Two Things I Like About the Bush Presidency
The two things I like about the Bush Presidency:
1. The First Lady has pretty much stayed out of the way. I suppose if you're interested in her, you could find out what she's doing. But after Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush, and Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush if the finest First Lady in my memory.
2. The daughters also stayed out of the way. Making Jenna's wedding a private affair in the middle of nowhere is most appropriate. And I don't even remember the name of the other daughter.
Who Cares About Israel?
The other day I heard a caller on a public radio show rant against Arabs, how racist and dangerous Arabs are, that any clear-thinking people would love to have Jews in their country, how Jewish settlers in Gaza helped the economy tremendously before they were pulled out, and how too many Americans are too trusting of Arabs and don't see these issues clearly.
But why should I, as an American, give a damn one way or another? Yes, there is that $3 billion in foreign aid given to Israel every year, which allows Israel's enemies to blame America for Israel's actions. This in turn creates diplomatic headaches and the threat of terrorist attacks that probably cost Americans closer to $300 billion/year in Defense, Homeland Security, and opportunity costs. And this leaves out the possibility that America made war on Iraq and is threatening war with Iran in large part because those countries don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. But all of this only goes to show that foreign aid to Israel is bad policy. To cut it off does not mean we are taking the side of Arabs. There is such a thing as neutrality.
If a similar dispute existed in Africa involving the same size of territory and number of people, we would probably ignore it entirely and call it "tribal" warfare - perhaps blaming it on the artificial boundaries created by European imperialists. A similar dispute in Southern or East Asia also would only barely get our attention. To the extent we are interested in the Balkans or meddle in the affairs of ex-Soviet Republics, we do so only to humiliate Russia. The U.S. may be more interested if something like it existed in the Americas - only because of our historically paternalistic attitude toward our neighbors - but even then it wouldn't consume nearly as much of our time and attention as does Israel, which is the size of Massachusetts.
Of course, every conflict is unfortunate. Human suffering, particularly war-related suffering is tragic anywhere. But human suffering outside of the U.S., and not caused by the U.S., is not the U.S.'s problem.
Some would try to persuade me that it's "obvious" that Israel is in the right, or that it's "obvious" that the Palestinians are victims of Israeli aggression, and that it's my "duty" to "see this clearly." But why should I even bother to study this, or form an opinion at all, when I don't bother to do so with most other national and ethnic strife in the world? This conflict is several hundred miles away from oil fields. The region may be of interest to some religious people, but they can donate money to the Israeli government on their own if they so choose. There is simply no vital U.S. interest on the east coast of the Mediterranean.
Why should I mourn the death of an Israeli more than anybody else? Because of his religion? Because he lives in a democracy? Because of his skin color? These are all very bad reasons. The Israeli is no more entitled to American protection, aid, or sympathy than any other person on the planet. No more than a Somalian or Albanian. Or Palestinian.
By 1997, some Christians decided to boycott Disney because Disney - which was never anything remotely like a Christian company - started to give out same-sex partner benefits to their gay employees. If your business employs large numbers of animators, make-up artists, costume designers, and dancers, this sounds like a sensible business decision. The new generation of Christians, however, demanded "wholesome" entertainment from a "wholesome" company, when their grandparents would have warned that seeking "entertainment" was itself the problem. The very fact that a Christian boycott of Disney was called for was proof-positive that the Old Time Religion had died and the boycott could never work. The real problem was not Disney, but the fact that conservative Christians watched Disney videos and vacationed at DisneyWorld. The problem was not the symptoms of sex, violence, or profanity in the movies, but the disease that Christians caught when they had fallen into the hypnotic trap of mass media and pop culture. They would watch the same television shows as everyone else and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the same movies. They would watch the same sports and the same news programs. They would be swayed to want something they didn't need through advertising. They would be presented with a narrow range of choices in the ballot box, and be told this was "freedom" and "democracy."
