Socialized Medicine and a Doctor's Moral Obligation

A friend asked this question:

One of the arguments I have heard from proponents of socialized medicine is that it is immoral to stand by while someone dies, and therefore society is obligated to help when someone is facing a life threatening illness but can't afford the treatment. Although there is much to refute in this type of statement, I am wondering about the more difficult refutation. As a personal decision of each doctor, is it rational to make the decision to deny treatment based upon the fact of a patient's inability to pay?

The moral argument against socialized medicine, or ObamaCare in particular, is based on our equal, sovereign individual rights. It is not dependent upon whether a particular doctor decides that he must act to save a life independent of remuneration or not. It is an important moral principle that he is free to either be benevolent or not be benevolent. Now, I do believe benevolence is an important virtue, but benevolence is virtuous in the context that the person helped has value to the doctor.  Benevolence is not about self-sacrifice, since that would hardly be benevolent to oneself. 

If the person has an entitlement mentality, then the doctor generally has no rational reason to help that person without remuneration. It is perfectly moral for him to walk away. In the context of a society of largely productive and benevolent people, a doctor may be rationally inclined to provide help to those who cannot afford to pay for their care, especially if they have become ill or hurt through no great fault of their own. But, even that depends on context, such as the expense the doctor will have in helping him and whether his helping the unfortunate person means that he is not able to help someone else who can pay. He is not obliged to save the poor man, while letting the financially prepared man die! If he gives too much of his time to helping the poor, he may not be able to generate enough income to buy the medical equipment that will enable him to save many lives in the future or he may simply go out of business. The doctor must make difficult moral decisions based on a very complex context. Some may appear to make a greater effort in benevolent acts than others, but still may not be saving the most lives possible.

Rational men are going to balance these difficult decisions differently and we should be careful in our appraisals of their morality.  A doctor may be willing to give his services free in a given case, but he may be unable to convince a nurse and other assistants to give their time free.  Or the hospital may be unwilling to make an operating room available.  Now the proponent of socialized medicine will want to use force to make all of these needed experts and facilities available, but this is a violation of everyone's rights and cannot be tolerated in a civilized society.

My grandfather was a physician in the Great Depression. He was a surgeon who operated in the Mayo Clinic and all of the hospitals of Minneapolis and St. Paul. He did a very unusual number of operations on people who could not pay for them. But, people were different back then. A farmer might not have any money, but he would give Harry Christianson a chicken, which to the farmer was his fortune. Then very likely for 20 years after, when he could, he would stop by grandpa's home and leave a bag of potatoes or a bushel of corn. This was very welcome when rationing was going on in WWII for instance. Harry and his wife Bess always had free food and there was so much that Bess and her daughter Betty organized ways to get it into the hands of those in need in the city. One man decided he would paint grandpa's house in payment for an operation, but while he was painting the upper part of the exterior, union thugs knocked him off the ladder and shattered his leg. The man was not a union painter. He was just a farmer who wanted to pay a debt he believed he had. Harry and Bess put him up in one of their rooms until he was healed. The union later burned down their home because they did this.

So this is another important issue of context. There is value in helping people who put value on the help they receive. There is value in helping people who fundamentally believe that one should trade values for value.

There is little value in helping the ungrateful, however. Any deserving person, any person whose welfare one has reason to care about, will recognize the value they have received and will not presume that they have the rights of a master, while the doctor who worked so hard to develop his healing skills and knowledge is treated as his slave.  A doctor or any other service provider has the right to choose his own values and to pursue his own happiness in terms of his values.

The need of a poor person does not deprive him of this equal individual right to pursue his happiness.  Every man, whether poor or rich, whether a professional or a low-skilled worker, has this magnificent right to pursue his happiness.  No one has the right to dictate the values or the moral code which will define what his happiness will be.  All that can be required of another is that they are not allowed to initiate the use of force as a means to pursue their happiness.

This is very adequate for each of us when we exercise our freedoms and act within the private sector of our society.  In the private sector we have a wealth of potential opportunities to cooperate with others whose values are sufficiently similar to ours or in some way complementary so that each of us can pursue our goals defined by our individually chosen values.  When our values are not approved of by others, they are free to choose not to associate with us.  This is the realm of the voluntary and is relished by those who want rich choices and who abhor being forced to bend to the will of others.

In contrast to this natural realm of freedom, we have the realm of the government.  The principal property of government is its monopoly on the use of force in a society.  Because a wise society seeks to minimize the use of force and seeks to maximize individual freedom of choice and association with others, such a society has a minimal government.  Such a limited and legitimate government uses force only for the purpose of protecting the equal, sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When government attempts to do more, it must necessarily do violence to the rights of the individual as it imposes values and moral codes upon the People.  With this loss of freedom to choose one's values, one loses many of the freedoms to use one's own mind.  One loses the choice of one's own goals.  With the loss of one's own goals, one loses all hope.  It is no accident that unfree societies become depressed societies with large increases in drug use, excessive alcohol use, and increased numbers of suicides.  Big governments do much harm to individuals and are notable in the brutally of their violence against their people should any insist on exercising their sovereign rights.  We see the party of biggest government verging close to a desire to let loose the hounds of hell upon the Tea Party people for just this reason.  Over and over they have tried to label the Tea Party people who simply want to preserve some of their individual rights as terrorists and subversives.  This makes the brutal nature of unlimited government all the more clear in our time.

Actions Speak Louder than Words: Obama Hates Small Business

For each of the last five months, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) has found that the business optimism of small business owners has fallen.  With First Quarter 2011 GDP growth dropped to 0.4% and Second Quarter GDP growth presently said to be 1.3%, some earlier optimism that this never-ending Great Socialist Recession was showing some signs of recovery has vanished.  Indeed, it is not even clear that if price inflation were taken into account properly that the so-called growth of the first two quarters of this year was not really a contraction of the economy.  We may very well actually have had the second dip of this recession already.  The Manufacturing Index has also been very disappointing.  Real estate values show no sign of recovery and consumer spending is still limping along.

Every time Obama and the Democrats push to provide extended unemployment benefits to the unemployed, the states have to continue using much higher than normal unemployment tax rates on the employees of businesses.  My company's rate in 2010 and 2011 is 7.33 times higher than it was 2008, despite our never having let an employee go who was eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits.  This is not an incentive to small businesses to hire more employees and makes it harder to keep the employees they have.  Being forced to let a good employee go is definitely an optimism killer when you are running a small business.

Small businesses are also hit by the increased costs and bureaucracy they will have to expect with ObamaCare.  The Dodd-Frank financial industry reform bill has especially cut them off from the big lenders with assets in excess of $100 billion.  The increased regulatory burdens imposed by Obama's EPA, FDA, FTC, DOD, FDIC, Consumer Protection Agency, the NLRB, and the restrictions on oil and gas drilling have been hardest on small businesses who cannot afford legions of lawyers to deal with the government bureaucracy.  When the FDA or DOD require a business to become ISO-certified as proof of quality controls, that cost is proportionally much greater on a small business than on a larger business.  This is a very real discrimination against small businesses and often has only cosmetic effects on real quality controls since the business owner and upper management in a small firm are much more likely to be on top of quality issues than the corresponding management is in a big business.  New FDA oversight of small food retailers and producers is another major cost escalator for many small businesses.  Since few people were dying of food poisoning, there is no significant benefit to this new Obama cost.

Falling demand has been the biggest problem for small businesses which are less likely to participate heavily in the export markets as the large multinational companies do.  There are better opportunities for profits and sales abroad in many areas than here in the U.S., thanks to the Obama administration economy-wrecking policies.  Small business owners are also very worried about the uncertainties caused by excessive government spending and the rapid increase in the national debt.  The more spending government does, the more it interferes with business activity.  Since 2001, the GDP has grown by 46%, but the national debt has grown by 146%!  The Federal Reserve bought about three-quarters of U.S. Treasury Bonds in 2009 and 2010, thereby increasing its balance sheet from $896 billion in August 2007 at the start of the housing bubble collapse to $2.9 trillion now.  This is clearly not sustainable, yet there is no end in sight to this method of "covering" the absurd spending of the government.  The excessive spending and debt both cause pressure of increased taxes or inflation in the near future.  Business taxes are already much too high.

