McCain, Limbaugh, and Political Brinksmanship

Conservatives in talk radio and the blogosphere are playing a dangerous game of chicken with John McCain. The Arizona senator has taken positions that legitimately ruffle conservatives feathers and they have rightly called him on that. He doesn't have a sound grasp of the free market, property rights, freedom of speech, or originalist constitutionalism. Many people forget that he most likely only got his appointment to Anapolis because his father and grandfather were Navy admirals, and he promptly graduated last in his class. It's no wonder Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Milton Friedman have yet to sink in on the 71 year old.

But the bottom line is that there is no true conservative in the race. Now is the time for some realpolitik. If true-blue conservatives continue down this path they're pidgeonholing themselves into political irrelevance. If McCain wins over their protests, our hopes for any influence in policy, particularly judicial nominations, is lost. Instead, there needs to be some type of public reconciliation and quid pro quo between the two sides. Conservatives will give their blessing and McCain a rock hard commitment to appoint originalists to the court. No ifs ands or buts. No garbage about difficulties in the senate. If McCain backs out, like Bush did when he nominated Miers, we walk away.

And lets face it. If we must have a knee-jerk moderate in office, lets have one with the personal honor and national security understanding of John McCain.

The die has been cast

John McCain's 5% win over Romney, with Giuliani a distant third, makes it a two man race with McCain the odds on favorite. Although many leaders in the conservative movement are very outspoken critics of McCain (i.e. talk radio), Romney simply isn't the guy to whom conservatives will rally. He talks a good game now, but he's flipped flopped more than John Kerry. Also, McCain is an American warrior to whom conservatives will naturally gravitate.

Kudos to Pat Buchanan for the best line of the night, whom I paraphrase: "McCain tells people that the (manufacturing) jobs aren't coming back, the illegal immigrants aren't going home, but dammit we'll fight some more wars."

For the record, McCain will beat Hillary in the general election.

It's about time

President Bush just announced he will issue an executive order directing federal agencies to ignore earmarks not specifically contained in legislation. According to Bush, if these earmarks are worthy of public support, they need to be debated and put to a vote.

I only wish Bush, or anyone else, could tie this wreckless spending to the jump in inflation last year.

UPDATE: Bush calls on Congress to pass legislation aimed to stop punishing those who obtain health insurance on their own, not through their employer. Check out my post about this a few days ago.

Which Republican can be trusted to nominate judges?

John Fund gives a reason to pause about John McCain. Fund writes in this article that:

Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.

Not sure whether we can expect Romney or Giuliani to do much better. It's surprising that none of these guys understand how much this issue is a net plus for conservatives. Remember that President Bush's slide in popularity didn't occur after Medicare drug coverage, No Child Left Behind, setbacks in Iraq, but when he nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. At that point, conservatives quit fighting for the guy. If Giuliani or McCain would only come out unequivocally for originalist judges, then conservatives would rally behind them. On the other hand, I'm not sure that would help Romney because he has a record of telling people what they want to hear for political gain.

The Entitlement Culture

Ruben Navarette provides a much needed reality check for a problem that reaches into all aspects of American life. Here's a taste:

The No. 1 economic threat facing the United States today isn't globalization, stagnant wages, unfair trade policy or illegal immigration. And it certainly isn't what one cable TV demagogue glibly calls a “war on the middle class” by big media, big corporations and big special interests. Rather, it's the sense of entitlement that many Americans take with them into the workplace and the eagerness with which they shift the blame when things don't go according to plan. The key is to never take responsibility for the personal decisions you've made. Eventually, some opportunistic politician will come along and confirm what you've always suspected – that you are at the mercy of forces beyond your control.

Read the whole thing here.

We can't consume what we don't produce

George Melloan explains in this article how short term attempts to stimulate demand through government spending (Keynesian economics for you science majors) have failed in the past. Here's a taste:

If a government hampers production through heavy taxes and economic regulation - -or by inflating the currency -- production will slow down and there will be less to consume. To revive production, government must reduce the tax and regulatory burden and kill inflation -- which Reagan did to such good effect. Tossing dollars from planes doesn't do it; neither did Hoover's attempts to help farmers through protectionism, which proved disastrous, nor FDR's unconstitutional scheme to help producers with price-fixing cartels.