Had the old-time Christians been as vehemently against radio, records, and television as they were against cards, alcohol, and shows, conservative Christianity may actually have become a counter-cultural movement today, rather than a whiny, paranoid subculture within the mainstream culture that it has become.
Bush I's Finest Moment
I saw a portion of The American Experience about George Herbert Walker Bush last night.
In Bush's first year as President, Poland held free elections for the first time, and Hungary opened its borders with Austria, triggering upheaval in the Eastern Bloc that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
As this happened, Bush remained, as Dana Carvey would often mock on Saturday Night Live, "prudent." He sent a message to Gorbachev that he wouldn't be dancing on the Berlin Wall. He framed the issue as something wonderful for the German people, not the sign of "victory" in the Col War. As commentators on the program noted, Bush didn't want Hungary, 1956 all over again, when the CIA persuaded the people that America would back their revolution, only find themselves crushed by Soviet troops. So if the Soviets ordered a crackdown, America was not going to intervene.
While Sen. George Mitchell and Rep. Dick Gephardt publicly criticized Bush for not being exultant, Bush quietly earned the trust and goodwill of Gorbachev. With a vote on German unification coming, the question was with whom Germany should be aligned. Bush wanted it to be part of NATO, and Gorbachev wanted it to be neutral. But the 1975 Helsinki Accords affirmed that each European country had the right to decide to choose for itself. Bush pointed this out to Gorbachev, who was forced to agree. So they held a press conference saying that the issue wasn't up to them, it was up to the German people. (Who, in the end, did join NATO)
Bush did some pretty bad things, such as giving the green light for Saddam to invade Kuwait, then make war on Kuwait, then misleadingly encouraged the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam (though at least Bush I wasn't dumb enough to actually invade Iraq). Bush also deposed Noriega from Panama, and established the "Drug Czar."
But his refusal to grandstand on the Berlin Wall, when just about any other President or would-be President would have done so, was one of the best diplomatic maneuvers I've seen. He would have done better had he, and subsequent Presidents, acted like that more often.
Who Are the Bad Guys?
I saw The Bourne Ultimatum last night.
Often in a movie like this, when the bad guy is a government official, he is usually a) a twit, or b) someone who knows he's evil and is proud of it. David Straithairn, however, is the kind of actor who doesn't let his character become a caricature. I've said it before, but the great actors in supporting roles are the ones whose characters don't know they're a supporting character in somebody else's movie. Straithairn acts as if he's the hero and good guy trying to chase down a national security threat.
And that's probably more true-to-life. When someone is a) given near-absolute power; b) actually believes absolute power is necessary, then c) he will justify "extreme measures" to himself and will break the law. The "rogue" and "black-ops" portions of the U.S. "national security" apparatus think they're the good guys. If the JFK assassination and 9/11 were inside jobs, the guilty parties believe what they did "had to be done."
It's really the same mentality that, in the 2000 election, seemingly drove Democratic election judges to count spoiled ballots, and Republican election judges to dis-enfranchise eligible voters. It's what drives legislators to attack free speech and abolish third parties.
The ends justify the means, especially if they can be sanctimoniously decorated with phrases like "national security" or "clean politics." The bad guys persuade themselves that they're the good guys while they persecute the innocent.
A similar racket goes on with economic protectionism. Lobbyists for the American Society of Interior Designers, for instance, probably don't realize they're the bad guys when they try to impose regulations and licensing in their industry. They've probably persuaded themselves that what is good for themselves is good for America. And that's true of everyone who seeks legislation to drive out economic competitors. They'll use phrases like "public health" and "safety." They'll accuse opponents of regulation as greedy. They'll claim that without regulations, people will buy snake oil. But the real reason marijuana and industrial hemp are illegal is that, if legal, the price of countless drugs and other products would fall drastically. Real greed is using the force of law to drive out your competition, allowing you to raise prices. And the most effective snake-oil salesmen are the ones who persuade the government to purchase and mandate their snake oil - such as ethanol.