While only about 8% of small businesses name access to credit as their primary problem in NFIB surveys, it is clear that the credit needs of many small businesses are not being met.  Interest rates were increased on many lines of credit, business loans, and business credit cards.  40% of small businesses attempting to borrow in 2009 were able to meet their credit needs, 10% had most of their needs met, 21% had some, and 23% had none of their credit needs met.  With the gathering worries of satisfying the Dodd-Frank finance reform bill, this situation is becoming worse as this recession drags on and on and on.  Small businesses commonly do not have the resources to last through multiple years of recession.  Banks are especially refusing to lend money to fill in cash flow problems.

Small business owners generally own real estate.  In the NFIB 2009 study, 95% had real estate.  The fact that most real estate has lost considerable value has deprived many small business owners of the collateral they would commonly use to secure credit.  13% of small business owners had at least one property worth less than what they owed on it.  The loss of property values has left many small businesses much more vulnerable.

Into this sorry picture of woes for small businesses, the Obama administration FDIC has been squeezing banks to loan less money to small businesses, which it regards as less credit worthy as a group.  On that they may be right, but as is the rule with government, the assessment is a one-size-fits-all assessment.  Main Street Bank of Kingwood, Texas specializes in small business loans.  Main Street Bank has a $175 million loan portfolio and 90% of it goes to small businesses.  Most of these businesses have annual revenue less than $1 million.  The average loan size is $100,000.  Main Street had a profit of $1 million in the Second Quarter and wrote off 1.25% of its loans as bad.  The failure rate of loans in the FDIC insured banks in the First Quarter was 1.82%.  The FDIC has not released the bad loan rate for the Second Quarter yet.  Government is slow.

Despite the success of Main Street Bank in its small business loan strategy, the FDIC slapped it in July 2010 with an order to increase its capital and reduce the proportion of its small business loans from 90% to 25%.  The bank was also ordered to hire another bank executive.  It had to sell a business and shrink its loan portfolio to meet the increased capitalization requirement.  This increase in capitalization was a large one, from 9.5% in June 2010 to 17.3% in June 2011.  As a result of this FDIC interference in their business, Main Street Bank is working hard to turn in its bank charter.  A new company is being set up, Ascentium Capital, which will have backing from a private group of investors and will no longer take customer deposits.  This business will not be regulated and will be able to continue to specialize in small business loans.  They plan to increase the loan portfolio to $500 million.

The reduction from 90% of Main Street Bank loans to 25% for small businesses, removed $114 million of small business credit from the market.  Now imagine this kind of thing happening all over the country as the FDIC goes from bank to bank and prescribes lowered small business loan exposure.  The impact on small business credit will be huge.  This is very important, because a large fraction of American workers are employed by small firms and much innovation occurs in these companies.  A lack of access to credit during an extended recession makes these myriad small businesses more likely to fail.  The Obama administration policy is clearly to subsidize and bailout big businesses, but to slash and plunder small businesses.

Interestingly enough, the Small Business Administration has been repeatedly cited for guaranteeing lenders loans at 85% of the loan for which the lenders are considered to be at high risk in 80% of SBA 7(a) loans.  Their loan failures run many times higher than those of Main Street Bank!  While their loans go to only 0.2% of small businesses, they have an outlandish failure rate of 19.4%.  Perhaps the Obama crew should be more concerned with controlling this loan failure rate than that of a private bank which knows its business very well.

That tendency to plunder small business could not be made more clear than by Obama's constant effort to raise taxes on those earning more than something between $200,000 and $250,000 a year.  His efforts to widen the death tax is another indicator of his evil intentions with respect to small businesses.  It is politically much easier to plunder small businesses than it is to tackle big businesses with their many savvy lawyers and lobbyists.  It is also easier to over-regulate small businesses.  Socialists do not like business owners and managers.  They are equated with labor exploiters, no matter how many goods and services they produce for free consumers and no matter how many jobs they may provide.  Obama and his crew of insiders are nothing if they are not true socialists.  Small businesses are made to pay a heavy price as a result of their present power.

A Glacial July Employment Growth

Amid the chaos and the great effort of our federal government to sabotage the private sector, that often heroic and under-appreciated sector of our society struggled to create a few jobs.  The number of missing jobs fell from 13.30% to 13.21%.  This continues the pattern throughout the Great Socialist Recession of worsening and then briefly bettering job growth, but with the job creation never vigorous.

The number of missing jobs decreased by 132,000 jobs in July.  At this rate of net job creation, the number of missing jobs will be as few as the 11,023,000 of December 2007 in a mere 78.4 months or 6.5 years.  Of course, that assumes that even this anemic rate of job creation can be sustained.  Between now and the 2012 election, I doubt that it will be.

The job statistics table is given below.  The missing jobs are calculated in comparison to January 2000 when there are plenty of good jobs available for those who wanted to work.  At that time, 67.49% of the total non-institutional civilian working age population was working or looking for work.  The unemployment rate was only 4.04% then.  Many of the unemployed were actually just switching jobs with a little time off in between. How we long for those times!

I would expect the August jobs report to show some deterioration based on the fact that from the time a company decides to hire someone to the time they have and that person starts work, is usually a number of weeks.  Four weeks prior to mid-July was a time when the growth in GDP in the First Quarter was still thought to be 1.9%, not the second revision downward to 0.4%.  The Second Quarter disappointing growth rate of 1.3% was also unknown.  That was also a time when many major corporations, many of whom are doing better than most small businesses, were reporting fairly good earnings, largely made abroad.  The effort of Obama and the Democrats to once again raise taxes in the debt ceiling negotiations and their winning of a nearly blank check to continue mad government spending levels, will further discourage business activity.  Many a small businessman has simply decided to wait until after the 2012 election to see if there will be any hope for expansion of their business.

Obama's continued talk of creating jobs with high speed trains, green energy projects, electric cars, stimulus spending on infrastructure, extended unemployment benefits, and job training programs is just a continuation of ruinous transfers of wealth from the private sector to the government sector.  The actions are all job-destroyers. 

It is not a help to businesses to hire if extending jobless benefits means that states will continue the high unemployment insurance rates charged to companies on every employee they have.  Because of these unemployment funds, my company tax rate went up by a factor of 7.33 in 2009 and has continued there since.  This is not the way to encourage companies to hire more people.  But it is among Obama's crazy prescriptions.

Obama Cruelly Threatens to Withhold Social Security Payments

There is no cruelty to match that of a frustrated socialist yearning for control over the People.  Obama has told tens of millions of very frightened seniors on Social Security that if the Republicans do not cave-in and give him a blank check to continue spending massive amounts of taxpayer money and then add much more to the national debt, he may not send out Social Security checks in August.  This is probably an empty threat, but that does not diminish the brutality of it.

By any rational analysis, it is also an absurd threat.  In 2010, Social Security income was $677.1 billion according to the Social Security Fund Trustee's Report.  Social Security outgo was $584.9 billion, which means it had a surplus of income over outgo of $92.2 billion.  That surplus was used to help fund the massive deficit spending on all other government programs, as the Social Security surplus has been used for decades.  Because of this, of the $677.1 billion of income, $108.2 billion is interest on government bonds the Social Security Trust Fund bought to help the government finance its deficits in the general fund for decades.

The Obama administration wants to keep spending money it does not have on such things as

• the expenses of setting up the bureaucracy and rules for ObamaCare, 
• setting up the bureaucracy and rules for the Dodd-Frank finance "reform", 
• paying ethanol, windmill, electric vehicle, solar, and other "green" energy subsidies, 
• paying higher electric and gasoline bills because it is foolishly convinced by its own propaganda that man is causing a catastrophic global warming, 
• paying hordes of scientists to prove this false catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis,
• persecuting business with reinvigorated threats of anti-trust actions, 
• putting more people on Medicaid and Medicare,
• paying bloated union wages on federal contracts,
• using the Labor Department to provide site requirements to companies for their expansions while considering only Union Shop states,
• using the Justice Department to promulgate injustice against the states and the people and discrimination against those not in government-favored minorities,
• funding universities that long ago became bloated with government money and stopped educating students,
• promulgating tens of thousands of new regulations which serve no useful purpose but to increase the power of bureaucrats over the People who do not have the time to read the regulations,
• and providing funding to the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and many other international institutions that do not like the U.S. and hate our Constitution and concept of individual rights.

Apparently, Obama is now telling us that he is so unwilling to stop such foolish spending that he is going to transfer more than the surplus in the Social Security Fund income out to cover these other expenses.  It is his decision to do this which will prevent him from sending out the August Social Security checks!  Actually, I do not think the law will even allow him to do this, but then he is accustomed to ignoring the law, so that does not mean he will not do it.

