Be Your Own Policymaker

Greg Wendt at Reality Sandwich examines the fallacies of the Gross Domestic Product. Particularly, many harmful things count toward increasing GDP, while many good things are not measured. Some forms of economic "growth" create profits in the short-term but environmental damage over the long term.

But why measure GDP at all?

It is really a tool for "policymakers."

When politics is about "lawmaking," the fundamental issue is rights. When politics is about "policy," the issue is welfare, that is, well-being.

It can be correctly said that the GDP has no relevance to our rights and is a poor tool to measure well-being. But it could be said that every tool to measure "well-being" is flawed.

Because well-being can't be measured.

For instance, the nation's average life expectancy isn't going to determine how long you will live. Climate changes will affect some people directly and severely, and others more indirectly and less severely.

So when "policymakers" use their surveys and charts to to make plans and programs, which in turn coerce and cajole you into fitting into their norms, they may or may not help somebody else, but at the same time they can harm you. Their smoking bans can harm your business; their taxes can destroy your savings. Their beautification programs and bike paths can infringe on your property, their imposed energy solutions may drive up prices of things you need, their health care policies can make drugs unaffordable or beds unavailable. Their public libraries, museums, and concert halls may feature books you don't care to read, exhibits you're not interested in, and music you don't like. Their humanitarian crusades may portray your own overseas relatives as the "bad guys" in a foreign conflict.

Their attempts to make the world a better place may leave you worse off. That's because statistically-driven conclusions about happiness, values, or quality of life will not reflect your own personal judgments.

Now, if politics was about law, about rights and wrongs but not policy, things would be different. Courts would resolve conflicts, but otherwise everyone would be their own "policymaker." Sometimes, they would voluntarily cooperate with other policymakers to make policies for a voluntarily-formed group, other times their would make policies only for themselves. Individuals would be concerned with their own "gross domestic product," and weigh it against "priceless" things like time with family. Some would agree with Ian Fleming, thinking "I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them," while others would derive pleasure from health-consciousness. Individual policymakers would strike their own balance between work and play, and not judge others on that score. Most importantly, individual policymakers could determine for themselves if they are well-off in terms of happiness, or not.

It's hard to quantify that feeling of contentment in your gut.

The AMA Writes the Laws

QUOTES OF THE DAY:

"It would be unconstitutional for Congress to create a statute stating that it was a crime to engage in conduct forbidden by the AMA, or by particular HCBPs, or by the health care industry as a whole. This is because neither the AMA, nor the HCBPs, nor the health care industry more generally are governmental entities, and Congress does not have the power to delegate law-making authority outside of the government."
- DEFENDANTS JOINT MEMORANDUM, United States v. Stephen J. vs. Linda K. Schneider

"Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
- Sir Thomas More, in Robert Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons"

SUBJECT: The AMA Writes the Laws

Should the American Medical Association (AMA) have the power to write laws? Some bureaucrats think they already do.

DownsizeDC.org proposed the "Write the Laws Act" (WTLA) to prevent unelected bureaucrats from writing regulations that have the force of law. Only elected representatives should have that power. We believe there should be "no legislation without representation."

Sadly, we've just learned that the problem WTLA seeks to fix is even worse than we thought. Unelected bureaucrats in the Justice Department have now taken to treating the standards of a private organization, the AMA, as if they had the force of law.

A doctor in Kansas is facing twenty years to life for failing to conform to the standards of the American Medical Association.

Dr. Stephen J. Schneider and his wife, nurse Linda K. Schneider, are charged with illegally distributing prescription drugs, along with several counts of related fraud and illegal monetary transactions.

Did the Schneiders sell illegal drugs? No. They simply prescribed FDA-approved medications to people in pain. Now they face years in prison simply because the Justice Department disagrees with their medical judgments.

That's bad enough, but there's more . . .

While the Schneiders are charged with violating the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Schneiders didn't actually violate any specific provision in it. Instead, the Justice Department accuses the Schneiders of violating . . .

• The policies of the Health Care Benefit Providers (HCBP's) whom they billed -- if true, then the HCBP's should sue the Schneiders in civil court.
• Kansas state law -- if true, then Kansas should prosecute them, not the federal government.
• "Industry principles" -- but those "principles" aren't encoded in federal law, and if the Schneiders violated them, they should instead be investigated by medical licensing boards.
• The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code book, a "privately written, trademarked and copyrighted publication of a commercial affiliate of the American Medical Association."

The AMA, of course, is a private organization, and while the CPT is used by the government, it is not law.

It's important to recognize that Justice Department bureaucrats want to imprison the Schneiders because they disagree with the Schneider's medical judgments, NOT because the Schneider's broke the law. Mere bureaucrats are treating the guidelines of private organizations as if they were laws. Like a six year-old in a playground game, the bureaucrats are "making it up as they go along."

This prosecution threatens all doctors -- and their patients, including you.

The Schneider's case, and others like it, will encourage doctors to let their patients suffer in agony rather than risk a prison sentence. But . . .