A "bad guy" is one who cheers when the State knowingly harms the innocent. But they will forever persuade themselves that the innocent are not really innocent, or they're not really harmed, or it's necessary for the overall good.
I don't think it's paranoid to say that there are bad guys all around us.
"Why not take advantage of the clever Downsize DC system like I just did? Invest five minutes today to sign up, and then from time to time you, too, can help bombard congress and pressure them into doing the right thing with your money."
- "creator," a blogger at Truth Realm Subject: Big Business Loves Big Government
Politicians tell us that government protects the people from the cut-throat practices of Big Business. But in truth, Big Government is in bed with Big Business. If I were CEO of a major corporation - let's call it the Big Widget Corporation - I would love Big Government. That's because I could:
lobby Congress to subsidize the widget industry, explaining how vital widgets are to the economy.
lobby for tariff protection against imported widgets. This will allow my company to gouge American consumers with higher prices.
lobby for regulations that would drive my smaller competitors out of business.
But what is good for the Big Widget Corporation's shareholders isn't necessarily good for the American taxpayers, who must pay for this special treatment. That's why we want the Big Government-Big Business marriage to end in divorce. We can break up the marriage by changing the way Congress does things.
John Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act would would require Congress to reference the specific clause(s) of the U.S. Constitution that grant them the power to enact the law they are considering. Because the Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to subsidize industries or grant special favors for particular businesses, Congress will have an impossible time justifying special-interest legislation. Tell Congress to pass the Enumerated Powers Act here.
Downsize DC's One Subject at a Time Act would prevent Congress from adding unpopular or special-interest legislation into otherwise popular and much-needed bills. You can tell Congress to introduce this bill here.
Downsize DC's Read the Bills Act (RTBA) would prevent bad provisions and special favors from sneaking into bills at the last minute. If you have not sent a message to Congress telling them to introduce the RTBA, or haven't done so in a while, you can do so here.
You can also help us by joining the Read the Bills Act coalition. Visitors to your blog or website will see our web-ad, which will take them to the RTBA campaign page where they will learn more. In turn, we will link to your site at our blog and announce your membership in a Downsizer-Dispatch. For information on joining the Coalition, click here.
This week we welcome three new members to the Coalition:
Finally, over the past two weeks the House passed 28 bills totaling 725 pages, while the Senate passed 29 bills totaling 286 pages. A list of these bills can be found below my signature at the home blog version of this Dispatch.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
James Wilson Assistant to the President DownsizeDC.org
Further Thoughts on "Divided They Fail"
Suppose you see yourself as a hard-core libertarian. Who would you rather win an election: a pro-gay marriage candidate who wants to nuke Iran and invade the Sudan, or an anti-gay marriage candidate who wants to end undeclared wars and bring the troops home? To me, the answer is clear: I want peace, liberty, and legal equality, but peace must come first.
Likewise, I want to get rid of the national oppressor before the local oppressor, because the national oppressor oppresses more people. In elections, would prefer Libertarian Party candidates first, Constitution Party candidates second, and nobody else third, because of this.
It's as if Ruwart was disqualified as a spokesperson for libertarian principles - which is essentially what an LP Presidential candidate is supposed to be - because she held to libertarian principles even in a particularly tough and controversial case. It made me, like this commenter G.E. at Third Party Watch, think that I'd rather vote for the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin and know I'm getting a "consistent Constitutionalist" than support an LP candidate who somehow draws the best line between aiming to be principled and aiming to please.
The LP's problem is that it tries to do two things. First, it tries to be ideological, and recruit individuals willing to "certify in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." Second, it tries be a political party dedicated to shrinking the size of government - the federal government first and foremost. It can do both, but it can't succeed at both.
If the LP is to be radical and hard-core, its leader should be a consistent libertarian. Of course, this won't win many votes or lead to long-term growth, which makes one wonder if the Libertarian Party as an outreach tool was a good idea whose time has passed in the Internet Age.