Let us suppose that he chooses not to use the federal income from income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, tariffs, gasoline and cigarette taxes, and many other taxes to pay the $108 billion owed the Social Security Fund in current interest payments.  In other words, he might make payments on interest to the Chinese and to investors, but not to the Social Security Fund.  The Social Security surplus of $92.2 billion would then be turned into a small deficit of $16.0 billion.  If he then did not send out that $16.0 billion, but did send out the remaining $568.9 billion of checks, this would mean that 2.8% of Social Security payments would not go out.  But, there is no way that $16 billion shortfall due to the default on the interest payment would not be made up by any President not grasping at power as a lust-driven would-be dictator.

Obama's threat really has struck terror into the hearts of many Americans on Social Security.  This was a totally irresponsible and pernicious act on the part of this cruel and evil man.  It seems to take such people to be the strongest advocates of socialism.  Despite its pretenses of caring for the needs of some of the People, those who pursue this so-called ideal as a career are never actually caring people.

This entire fuss about the debt ceiling is due to the failure of the Senate to produce a budget for over two years.  The House would not produce one either until the Republicans took it over.  But, the Senate and the President have ignored their budget.  Since no agreement has been reached on what the government will spend in 2012, there is no basis for an agreement on what spending cuts will be made to reduce the deficit to some manageable proportion of our GDP.  All we know is that the record over the last three years was for the government to spend an average of more than 24% of GDP, while before 2008, the spending was below 20% of GDP.  Obama and the Democrats appear to want to continue spending much more than 20% of GDP even though that will mean huge on-going deficits.  Apparently, they intend that this funding will be the result of many more continuing resolutions on spending, so they will never have to recognize that the welfare and crony mercantilist government they want is not sustainable.  They can ignore the failure of big government socialism as long as they do not have to produce an actual budget.  Unless, of course, we collapse as Greece is and Italy may be on the verge of doing.

A 4% of GDP reduction in government spending is more than a $600 billion reduction per year.  It is clearly easy for the government to function at its 2007 spending levels, so there is no excuse for spending cuts that are not in the $600 to $700 billion per year range relative to the spending of this year and the two previous years.

California Cities Cool in Last Decade

Meteorologist Jan Null compared the temperature and precipitation records of the National Climatic Data Center for many California cities for the earlier period of 1971-2000 to the period from 1981-2010.  The later period generally was cooler, with increased precipitation.  The temperature records of rural areas commonly do not show the temperature increases commonly seen in cities due to the urban heat island effect.  When even the temperature of cities is going down on most of our West Coast, this is a dramatic event.  It must have been an especially unwelcome outcome for Jan Null, who is an ardent catastrophic man-made global warming booster.  The results of his study were published in the San Francisco newspaper The Chronicle on 6 July with a very nice graphic by Todd Trumbull.

Null claimed that man-made global warming caused the warming in Redding and Fresno and the warmth there caused cool air to be drawn in from the sea to cool the coastal cities.  Why they would have a cooling effect on Los Angeles and San Diego is surely unclear.  Indeed, warm temperatures in the Central Valley usually are caused by high pressure systems that actually cause winds along the coast to go out to sea and the warming of the coastal areas.  Null was apparently desperate to null out the use of his analysis of the data as a refutation of man-made global warming.

One also has to wonder why the data sets used have a 20-year period of overlap.  That 20-year overlap with only 10 years on the earlier end or on the later end, should cause any net cooling effect from 2001 to 2010 compared to the start period for the last cycle of warming claimed generally from 1971 to 1980 to be minimized.  Perhaps that was the point of the long overlap.

Given California's problems with insufficient water supply, the increased precipitation in most of the areas ought to be a positive thing, rather than a catastrophe.  I will not claim the drop in temperatures is a good thing, but it sure does take some wind out of the sails of the catastrophic man-made global warming alarmists who are always using temperature increases, either real or due to urban heat island effects, as evidence that CO2 emissions are going to kill the planet.

Actually, if the increased precipitation is raising the humidity enough, it is possible that the lowered temperatures do not actually mean a reduction of heat energy.  This is because more humid air can hold a lot more energy at a given temperature than drier air.  But, the man-made global warming alarmists do not take note of this when they use any warming of air to claim that it was caused by man's CO2 emissions.

The Obama Jobs Catastrophe Continues in June

Once again this June's unemployment numbers, offer no indication that the very high employment rates of the last three and a half years are abating or improving.  Despite the wild-eyed claims of the Obama administration, the Stimulus Bills and the drunken spending of the federal government over this period has resulted in no jobs growth improvements.  Combining these wasteful transfers of wealth from the private sector to the control of the government with the expenses and uncertainties of ObamaCare, the Dodd-Frank finance reform bill, the concerted efforts to force us to go abroad more and more for oil and gas while leaving extensive fields undeveloped at home and rejecting Canadian offers of tar sand oil, the efforts to bankrupt all of the coal-fired electric plants, the increased threat of anti-trust lawsuits, the developed world's highest corporate tax rate, a Justice Department bent only upon injustice, mandates for the use of unreliable and very expensive energy at unattainable levels in the near future, and myriad other anti-business and anti-earning-a-living efforts, has had just the impact on employment anyone not brain-dead would expect.

The employment numbers for June 2011 are shown in the table below based on the more job-inclusive household survey data, which is not here seasonally adjusted.  The Jun 2011 data is best compared to the July 2010 data to see if there has been any improvement in jobs creation over the past year under Obama's watch.

In making that comparison, the unemployment rate seems to have fallen from 13.75% in July 2010 to the June 2011 rate of 9.32%.   Unfortunately, this is only because many more people have given up on finding employment in that time.  It is more significant to note that 140,134,000 people were employed full-time in July 2010, while only 140,129,000 were employed in June 2011.  This is an actual decrease in the number of Americans employed by 5,000.  That is not a significant decrease, unless you take it in the context that the civilian working age population increased by 1.6 million people in that time!  A stagnant economy at least creates jobs enough to employ those of the growing population who want to work.  The effects of the socialist policies to remove vast wealth and decision-making power from the private sector to the government have produced an economy that cannot even keep up with population growth, let alone actually make progress on recovering from the Great Socialist Recession.

Based on January 2000 when the economy was robust and the existence of good jobs enticed many Americans to take jobs and the unemployment rate was a meaningful 4.0%, we can calculate how many jobs we would need now to have a similar good job economy.  The number of missing jobs now is 21,502,000, which is 1,084,000 more missing jobs than in July 2010.  One would have to say that Obama's so-called effort to "create jobs" is actually a job-destruction effort, which is very effective in doing that.  After any normal recession, the private sector makes adjustments and comes roaring back.  Obama has strangled the lion's roar.

An unemployment rate of 13.3% based on the number of missing jobs is a much more realistic unemployment rate than the 9.2% rate given by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Obama administration.  To that we have to add the 8.9 million employed only part time for economic reasons, according to the BLS.  They want full-time jobs, but cannot find them.  This makes a full-time job shortage of at least 18.8%. This still does not count the many millions of Americans working at jobs for which they are educationally and by experience over-qualified.

As has been historical demonstrated over and over, socialism is a disaster for people who want to earn a decent living, over and above the value many of us attach to our liberties and other aspects of being able to manage our own lives.

American Exceptionalism in the Moral Foundation of the Declaration of Independence

The United States of America is unusual in that it became a nation comparatively recently and  its People have maintained a similar philosophy of government, at least implicitly, throughout its lifetime.  For decades, however, the Progressive Elitists have been working hard to change that philosophy to one more like that of most nation-states and their societies.  What is the keystone of the American philosophy of government and why would Progressive Elitists want to change it?

The Declaration of Independence clearly spelled out the central fact of the exceptional American Principle of Government.  Without this great and noble document, our Constitution cannot be viewed in its proper context and becomes a much weakened limit on the scope and powers of government.  The United States of America were declared independent of Great Britain on 4 July 1776 with a very exceptional purpose in the annals of nations.  Other nations simply had a government controlled by aristocrats, commonly in an alliance with high-level clergy, who were empowered to protect the people and take care of them, at least in theory.  Our first founding document, The Declaration of Independence, clearly and emphatically states that a legitimate government is the tool of the People as the holders of sovereign, equal individual rights to protect and defend their rights.  This is the first part of the exceptional American Principle of Government.