Under WTLA the Schneider's case would be dismissed, because the couple isn't being accused of violating any law enacted by Congress. According to the WTLA, this would constitute a complete defense.

Thomas More is right: if the Devil breaks the law he should be prosecuted, but not before then. The same should go for doctors and everyone else. This is a fundamental principle of free society. Our constitution says that the only valid laws are those enacted by Congress, not those written by unelected bureaucrats or lifted from the guidelines of private organizations by tyrannical prosecutors.

Tell your Representative and Senators to introduce the "Write the Laws Act." In your personal comments, tell them about the Schneider case and how the Justice Department is treating AMA rules as if they had the force of law. Tell them the WTLA would prevent such a legal travesty from ever occurring again. You can send your message here.

Thank you for being a a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

The Civil Liberties Myth

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Democrats get a lot of mileage for their extreme pro-abortion views, faint pro-gay rights views, hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities, and being perceived as on the "Left" along with the ACLU. And yes, perhaps if you think the most important issue in the world is whether "under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance, you correctly perceive the Democrats agree with you more than Republicans. But if you think you can therefore trust Democrats in Congress and the White House to protect your rights on any issue that actually matters, you are hopelessly naive.

Calling Attention

In an interview this past winter, George Clooney admitted that his activism in Darfur may have been counter-productive: "“I’ve been very depressed since I got back. I’m terrified that it isn’t in any way helping. That bringing attention can cause more damage. You dig a well or build a health-care facility and they’re a target for somebody.”

That's the trouble with civil wars and "internal matters" in other countries. If the international community takes one side - usually the side that's losing - it will only increase the determination of the oppressors. Sure, they may fall or die sometime, but often it's years or decades later.

Armed intervention will only make the invaders another, disruptive factor in the conflict, as the U.S. invasion of Iraq shows. Often, the "good guys" are nearly as bad as or worse than "bad guys," with only media propaganda telling us different. Peace-keeping forces may end up presiding in a "reverse ethnic cleansing" as they have in Kosovo. Trade sanctions will actually solidify the grip on power of the oppressor and hurt that nation's opposition, minorities, and poor people the hardest. Even mere diplomatic condemnation will offend the regime and poison its relations with neighbors and the international community, further steeling their resolve to hold onto power.

Many people look back in shame at Rwanda. But if US/UN intervention was even logistically possible, they would have been forced to choose sides and end up slaughtering one side and take responsibility for governing Rwanda after, whereas today Rwanda is rapidly developing and relatively stable on its own.

Remember that the U.S. intervention in Vietnam probably added a million deaths to that conflict. Since the U.S. left in defeat, Vietnam has also experienced rapid development.

The other night on ABC News anchor Elizabeth Vargas was virtually clamoring for U.S. intervention in Zimbabwe. It appears to me that the best course is to do nothing. Condemning Mugabe and his regime won't lessen his grip on power, but only make him more likely to lash out at his opponents. If the people want to resist through armed conflict, that's their business, not ours. And if they decide instead to wait the old man out, that, too, is their business. Trade sanctions and condemnations will only make things worse for them.

Why Democrats Are Hated

Over the years, the reputation has been that Democrats are in favor of civil liberties, a regulated economy, and Big Government, whereas the Republicans are in favor strong policing and morality over individual freedom, but favor a deregulated economy, and small government.

The perceptions don't meet the reality very often. Democrats often vote for "tough on crime" and "tough on national security" legislation to make people think Democrats can keep them "safe," while Republicans will expand regulations and the welfare state to make people think they stand for fairness and compassion. The result is that most "bi-partisan" bills create more laws and more spending.

And the funny thing is, such compromises never work. Even if some or most Republicans join Democrats in a major spending bill, the fact is that all the budget hawks and smaller-government advocates are on the Republican side, which "taints" the party as a whole for lacking compassion and fairness. Likewise, even if some or most Democrats join Republicans in some "War on Terror" program, the fact that almost all the pro-peace and pro-civil liberty advocates are on the Democratic side , which "taints" that party for being soft. That's why the parties are portrayed as if it's still 1964.

An example of this is the House Democratic Leadership folding on warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The issue is back in the Senate where there have been heroic efforts on the part of Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd. The Republican attack machine will claim that the Feingold-Dodd position is what Democrats really believe.

Now, I support Feingold and Dodd in their efforts to protect Americans from warrantless spying by their own government. But they are vulnerable to the charge that they are the worst possible hypocrites on this issue. For instance, Feingold is most famous for the McCain-Feingold bill, which sought to silence the speech of non-partisan groups during elections campaigns. What will Republicans say? That Feingold values the rights of terrorists over the free speech rights of Americans. Meanwhile, Dodd is working on a bill that would "would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government" and "a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers."

Mortgage brokers!

The Republicans would say that Dodd favors the rights of terrorists over people who want to make an honest buck.

