In response to this article in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  "Obama lauds energy progress"

According to the Associated Press report (please see "Obama lauds energy progress, May 27), President Obama is touting a $100 million solar energy plant at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, claiming the program "created" 200 new jobs and will save the Air Force $1 million per year.  Only in government would a program providing a 1% return on investment be held up as a model "investment" -- how many people would voluntarily invest $1000 of their own money to get a return of $10 per year?  Also, how many more new jobs might have been "created" had that $100 million been invested by private sector investors seeking a higher return?  Would a nuclear, coal, or natural gas plant have provided electricity more or less efficiently?  I suspect those questions will go unanswered.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Dick Cheney may no longer be the Vice President, but (unlike President Obama's predecessor), he has definitely not left the public stage.  Instead, the former VP has made several high profile appearances and speeches, criticizing the Obama Administration's reversal of Bush-era anti-terrorism policies, notably concerning the closure of the detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay, the use of so-called "harsh (or enhanced) interrogation techniques", withdrawal from Iraq, and the US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. 

Rhetorically, Obama has made liberal use of the bogeyman of Bush-Cheney, and refers frequently to having to clean up a "mess" left to him by President Bush and his team.  Bush has remained silent on the issues.  Cheney, however, has been aggressively defending his and Bush's record, as well as praising Rush Limbaugh and critiquing Colin Powell.

Cheney's calm, understated, professorial style works well -- he is excellent at marshaling his evidence and presenting it in a clear, concise manner while remaining aggressive and forceful; he seems reasonable when he speaks rather than unhinged or hateful.  Yet while Cheney's reappearance has reportedly led to an uptick in his approval ratings, he remains one of the most unpopular political figures around.  Among the mainstream news media, he probably ranks below Hitler, the Antichrist, and Lucifer himself in terms of popularity.  His outspokenness has been called "unprecedented" and out of step with past former VP's; apparently some commentators have forgotten about former Vice President Al Gore bellowing that President Bush had "betrayed this country" in the run-up to the Iraq War.

With the scorn of the mainstream media often comes the affection of conservative activists, and Cheney is no exception.  Conservative media have given extensive coverage of Cheney's speeches and comments in print, lauding his criticism of Obama and his spirited defense of the US response to 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But does Mr. Cheney deserve the resurge in his reputation?  When studying the record he leaves behind, the obvious answer is:  No.

As perhaps the most powerful and influential Vice President in history, Cheney was considered by Bush to be the "Chief Operating Officer" of Bush's "MBA Administration".  While it has been documented that Cheney didn't always get his way (if was well publicized that he wanted a pardon for his aide Scooter Libby, for example), if he deserves credit for Administration successes, then he certainly deserves some of the blame for its failures.

As the "COO" of the Bush Administration, Cheney helped implement an unprecedented increase in the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government.  Bush's signature education initiative, "No Child Left Behind", greatly expanded the federal government's role in primary and secondary education -- certainly not a "conservative" position.  In the name of an "ownership society", the Administration helped maintain and increase government incentives for providing credit to high-risk borrowers -- the expansion and ultimate collapse of the "subprime" mortgage market that has proved central to our current economic woes.  Cheney sought to expand the power of the Vice Presidency at the expense of transparency, particularly during the Scooter Libby investigation.  Cheney played a role in implementing a new prescription drug entitlement for the elderly, whereby they receive subsidies regardless of income for prescription drugs -- the largest expansion of Medicare since the LBJ Administration.  Cheney was COO of what has become the largest government takeover of the private sector (AIG, GM, Chrysler, etc.) and met economic difficulty with a Keynesian mindset rather than the successful supply-side approach that worked so well for President Reagan.

On the war front, according to most reports it was Cheney who worked to influence Bush to keep Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, even after it was obvious that the Rumsfeld approach was not working in Iraq.  Had Bush replaced Rummy with Robert Gates sooner, perhaps Republicans would not have lost the 2006 Congressional elections, giving the country Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.  Whatever one thinks of some of the details of the Patriot Act, it certainly represents a dramatic increase in the power and intrusiveness of the government and less freedom of mobility and privacy for American citizens.