Let us read this straight from the Declaration of Independence:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are surfferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Legitimate government secures our individual unalienable rights.  Government cannot take our rights away from us and it certainly cannot give them to us.  Our rights are the result of our nature as thinking individuals who must use our independent minds to survive and to choose the values that we will act to gain or to keep.  At that time, it was assumed that the nature of man was given to man by a god, so therefore God was the giver of rights.  Prior to the French and Indian War, or the Seven Years War in Europe, Americans had long been neglected by the government of Great Britain.  They had developed their own legislatures and had taxed themselves very lightly under local governments of very limited scope for a long time.  When Great Britain awoke to the fact that the Colonies had become rather well off and could be taxed to help pay off the huge war debt from the Seven Years War, they levied new taxes and sent of a swarm of new officers to the Colonies to tell Americans what they could and could not do.  By the standards of Americans then, the government of Great Britain had become illegitimate because it was violating the individual rights of the People.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the People as our second form of government in 1789 after they had found that the first form of government under the Articles of Confederation was somewhat too weak.  The People wanted a federal government more capable of providing defense, without too heavy a dependence upon the states.  They found it necessary to prevent the states from violating the property rights of the People and from prohibiting or impeding their trading with one another in commerce.  They needed a government more capable of dealing with foreign powers.  They needed a government to help them establish courts to handle disputes across state lines, nationwide postal service with post roads, patent laws, provide a common coinage, and common weights and measures so that the People in the various states might have some basic rules and means to develop more commerce with one another.

This was still a government of very limited scope and with a few, carefully enumerated powers.  This was not a government that gave the People certain rights.  It was the People, with their rights already in hand, who ordained and established the government.  That government had such limited powers precisely because the People knew that strong governments with wide-ranging powers become the greatest threat to individual rights.  Such governments always seek to expand their powers.  The People knew from history that freedom was lost in Greece and in Rome, for  instance, to  governments which had acquired too much power.  They knew of many other abuses of government power from British history.  The Americans were fortunate to know these things and fortunate to generally have escaped the indoctrination of government-run schools.

The Constitution has its moral foundation in the Declaration of Independence.  The Constitution had to provide for a government with no more than minimal powers and scope or the government operating under it would necessarily become an instrument to violate the rights of the individual to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  This is the second part of the exceptional American Principle of Government, which was explained in the Declaration of Independence somewhat and enacted in the Constitution.  This must happen because the Rule of Law must apply to all, but few laws can be written to accommodate the highly differentiated and complex natures of thinking Men.  The Rule of Law requires that every law apply equally to every Man.

There are only a few laws that can comply with this requirement, however.  For instance, a law might say that no Man may initiate the use of force against another.  Such a law is consistent with the General Welfare since it is necessary for the protection of each and every Man's rights.  But once government takes on powers beyond the protection of the rights of every man, then every law becomes one to promote a special interest rather than the General Welfare.  For instance, a law of the form: Every Man with an income greater than $250,000 will pay a higher tax rate on his income than any Man with a lower income, is a special interest law, which violates the General Welfare by only addressing the welfare of those making less than $250,000 of income a year.  A law that requires a doctor to treat a patient who does not have enough money to pay for his treatment is another such special interest law which does not satisfy the condition that it provide for the General Welfare.  The doctor's right to his own Life and how he will spend the hours of it is violated.  He is not at Liberty to Pursue his own Happiness under such law.  This is a clear violation of the doctor's equal and sovereign individual rights.  The requirement by law that one must purchase a health insurance plan approved by government is a clear violation of the right of every Man to own his own life and to manage his own health care needs.  Some, for instance, might rationally be wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Others might have no need for a low-deductible policy or for mental health care.  Some may not need pre-natal care.  Individuals have differing needs and their values will differ accordingly.  Government laws under progressive governments deny these basic facts of reality.

The Constitution recognizes the importance of the Rule of Law applying equally to everyone many times.  It refers to the General Welfare as a requirement that must be provided for whenever any of the limited powers of government are executed.  The government is authorized to build military facilities, but it is not authorized to have the Speaker of the House give the construction contract to his son-in-law at three times the lowest responsible bid cost.  For him to do so, would be a violation of the General Welfare and of the Rule of Law.  The many laws that apply to all Americans except the members of Congress and/or their staff, are another example of special interest law in violation of the General Welfare and the Rule of Law.  Similarly, the award of government contracts only to those paying union wages is another obvious violation of the moral rule stated in the Declaration of Independence.

There is a presumption of liberty for the individual in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  The long list of grievances against the interferences of Great Britain make this clear in the Declaration of Independence.  The entire effort to limit the powers and scope of government in the Constitution makes this clear in that document.  The long list of rights the government acknowledged in the Bill of Rights is another recognition of this fact, especially given the 9th Amendment which says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This amendment clearly states that the government is not the source of individual rights.  The government has the duty to recognize and honor the unalienable rights of the every individual to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The Declaration of Independence even implied that there were other rights not covered by that very broad combination of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness when it precedes that list of rights with "among these are."  I am not sure what rights are not covered by that list, which does cover many rights not listed in the Bill of Rights, but this is another strong example of the presumption of liberty which legitimate government must not violate.

The Declaration of Independence is a critically foundational document of the exceptional American Principle of Government.  Its moral principles provide the real backbone to the Constitution.  If one can eliminate the Declaration of Independence from our understanding of our moral duty as citizens and as a definition of legitimate government, then the Constitution is greatly weakened and becomes more subject to changing interpretations and tortured mutations of constitutional law and precedent. 

The central purpose of the Progressive Elitist is to make government much more powerful and to put it to the endless task of providing goodies for an endless list of special interests.  That list presently includes government employees, labor unions, big financial and car outfits with special protection by government against their bad business decisions, trial lawyers, government-run school teachers, non-competitive energy providers, ethanol refiners and blenders, farmers with subsidized crops, tariff-protected industries, low income housing users, high income housing owners who want green space, zoning laws, and building codes to keep lower income people away from their neighborhoods, and the unemployed who like sitting at home on unemployment benefits.  None of this is consistent with the General Welfare or the Rule of Law.  It is just faction against faction to win special interests at the expense of violating the individual rights of others.

Obama very clearly explained that he does not like the Constitution which is a barrier to his central purpose of redistributing the wealth by taking some of the People's time, money, and property and giving it to others of his choosing.  Vice President Biden explicitly stated that there are no such things as Natural Rights.  Rights are given to People by the government he says.  Of course, this means that People do not have unalienable rights.  If the Declaration of Independence is wrong about that, then it is also perhaps wrong in claiming that the People have equal rights.  It is certainly wrong in the minds of such Progressive Elitists for the Declaration of Independence to define legitimate government as that government that protects the equal rights of the individual to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  These two men are very aware that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution form a very strong front against their idea of government.  Indeed, Progressive Elitists very often claim the Declaration of Independence has no standing in the law.  How odd a claim this is given that it is the moral foundation upon which the Constitution rests.  But, as with a fortress, the Constitution is no stronger than its foundation.

The 9th Amendment has been virtually struck from the Constitution by Progressive judges.  Even the explicitly enumerated rights of the individual in the Bill of Rights have been split into categories which deserve strong protection and those which are mere after-thoughts.  Any right to pursue one's happiness through commerce is now completely subject to the whim of the government.  That means that the People have lost all of their economic rights, which most people spend many hours a day pursuing.  Clearly, such rights must be denied by a government that presumes to choose the People's values and to micromanage their lives with Central Planners.  This is the goal of the Progressive Elitists.  Obama is particularly derogatory about people who pursue their happiness in part by making money or creating wealth.  This predilection against commerce explains why he has proven so effective in destroying the jobs many Americans once had in the private sector.

Note also that the Declaration of Independence says the People have a moral duty to change the form of their government if it becomes illegitimate by violating their rights.  This is a very scary idea for a Progressive Elitist who desperately wants to dictate our values to us and force us to live in accordance with those mandated values.  He believes the People are generally unable to wisely choose their values and are not up to managing their own lives well.  He lacks the faith of the Declaration of Independence in the People.

It is interesting in this light to note the study by two Harvard University professors, David Yanagizawa-Drott and Andreas Madestam in which they found that

The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans.

There are plenty of Progressive Elitists in the Republican Party, but they tend to be less radical than those in the Democrat Party and fewer in percentage.  The impact of 4th of July parades on the People that pushes them toward the Republicans is due to there being less resistance among Republicans to the ideas of our Declaration of Independence.  These ideas are still more in sync with those of the Tea Party.  It is these ideas that make Americans exceptional.  The Democrats have a great deal of difficulty seeing American principles as exceptional because they have dismissed all of our American principles and hold none that are unique to America.  Their core values all hinge on an aristocracy of college-indoctrinated elitists running the country by controlling its all-powerful government.  This is a variant of the Medieval concept of government that long-preceded the Scottish and French Enlightenment philosophy found in the Declaration of Independence.  The peasants in their society are the many who received just enough indoctrination in the government-run schools that they will be docile in obeying the government they are told has only their best interest at heart.  Such docile peasants bear no resemblance to the Americans of our founding period.