Now, let me emphasize that Feingold and Dodd are right about warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The government is being given permission to spy not just on suspected terrorists, but on average Americans and, especially, high-profile critics of the government who then become vulnerable to frame-ups and blackmail.

But Feingold and Dodd have dug a whole for themselves. It is precisely because they are right on this issue that their hypocrisy stinks all the more. It is true that Feingold and Dodd are rightly fighting for the rights of suspected terrorists, because by preserving their rights we preserve our own. But it is also true that Feingold has no regard for free speech, and Dodd has contempt for the rights of anyone who wants to make a purchase or a decent living. In that sense, they do favor the rights of terrorists over law-abiding Americans.

This feeds the perception that Democrats, essentially, favor the rights of criminals over the law-abiding. That they are soft on criminals, hard on businessmen. That they protect the lives of murderers, but not the unborn. That they care more about the rights of undocumented immigrants than native-born Americans. That when it comes to national security, Democrats favor rights over security, but when it comes to economics, freedom be damned.

If Dodd wins the telecom fight but then, next week, wins on spying on America's mortgage brokers and financial transactions, that would be a pyrrhic victory indeed.

A Matter of Faith

Government justifies its existence because of the "anarchy" (that is, "chaos") that would ensue without it.

Does the theory fit the reality?

At its best, the State's institutions prevents the pitchfork-mob "let's get him!" mentality so often parodied in The Simpsons. Without the State, Michael Vick may well have been lynched a year ago.

Then again, because of the State, Michael Vick is in prison, although he violated no one's rights.

The occasion for mentioning last year's news is the Democrat sell-out last week of the Fourth Amendment.

It suggests that The State is worse than the diseases - crime, disorder, insecurity - that it is supposed to fix. If The State can violate your rights at will, that is worse than stateless anarchy, because at least then individuals have a chance to band together and protect themselves.

But the problem is, the debates go back and forth:

• Who knows if the War on Terror saved more lives and property than a more freedom-friendly approach would have? Maybe some bad guys really were caught?
  
• The 1,000 deaths per year in the Iraq War is dwarfed by America's domestic murder rate, which makes it seem not so bad after all. Compared to most major wars, it looks like a success.
  

This kind of thinking plagues domestic policy as well. After all:

• It would be said that without government aid to industry, we'd be a third-world country;
• It would be said that without welfare programs, we would have had a more extreme, communist revolution;
  
• It would be said that without regulations on business practices and personal behavior, we'd have lower standards of living from business exploitation and lower life expectancies from uncontrolled, indulgent behavior.

Never mind, then, that the State is the most active thief, killer, and polluter in society, because without it things would supposedly be worse than they already are. Tens of millions of people believe this.

And I don't know if that position will ever be refuted with logic or any other form of persuasion. Perhaps Statism really is a religion, and at the core of all religion is a paradox:

• Religion at its best encourages peace and harmony, both within the individual and within society, brought about by a genuine love for one's self and one's neighbor;
  
• But religious discipline can warp one's mind into waging war against one's own flesh, and defers to others (Authorities in Organized Religion) on matter of faith, doctrine, and conduct, leading to abuse of power by those with Authoriy.

So critics of Religion say: "Yes, Religion fostered a few good things, but leads to so many bad things that have destroyed humankind's happiness and hope for survival," whereas advocates of Religion say, "Yes, Religion has fostered a few bad things, but leads to so many good things that have led to humankind's current standard of living, and is our only hope for survival."

Religion is the enemy of civilization, or is its foundation. People view The State the same way: it is the cause, or the destroyer, of civilizations.

Which came first, love or sacrifice? Which comes first, freedom or force?

However one may answer such questions, it is probably most important for the individual to make peace with an imperfect world, a world that won't conform to one's ideological beliefs and moral convictions. Recognizing that, the next question is, do we want inflict even more death and destruction on the world, or less? Because if we choose less death and destruction, we may actually look at facts on the ground, and investigate other people's beliefs, cultures, and histories.

The world you feel on the inside is the world you see on the outside. Is it a world at war, or a world at peace? If you are at peace with yourself, you are already free, and the biggest war has been won. Nobody can make the world free and peaceful, but individuals can choose to be free and peaceful. Perhaps the most important victories for Freedom are not seen in political change but in personal transformations.

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Comments welcome at the PO. Excerpt:

Buchanan wrote the book because the of Churchill Cult that exists in the United States. While fighting evil is admirable, destroying our own country's prosperity and strategic position to fight "enemies" who pose no threat to us and want no war with us is not. The would-be Churchills of the U.S. - President Bush first among them - appear more concerned about how history will look upon their own courage and heroism, but have little regard for the lives and welfare of the people they are supposed to govern.

Is the "Read the Bills Act" Practical?

Today's Downsizer-Dispatch . . .

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

"You are at work, and someone hands you a draft report you are required to sign your name to and pass up the chain of command. What happens to you if you sign it and hand it to the next guy, but after it is implemented you find out that it has obvious errors, or worse includes payment of company funds to someone who has done nothing to deserve it? I'm guessing you get fired and have to think about how to phrase the departure on your resume."
-- Anthony, "the view from my windscreen"

SUBJECT: Is the "Read the Bills Act" Practical?