If the LP's purpose is to win elections and take power on a small-government platform, well of course Ruwart's position on child porn won't help. But if there are differences of opinion on this issue, then there will definitely be differences on major issues as well. Libertarians will differ on specific solutions and the next steps to take. One says sales taxes are worse than income taxes, another says the opposite. Person A says get rid of the welfare state first and then immigration laws, Person B says says the order of what gets repealed first doesn't matter. The one will accuse the other of "betraying" libertarianism.
I respect LP members who want to remain hard-core. It just seems to me that those who would agree with the hard-core position the most will take it to the logical conclusion of not voting and not participating in party politics at all. It is very conceivable that a person could move from frustrated Republican or frustrated Democrat, to being drawn to the Libertarian Party message, to getting deeper and deeper into the libertarian philosophy, to becoming a non-voting anarchist - all within a two-year election cycle. Guess what - the Libertarian Party would have done its job! All too well, in fact - it never does get this person's vote. I respect the hard-core line, but I would suggest building agorist activist organizations and educational institutions would be a better use of their time than campaigning in elections. If nothing else, ballot access laws make their efforts inefficient at best. The sheer irony of a "libertarian" party trying to win power is another drawback. But if that's how some hard-core libertarians want to spend their time and money, I respect that.
I have a bigger problem respecting LP members who a) condemn Mary Ruwart, and/or b) supported Ron Paul, but would never consider an alliance with Constitution Party members. (For the record: I'm not a current LP member, I agree with Ruwart, and I supported Ron Paul.) They won't forgive Ruwart for her consistency, they will forgive Ron Paul for his deviations, but they'll write off the CP as theocrats - even though their differences with libertarianism are in many of the the same areas Ron Paul deviates from it.
I'm not sure what the problem is. The CP opposes abortion because, supposedly, they're religious nutjobs, whereas Ron Paul and pro-life libertarians have a different but principled view of when human rights begin. The CP doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to the states because, supposedly, they're theocrats, whereas Ron Paul - who has sponsored legislation expressing this view - just has an unorthodox but logical interpretation of the Constitution. (For the record, I agree with Paul's view: if the First Amendment was meant to apply to the states, either it or the Fourteenth Amendment would have said so explicitly.)
I think the objections are special pleading. I think libertarians resent the paleoconservative's finger-wagging condescension toward libertarianism, and I think paleoconservatives resent the libertarian's stridency and abstractions. Both sides (except the most hard-core of each) give Ron Paul a pass, and are willing to disagree with him on a few points and still love him, but they won't support anyone else who could bridge this divide.
I'm not asking members of either party to set aside their principles. I'm asking them instead to come together and form a party based on their many points of agreement.
I'm calling for a national party focused strictly on the national issue of the size, scope, and powers of the federal government. Statewide and locally, there may be LP candidates who want legal casinos in the state and strip clubs in the county, and CP candidate who want both banned. Fine - but they can all sign on to a national agenda of downsizing the size, scope, and power of the federal government:
bring the troops home; no entangling alliances; only Congressionally-declared wars from now on;
no ceding of legislative, executive, or judicial authority to international organizations;
repeal post-9/11 curbs on civil liberties; restore crime control as a state function; defend the Second Amendment;
cut spending across the board; abolish unconstitutional departments and programs such as the Department of Education;
deregulate and desubsidize the energy industry;
work toward a free market in health care;
simplify the tax code and cut taxes;
restore a Constitutional money system.
Allow differences on these issues:
the specifics of tax reform;
immigration restrictions;
tariffs and trade;
the role of Congress and the federal judiciary on First and Fourteenth Amendment issues pertaining to state and local laws;
state and local controversies.
The goal of downsizing the federal government are the same in both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. There, and only there, can they and should they work together. Perhaps a national platform could be a new "contract with America" based on points of agreement that could be signed by all party candidates. They can run against each other in primaries emphasizing issues where the platform allows for differences. But if and when elected, they will support the contract they had singed onto.