Bad news for Lindsay Graham

According to a foxnews exit poll, 52% of the Republican electorate today favors deporting illegal immigrants. Good thing he's already raised millons for reelection.

The question: is this the man to unseat Lindsay? More importantly who is he talking to on the phone in that ad?

Where are Republicans on health care?

Democrats have been pounding the issue of universal health care for years, and unless an alternative is offered, the allure of something "free" will eventually steamroller the Republicans. I think everyone knows that our health care system is broken, but the problem is that free market ideas have been abandoned.

The employer based health care system pools and distributes resources on a collective, not individual basis. Hence, it violates perhaps the soundest principle of economics: resources are best conserved where individuals bear the costs and reap the benefits of their conduct. Under the typical employer health care plan, the employee pays only a fraction of the cost of a particular service. Because cost is lowered at the retail level, demand for the service rises. Higher demand means increased costs. These increased costs in turn are spread to the general pool of employees to cover. The average employee pays for these costs in lower wages.

A similar problem is the role of government as a provider. When medicare and medicaid pay for services, demand likewise skyrockets, leading to increased costs. It is no wonder that health care costs now account for around 15% of our GDP.

So how did we get here and how to fix the problem? Employer health care plans arose as a consequence of the Roosevelt price controls during WWII. The government capped what employers could pay employees, so employers would offer health insurance in order to attract workers. Eventually, this system became embedded in our tax code by offering employers tax breaks for health care expenditures.

In other words, our government is subsidizing a broken, inherently inefficient system. Although you don't hear these ideas on talk radio or Hannity and Colmes, this isn't a revolutionary breakthrough in economics. But if these ideas aren't offered as an alternative, then health care will ultimately go down the tube. Costs will spiral out of control under socialized health care, so government will have to ration services.

Short term economic stimuli

One of the main stories this week has been the various plans for short term economic stimulus. The basic idea is to provide a one time $500 tax rebate, which aims to increase spending and hence keep our head above water.

What most people don't realize is that this doesn't produce any economic growth. Instead, it simply shifts money from one pocket to the next because government will pay for the cut by either borrowing or taxing. This is classic demand side, Keynesian economics. What we need is a long term plan conducive for growth: lower taxes, a simpler tax code, and elimination of the massive entitlement plans.

Low taxes stimulate production because individuals and corporations keep more of the fruits of their labor. In other words, why work harder if the government is just going to take your earnings. By the same logic, entitlements inhibit production because one lacks the incentive to work if a 3d party will pay your way. Also, the services government provides will inherently be more expensive because (1) government does not have to compete with anyone else and (2) it distributes resources on political, not economic grounds. Finally, the administrative effort in working under this the tax code is simply wasted effort from an overall social wealth standpoint. Imagine the increase in social production were tax lawyers, accountants, and bureaucrats were producing rather than rent seeking.

The best thing about this year's crop of candidates...

Is that so many of them are going to lose. So says Penn Teller in the quote of the week.

More jobs leaving the Upstate

The Greenville News has the story here. In other news, South Carolina still has not passed any meaningful workers' comp reform, no one at either the state or federal level is pushing market based healthcare reform, and our education system is a case study in failure.

Is the cult of victimhood devouring itself?

David Brooks makes some good points about the ridiculous feud now developing between Clinton and Obama in this NY Times article. Here's a taste:

The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other.

All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.

Can't we all just get along?

Justices deny cert in Abigail Alliance

Today the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach. The case involved whether a terminally ill person has a constitutional right to experimental drugs that have yet been approved by the FDA. A panel for the D.C. Court of Appeals held that such a right does exist, but the en banc court reversed.

I'll admit that several years ago I would have stated that the FDA's policy is unsound, but the Constitution doesn't address the issue. Now, I'm fairly uncertain on the issue. I don't think the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies, but the Ninth Amendment may.

The federales have some heavy hitters discussing this issue here.

Columbia educators seek guidance from Bama

The State has the story here. I'm going to go out on a huge limb and predict this trip will have absolutely no impact on the education of a single student. I would recommend these educators reading this or this. What's the worst thing that would happen if we instituted some market based reforms, fall from 49th to 50th? Oh yeah, some bureaucrats may lose their choke hold on our kids and wallets.