As we noted in our June 5 Dispatch, the "Climate Security Act" was actually read in the Senate chamber -- 500+ pages in ten hours. Also, on one April day, the Florida House of Representatives had 398 pages pages of legislation read aloud.

Both times, the minority party insisted the bills be read as a form of protest. But there's something revealing here about the practicality of the "Read the Bills Act" (RTBA).

Imagine if RTBA was in force, and stipulate the following . . .

• It normally takes one hour to read a forty-page bill.
• Each member of Congress has a copy of the bill, a high-lighter, a pen, and a notebook to jot down their questions and objections.
• And let's also grant four hours for debate and votes on amendments for every one hour of reading. That's five hours to finalize a forty-page bill.

This would leave plenty of time for meetings, final votes on bills from the previous week, and other business. That evening, Congressional clerks could post the bill on the Internet. Interested citizens could read it and contact their representatives with feedback. Seven days later, Congress could vote.

Assuming Congress meets for 200 days a year, the above scenario would allow them to pass 8,000 pages of legislation quite easily.

Keep in mind, we at Downsize DC don't want Congress to pass this much legislation. But, contrary to what some in Congress claim, they could still pass a lot of laws under the "Read the Bills Act." Indeed, the changes to the process would be all for the better . . .

• There would be increased pressure on Congressional committees to write short, understandable bills. For instance, large Cabinet Departments wouldn't need to be funded in one bill; separate agencies could be funded in separate bills
• Many bills are uncontroversial and wouldn't need much debate; even so, reading them aloud would allow Congress to spot errors
• Peer pressure would limit the addition of amendments on unrelated subjects
• Members of Congress (and the public) would have the chance to expose and remove wasteful and unwanted earmarks
• And the same could be done with other hidden, dangerous, and harmful provisions
• Urgent, high-priority bills would come first

Please tell your Representative and Senators to introduce the Read the Bills Act.

In your personal comments, tell them that the RTBA gives Congress plenty of time to pass needed legislation -- perhaps as much as 8,000 pages a year, plus the bills would be simpler, cleaner, and better than they are now. You send your message here.

In addition, we invite you to help spread the word about RTBA by joining the "Read the Bills Act Coalition." You help spread the word about the RTBA, and we'll spread the word about you, linking to your site on our blog. Details are here.

This week, we welcome four new members to the Coalition.

Intellectual Splatter
Debt Sucks
Call of God
Spotlight Radio

Over the past two weeks the House passed 35 bills totaling 503 pages, and the Senate passed 7 bills amounting to 1863 pages. A list of their bills, and their length, can be found in the blog version of this Dispatch.

NOTE: You can remove this funding section if you forward this message to others, or post it on your blog. You can also comment on this message at our blog.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

The Ron Paul Presidency

The end of Ron Paul's bid for the Presidency raises the question:

Would he have made a great President?

I don't think so - and this is no reflection on Paul, his ideas, or his abilities.

For Paul to have a successful Presidency in this day and age, he would need at a minimum:

• 60% support in a general election
• filibuster-proof majorities in Congress
  

In other words, something we've rarely seen in modern politics, and even then only under Democratic control. But considering how different Paul's goals are from that of the neo-con and progressive wings of the Establishment, a "successful" Presidency would likely be impossible.

To make the point simple, think of this: If you believe federal employees always follow the President's orders instead of their own ideologies, interests, and agenda -- for instance, if you believe it is impossible for any CIA agent to have played any role in the JFK assassination, I respect your views. I have no quarrel with you. It is also pointless for you to read on.

On the other hand, if you are open to the idea that the CIA may have been involved in the JFK assassination, or that federal employees may follow their own agenda instead of their President, you may understand why a Paul Presidency could have been doomed.

If, once inaugurated, Paul by snapping his fingers could turn every federal employee into a Constitutionalist, he would have made a fantastic President. But it is far more likely that, in the period between Election Day and Inauguration, forces would be at work to undermine the Paul Administration. Two obvious scenarios come to mind:

• False-flag attacks blamed on Iran or other terrorists, "proving" that Paul is "soft" on the terrorists.
  
• Using their warrantless wiretapping powers, federal agents could frame senior Paul aides of illegal or embarrassing conduct.
  

But it could be other issues:

• A scare introduced into the food supply that undermines Paul's opposition to, for instance, the National Animal Identification System and other command-and-control programs.
  
• Manufacturing another corporate fraud scandal, emboldening calls in Congress for imposing yet more regulations while making Paul appear to be a free-market "extremist."
• Manufacturing a statistical upsurge in drug use and drug-related crime, while feeding the mainstream media anecdote after tragic anecdote of crime, neglect, and negligence due to drug addiction, making Paul appear soft on crime and weak on morality.
  