So everyone gets to keep their principles and ideology, while they support a national party that is dedicated to a smaller federal government but doesn't advance a particular ideology. Say what you will about Republicans and Democrats, but they swallow both their principles and their pride to vote for candidates who differ with them on major issues. Indeed, they do this all the time. Why can't advocates of small government do the same, especially if their differences are minor or technical?
Maybe for the same reason we never succeed: most of us who want small government are driven by principle, not power - and although we are all principled, we continually disagree on which principles. So even when we're in agreement 80% of the time, we go nowhere because those who should be our strongest allies are instead our bitterest enemies.
Perhaps non-voting anarchists and spiritual gurus were right all along: we will never achieve freedom through politics.
Divided They FailMy latest at the Partial Observer, wondering "If they both support Ron Paul, why don't the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party merge?" Excerpt:
I don't know if it was ever strategically sound to promote philosophical principles through a political party. Principles, to remain principles, must be untarnished, whereas politics works through compromise, which means tarnishing principles. In any case, the Internet has made the dissemination of libertarian principles, and education in the libertarian philosophy, much easier than it used to be. If the Libertarian Party exists to educate, I don't know if that is necessary anymore. If anything, it could lead people who take the philosophy far enough to see the contradiction of the LP's own existence.
But if the purpose of the party is to win elections and govern, it would do well to disband or change its name to something more generic and non-philosophical. It could then do a better job of advancing libertarian ends without allowing the various, necessary and inevitable compromises to besmirch the libertarian philosophy. This is where joining together with the Constitution Party, Ron Paul Republicans, and others come in. If the immediate and primary goal is to downsize the federal government, the various groups that support this goal can no longer be divided against themselves.
No Country For Old Men
I recently saw the Coen Brothers film No Country For Old Men. The setting is West Texas, circa 1980. The "old men" in question are people like Tommy Lee Jones's character, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. Jones the actor is in his early 60's, and so presumably is the character. Bell came from a family of sheriffs, and had been a sheriff himself since the age of 25.
Bell recalls that in the older days several sheriffs in nearby counties never even carried a gun. But now (i.e., 1980), the illegal drug trade brought with it big money, gang shoot-outs, and roving hitmen. This level of evil, this disruption of a once quiet and peaceful life, is too big to overcome and too discouraging for old men.
And what, again, is the cause of this new kind of evil? The fact that drugs were illegal. That's not to say other cultural changes didn't take place that could cause disillusionment, and the villain is an unstoppable force for evil who may have arrived in many different contexts and situations. Nevertheless, illegal drugs was the occasion for this lawlessness and this evil, and simply wouldn't have taken place if drugs were legal.
Next piece of news, Roger Clemens allegedly had sex with a 15 year-old girl. One ESPN pundit (I think on Rome is Burning) says this is why Barry Bonds hasn't sued for defamation about steroids as Clemens has: it opens up one's private life to all kinds of allegations, true or false.
Comedian Doug Stanhope and this poster at Third Party Watch both said they've searched the Internet for all kinds of porn and never, ever, came across child porn. They've stumbled upon some pretty weird, gross stuff they couldn't even imagine, but not children having sex. I suspect this stuff is way underground, and child porn sites are probably just sting operations of FBI agents, and the actual risk to children is negligible.
The crusade about child porn and child sex is probably a) led by closet pedophiles who hate themselves for their secret fantasies, and b) is just an excuse to censor the Internet.
Last week, the Presidents of Mexico and the U.S. met with the Prime Minister of Canada to work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The SPP is a working relationship between bureaucrats in all three countries to promote greater uniformity in economic and security matters. Here are two of the SPP's goals, from the SPP's own website:
Safe Food & Products: Strengthen cooperation to better identify, assess and manage unsafe food and products before they enter North America, and collaborate to promote the compatibility of our related regulatory and inspection regimes;
Energy and Environment: Develop projects under the newly signed Agreement on Science and Technology; and cooperate on moving new technologies to the marketplace, auto fuel efficiency and energy efficiency standards ;
What's the goal here? Simply, if something is manufactured in Mexico or Canada, it won't have to be inspected when entering the United States. In addition, if something is imported into Mexico or Canada, their inspections will be "good enough" and the goods can be trucked into the United States with no further inspections.
