The Z Spot

So, before I begin, let me flat out disclose a couple of things. First, I am admitting that this post may surprise and/or irritate conservatives. Second, I’m going to admit that like John Kerry, on this particular subject, I have flip flopped. We all grow older. We all mature as we do. And sometimes through new insights, our world view changes. Other times, we can honestly look back and just say we made a mistake.

Well, I made a mistake, and it was one that I am now very sorry about. And thanks to the mistake that I made, and the same mistake made by millions of America, we have spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of lives. Yes, that’s right. I have gone from wearing a flight jacket and waving a flag holding up signs telling anti-war protesters where they could shove their thoughts on Bush and his wars to being what I would have once considered an anti-war hippy.

This was all inspired by a documentary called Body of War, one of many you can watch for free on Free Documentaries. I guess I had been questioning the war before, especially when realizing that nine years later, we are only slightly safer than we were on September 11, 2001, and that most of that increased safety has nothing to do with our wars in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

The documentary, however, really drove home a couple of things. First of all, seeing someone whose life was affected first hand by the War was touching. Especially seeing how strong someone could be to stand up against the War while his brother was still over there. Second, the side story of the political process regarding the War hit home.

I am still a Bush defender (at least compared to most anti-war activists). I don’t think the War was a massive conspiracy, or a malignant plan on Bush’s part. I don’t think he arranged the attacks of 9/11/2001 to dupe us all into a war in Iraq. I do, however, think, that the way the war was started and conducted was an assault on American freedom. Bush asked Congress, and they agreed, to grant him the power to declare war, a power granted explicitly to the two houses of Congress in our Constitution. Our Congressmen and Congresswomen allowed him to take that power from them, most likely pleased that with the power went responsibility for the actions decided upon.

Not since the days of hundreds of thousands of military “advisers” in Vietnam (as well as spread throughout Southeast Asia and Latin America) has our government so blatantly ignored the war-making process outlined in our Constitution.

Now, on to the title of the post. My first reaction to the documentary was to feel bad for the star, as well as all of the others who lost their lives fighting this ridiculous war. Then I remind myself of my basic view that people who willingly enlist in the armed services know what they are getting themselves into and should not be pitied. The issue of whether our government is holding up its end of the bargain with veterans’ benefits is for another post.

Then I realized that while the draft may have ended, it never really ends. Every time we declare war, we draft Americans into it. Not a few Americans, but all Americans. Well, at least the ones who pay taxes. Believe it or not, whether you have ever enrolled in the military or not; whether you are pro- or anti- war, you are fighting each and every one of our wars.

A simple reality that we have been told is not real (other than by political scientists and economists), is that money does matter. In fact, just about half of the federal budget goes to “defense” spending. I paid approximately $5,000 in federal income taxes this year. That means that about $2,500 came out of my paychecks and went to our fights in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a myriad of “peacekeeping” and “relief” missions, which provide no direct benefit to me, my “security,” or my “defense.”

Americans are still being drafted into wars they may not support. Unfortunately, I have neither the resources or the “guts” to stop paying 50% of my federal taxes. If I did, however, I would surely become a “conscientious objector.” Americans should not be forced to fight (with their bodies or their wallets), wars they don’t agree with.

Just saw this over at Freedom Works, and thought it was interesting. Even the House Democratic leader does not think that she can pass the Senate’s reform bill. That is, of course, the same House that Dems overwhelmingly control. What does that say for Obama’s “Hope?” Combined with Scott Brown’s election, it does not look to be a good year for Dems or Obamacare.

Scott Brown’s victory is extremely important. It is both an indicator for 2010’s midterm elections, and has the power to affect those elections and how the parties approach them.

First of all, let’s look at what it says about our current political situation. Massachusetts is a very Democratic state. In fact, Brown will be the first Republican to represent that state in decades. This was not a swing state victory. This was not the Republicans regaining a seat lost in ‘08. This was Republicans breaking new ground.

Moreover, Brown will be the crucial 40th vote against breaking a filibuster on health care “reform.” One key, and controversial aspect of the Democratic model of “reform” is the mandate. Massachusetts is currently the only state in the Union which has a health care mandate. This is a significant, but mostly overlooked in the media and blogosphere, aspect of this election. The only state currently subjected to a health care mandate just voted for someone who will stop that from happening on a federal level. Obviously, the mandate is not the walk in the park that Democrats would have us believe it is.

Looking to the future, this election is already being hailed as a sign that big losses are coming to the Dems in 2010. If a Republican can win in Massachusetts, where can’t they take seats?

The problem with this is that the midterms are now still almost a year away. Republicans are celebrating the gain, and Democrats are sweating. 10 months is a long time in the fund raising and organizing world. Democrats and liberal “get out the vote” groups are now working double time to make up for the recent upset. Republicans are kicking back. Especially in the large, tight races (Senator Reid in Nevada, for one), this is likely to lead to increased funding and turnout in 2010. Which means that these key elections may actually go to the Democrats, not in spite of (as both parties will spin it), but because of Brown’s victories.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian candidate (who ran as an independent) was hoping for 4% of the vote. Not only did he not get his 4%, I don’t believe he got that percentage in a single county. That is after he got a ton of media and blog attention, and even appeared in a televised debate with Brown and Coakley. Joe Kennedy just messed up. Past third party candidates for major office (Perot for President, for example), have at least gotten enough of the vote to affect the outcome of the election. Kennedy’s 1%, while giving the nation a 6% mandate against public health care, would not have affected the total of the election, whether he, as he claimed, stole Democratic votes (Coakley would have lost 48-52), or whether he indeed, as public opinion would have it, stole Republican votes (Brown 53-47). His failure, even with all of the attention he got, highlights the impotence of Libertarians and other third parties. Any hope that the tea party movement’s success has brought to Libertarians and other third party voters for 2010 was washed away.