By sabotaging Paul's program, an environment could be created in which Paul's vetoes are always overridden, where his own legislative proposals never get out of committee, perhaps even where Congress declares a war he believes is wrong, thereby forcing him to resign.

It makes one wonder why anyone would want to be President, especially anyone who suspects there could be rogue elements within the Executive Branch and powerful people outside it who could manipulate Congress and the media. Push too many buttons, and one could face scandal after scandal, setback after setback. Or suffer the same fate as JFK.

Traitor?

In 2004, I recall Jay Mariotti on his Chicago radio show questioned Shaquille O'Neal's for not playing in the Olympics, costing Team USA the gold. Never mind that he had already played for the team in '96, that it is positively decent to give younger players a chance to play in the Games, and that after a grueling NBA season an athlete in his 30's could break down if he had to play in the summer as well.

And now, the coach of the U.S. Women's team is calling Becky Hammon a "traitor" for choosing to play for Russia in the games.

I do not understand this mentality, and find it utterly contemptible. I don't know all the reasons Hammon chose to play for Russia, but I respect it. I know I wouldn't want to represent the USA in this day and age. With a war criminal in the White House, Olympic athletes invited to do photo-ops at the Rose Garden, and the likelihood to be hated and booed by the international audience in Beijing, playing for the U.S. would likely be a joyless experience.

Is Charlie Gibson a Communist?

Last night Gibson's World News Tonight had a feature on the salmonella tomato scare, from which nobody has died. Why is it so hard to trace where the tomatoes came from? I thought, "Yeah, barcode every tomato, ha ha," and they suggested precisely that. Undoubtedly, such a federal plan would be ruinous for small farmers, just as the National Animal Identification System would be, and raise the price of food all the more.

"Prevention" and "protect the consumer" programs have unseen opportunity costs. For every case of food poisoning prevented, there will be a cost that will probably cause 1000 children to go hungry or malnourished.

And if central control of the food supply isn't communism, what is?

The Revolution: A Manifesto

This is my latest at the Partial Observer, a review of Ron Paul's book.Excerpt:

Ron Paul did not intend to write a campaign book. If he did, he's too late; although Paul has not conceded, John McCain's nomination by the Republican Party is all but official. What Paul has written instead is a practical guide to the ideas of individual liberty and limited government.

By "practical" I mean that Paul has not written a philosophical discourse on ethics - although he does quote Aquinas. Neither has he an economic treatise -although he does express his admiration for Ludwig von Mises. Instead, Paul provides a list for further reading in the back, and gives us a brief, 167-page guide to what's wrong in the U.S. and which principles can make the country strong and free again. These are:

• a non-interventionist foreign policy
• following the letter and originally-understood meaning of the Constitution
• economic freedom
• personal freedom
• sound money

Obama Gives the Green Light

Initially, I was appalled that Hillary Clinton had to apologize in any way for her RFK remark. Then I check out Carol Moore's blog, and she predicts that if Obama is elected, he'll be taken out by Mossad, and that Hillary's statement was a "leak" of the plan (or a threat?). Oh, and they'll probably frame Muslims or Arabs.

(That would be the ultimate I Told You So: "See? See? Obama was soft on terror, and then killed by terrorists! It just goes to show you can't negotiate with these thugs . . .")

So what does Obama do once he wraps up the nomination? He kisses up to the Israel Lobby, and says, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

There are ways to interpret this:

a) Obama doesn't want war with Iran, but understands that the beginning of negotiations means a tough, firm starting position. This is the weakness of non-interventionist candidates. While I support non-interventionism, it's a tough sell to suddenly break-off ties with long-time allies like Israel. Not that Obama is a non-interventionist, but hopefully, he's a realist who neither wants to concede to Iran nor go to war. This is the most optimistic interpretation.
b) Obama doesn't want war with Iran, but is soliciting support from pro-Israel voters. This, of course, is the ethical equivalent of running as a segregationist with the intention of becoming a moderate reformer once in office. Even if the false promise would be terrible, it's still a false promise. It's lying.
c) Like Carol Moore is suggesting, Obama really does have a gun pointed at his head, and he knows it. He's doing what he can to avert a terrible fate.

Most likely, however . . .

d) Obama really would nuke Iran and essentially gave the green light for Bush to start the war.

No matter the reasons, Obama's AIPAC speech removed any remaining temptation to vote for him. As I wrote last week, Obama sounds better than McCain, but for all we know he could be much worse. I'm sticking with Bob Barr.

Da' Tara Wins Belmont Stakes

Bloomberg has the headline right, even if its story focuses on Big Brown.

Da'Tara led the Belmont Stakes - the longest race in the Triple Crown - from beginning to end, in 96-degree heat. And it began to pull away just when the other horses would make their move. It was clearly the best horse on Saturday, and it annoys me how little credit the horse has received.

That said, Big Brown's race in the Belmont Stakes was the biggest flop in a major sporting event that I've ever seen. For "most overrated athlete," the new champ has to be Big Brown, replacing the last "inevitable" Triple Crown winner, Smarty Jones.

