjoy the benefits later.

Mindless repeating falsehoods won’t make them true.

But in 1935 the Works Progress Administration came along. It is known today as the very government program that gave rise to the new term, “boondoggle,” because it “produced” a lot more than the 77,000 bridges and 116,000 buildings to which its advocates loved to point as evidence of its efficacy. The stupefying roster of wasteful spending generated by these jobs programs represented a diversion of valuable resources to politically motivated and economically counterproductive purposes. (Larry reed, FEE)

But hey, the political logrolling would be something to watch.

Borrow your way out of debt. Tax your way out of unemployment.

Hope and Change. Hope and Change.

Economics, Politics 2008 Election, Bailout 08, economic insanity

After watching the debate last night, one of my first comments was that Obama’s answer to the question about judicial nominations was quite frightening.

Obama said,

If a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that’s the kind of judge that I want.

Orin Kerr at Volokh cites a recent Rasmussen poll on this issue:

Should the Supreme Court make decisions based on what’s written in the Constitution and legal precedents or should it be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice?

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

On this issue, it looks like the candidate and his supporters are very much on the same page.

The problem is that the court’s responsibility is not to make law, but to interpret law. In the specific case that Obama cited, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the statute in question clearly indicated, “A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” The Court held that because Ledbetter’s suit was brought after the 180 period had elapsed that she could not sue under that statute.

Obama would prefer that the Court ignore the law in question and instead issue a judgment based on some necessarily obscure sense of social fairness. But that way lies disaster.

Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to dictatorship and to anarchy. (Wikipedia)

If we wish to seek a remedy for issues of social fairness, then we must look to the legislature. The legislature writes law. When we seek a remedy under the law, we look to the courts to apply the law as it is written, not as we might hope it may have been written.

The remedy for Lily Ledbetter lies with Congress to amend the law in question and extend the window of grievance. That Congress failed to amend that law may be failure, but the Court’s application of the law that Congress wrote is not.

If there is any principle of sound governance that I would hope we can all agree on it is the idea that the law should strive, at all times, to be clear, unambiguous, and applied without prejudice.

Law, Politics 2008 Election, Barack Obama, justice, Supreme Court

I find myself in an unexpected position: I don’t know who I’m going to vote for in the Presidential election.

I find that almost unbelievable. What am I? An idiot? how could I be undecided at this point?

I know.

Let me explain: I won’t vote for Obama. I find much to like about Barack Obama. He’s intelligent, committed, principled and well-spoken. He looks and sounds presidential. But he’s also wrong about too many things. He’s wrong on education, he’s wrong on health-care, he’s wrong on entitlement funding, he’s wrong on tax policy, and he’s woefully, woefully wrong about economics.

I am convinced, especially after watching last night’s debate, that Obama would vastly expand the size, scope and reach of federal government. With an agreeable, Democratic Congress, I fear that expansion would go largely unhindered.

I simply cannot, in good conscience, vote to expand the Federal government. That is unarguably the wrong thing to do. Especially when the economy is slowing.

But…

McCain is only marginally better.

McCain is less wrong on education, he’s less wrong on health-care, he’s less wrong on entitlement funding, he’s less wrong on tax policy, but he’s still woefully, woefully wrong about economics.

I am convinced, especially after watching the last three weeks of this campaign, that McCain would vastly expand the size, scope and reach of federal government. With a disagreeable, Democratic Congess, I fear that McCain will strive to find “common ground” and “reach across the aisle” to fund bi-partisan monstrosities very much like the recent bailout legislation.

McCain is erratic, philosophically chaotic, and in many ways, unpredictable. I don’t know that I trust him enough.

Nor can I vote for Barr. I spent too much time and too much energy in the Libertarian party to have any more illusions. There is much to like about Barr, but the Libertarian party has been utterly and completely corrupted by a relativism that is simply unconscionable. They are not responsible stewards of liberty or coherent advocates of reason. A vote for Barr is a vote to legitimize the Libertarian Party and that is something I can not do. Nader? Baldwin? Ha.

I won’t write myself, or anyone else in. That’s just silly.

So I’m left with a choice: I vote for McCain or I abstain. Right now, I’m inclined to abstain.

That doesn’t mean I won’t vote on November 5. I certainly will. I will vote in all local elections, but I may leave the Presidential lever alone.

I don’t know. Let me know what you think. Convince me to vote.

Politics 2008 Election

We watched until it became unbearable. Then we went to bed. Sort of like the economy.

I picked up most of the rest from YouTube this morning.

I agree with Shawn Klein. I’ll call it a draw. I expect analysis to align pretty well with partisan impulses. I don’t think either Biden or Palin did much to change anyone’s perception. Palin was folksy and cute, Biden was pedantic and boring. Biden pandered to the left, Palin pandered to the right.

The biggest loser in this election is the American people.

Update:
Best line I’ve seen so far was over at Whatever, by a commenter, Shawn Deggans:

“They still sound basically the same to me though:
NATIONAL socialism or national SOCIALISM.”

Politics 2008 Election, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin

Kathleen Parker called for Sarah Palin to resign from the campaign in the National Review:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

I have to say, I’ve had much the same experience. (Except I’ve not been so much pulling for Palin as resiting the urge to belittle her.)

Now, if I’m being charitable, I’ll say that it’s entirely possible that Palin is an intelligent, competent executive who simply underperforms in these situations. Oratorical ability and a facility for extemporaneous speaking are not actually necessary qualifications in a leader, an executive, or a president. Thomas Jefferson, for example, loathed public speaking, was known to mumble incoherently, and finally succumbed to submitting his State of the Union Address in writing: to be read to Congress by an aide. Jefferson wasn’t dumb.

Now, Sarah Palin is no Thomas Jefferson. But she’s also not a complete rube or buffoon. She’s the governor of Alaska and enjoys spectacular approval ratings for her work there. (How many times can I say that before I start to wonder about Alaska?)

Let’s just say that a lot is riding on her performance in the debate.

Politics 2008 Election, Sarah Palin