In short, while Cheney may be an effective advocate for a "conservative" position in fighting the "War on Terror", his record is not one that conservatives and certainly libertarians should salute and extol.  Mr. Cheney's current resurgence should not let him off the hook for his record of the previous 8 years, even with conservatives.

In response to this editorial in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  "Cap-and-trade-off"

In your May 24 editorial, the Chronicle lauds the "landmark" bill being developed in the US Congress with the ostensible goal of limiting emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases", particularly CO2, through the implementation of a cap-and-trade system.  The editorial claims that the "compromise bill ... spreads the costs" of such a system; however, nowhere in the editorial is the full and actual cost of such a program stated, nor is any information giving about precisely how much global warming will be decreased through implementing cap-and-trade.  Is it one degree?  0.1 degree?  5 degrees?

It would seem reasonable that prior to asserting that any program amounts to "exercising leadership", one should know precisely what is being achieved and at what cost.  No such cost-benefit analysis has ever been provided for this or other proposed cap-and-trade systems.  This hardly seems like an efficient, effective method of operation on even the least imposing of government programs, much less for something as far-reaching and intrusive as cap-and-trade.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Some ideas are just so outlandish, ridiculous, foolish, and beyond the pale that it is hard to know where to start in criticizing it.  Consider this, from Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (courtesy of Politico):

Rep. Alan Grayson was standing in the middle of Disney World when it hit him: What Americans really need is a week of paid vacation.

So on Thursday, the Florida Democrat will introduce the Paid Vacation Act — legislation that would be the first to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law.

The bill would require companies with more than 100 employees to offer a week of paid vacation for both full-time and part-time employees after they’ve put in a year on the job. Three years after the effective date of the law, those same companies would be required to provide two weeks of paid vacation, and companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week.

The idea: More vacation will stimulate the economy through fewer sick days, better productivity and happier employees.

The article goes on to quote a think tank that claims that job burnout and stress cost the economy to the tune of $300 billion annually.

As stated above, it's hard to know exactly where to start with this one, after getting over the initial shock that yes, this guy is serious, and yes, there's really a group called the Center for Economic and Policy Research that really paid someone to write a study on vacation.  My first thought on reading this (other than ridicule and scorn for Rep. Grayson) was this:  why stop there?  If vacation, particularly at Disney, is so gratifying that it should become the government's business, why stop at mandating merely time off... why not take it further and just have the government provide free trips to Disney World for every man, woman, and child in the United States.  The general state of happiness would surely shoot through the roof (that is, for everyone except employees of Disney, who themselves would need a vacation after the sudden convergence of millions on their park, expecting entertainment).

Perhaps a better kicking-off point is the Bureau of Labor Statistics:  the unemployment rate in the US was 8.9% for April 2009, with 539,000 jobs lost.  Government-mandated vacation effectively raises the cost of each employee, providing a disincentive for businesses to hire more workers.  It would seem to follow that during a recession characterized by job losses and rising unemployment would be the absolute worst time to increase the cost of hiring workers.  Businesses would either find themselves cutting payroll, raising prices, or perhaps taking benefits away from others to make up for the added expenses.  The government can't simply create something out of nothing by decree; there are always trade offs.

Of course there's the liberty and freedom of association aspect of this issue as well.  Let's say I want a job, and someone agrees to hire me at a price for which I'm willing to work.  Do I not have the right to contract out my services at whatever rate I find to be fair?  (Of course, this same line of reasoning also refutes the idea of a minimum wage.)  What right does the government have to tell me that I can't choose to work for whatever rate and benefits I'm comfortable with?  Obviously, everyone would like more vacation (or any vacation at all), but if the choice is a job with no vacation or no job at all, priorities can change.

As to the think tank "study" showing $300 billion in lost productivity due to stress and burnout of workers, that's hard either to refute or corroborate, but certainly workers in the United States aren't lagging those in other countries when it comes to productivity.  A UN report showed that American workers are the most productive in the world; when it comes to average vacation, however, the US averages fewer days per year per worker than Italy, France, Germany, Brazil, UK, Korea, Canada, and even Japan.  The data don't support the assertion that we'd be more productive with more vacation, which would seem to be common sense -- it seems obvious that workers who aren't working will produce less than those who are.