Foot injury, not training for three days, being taken off steroids, uncomfortable heat, the "buzz" which these Triple Crown hopefuls must sense - who knew these things would add up?

That said, as a casual observer (that is, not one who normally watches horse racing), it appeared to me that jockey Kent Desormeaux fought too hard at the beginning to get Big Brown out of the crowd and into the outside #3 position. It's a long race and he had plenty of time to get there by taking advantage of gaps as he did in the Preakness. Trainers are also suggesting that the jockey didn't let his horse run, and that by the time the Desormeaux did want Big Brown to cut loose, he was unwilling to do so.

Then there's the "fix" option. What if a great horse is healthy enough to race, but not to win? I could see insiders talking him up, making him an overwhelming favorite - and then secretly betting against him. I'm not suggesting this is what happened here, but I believe it is plausible in the same way an NBA referee can bet on 100 games he officiated before getting caught.

In any case, I think there's too much wishful thinking in the media these days. The next time a horse enters the Belmont with a chance at the Triple Crown, I'd watch the race to see what happens, but I wouldn't believe the hype.

The only flop bigger than Big Brown on Saturday was the media. First, by overrating Big Brown, then by dissing Da' Tara's victory and making the whole story about Big Brown.

Take everything the media says with a grain of salt - in sports and everywhere else.

I'll be looking to see if Da' Tara's next race will be televised.

Tell Congress You Want Direct Dialogue -- Not War With Iran

This is not authored by me, but I encourage everyone to copy and post! Original here.

DownsizeDC.org is one of about 35 organizations participating in a "National Call-In Day on Iran" that will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, June 10th.

This is a major national campaign, with press events and photo ops. Details about tomorrow's events are available at the coalition website NewIranPolicy.org.

The same people who called for attacking Iraq, based on faulty intelligence, are now raising the drumbeat for military action against Iran. Despite the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, the Bush administration is, once again, making a case for war.

As with Iraq they are claiming that Iran is a huge threat to American security.

We believe bombing Iran would bring disastrous consequences.

• Such an attack will increase the chance of terrorist blow-back on U.S. territory
• The entire Middle East could descend into further violence putting the well-being of innumerable civilians at risk
• U.S. standing in the world would plummet once again, and oil prices would likely soar
• A U.S. attack would strengthen hardliners in Iran, and turn the Iranian people, who are now pro-American, against us

Current U.S. foreign policy is not working. Threats of military attacks and regime change, and a refusal to talk with Iran until they stop enriching uranium -- something Iran is allowed to do for peaceful purposes under international agreements -- is a prescription for heightened tensions, and worse. Such a policy could lead to full-scale war, and as we know, "War is the health of the State" -- the ultimate Big Government program.

We want you to take two actions - one today; one tomorrow . . .

First, go to DownsizeDC.org and send a message asking for Congressional action to prevent an un-authorized attack on Iran by President Bush.

Then, join thousands of individuals from our coalition partners and call your Congressional Representatives on Tuesday, June 10th. Our coalition has created a telephone number specifically for this purpose -- 1-800-788-9372

Tomorrow, when you make your phone call, tell members of Congress that . . .

• We need direct, comprehensive talks, without preconditions, between the U.S. and Iran
• The U.S. and Iran share common interests in a stable Iraq and Afghanistan
• The U.S. pursued successful negotiations with North Korea and Libya, and it's time to talk with Iran too

Tell your Congressional leaders that you want dialogue -- not war!

So, please send a message today using our online system.

Then, please participate in the "National Call-In Day for Dialogue with Iran" tomorrow, Tuesday, June 10th. This campaign will be sponsored by a coalition group of which DownsizeDC.org is a member: The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran.

This is a huge coalition, so you won't be alone when sending your message and making your phone call. Numbers Matter. God tends to be on the side of the bigger battalions. This is your chance to be on the side of a bigger battalion. And we thank you for being a part of our growing Downsize DC army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

McCain's VP . . .

. . . will be South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

Once he's announced, I'll explain my prediction.

Unrelated bills rolled into one

Today's Downsizer-Dispatch . . .

Media notice: Tune-in to hear Jim Babka on the Jerry Hughes show today. Details below my signature.

Quote of the Day:

"The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." - Frank Zappa

Subject: Unrelated bills rolled into one

H.R. 2642 was introduced in June, 2007 to finance military construction and Veterans Affairs. Since then, Congress has added 230 pages of amendments to what was once a 50-page bill. Among the additions is the "Iraq Supplemental" to fund the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

H.R. 2642 is bad, but it could have been worse . . .

Two weeks ago, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to add a 100-page amendment granting amnesty to over a million illegal immigrant farm workers. However, Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez raised a point of order against the amendment, and Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to remove it.

Perhaps they remembered the backlash when Congress added the REAL ID Act to the Iraq Supplemental in 2005. Perhaps they're feeling pressure to pass the One Subject At A Time Act (OSTA) and know that adding an unpopular amnesty bill into the Iraq Supplemental would only intensify calls to pass OSTA.