It is a fine thing to remember the great deeds of our veterans on the 4th of July, but let us also remember that we are celebrating the great and critically important ideas of the Declaration of Independence on that wonderful day.  They are the moral foundation of our Constitution and they inform of us of when our government is legitimate and when it is our moral duty to reform it.  It is clear that our present government is not legitimate and that we must reform it.  We must carry this realization with us into the election of 2012 and do our duty as defined by the most exceptional and moral American Principle of Government.  It is time to stand for that American Principle of Government as the Winter Soldiers did in our Great American Revolution.

The Hidden Grimness of the State Unemployment Numbers

The government's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has released the state by state unemployment figures for May 2011 and compared them to May 2010.  In the 15 states they reported a significant change in jobs, they reported lower unemployment rates.  Changes in jobs in the other 35 states were not significant according to the BLS and will not be discussed here.  A critical review of the numbers shows this interpretation of the unemployment situation to be the work of flim-flam artists. 

Perhaps this should not surprise us in view of the control over the Dept. of Labor exercised by labor unions and the partisanship widely on the loose in the Obama administration.  The reality of the state by state review here is a grim one, but one with some useful information for job seekers.  Of course this analysis is also important for anyone deceived by the impression that the jobs situation is slowly improving.  It is actually getting worse.  At the national level I showed this to be the case here, noting that there are 693,000 more missing jobs in May 2011 than there were in May 2010.  There is no job creation adequate to keep up with the population growth of the nation.

The BLS reported that 665,400 more people were employed in May 2011 compared to May 2010 in these 15 states.  They reported that 87,300 more people were employed in California in May 2011 than in May 2010.  They used seasonally adjusted job numbers, but that should not matter given that they were comparing a May to a May.  I decided to check whether the same result would be found using the Work Force numbers and the Unemployed numbers which were not seasonally adjusted.  Since the Work Force is the sum of the Employed and the Unemployed (as recognized by the BLS), one can subtract the Unemployed from the Work Force and find the seasonally unadjusted Employed numbers for each state.  One wonders why the Employed numbers are not given directly if one expects transparency.  Transparency, much promised by Obama, is the last thing one gets from Obama and his followers.

So, what do we find for the jobs added in California over the last year?  We find that there are 40,100 fewer people employed, not 87,300 more people employed.  The state of Washington is another for which positive change in net jobs is reported as 19,600, but there was actually a loss of 32,100 jobs from May to May!  Overall, in the 15 states the BLS says added 665,400 jobs, only 333,100 were actually added.  This is almost exactly half the reported number of jobs added.  Of the 15 states reported to have lower unemployment, only 3 created as many jobs as the BLS said they did.  Examine the numbers in the table below:

The next to the last column provides the change in the Civilian Labor Force.  In any case in which the number is negative, people have either given up looking for employment or they have left the state, presumably for employment or in the hope of employment elsewhere.  In 9 of the 15 states in which Obama's BLS has claimed an improvement in the unemployment rate, this number is negative.  The only large positive number belongs to the state of Texas.  Nebraska's positive number is significant given the small population of the state.  But, note that California lost 149,500 people in its workforce, which means the situation in California is particularly grim.  The loss of 58,500 people in the workforce in Washington and of 76,600 in Michigan are also very grim signs.  Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma also had large losses.  For the 15 states that supposedly had improvements in their unemployment rates, there was a net reduction in the civilian labor force of 247,000 people. 

Of course this could mean our population is shrinking, but that is most unlikely.  What it means in net is that people have given up on finding a job and the BLS no longer counts them in the workforce.  If they are no longer in the workforce, then they do not count in the calculation of the unemployment rate.  State by state, it could mean that people simply moved out of a state.  But if this list really has all of the states in it with statistically significant changes in jobs and they are all reported as positive changes, then it would be very odd of people to migrate to those states which are statistically known not to be creating jobs.  No, it is clear that the effect is that the unemployed have lost all Hope under the regime of this most hyped Hope President.

At this point, you might be thinking that the Obama administration just exaggerated the job additions by a factor of two, but there was still a bit of improvement in the job situation.  If so, you have missed a very important consideration.  From 2000 to 2010, our population grew at an average rate of 0.94% a year.  Assuming that each state on our list of 15 significant job growth states according to the BLS grew at the national average, each of those states would have to add 0.0094 times the number of employed people in May 2010 just to provide the jobs needed to keep up with the growing population.  I calculated that number in the last column.  California needed 150,196 added jobs to tread water, but it lost 40,100 jobs to fall behind by 190,296 jobs.  The state of Washington needed to add a net of 30,042, but it lost 32,100 to fall behind by a total of 62,142 jobs.  Failures such as these are why the jobs situation for the young is particularly awful.


Only 6 of the 15 states the BLS told us had an improving unemployment situation have created more jobs than they needed to to stay even with expected population growth.  They are, with the number of jobs they added above the number needed to accommodate average population growth:

Ohio, 21,807 jobs
Oregon, 16,076 jobs
Texas, 9,439 jobs
Nebraska, 4,480 jobs
North Dakota, 1,418 jobs
Wyoming, 38 jobs

It should be noted that Wisconsin almost met its goal to keep up with normal population growth.

First of all, noting that we were missing 21,484,000 jobs in May 2011, these six states creating more jobs than they need to keep up with population growth actually have very few jobs to meet the demand for jobs.  In addition, these states have their own unemployed.  But, if you are able to relocate to a state where the job situation is not hopeless, you may want to consider these states.  The North Dakota and Wyoming job markets are very small, so you should go to one of the top four states on the list baring unusual job preferences and skills.  Ohio and Oregon are somewhat surprising.  Everyone knows that Texas has been a job creator, but once you discount the false claim by the BLS that Texas created 205,400 jobs from May to May with the actual number of 114,300 jobs, the Texas phenomena is reduced to its being one of the few states to simply keep up with expected average population growth in job creation.

Now you can appreciate how truly ludicrous it is for Obama and his administration and his Democrat allies to make the claim that they are making progress on reducing the horrific unemployment.  It is their determined anti-business and anti-wealth-creation mindset that has kept us from recovering from this Great Socialist Recession and kept business from hiring.  Obama and those who share his socialist viewpoint have made a lifetime point of not understanding business and economics because they believe creating money is immoral.  But, earning money by offering others the values they want in the private sector is both moral and necessary.  The results of the Obama vendetta against people earning a livelihood have been brutal to the General Welfare in the extreme.  Not surprisingly, they do not want us to understand just how brutal they have been.

We must make every effort to remember these painful facts throughout this coming election cycle and work hard at explaining the reality to others.  If we are not successful, Obama and his Democrat allies will continue to wreck havoc on the People of the United States.

More Taxes to Pay the National Debt?

Do we need higher taxes and fewer tax deductions to pay the deficit of $1.597 trillion this year?  According to the Office of Management and Budget, the federal government will spend $3.771 trillion this year, which is an increase of $1.043 trillion of spending since 2007.  This is a 38.23% increase in spending in 2011 compared to 2007!   The spending increase since the 2008 Democrat Congress budget is 32.2%.

The deficit ballooned because of this spending increase coupled with a smaller $393 billion loss of tax revenue because Americans have been made much poorer now in comparison with 2007.  Many see that as the result of government shackling the private sector with higher taxes, many more regulations, the threat of still more draconian administrative regulations, the increasing requirements and expenses of ObamaCare, and the massive printing of money.  The result has been a massive transfer of wealth from the jobs-creating private sector to the jobs-devouring government sector.

If we were to start repaying this national debt today over a 30-year period in equal payments, our annual payment would be $900 billion.  Note that is almost all of the massive spending increase that has caused our present debt woes.  If we are to come up with an extra $900 billion per year to pay our debts, we already face a frightening task.  Perhaps it is so frightening that few people are willing to face the crisis at all.  If we ignore the debt until 2012, but then start to make repayments, the long-term interest rate of 5% is likely to have returned and the annual principal and interest payment will be about $2 trillion!  Imagine making debt payments equal to 73% of the total spending of 2007.  Can you imagine squeezing defense spending, medicare, medicaid, the administration of ObamaCare, and Social Security into 27% of the budget?