All of these facts would seem to be bad news for Congressman Grayson, but when have politicians ever felt encumbered by facts?  Something tells me Mr. Grayson will find a nice campaign contribution from Disney in his inbox soon, if he's not already cashed it.  Let's hope his "goofy" idea stays where it belongs:  over the rainbow.

Texas Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has endorsed Florida Governor Charlie Crist over former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio in the Republican primary for the 2010 Senate race to replace retiring Senator Mel Martinez.  Crist represents more of the same -- another middle age white guy eager to expand government -- while Rubio is a young (37), energetic candidate eager to restrain government -- exactly the kind of candidate we need.  At least, there should be a debate between the two, with the chips falling where they may in the primary.

In response, I sent Sen. Cornyn the following letter:

Dear Senator:

I am very disappointed to hear that you and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) have decided to endorse Gov. Charlie Crist over former House Speaker Marco Rubio in the 2010 Senate primary.

First of all, the primary is over a year away, and while Gov. Crist's approval ratings are high now, any number of things could happen in the coming months.  Granting an endorsement now only serves to dampen debate and discussion of what both Crist and Rubio seek to do in office.

Secondly, Crist's record is checkered.  He has opposed offshore oil drilling, and recently even endorsed the big government, wasteful, confiscatory, un-Constitutional Obama stimulus.

Third, Marco Rubio represents the kind of up-and-coming, youthful, energetic candidate that we as Republicans need more of, particularly considering his Hispanic heritage and success as Speaker of the House in Florida.

Perhaps most importantly, with Republicans in dire shape in the Senate, the NRSC is better served saving its energy and money for supporting Republican candidates in the general election rather than meddling in primaries.

Senator, I urge you to let the people, particularly the Republicans, of Florida decide which senate candidate best represents their values, ideology, and philosophy.  Once that occurs, then utilize your own influence and that of the NRSC to help ensure that voters in Florida elect a Republican to the Senate -- but not before.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

"[P]reduction location is a corporate decision, but when it's on the taxpayer dime, there are different sensitivities..." ~ Harley Shaiken, "a professor at the University of California at Berkley who specializes in labor issues"

I pulled that quote from a news story about a GM plan to import automobiles manufactured in Mexico, South Korea, China, and Japan to the US for sale.  Ordinarily this wouldn't be much of a story, but since the government is propping up GM with billions in loans and is effectively running the company (remember this story about the government-mandated firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner?), it becomes big news.

In ordinary circumstances, the purpose of a business is to make a profit.  Decisions such as where the business is located, where and from whom it purchases raw materials and parts, and what sales and marketing strategies to employ are made by executives who answer to the board of directors and ultimately to the owners of the company; in the case of big corporations, the owners are typically stockholders.  These executives are judged based on a pretty objective standard:  profit, which is the ultimate purpose of any business.

In an enterprise where the government is involved, however, making a profit is not the ultimate goal.  What actually is the purpose of the business becomes convoluted, subject to the whimsies of whoever is in charge of the government; the ultimate goal becomes not necessarily profit, but securing re-election.  The company in search of profit answers quickly to the demands of the market or suffers; the company in search of political benefits answers to bureaucrats not known to act quickly and not necessarily mindful of the demands of the market.

Key aspects of free market capitalism are free trade, division of labor, and specialization.  It sometimes makes good business sense, from an efficiency and economic viewpoint, to import certain raw materials, parts, or even products.  Doing so can provide more profit for a particular business, and benefits the consumers by providing them with lower prices and more choices.  The competition helps promote innovation and lower prices from other businesses, and using lower-skilled and lower-wage workers for certain jobs frees up higher value workers for more complex jobs.

But what makes good economic sense isn't always politically astute.  With the government and the United Auto Workers poised to become the largest stockholders in General Motors, there is now pressure on GM to make decisions that are pleasing to the union and the government.  In the case of the UAW, this means promoting more and higher-paying jobs for UAW members, not economic efficiency; in fact, increasing efficiency and productivity is actually counter to the UAW's goals -- as workers become more productive and efficient, fewer are needed.  In the case of the government (at least as it is currently constituted), the goal is pleasing the unions and making cars that are more "green" -- regardless of whether or not there is a market for such cars.