In any case, H.R. 2642 still contains numerous unrelated provisions:

• "Emergency" funds for the FBI, BAFTE, DEA, Bureau of Prisons, and many other federal agencies
• Additional funds for Katrina recovery and other disaster relief
• A waiver of certain sanctions against North Korea
• A study on the effect of the minimum wage on the Northern Mariana Islands
• A law against unemployment insurance fraud
• A requirement for states to implement an "asset verification program" for individuals seeking medical assistance
• And dozens of other provisions unrelated to Defense or Veterans Affairs.

Congress normally passes several short, one-subject bills every week, so why couldn't they have voted on the above provisions as separate bills too? Possible answers include . . .

1. The provisions couldn't pass if voted on separately
2. Congress didn't want to give them due consideration

Sadly, all these unrelated provisions add up. According to Washington Watch, H.R. 2642 is going to cost the average American family almost $1,700.

Tell Congress they were right to pull amnesty out of the Iraq Supplemental. But tell them they shouldn't throw so many unrelated laws and spending programs into one bill. Tell them this undermines America's faith in Congress and is costly to taxpayers. Tell them to strip H.R. 2642 down to one subject, or vote against it. And tell them to pass Downsize DC's One Subject At A Time Act. You can do so here.

In addition, this message is also posted on our blog, and you can leave comments there if you so desire.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

Thank-you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

P.S. Friday afternoon appearance on Straight Talk with Jerry Hughes . . .

Downsize DC President Jim Babka's hour-long appearance begins at 3:05 PM Eastern time (2:05 PM Central, 1:05 PM Mountain, 12:05 PM Pacific). To listen online go to "http://www.accentradionetwork.com/chooseplayer.htm"

They'll be talking about the Real ID Act and who knows what else. But it'll be even better if you call and participate.

The toll-free call-in number: 1-866-222-2368
Or use email: Jerry at AccentRadio dot com

* As always, regarding media appearances, schedule changes or cancellations can happen without warning.

Vote For What You Want

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In 2000, Bush was better on Gore on the most important issue, war, but as President he switched positions and became the world's biggest threat to peace. Presidential candidates break promises, and there is very little we can do about it.

I,like many others, would wish we could rewind and see how a Gore Presidency would turn out. But the fact is, the Clinton-Gore position of murdering innocent foreign peoples "for their own good" was intolerable. True, Gore would probably have been better than Bush, but the 2000 campaign didn't demonstrate it.

Barack Obama is presumably smarter and more knowledgeable than McCain - at least he comes across that way. And, as Bush did in 2000, he's taking the relatively more moderate and humane view toward foreign affairs than his rival.

But what does that prove?

Outsiders vs. Insiders

Who's an "insider" and "outsider" is all relative, but

• In 2008, Obama is a relative "outsider," having served less than four years in Congress - and really just two years before launching his Presidential bid - and can plead "not guilty" for most of the disastrous policies of Bush's first term - which Clinton voted for. Aside from Mark Gravel, there was no other real outsider in the race - the closest was Bill Richardson, but he was very much a Washington insider in the 1990's.
  
• On the GOP side, McCain is an insider, and quickly defeated outsiders Romney and Huckabee.
• In 2004, Washington insider John Kerry beat the outsider Howard Dean for the Democratic nomination, but lost to a terrible incumbent.
  

Let's look at the record:

2004: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
2000: Outsider vs. incumbent VP. Winner: Outsider
1996: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1992: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1988: Outsider vs. incumbent VP. Winner: Incumbent
1984: Insider (recent VP) vs. Incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1980: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1976: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1972: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1968: "Outsider" (former VP eight years removed from DC) vs. incumbent VP. Winner, Outsider

Before that: incumbents won every race back to 1932, except 1960 (insider beating incumbent VP) and 1952 (outsider vs. outsider).

In modern politics, incumbents have advantages. Even so, outsiders have won every race except one (1988) in which they've competed, whereas "insider" challenges to incumbents have lost all four times.

Apparently, when an insider challenges an incumbent, the impression the public gets is "either way, more of the same." Whereas "outsiders," usually stand for "changing the way Washington works" and do very well.

Why do people want "change" so much? Perhaps because the federal government hasn't accomplished one good thing for the American people in 35 years at least.

In any case, 2008 will be interesting because no incumbent will be running. It will be Outsider vs. Insider. As we've seen, the Outsider has the advantage.

Especially because he has not one, but two Ivy League degrees.

An Inconvenient Spiritual Abuse

I haven't seen Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, but a friend did. This friend was actually expecting to be convinced of the threat of man-made global warming. That is, she assumed it to be true (because that's what we've been told), and was looking forward to the movie presenting actual evidence to back up her belief.

She didn't get the movie she was expecting.

• No evidence was presented that humans were the cause, only assertions.
• Climate change was presented based on the last thousand years, although the earth has been around for 4 billion years and had its share of warming and freezing periods long before man entered the scene, and even since man has been here in the pre-industrial age.
  