Caught this over at Politcs 2000. Griffith’s single vote may not be enough to make or break either party, but this could become an interesting pattern.

There’s three aspects here. First, what does this tell us about our country’s current political climate? It is a good sign that Congressional representatives are feeling the heat on health care. Knowing that they will be held accountable, Democrats are getting nervous about Obamacare. They are willing to switch parties. That may not seem like a huge deal, but take a moment to think about the implications. When they run for re-election, they are counting on both the support and the votes of the people who worked to keep them out of office four or six years ago.

Second, what does this say about Griffith? In my mind, not what he is trying to say. It says he’s worried about his reelection. Not supporting one bill is not a reason to stop caucusing with your own party. In fact, he has now been stripped of his committee assignments. He is now much less effective in the long run. This is clearly a political media stunt.

Finally, what does this tell us about future trends? Again, I’m not as optimistic as many are. First, this reinforces the power of both major parties. Rather than leave the Democratic caucus and remain an independent, or join a third party, Griffith switched between the two major parties. Until there is a real difference between the two parties, this is not enough. Second, political parties are not one-issue machines. So if Griffith and others permanently cross the aisle over socialized medicine, what happens when abortion or gay marriage comes up? Do the Blue Dog Dems go back to their roosts? Do liberty-minded Republicans go with them? One of two things needs to happen, and neither involves major party flip flopping. Either our elected representatives need to make a point of being independent from their parties, and voting and speaking out when they disagree with the party on one issue; or we, as voters, need to open the floors of the House and Senate to third parties.

Does anybody think it is not coincidental that the Senator commiting to be the 60th to vote for Obamacare is not up for election in 2012? Hopefully Nebraskans remember this moment when Ben Nelson is up for reelection in 2012.

First of all, hope everyone had or is having a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Now, for the good stuff. This article talks about just a few examples of mistakes on the recovery.gov listing of where bailout funds went.

I understand that we are all human, and that any document, especially one of this size, is prone to mistakes. I’m just not sure that we can forgive this many mistakes in a document whose entire stated goal was accountability and transparency.

The Pfizer plant in New London, CT is about to close. What, might you ask, does that matter to a Libertarian in Las Vegas?

Well, the Pfizer plant was a key factor in New London’s decision to use Eminent Domain to condemn the property of Susan Kelo. This was a historic expansion of Eminent Domain because it was the first time it was used to seize property not for government use, but for private development. This issue went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The development intended for (but still not completed on) the sight of Kelo’s home was part of a commercial redevelopment largely focused on the now-closing Pfizer plant.

What lessons can be learned here? First, New London was right about one thing. The private sector is capable of spurring growth and economic development in ways that the government cannot.

Where they went wrong was to try to lend the private development a hand. If the market was demanding this development, they would have made an offer the Kelo family could not refuse. The market was obviously not that eager for the development, and we now know why.

What government politicians don’t realize is that these are real people whose lives are affected by their mistakes. It is not just growth and development numbers. Pfizer says it will still keep the same number of jobs in Connecticut, and that they will just be moved. That looks great on paper. But what does it do to the thousands of people who won’t move with the jobs? And what about the people who saw their land and homes taken from them, only to sit empty?

Some people may think that this is good news. I disagree.

Yes, the tea parties have made national news and created quite a buzz. And yes, I think that part of what holds back the two well known third parties (Libertarian and Green) is that they are associated with the fringe.

Starting another fiscally conservative party, however, is a mistake. If we want to see fiscal and social conservatism succeed, we need to reform the GOP, and elect real conservatives.

If we are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, we need to support the Libertarian Party.

We do not need more parties splitting conservative votes.

Also, the choice of a “Tea Party” specifically is absurd. While catchy, using puns in the name of a political party is hardly a way to get noticed.

Finally, the party does not have a real platform. Between the name and its associated conservative protests, and its founder, chairman, and only known member being Frederic O’Neal, we can assume that it will be a right-leaning party. Even now, over a week after the party was officially recognized, their website has not one policy goal or statement.

The closest thing is a few quotes saying that people are fed up with the government and a two party system. True enough. But a) being fed up is not a platform. How do we want to change our system, more specifically than electing third party and independent candidates, pleas. And b) Isn’t the best way to eliminate the two party system to support electable third party candidates? It seems to me that these tea partisans should be throwing their weight behind Green and Libertarian candidates, rather than setting up a new “third” party. To topple a two party system we need one or two more viable parties. A three or four party system is realistic. We don’t need 15 small parties with no platforms.

Rehashing an article that was all the Twitter buzz about 3 weeks ago, but still worth commenting on.

I am absolutely shocked that the fully grown, very well paid people we pay to represent us would act this way. It is absolutely absurd. And to say that the locks were changed because Republicans “don’t know how to behave?” If they are breaking some kind of procedural rule, punish them. If not, who are you to decide if they are behaving? Are you going to put them on time out in the corner? Moreover, wanting information on the financial practices of companies propped up by tax payers is not bad behavior, it is accountability.

Shame on you Edolphus Towns. Hopefully the voters of New York remember this in 2010, 2012 or 2014.

This was a very interesting article, and I couldn’t agree more.

In addition to my misgivings about excessive government intrusion in any way or for any reason in the market, this gives me more reason for concern. It is a simple reality that in today’s financial system, saving and borrowing are intricately linked. The same base interest rate affects the cost/reward structure of saving and borrowing.

When the Fed and Treasury work to lower interest rates, they help borrowers and hurt savers. That’s right. Those wit the foresight and responsibility to save money are punished in order to help those living beyond their means on various forms of credit.