Such are the perils of nationalization, either in actuality or in practicality:  profit ceases to be the primary motivator and simply becomes one of many competing "sensitivities".

President Barack Obama has announced that his next tax endeavor will be to focus on pursuing companies that utilize tax "loopholes" to lower their tax bill, so-called "tax havens" where income is shielded, and will hire over 800 new IRS agents to help ensure compliance.  The total effort, he says, will be an increase of $21 billion per year (approximately 1% of the total FY2009 budget).  In his speech announcing his new initiative, the President derided the current system as one that makes it more tax-friendly to create jobs overseas than within the United States.  He also seemed to suggest that businesses that use legal methods to decrease their tax burden are somehow acting in an un-patriotic manner.

Instead of looking to improve compliance with an expensive, complicated, inefficient tax code and spend more taxpayer money on more government intrusiveness, instead of worrying about corporations seeking "tax havens" to lower their tax burden, there's an easier answer:  simplify the US  tax code and reduce the taxes on businesses here in America.  Instead of increasing government intrusiveness, a simplified tax code would reduce government's heavy hand in attempting to micromanage corporations.  Instead of a high rate that encourages overseas investment, a lower rate with fewer loopholes could promote investment by foreign and domestic companies here in America.

In addition, a simpler tax code with lower rates would provide less of an incentive for businesses to spend massive amounts of money to get out of paying taxes or to cheat, and would mean fewer compliance agents rather than more.  Audits would be easier, more straightforward, and less necessary.  Government would have less power to choose winners and losers in the marketplace, and fewer opportunities to enact policies with harmful unintended consequences.  Every dollar not sent to the government is a another dollar businesses would have to hire additional workers, increase employee compensation, pay dividends to shareholders, or invest in capital improvements.

Even within the United States, business and corporate tax laws vary from state to state in intrusiveness and complexity; as a result, we've seen industries move from high-tax, heavily unionized "Rust Belt" states to more tax-, worker-, and business-friendly states in the South and West.  The same concept applies:  lower the cost of tax compliance and tax bill, and businesses and industries are more likely to flourish and grow.  The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, and with the "Bush tax cuts" set to expire, that rate will soon increase further.  Why shouldn't corporations move to more tax-friendly homes internationally?

It isn't un-American, unethical, or immoral for a company or individual to do everything within the confines of the law to avoid paying taxes -- it is simply good sense.  But it makes even better sense for the government to implement the most efficient means possible of collecting the tax it is owed.  Instead of clamping down on businesses, how about freeing them up to create prosperity instead?  That would be true economic "stimulus".

In response to this editorial in the Chronicle, I sent the following reply:

re:  "Smoke signals:  Smoking cessation products should be covered by health care plans"

By advocating that smoking cessation products "should be covered by health care plans", what the Chronicle editorial board is actually advocating is that I and all other health insurance customers "should" be forced to pay more for our own coverage, whether or not we want to, and whether or not we smoke.  Instead, I would ask the following question:  why "should" I not have the freedom to choose whatever coverage I wish, particularly one that reflects the fact that I don't smoke, rather than be charged extra to provide benefits for those who do?

If an individual chooses to smoke or chooses to quit, that is his own business.  Other consumers, or even companies providing him with the tobacco products who willingly consumes, should not be forced to pay for his choices.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter (a bane of private property rights, among others) announced his forthcoming retirement last week, the speculation quickly reached full swing:  whom would President Obama appoint as Souter's replacement?

This is no idle chatter; rather, this could be one of Obama's decisions with the most profound legacy, as Supreme Court justices have an unlimited term, checked only by death, voluntary retirement, or impeachment by Congress.  The current senior justice, John Paul Stevens, was nominated to the court in 1975 ... by President Ford.  Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, both nominated by President Reagan, have served in excess of two decades.  Economic "stimulus" bills, tax plans, and wars come and go; the Supreme Court, however, rarely changes membership.