The SPP isn't government by the people, for the people, but rather government by bureaucrats, for Big Business. It seeks to harmonize regulations in the three countries to make it easier for the largest companies to do business. Whether or not these new regulations will benefit the people is beside the point. Whether or not these regulations would be good for small business is beside the point.
To preserve national sovereigny and representative government, we must put an end to the SPP. While we're at it, we must put an end to all cozy relationships between Big Business and bureaucratic regulators. DownsizeDC.org's Write the Laws Act (WTLA) will accomplish this. Under the WTLA, any law or regulation must be written by Congress itself, not by unelected bureaucrats. Regulatory agencies, instead of crafting policy, will be confined to investigating and prosecuting laws and regulations written and passed by Congress. The WTLA will put an end to the SPP because it will strip the Executive Branch of the power to implement its recommendations and regulations. You can learn more about the Write the Laws Act here.
And please tell Congress to pass the Write the Laws Act. In your comments, tell them you oppose the SPP. Tell them you don't believe that bureaucrats working in concert with foreign counterparts and Big Business should be making policy. Tell them Congress should write every law and regulation. You can do so here.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
James Wilson Assistant to the President DownsizeDC.org
Hooray for Hollywood!
I don't know if this has happened before, but I see it as a sign of progress: of the weekend's top five movies, exactly one had a white male lead. The rest starred Asians and females, with only one sequel.
Established white male stars like Hugh Jackman and Ewan McGregor can't even blame reverse discrimination or affirmative action for getting their asses handed to them. The film industry is just about the freest of markets, in the sense that, more than anywhere else, the customer is supreme. Who says that the free market leaves women and minorities behind?
Is Hollywood corrupting society, or is it a model society should emulate? Just like when they go to movies or rent or buy DVDs, people should be free to buy a product at their own risk, and if the product sucks, it will quickly tank through word-of-mouth. No regulations, prohibitions, or price supports to limit customer choice. This would give female and minority entrepreneurs the best chance to succeed.
The profitability of a movie is voted on by the people, not determined by the government. Every other industry should be like that.
Keyes Loses Yet Again
I can't believe it was only eight years ago that I voted for Alan Keyes in the Illinois Republican Presidential Primary. Not that I regret it; he was clearly smarter and less war-mongering than McCain and more explicitly for smaller government than George W. Bush. But I didn't know just how pathetic his act would become. After the Illinois GOP dumped its Senatorial nominee for Senate in 2004 over a personal non-scandal, they chose Keyes, of all people, to move in from out-of-state and get obliterated by Barack Obama.
Not getting the hint that his message was relevant in 1996-2000 but no longer, Keyes entered the GOP race in 2007, only to find out that Ron Paul already had part of his message (the good parts) and Huckabee the rest (the stupid, bad parts). Now, this pro-war neo-conservative tried to get the nomination of the Constitution Party - which has always been anti-war and isolationist. Fortunately, the CP has backed away from Keyes, who probably has yet to figure out that name recognition doesn't serve you if you are a laughingstock.
The CP nominated its 2004 VP nominee, Chuck Baldwin, instead. I have read several of Baldwin's columns and agree with a lot of them. And he has been a Ron Paul supporter. I hope all conservatives, and especially, Ron Paul supporters, unwilling to vote Libertarian will vote for Baldwin. Matthew Roberts writes, "as Chilton Williamson Jr. argues in his recent article “Time for a Multi-Party System,” there could be long-term gains (such as a “multiplicity of parties, representing a multiplicity of interests") in abandoning the two major parties, which have become a “broad and contradictory coalition of factions.” (Better said than done, but a sizeable defection is a start.)"