We must make a choice.  We must either increase taxes and slightly decrease spending as the Democrats want to do, or we must greatly decrease spending and allow the economy to grow with modest tax decreases as the Republicans mostly want to do. 

Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, just told the House Small Business Committee on 22 June that the Obama administration wants to squeeze another $1 trillion out of people earning more than $250,000 a year over the next 10 years.  Most of these people are small business owners.  They are precisely those small business owners who are making enough money that they can hire more people.  Nonetheless, Geithner maintains that cutting spending by $1 trillion would have a more negative impact on the economy than will the tax increase on the "rich."  Like most people, he is ignorant of the effect this will have on company owners choosing to invest in new production-enhancing, and thus job-creating, equipment.  He does not think about the need to buy more building space to put more production capability and employees into.  Finally, he is not thinking about the fact that few employees are sufficiently productive soon after being hired to carry their own weight.  Money has to be set aside to pay them while they get enough on-the-job training to become profit centers.  Expanding a business is commonly a very expensive proposition.  Adding one person in a small business is a big incremental step in terms of the necessary addition to company income.  Rational businessmen do not expand a business without a strong sense that they will be able to make a decent profit for their risks and effort in doing so.

ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial reform act raised taxes.  The inheritance tax was brought back by the Democrats as a special scourge of small businesses.  While most other developed countries have learned the advantages to reducing the corporate tax rate, the U.S. has not.  It now has the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, since Japan recently reduced its previously equally high corporate taxes. We are also one of the few countries that taxes earnings a company makes in another country.  This causes U.S. companies to invest those earnings in other countries rather than in the U.S.  Our tax policy encourages them to create more jobs abroad than at home.

As a result, more and more companies financed by Americans are being started in other countries.  Many American companies are re-incorporating in other countries with lower taxes.  Favorites for such purposes are Luxembourg, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands.  In 2008, there were 3 U.S. initial public offerings (IPOs) by companies incorporated in tax-haven countries for every 10 that were incorporated in the U.S.  Ten years ago, only 1% of U.S. IPOs were incorporated in either the Cayman Islands or Bermuda.  In 2010, 26% of them were!  So far in 2011, 21% of new IPOs have been incorporated in these island tax-havens.

In 2004, Congress acted to limit incorporations in tax-haven countries.  Companies with a substantial change of ownership could re-incorporate in a tax-haven country, however.  This actually encouraged the sale of many companies.  The IRS changed the rule to require a complete buyout in 2009.

The venerable American company Samsonite was taken over by CVC Capital Partners and is now incorporated in Luxembourg, but headquartered in Hong Kong.  Asia is now its primary market.  The semiconductor spin-off of H-P, Avago Technologies Ltd., was bought out by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and is now incorporated in Singapore, though its headquarters is in San Jose, CA.  It now has built extensive operations in Singapore.  Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I Ltd. went public in the U.S. last year after a buyout from Motorola Inc. which used to own it, but now it is incorporated in Bermuda.  It still has extensive operations in Austin, Texas.  U.S. investors in 2009 had so many securities holdings in Cayman Island companies that they are the fourth highest total for any country in the world!

Most other developed countries have learned either from the disasters of their own adoption of socialism and the anti-business mentality or from watching the deleterious effects of socialism in other countries, that economic growth will be stunted by soak-the-rich and squeeze businesses schemes to fund the welfare state.  Many of those countries are stuck with the welfare state, but have learned that it cannot be sustained at all without a growing economy.  The American Democrat Socialist Party has not learned this lesson.  RINOs in the Republican Party have not learned it very well either.  As a result, we are growing at a much slower rate than many countries around the world now.  We used to talk about the Old Men of Europe.  Well, we are becoming the Old Man of the World. 

This is totally unnecessary.  We have only to unshackle business and stop penalizing the so-called wealthy or the small businessman to completely change this around.  The Democrats have made it perfectly clear through Obama, Biden, Geithner, Reid and Pelosi that they have learned nothing.  Chris Van Hollen, a particularly wrongheaded Democrat from wrongheaded Maryland, is a Democrat negotiator in the Biden deficit-reduction talks and has said that Democrat principles require a tax increase on the wealthy and business owners.  He is accompanied on the Democrat side by the radical James Clyburn of South Carolina.  It is no wonder that Eric Cantor, the Republican House Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl were compelled to leave the Biden talks.  It had become too ridiculous to work toward a compromise with these ignorant job-killers and company-killers from the Obama administration and the Democrat sides of Congress.  Earlier, Tom Coburn, Senator of Oklahoma, had similarly given up hope of a rational outcome from talks in another set of negotiators known as the Group of Six.  I have to applaud these sensible Republicans.

When the lemmings swarm over the cliff edge, sensible men refuse to follow them.  Actually, I have heard that lemmings are more sensible than Democrats.  They really do not rush over the cliff.  That is just a fable for them, but it is the everyday purpose of our Democrat political leadership.

USDA Makes Heterosexism Ugly

Most of us did not know that heterosexism does not describe those who practice or advocate the desirability of heterosexuality.  No, according to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Sec.Tom Vilsack, it means the belief that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

I am trying to figure out where this idea comes from.  Does liberalism mean that only one man and one woman can enjoy the benefits of a liberal society?  Perhaps it does now, when liberalism seems to mean that one great socialist leader and his First Lady will rule the country and choose everyone's values and impose them on everyone using the force of government.  This was not the origin of the term liberalism, however.  Libertarianism still means that one favors liberty for all and conservatism still means one favors many traditional values, so most isms do not have a parallel to this new word heterosexism.

Why is it that sexism does not mean that one believes in the desirability of sex or that one enjoys sex?  No, in our strange new world, sexism means one is biased against those of one sex or another.  In this vane, one would think that heterosexism would mean that one was biased against heterosexual activities.  But no, heterosexists are according to the USDA advocates of heterosexuality.  This would be in keeping with the traditional use of words such as liberalism, socialism, conservatism, and libertarianism, rather than the screwy use of the word sexism.  But, the USDA says that heterosexism is not just in favor of heterosexuality, but that its essence is the denial of marriage to those who are not heterosexual.  I do not know why attitudes toward the marriage rights of others must be wrapped up in this term at all.  This is very strange.

But applying this rule to other words that ought to be of the same family, leads us to the conclusion that homosexism is the denial of marriage rights to those who are not of the same sex.  Bisexism is the denial of marriage rights to those who are heterosexual and to those who are homosexual.

The USDA is re-educating its employees against biases directed at those who are not heterosexual.  Of course, any government agency has no business being biased on the basis of sexuality in its hiring and promotions.  The USDA is going beyond this to attack certain ideas about marriage though.  Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled that states cannot discriminate in favor of heterosexuality in marriage, it seems a bit premature for the USDA to be framing those who oppose marriage rights for those who are not heterosexual as bigots.  Mind you, I think such people are bigots, but the government's courts and Congressional law have made no such determination.  The Obama administration is all in favor of discriminating against those who believe marriage should be reserved to one man and one woman, however.

Furthermore, the USDA does not make marriage laws, so it is pretty much irrelevant whether some of its employees believe marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.  Any effort to dictate that they cannot think this is an attack on the religious beliefs that many people hold and is as clearly wrong as would be USDA discrimination against the hiring of homosexuals or its attempt to re-educate them to become heterosexual once hired.

This USDA effort is in the context of a diversity and inclusion program.  It is being pushed forward by the Office of Personnel Management as a model for all of the other agencies of the federal government.  It will then be pushed upon the states and upon all government contractors.  In practice, such diversity training and incentives result in managers preferentially hiring and promoting two-fers.  They will be rewarded for hiring or
promoting lesbian women and homosexual Black men, while discriminating against heterosexual white males and even those who are only one-fers, such as heterosexual Black males or white females.  This leads to what ought to be seen as clearly unlawful and immoral discrimination.

To overcome the fact that this is such transparent wrongful behavior, it is useful to actually denigrate the word heterosexual.  It has to be converted into a put-down.  This has been done with white male as in "The Founders were just a bunch of white males, so their work was full of evil and discrimination.  Therefore we can dismiss the Constitution in its entirety, not to mention the Declaration of Independence."  The strangely defined word heterosexism helps to give the word heterosexuality a very negative connotation.  Defining heterosexism as evil and as a denial specifically of marriage rights helps to accomplish this important goal of the Progressive Elitists.