Well what do you expect power to do, purify?

The Chicago police found a new way to burn off calories from a box of doughnuts. This is too funny.

A refreshing breath of fresh air from Mark Steyn

Read the whole thing here. I can't do it justice in a summary.

Just another Huckster

Last night I watched the replay of Thursday's Republican debate in Myrtle Beach. I'll admit that during the first couple of debates (before his stock took off in October/November) I kind of liked what I saw in Mike Huckabee. He's down to earth, funny, has overcome weight problems through self-discipline, and lacks the elitism so typical of someone running for office. But now that I've cut through the fluff to the substance, he won't get my vote.

One of his responses was disturbingly telling. When Fred called him out on his huge tax increases to finance government solutions to problems that government wasn't disciplined enough to fix in the first place, he said "what I did was I governed...what I did was raise hope." Mr. Huckabee, hope is no substitute for dependency and a lower standard of living.

If government fails to educate its populace or heal its indigent sick, maybe the solution is for government to get out of the business of trying to fix these problems. What best raises hope is for government to get off our backs.

The Candidates Head South

A lot of retail politicking going on in the Palmetto state today. The greatest line came from a USC fan that joked with Mike Huckabee about the pounding the Arkansas Razorbacks gave the gamecocks. The Huckster told him that "you can be a USC fan and still vote for me." Unfortunately, Huck didn't mention that he would still have to be able to read the ballot, which might be a problem for joe gamecock fan.

In other news, John Edwards brought his capitalism sucks tour to Clemson. I hope the guy in the background with overalls was caught on surveillance so that his disability benefits can be terminated.

The Candidate Calculator

Y'all have probably all heard of the the vajoe candidate calculator. I have to admit, I was a little surprised at who my match was.

Heading for 1970's style staglflation?

Maybe, says Amity Shlaes on tonight's Glenn Beck show. Her comments reminded me of my Antitrust professor, who helped show me the beauty of the free market. Relying on public choice theory, he didn't have much hope in our politicians instituting reforms that generate more social wealth instead of dividing up our economic pie to politically preferred special interests. Rather, he believed we wouldn't get our act together until we hit rock bottom.

His thoughts actually mirror those of Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom. Friedman conceded in some of his lectures that his breakthroughs probably would not have much effect in the short term. But, it is important for these ideas to gain footing because when adversity hits, our leaders apply the ideas lying around at the time. We can only hope that if an economic crisis does hit, our politicians won't apply unimaginative, big government solutions that have failed time and time again.

McCain takes New Hampshire

According to foxnews. We now definitely have a multi-horse race. Hillary has a small lead for those of you scoring at home.

UPDATE: Hillary is still winning by a few points. Nina Easton (quoting someone else who I didn't catch) makes the best point of the night, arguing that Hillary gains with Edwards' dropping out of the race. Edwards' voters tend to be union and party activists who would break for the party establishment and not the up and coming rock star. Others warn that Edwards may stay in the race simply because it's gotten personal between Hillary and himself.

Well, it ain't no disco

The Justices heard oral arguments in Baze v. Rees, which considers whether executions by certain types of lethal injections violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. As usual Justice Scalia hits the nail on the head, pointing out here that "This is an execution, not surgery."

Here's another interesting story about the young buck that filed the appeal to the Court. This surely has to get him voted to Frankfort, Kentucky's Top Thirty Under Thirty.

Great (American) Expectations

Brett Stephens makes some good points in today's Wall Street Journal. Here's a taste:

There is great virtue in the American way, which expects CEOs to perform on a quarterly basis, presidents and Congresses to reinvent politics in 100 days, generals to wipe out opponents in 100 hours without taking significant casualties, doctors to save life and limb every time, search engines to yield a million results in less than a second, and so on. There is also great virtue in the belief that what is bad can be made good, and that what is good can be made great, and that what is fractionally less than great is downright awful.

But these virtues can spawn vices. One is impatience. Another is a culture of chronic complaint. A third is the belief that every problem has a solution, that trial is possible without error, that risks must always be zero, that every inconvenience is an outrage, every setback a disaster and every mishap a plausible basis for a lawsuit.