Gasoline as Money
You may have seen this image floating around:
While I'm not crazy about $5 gasoline (unless it's because of taxes, and all other taxes were substantially lower), there's something else about the image that I like: gas as money.
Let's say a consortium of oil companies and gas station chains come out with a gas debit card. Most people expect prices to reach $5/gallon in a couple of years; today, it's $3.50. My vision is that an individual can pre-pay for gas using the debit card at, say, $4/gallon, but your "account" on the debit card will be in gallons of gas, not dollars, so when you swipe the card when getting gas, the number of gallons in your account will decrease.
Why buy gallons using the card? Because if you buy a lot of gallons today, you will have saved money once gas does top $4. You can buy gallons for the card now, but still pay cash for gas now, and only use the card once the pump price exceeds $4. A corporation can buy a million gallons now for $4 for its company vehicles. If gas does reach $5.00, they will have saved something up to a million dollars
But the price of gas on the debit card is not fixed either; once pump prices reach $4, the debit card price of gas might rise to $4.25. The difference is, you can purchase an unlimited amount of gas with the debit card. The sooner you buy and the more you buy, the more you will save.
Here's the next phase: this consortium reaches makes agreements with other businesses and retail outlets so that these debit cards can be used at their stores as well. Prices of other goods do not rise as quickly (or fluctuate) as gasoline does; the bottle of soda at the convenience store that's $1.25 today was probably $1.25 last year and will probably be $1.25 next year as well, even as gas zooms from $2.50 to $4.50 during that time. So it would work this way: each day, the new national average gas price is updated in each store's electronic payment systems. When somebody buys something with a gas debit card, its dollar value is converted to a percentage of the price of gas that day, and the card is deducted that amount of gas.
For simplicity's sake: Let's say a widget is $1. Overnight, the price of gas goes from $3 to $4. You buy the widget with the gas debit card. Yesterday, it would have cost you one-third of a gallon of gas; today, it costs you just one-fourth. The widget seller's own gas account is then credited one-third a gallon of gas.
The more gasoline you already own on the debit card means that the more gas prices rise, the more of other things you can purchase; the "price" in gallons will go down. The gallons of gas on the debit card will serve as an alternative form of money.
Next stage, employers offer to pay a portion of their employee's income in gallons via gas debit card. For instance, an employee could take the option of being paid $80/week less but have 20 gallons added to their gas account. An employee could thus save up gallons for a vacation road trip, when prices will probably be much higher than $4. Or, as gas prices rise, he will have more purchasing power with the gallons on his gas debit card, than he would in dollars.
What would be the advantage to this for the gas stations and oil companies?
If people people rush to buy these gas cards at a higher price than gasoline is today, oil companies will have more cash on hand, enabling them to better secure future supply and production of gasoline. Second, this will help keep prices down, which will actually profit them. If people buy gas at $4, but the pump price never reaches $4, they will make a killing. And if people are not willing to purchase at $4, that price can be lowered.
What advantage would this be for the people?
It guards against inflation. If gas prices go up, they could purchase their goods and services in "gallons" instead of dollars. If gas prices go down, they could purchase other goods and services in dollars - or buy more gas in cash at a lower price.
If there's over-production, gas prices go down. If supplies are limited and prices go through the roof, owners of gas debit cards will see prices of everything else fall.
Perhaps even governments would accept gas gallons as payment for taxes. After all, they use a lot of fuel, too.
Energy. Rail against corporate welfare and favoritism - and begin by ending corn ethanol subsidies. And then call for greater energy independence by legalizing industrial hemp, which is a far more efficient ethanol producer than corn and has many other practical uses as well, which could increase supply and drive prices down for numerous products. As Senator from Illinois, Obama supports ethanol subsidies, but if he wants to be a genuine statesman, he must put an end to this evil policy that favors big agribusiness, hurts the environment, and raises the price of food on the world's poor.
"By a free country, I mean a country where people are allowed, so long as they do not hurt their neighbours, to do as they like. I do not mean a country where six men may make five men do exactly as they like."- Lord Salisbury