It will be interesting to observe in time if one sense of the meaning of Progressive Elitism becomes the belief that only Progressive Elitists are allowed to marry.  When that starts to happen, will most Americans see that as a new form of bigotry?  Or will they just accept the idea as a return to the aristocracy's natural rights such as they enjoyed in the Dark Ages and Medieval times?  After all, the Progressive Elitist believes most Americans are too stupid to choose their own values and to manage their own lives.  It is clear that they already think of themselves as the educated aristocracy who by right take care of the dumb and uneducated peasants, who should be treated just a little bit better than the pigs.  Maybe.  Many environmentalists and animal rights advocates among the Progressive Elitists believe most of the peasants should not be treated as well as the pigs or the snail darter.

As I have discussed many times, the government ought not to be in the marriage business.  If marriage is a spiritual union of two or more people, then it belongs in the private sector.  Government should only offer domestic partnership contracts and these should no more limit the partners than a small business contract does.  These domestic partnerships should be completely non-discriminatory, so long as the partners are only consenting adults.  See my prior discussions on the right to form domestic partnerships without government discrimination here, here, here, and here.  Marriage or domestic partnerships are surely relationships in which one should be completely free to exercise one's right to the freedom of association.

Government Motors Urges Us to Drive 193 MPH

How odd it is that after decades of the federal government twisting the arms, legs, and other appendages of state governments to lower their speed limits on the Interstate Highway System and on US Highways, Government Motors is now aggressively marketing a Cadillac that achieves speeds of 193 mph on the highway.  Yes, it has wiper blades designed not to lift off of the windshield at that speed says the oft-repeated TV ad.

In this day of the Nanny State, when warning labels proclaim that only professional riders should ride small bicycles built for young children, this would seem a surprising turn of events at first glance.  But upon reflection, we remember that the cigarette tax is a good part of the reason that cigarettes have not been banned.  The state and federal governments make big money from the sale cigarettes.  If marijuana had been similarly taxed, it would not be banned today.  Now that the federal government has a direct and very substantial financial interest in Government Motors, it is hardly surprising that GM is now free to advocate a car designed to achieve speeds of 193 mph.  If that helps sales by creating a new, less stodgy, image for Cadillac, then the Nanny State training wheels need not be attached.

So, the old argument that high speeds are not an efficient use of fuel and therefore endanger national security by forcing us to buy oil from the OPEC nations who do not like us, is now set aside in the interest of making Cadillac seem sexier.  The argument that high speeds are dangerous and should be prohibited, is now inverted into one that implies that driving at dangerous high speeds is sexy.  And everyone knows that sex sells cars.

The fact that the government gave GM up to a $45 billion tax break by allowing it to continue to write off any current and future profits against losses prior to its reorganization is an ongoing embarrassment the government is trying hard to hide.  It has given GM a further domestic tax break of about $14 billion.  On top of that, the government still owns 26.5% of GM stock and wants to unload that well prior to the upcoming 2012 election.  It is estimated the loss upon the sale of the stock will be between $10 and $25 billion, where the upper estimate is based on the sale of so much stock no one much wants dragging the price way down.  These are the real costs of the GM bailout.

Of course all these losses do not stop Obama from bragging about how the government will get all of its money back on its GM investment.  Perhaps his whopper will be a lot less apparent to most of the People most of the time if a sexy Cadillac can be driven at 193 mph!  That should make GM stock much more valuable in a hurry.  This administration needs to leave GM behind long before the 2012 election so its losses will be old news by then.

Deficit Pushes Senate to End Ethanol Thieving of Taxpayers

The monumental deficit has pushed the Senate to repeal the $5 billion of tax credits and subsidies per year for corn growers, ethanol refiners, and gasoline blenders.  A tariff of $0.54 per gallon on imported ethanol would also be eliminated.  38 Democrats, 2 independents, and 33 Republicans voted to end these pointless subsidies which had wrongly been sold as a path to cleaner skies, energy independence, and a means to reduce CO2 emissions.  I have long pointed at these subsidies, along with the mandate for ethanol production still required by the insane Renewable Fuel Standard law, as a clear sign of Congressional and Presidential perfidy and a determination to rob the taxpayers blind for naked political power.  For more than 30 years, the attitude was clearly let the General Welfare be damned as the votes of special interest groups were bought. 

The repeal bill was sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Dianne Feinstein of California.  14 Republicans and 13 Democrats opposed the 73-27 vote repeal action.  Obama and his Sec. of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, still oppose the end of these deleterious subsidies, claiming they are needed to reach Obama's imagined plan to reduce oil imports by one-third by 2025. The House has not yet voted on ending these ethanol subsidies and will reject the Senate bill because tax bills are constitutionally required to be initiated in the House of Representatives.  Fortunately, the ethanol subsidies will expire at the end of this year unless the House and Senate renew them.  This Senate vote makes it unlikely that it will renew this special interest travesty.

The ethanol subsidy is a $0.45/gallon of ethanol tax credit given against the excise tax of $0.184 per gallon of gasoline paid by gasoline blenders such as Valero and Marathon Oil.  This allows the blenders to pay more for corn ethanol made by such companies as Archer-Daniels-Midland and to compete for corn used as food or as livestock feed. 

The overall effect of a repeal of the subsidies upon food and feed prices will be minimal, since the mandate for ethanol use in fuel by the Renewable Fuel Standard law passed by the last Democrat Congress requires 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol use in fuel this year and up to 15 billion gallons in 2015.  By 2022, 36 billion gallons of so-called renewable fuel must be blended into gasoline, though only 15 billion gallons of that can be conventional corn-derived ethanol.  The remainder is somehow magically supposed to come from other low-carbon biofuels, such as switchgrass, which as yet produce a negligible 3 to 4 million gallons a year of ethanol or fuel in expensive pilot plants.

This mandate and the subsidies have caused the price of corn to be over $7/bushel all spring, which is twice the price of a year ago.  The subsidy and the high price of oil has caused blenders to use a billion gallons more corn ethanol than they were required to use.  This put still more pressure on corn, corn products, and meat products.  On Friday, buyers bought corn in the Toledo, Ohio grain trading hub at $7.35 per bushel.  A desperate turkey grower even offered $8.37/bushel of corn and got few offers of corn at that price.  Corn supplies are expected to be at a 15-year low in late August.  This may force some makers of corn-derived ethanol to shut down their plants.

The impact of ethanol from corn on the market and on some states can be judged from the graphic below from the 17 June Wall Street Journal:

Note that the food, seed, and industrial use of corn has grown very little since 2000 and the use in feed and residual use has shrunk since 2005 due to the increased cost of corn brought on by the huge increase in ethanol production since about 1998.  Iowa, the first major event for presidential candidates produces 21% of all U.S. ethanol, which is more than twice the production of any other state.  It is no accident that so much of the Iowa corn production is bought for the purpose of ethanol production.  The subsidy takers know how to put the political pressure on.  About 5 billion bushels of corn, or 40% of all corn production, is used to produce ethanol.  The great growth in corn production that has resulted has displaced other food crops and led to price increases severe enough that the World Bank and other international institutions have called for an end to corn ethanol subsidies.

The end effect due to the continuing ethanol in fuel mandate will be continued very high corn prices.  The income tax taxpayer will be relieved of a burden, but that burden will be shifted to the consumer.  It is better that the burden be on the consumer, which is a much broader base of people than the minority who pay federal income taxes.  It would be better yet if we removed the renewable fuel mandate and simply allowed the free market to figure out which fuel resources will be used.  Obama's centrally-planned economy will be a disaster just as all prior central planning has historically led to catastrophe.  The last place a catastrophe will come from will be man-made global warming due to CO2 emissions.

Continued High Unemployment -- A Manufactured Crisis to be Exploited

The on-going recession began in mid-2008 due to a housing bubble and financial instability brought on by the federal government's and Federal Reserve's easy money policies, which had been pricked by the needle of the 2007 sharp increase in energy prices.  Throughout the recession, which according to government numbers is falsely said to have ended in mid-2009, the government has continued to pursue the easy money policies that caused the recession.  What is more, it has selectively decided that some individuals and companies will not pay the price for bad decisions they may have made, albeit with much encouragement from the government.  This has heaped all of the costs of the recession on those who bore no or little responsibility for the recession or on a few responsible actors the government does not like for one reason or another.