The Court wields incredible power.  As interpreters of the law and arbiters of the Constitution, the SCOTUS justices have the ability to impact nearly every aspect of our lives and nearly every freedom and liberty we enjoy.  It was the Supreme Court that established slaves as property, enshrined "separate but equal" education, and gave a stamp of approval to an unprecedented expansion of government intrusion via FDR's New Deal.  For good or ill, the Court has been responsible for ending and then reinstating the death penalty, removing general group prayer in schools, disallowing and re-allowing public display of the Ten Commandments, establishing new federal primacy at the expense of state's rights, sanctioning the confiscation of private property, affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual liberty, and allowing government regulation of political speech.  The Court has impacted the treatment of terrorist prisoners and medical marijuana.

Each of these cases could be a book in and of itself in terms of legal scholarship and the relative merits or demerits of the decision.  One thing, however, is not open to debate:  the Court has immense power, and the individual judges are often not only far-reaching in the impact of their opinions, but literally far-reaching in the time of their tenure.  In the famous words of Lord Acton, "power corrupts".  The longer one is in authority, the more power he can achieve; the longer one is in power, the less perspective he gains on the workings of the real world.

In recognition of the tyrannical aspect of an unlimited term, the US Constitution was amended to limit the President to a maximum of two four-year terms.  Congress, however, has neglected to limit its own terms of office, unsurprisingly unwilling to re-balance the scales of power; thus, there are senators who have served over half their respective lives. and one that has literally been in office since the Eisenhower presidency.  Term limits for Congress was a heavily debated topic in the mid-to-late 1990s with several states enacting their own term limits -- limits that were struck down as un-Constitutional by... the Supreme Court.  A Constitutional amendment was voted on in the House and Senate, with unsurprising results:  rarely do politicians voluntarily limit their own power, and instead they tend to bloviate about their own indisposability.

But term limits for the federal judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court, is a topic rarely covered.  I recognize that the judicial branch is unique, and terms should be long enough to establish some sort of consistency.  So while 8 years (2 terms) is sufficient for the presidency, I believe 10 years for members of the House of Representatives (5 terms) and 12 years for Senators (2 terms) are fair limits for Congress.  Along those same lines, I believe terms of 16 years would be sufficient for Supreme Court Associate Justices.  This would give justices a chance to learn the ropes, observe other justices, and then most likely be around long enough for a case to come back around to the Court for clarification.  But looking at American political movements, things tend to go in 20-year increments, so we would have an acceptable turnover rate for justices, ensuring no dinosaurs on the bench, at least relatively speaking.  It would also increase the chances that a judge would have to actually live in the private sector under the opinions issued by the Court.  It would also make an out-of-step justice from clinging to the bench long past his productivity.

Setting the term at 16 years would provide another benefit.  Currently, because there is no set time period and justices can retire whenever they please, there is no consistency to how many appointments to the Court a President might fill.  Some fill none, such as Carter (about which one can be thankful); others, such as Reagan, fill 3.  Setting up a staggered system would even out the influence and legacy of the presidents, with occasional health-related vacancies. Each spot, however, could be like a senate seat -- scheduled to expire in a certain time period, perhaps even with the rule that if a justice were appointed to less than half a term, he could be eligible for re-appointment, making the total potential term 24 years.  As an alternate choice, the term could be set at 12 years, with more turnover in justices.

There would be a side benefit to a term-limited appointment.  Currently, as ideological lines on the Court become more polarized and the confirmation process becomes more contentious, there is increasing emphasis on choosing young, less experienced jurists for the post, the idea being to extend one's influence for as long as possible.  Thus, many experienced, qualified, brilliant candidates are not even considered because they aren't thought to have a long-lasting enough term of service:  in short, they are too old.  Term limits would take age and longevity out of the equation at least somewhat, increasing the pool from which to choose.

Term limits are nearly always a controversial issue, as nearly everyone can point to a specific Senator, Governor, Congressman, President, or Justice that he wants to stick around.  But there is no indispensable man or woman.  The infusion of new ideas and the accumulation of power demand that we establish limits on our politicians.  A good place to start would be our nation's High Court.  Term limits for judges is an idea whose time has come.