It is often said that the Bush administration's effort to bring democracy to the Middle East wasn't so much a case of American idealism as it was of hubris. That may yet prove true. But is it any less hubristic to think the enterprise was ever going to be brought off without blundering time and again? It's a thought that ought to weigh especially heavily on Mr. Obama, dream candidate of America's great expectations.

Read the whole thing here.

Can Huckabee beat Obama?

Maybe, according to Bill Kristol.

This just in...

Bill Gates is no Axl Rose.

Immigration Reform in the Palmetto State

In response to a reported 75,000 illegals aliens costing South Carolina taxpayers $186 billion, Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell has announced a plan to curb illegal immigration. Among other things this plan would allow state authorities to enforce federal immigration law, deny most public benefits including admission to state colleges, and penalize employers who fire a legal worker while retaining a worker they know is illegal. According to Harrell and the Greenville News, this plan is based on Oklahoma legislation that resulted in approximately 25,000 illegal aliens leaving that state. For those interested, here's the link to the Greenville News.

Interestingly this comes only a few weeks after our Supreme Court held that the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) does not preclude workers' compensation benefits under South Carolina state law. The court reasoned that the federal IRCA does not expressly preempt state workers' compensation law. Furthermore, denying workers' comp benefits to illegal aliens would undermine the IRCA's policy goals by encouraging employers to hire illegals because they would not have to insure these workers. That case, Curiel v. Environmental Management Services, can be found here. I'd be interested to learn the cost South Carolinians pay in benefits to illegal aliens. Although technically employers and insurers pay these benefits, that money doesn't grow on trees but instead is passed along to the consumer through higher overhead for goods and services.

Call me crazy, but I doubt our leaders in Columbia will respond effectively to the popular calls for immigration reform. We've had Republican rule in Columbia for as long as I can remember, but there simply has been no backbone to cut spending, enact real tax relief, or implement school choice. However, this may be the kind of issue that Joe Six Pack from Bamberg can understand and reward.

Sic Willie's take is here.

The Giuliani Strategy

Pundits have been hammering Rudy for his primary strategy that focuses on larger states whose elections occur later in the season. I think this strategy might not be as reckless as they think because there is no early front runner with support of a broad cross-section of the Republican electorate. Because there are more choices it'll take longer for people to make up their minds. Hence, time is not as important. By taking his stand later on in the race, he's letting McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson weed each other out.

Plus, the media loves to hype dramatic ups and downs in any given race. It can tear a candidate down as easily as it built him up. The key is to be on top at the end of the game, not the beginning. A Rudy comeback that defies conventional wisdom would be a great story. I think Rudy should worry more about that huge proportion of the Republican base that would rather stay at home than vote for him in November.

George Will on populism.

"The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth. Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there."

Indeed. Read the whole thing here.

Thoughts on Iowa

I'll leave the conventional thoughts to the mainstream media and talk radio. What I can't understand is why disgruntled conservatives and Republican elites have not rallied behind Fred Thompson. Of all those in the race, he best captures the three legs of the winning coalition among social, economic, and national security conservatism. To win the grand prize we have to capture independents and motivate our base, and I think he best does this. I don't have a dog in this fight since I respect all the Republicans to one degree or another, but I can't understand why the media completely ignores him. I have not attended one of his campaign events, so maybe he really is a flop in person. I imagine the disappointment stems from the extremely high anticipation and expectations that prompted him to enter the race.

And we're up!

Welcome to Helvidius. First, about the name. The inspiration comes from the Helvidius-Pacificus debates between Madison and Hamilton that arose out of George Washington's Neutrality Proclamation. Although Pacificus (Hamilton) got the better of Helvidius, Madison had the cooler name, so I figured it would resonate more.

Second, about me. I'm a young lawyer in a small southern state with a passion for law, history, philosophy, politics, economics, music, braves baseball, and the human experience. My thoughts on blogging basically rip off John Stuart Mill. There really is no bad idea. Controversial and offensive ideas lead to truth either by strengthening perceived wisdom (through the poor idea's failings) or by finding a new breathrough. In other words, the more ideas in the marketplace, the more competition and hence greater chance that we'll reach truth. That being said, this blog's hammer will drop on those that speak ill of mama, Robert E. Lee, America, and the Atlanta Braves.