To be more precise, the economy was rebounding from the recession in the latter part of 2009 and in early 2010.  But then ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial "reform" bills were passed and the Democrats clearly wanted massive tax increases.  These actions and many strange and arbitrary regulations created an avalanche of business uncertainty to add to the lingering uncertainty of the earlier bailouts and company asset thefts by the government. The second dip of the recession started in the latter half of 2010.  Then, once again, perhaps due to the extension of many of the Bush tax cuts, the economy showed some signs of recovery in the first quarter of this year.  But, continuing government ineptitude mixed with deliberate destruction of the private sector, caused the second quarter of this year to slip back into recession mode again.  This fact was hidden by the unrealistic measures of price inflation, which ignored large fuel and food price increases and over-emphasized some improvements in technology values.  Apparent increases in GDP were likely just artifacts of the understated inflationary effect on goods and services of the huge stimulus spending and the two Quantitative Easings.

Each month, I calculate the real unemployment rate and the number of missing jobs in comparison to January 2000 when most anyone who wanted a good job could find one.  In the belief that were good jobs available, as large a fraction of the population would be wanting to work today, one can calculate the needed jobs and the missing jobs.  The latest numbers based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment report for May 2011 follow:

There actually was a nanoscale improvement in the number of missing jobs relative to April 2011.  The bad news is that the improvement in jobs creation ought to be much, much better at this time after the mid-2008 start of the recession if we were really seeing any improvement of the economy.  There were 693,000 more missing jobs in May 2011 than there were in May 2010!  A new crop of high school and college graduates is emerging and there are no jobs for them.  This is now a three-year old recession!  Recessions of the private sector never last this long.  Only government can make such an extended recession.  This is truly the Great Socialist Recession.

We are mired in the doldrums and there is no wind in sight.  The business community expects the Obama administration and the Democrats to continue making systematically awful choices with respect to the business of business and job creation.  It is true that Congress is doing less harm since the Republicans gained control of the House, but that has only invigorated the administration's determination to cause as much harm as possible through executive branch agencies.  Some of this is incompetence in business and economic matters, but some is very likely an effort to simply make many Americans dependent upon big government.  The plan is to make many individuals so destitute that they will think government is their only salvation.  It is to put many companies so at risk in the hands of regulators that they will bow and scrape before government to save their heads from the chopping block. 

What is better than a crisis of no growth, inflation, and joblessness for government to aggrandize its power?  This is well-understood by those many Democrat Socialists who hunger always to expand the scope and power of government, while making the private sector tremble in fear.  They well remember how the Great Depression grew government and gave the Democrats the initiative in politics for decades.  Some of the most influential Democrats are hoping the present crisis will give them the same power, if only they can make this recession into a long-lasting depression or at least something close to one.  These supreme power-lusting Democrat Socialist leaders are a minority of the party, but they are in control of the party policy.  The Great Socialist Recession is very unlikely to end until Obama is no longer occupying the White House and the Democrats no longer control the Senate.

NASA Finally Produces A Realistic Energy Budget for the Earth

The Atmospheric Science Data Center of NASA has finally produced a realistic energy budget for the Earth.  [The link no longer works.  It is not surprising that the diagram fatal to the back radiation model of man-made catastrophic global warming due to back radiation acting on greenhouse gases is no longer publicized by NASA.  But I did find it in this educational product pdf file.  23 Feb 2013]  There is no back-radiation in this diagram due to greenhouse gases, or really due to infra-red absorbing gases, such as water vapor, CO2, and methane.  The new NASA energy budget is:

Note how remarkably different this is from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagrams NASA has previously been using:

I have discredited the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram in this post.

While the new NASA energy budget is much improved and has no back-radiation component, the web site I linked to above still talks briefly about greenhouse gases and some back-radiation effect.  As I have noted, any such effect is small and can only happen in a way to briefly slow the cooling of the Earth as solar insolation is being reduced from its maximum effect in the afternoon of a day.  Even then, infra-red absorption of incoming radiation from the sun may be greater than any back-radiation effect until evening.  The overall effect of IR-absorbing gases is a cooling effect as I have previously claimed it was.

Let us consider the new NASA Earth Energy Budget numbers.  The first thing to note is that the infra-red radiation from the ground is only 21% of the incoming radiation from the sun.  In the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, the energy flux of out-going infra-red radiation (396 W/m^2) is actually greater than the total incoming solar radiation flux (341 W/m^2) and much, much greater than the energy absorbed by the surface from the sun (161 W/m^2).  This is patent nonsense.  Energy must be conserved and it is in the new diagram.

As I have claimed, the net effect of infra-red absorbing or greenhouse gases is that they absorb more energy from the incoming solar radiation through the course of the day than they absorb from the out-going infra-red radiation from the surface of the Earth.  In the new NASA diagram, the total radiation absorbed by the infra-red absorbing gases is 16% + 3% (clouds) = 19%.  Of the 21% of infra-red radiation emitted from the surface, only 15% is absorbed in the atmosphere.  Thus, the net absorption of incoming solar radiation at 19%, is 1.27 times greater than the net absorption of energy emitted by radiation from the ground.  This means the net cooling effect is at least 1.27 times greater than any warming effect could be.

Another point of great interest is that the new NASA diagram gets the fraction of the cooling of the surface of the Earth by infra-red radiation about right.  The fraction of surface cooling by infra-red radiation from the surface is 21% / 51% = 0.41.  This agrees with some calculations I have done based on molecular collision frequencies at the altitude in the atmosphere at which radiation competes evenly with molecular transport or movement.  The temperature of the Earth seen from space as a black body radiator is 255 K.  This is the temperature of the standard atmosphere at an altitude of 5 Km.  The altitude at which radiation cooling in the atmosphere is equal to the cooling caused by thermals, conduction, and the transport of water vapor is then a bit lower and proves to be about 4 Km.

Water vapor is the best long wavelength IR absorber and it is the best emitter of IR energy, but before it can commonly emit the energy it has absorbed from IR radiation, even it will likely suffer numerous gas collisions with much of its excess molecular energy being transferred in those collisions to the molecules which collide with the water molecule.  Nitrogen molecules are the most likely molecules to take up much of the energy from the water molecule, since nitrogen is 78.08% of the atmosphere.  Oxygen molecules are the next most likely colliders at 20.95% and then argon atoms at 0.93%.  Together, these three gases account for 99.97% of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere.  None of these gas molecules are very efficient IR absorbers in the long wavelength spectrum.

At sea level, the mean gas velocity is 459 m/s, the mean free path or distance between collisions is only 6.6 x 10^-8 m or 66 nm, and the collision frequency is 6.9 billion/s.  At an altitude of about 4000 m, the radiative transfer of energy competes about evenly with transfer by collisions.  At that altitude, the frequency of gas molecule collisions is about 4.4 billion/s.  We can use the equivalency of energy transfer by radiation and gas molecule collisions at the 4000 meter altitude to estimate the fraction of energy transfer by radiation of the total of energy transferred by radiation plus gas molecule collisions. At sea level, energy transfer by radiation is equivalent to about 4.4 x 10⁹ collisions per second, so the fraction of energy transferred by radiation is about 4.4/(4.4 + 6.9) = 0.39 of the total by gas molecule collisions and radiation.  This suggests that about 1.5 times as much energy is transferred by gas collisions as by radiation at sea level.  Note that this number is in good agreement with the fraction of the energy 0.41 given in the new NASA diagram.

This phenomenal number of atmospheric molecular collisions spreads the IR energy absorbed by a water molecule or a CO₂ molecule from the ground long wavelength IR emissions to the dominant nitrogen and oxygen molecules very, very quickly.  At an altitude of 5 km, the collision frequency is still 3.9 billion/s and at 10 km altitude it is 2.1 billion/s.  If a water molecule is to radiate energy away as IR emissions, it must do so very quickly!  If it were able to emit IR very quickly, then the atmosphere would cool down very quickly and effectively at night.  Indeed, cooling at high elevations in mountains by radiative cooling is more effective than cooling from sea level because less of the radiative energy of the ground is spread to many nitrogen and oxygen gas molecules which then tend to hold the energy near the ground.

Back radiation to the ground from an infra-red absorbing molecule such as water or CO2 is thus not a likely event.  To this, we must add the very important caveat that the Earth's surface can only re-absorb that energy if it has cooled since the emission of the radiation occurred.  Given the very short time scale between emission of radiation from the Earth and the re-emission from an atmospheric molecule such as CO2 or water, any such cooling is trivial.  Radiation from molecules in equilibrium with the cooler temperatures found as one goes higher into the atmosphere will not be absorbed at all, since infra-red radiation only flows from warmer to cooler bodies.  The reverse does not happen.  This is a law of thermodynamics often violated by greenhouse gas global warming alarmists.  Thus, any back-radiation effects were always trivial and more than compensated by the cooling effect of infra-red gases absorbing solar radiation before it could reach the surface of the Earth.