My friend admits to getting bored by it and not seeing it all the way through, so she could be wrong. Assuming she isn't, then how in the world are ordinary people supposed to be "convinced" of man-made global warming, if something as well-publicized as An Inconvenient Truth isn't persuasive?

But this failure to be convinced apparently makes my friend worse than a child molester, if an English Bishop is to be believed. From The Birmingham Post:

In a hard-hitting letter to parishioners, Bishop Mursell maintained those who refused to accept the climate change argument shared a 'common philosophy of life' to [Josef] Fritzl, who imprisoned his daughter in a cellar for 24 years during which he sexually abused her and fathered her seven children.

But the question is, why should anyone accept the argument? Because politicians and researchers living off government grants say so? Because your priest says so?

It is people like Bishop Mursell who, by using the issue to enhance their own authority, make the man-made global warming theory less believable. Why believe that man-made global warming exists? "Because WE say so, and WE are credible because of our power and prestige. If you don't agree with what WE say and do as WE command, then you are worse than [insert Hitler, child molesters, or your favorite villain here]."

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true, and demonizing the unconvinced doesn't actually make them monsters.

What it does suggest, however, is that Bishop Mursell likes to spiritually abuse his parishioners through false comparisons and guilt-manipulation. Perhaps he sees a little bit of Fritzl in his own behavior, and his projecting his self-loathing outward.

Real Regulation

Today's Downsizer-Dispatch . . .

Quote of the Day:

In a truly free market, there is no restriction, imposed cost, or arbitrary subsidy on peaceful and honest enterprise. The U.S.A. has never in its history had a truly free market. - Economist Fred Foldvary

Subject: Real Regulation

In a true free market (something we've never had) businesses have a clear incentive to provide safety, so they won't lose customers and employees to their competitors. More importantly . . .

In a true free market businesses are legally liable for the safety of their products, services, and work-places. To limit this liability businesses seek insurance. The insurance providers then do oversight to limit their own risk of loss by making sure that products, services, and work-places, are in fact safe.

This free-market approach to safety regulation is what funds the existence -- even in our current un-free market -- of something like Underwriter's Laboratory (UL). UL tests product safety in order to protect insurers from losses. The result is increased safety for you.

The other approach to safety is one driven by top-down regulations and inspections provided by unaccountable bureaucrats and paid for with tax dollars. The problem with this system is that it greatly muddies the water as to whom is actually liable for safety failures.

If Underwriter's Laboratory makes a mistake, it pays a big price, out of its own pocket. But if, for instance, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) makes a mistake, it doesn't pay any price at all.

In the year 2000 it was discovered that . . .

• Between 1,800 and 2,000 mechanics were falsely certified by St. George Aviation in the late 1990's.
• Eight years later, the FAA has found and re-tested only 700 of these mechanics, and most of these received only partial tests.
• The failure rate was 36% among those re-tested.
• This rate suggests there may be 400 or more unqualified mechanics still working in the airline industry, and the FAA is doing almost nothing about it. Source: Cybercast News Service

When will the FAA pay a price for this failure? Probably never. As a coercion-enforced monopoly the government rarely has to pay any price for failure. Instead, the FAA may get a larger budget so, supposedly, it can do better in the future. Worse still . . .

If an airline wants to protect itself against FAA incompetence it will have to pay extra for insurance and underwriting oversight, while still submitting to the FAA's regulations and inspectors. This is a cost most airline's can't afford, so we end up with only the FAA's incompetent and unaccountable "protections."

Meanwhile, businesses have an incentive to game the system, using their political clout to gain favorable treatment from government regulators and government-imposed limits on their liability.

So-called government regulation is a fraud. We need less fake regulation by government, and more Real Regulation by the free market. DownsizeDC.org has a proposal that will give you exactly that. It's called the "Write the Laws Act" (WTLA).

• WTLA would reduce the burden of incompetent government regulations while making businesses more accountable to their customers.
• The WTLA strips unelected bureaucracies such as the FAA of their law-making powers, and restores to Congress the full responsibility for all rule making, in keeping with the Constitution's separation of powers.
• Congress won't have the time or knowledge to create complicated regulations, so there will be fewer of them, and those that do exist may work better. Instead, businesses will be legally liable for their failures, and regulated by insurance underwriting.
• This would reduce the cost you pay for ineffective government regulations, while also making you safer.

To learn more about the Write the Laws Act, click here.

And please tell Congress to introduce and pass the Write the Laws Act.

Use your personal comments to tell Congress that the FAA's mishandling of the flight mechanics testing scandal is evidence that bureaucrats are incapable of keeping the people safe. Tell them that only a free market, legal liability, and insurance underwriting, can hold businesses accountable and keep consumers safe. Tell them you have more faith in groups like Underwriters Laboratory than you do in government regulators like the FAA.

You can send your message here.

In addition, this message is also posted on our blog, and you can leave comments there if you so desire.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson & Perry Willis
Assistant to the President & Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org