The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles. | “The Anatomy of Compromise,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 149
29
Jul 2011
07
Jul 2011
National
Bill Pascoe had a great column last week discussing the GOP’s foreign policy and the current state of America’s involvement in foreign conflicts. As Pascoe put it, Reagan to McCain: No, John, on Libya You Are Wrong:
Despite the best efforts of the few remaining loyalists of the Bushioisie, former President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” – and, more specifically, its willingness to put U.S. armed forces in harm’s way absent a clear threat to U.S. vital interests – is going the way of the dodo.
The debt ceiling and state pension liabilities received attention in today’s Political Diary:
Nearly everyone in Washington is in shock at how quickly the 14th Amendment option on the debt ceiling has gone from an impractical idea touted by law professors to a real alternative under consideration.
The 14th Amendment says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned.” Some are now saying that this gives Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner authority to borrow money even if the statutory debt limit established by Congress has been exceeded. The White House has been investigating this option as a possible way around the debt ceiling that is scheduled to be exceeded after Aug. 2 if Congress has not approved an extension.
What the 14th Amendment language exactly means in terms of honoring Uncle Sam’s debt obligations is a subject of controversy. . . .
What happens if Mr. Obama invokes the 14th Amendment and congressional Republicans object to this White House power grab? One option is for Congress to sue in court. Another possibility would be impeachment proceedings if Congress believes that Mr. Obama has not faithfully executed the laws of the U.S.
But all of this ignores the political expediency of allowing the president to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. The reality is that the 14th Amendment option would let both parties off the hook. As one House leadership aide in on the budget negotiations tells me, “you have to understand [that] nobody wants to vote to raise the debt ceiling.” Both parties might be so deadlocked that they may choose to let Mr. Obama raise the debt ceiling on his own. That way, no one in Congress has to take the blame.
* * *
Court rulings in Minnesota and Colorado last week suggest that there’s hope yet for governments trying to get control of their unfunded pension liabilities.
Government workers sued Minnesota last year over a 2009 law that suspended retirees’ cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for 2010 and 2011 and capped the annual increases at 2.5% thereafter. And in Colorado, public unions filed suit over a similar law enacted there last year that reduced COLAs to 2% from 3.5%. COLAs in most states are based on the consumer price index and average about 3%, though they’re often higher during periods of inflation. So reducing COLAs by just 1% or 1.5% for a decade could shave off at least 10% to 15% from a state pension fund’s liabilities.
Most states guarantee base pensions in workers’ contracts, but scaling back COLAs doesn’t run into the same legal roadblocks. In their lawsuits against the states, public workers in Minnesota and Colorado argued that cost-of-living increases are contractually protected by the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. But District Judges Gregg Johnson of Minnesota and Robert Hyatt of Colorado ruled that cost-of-living adjustments are statutory, not contractual. Therefore, the state legislatures have the authority to change COLAs at will as long as they provide a compelling reason to do so.
The rulings are good news for other states. In New Jersey, for example, government workers are challenging the Garden State’s new pension reform law that freezes retirees’ COLAs until the pension fund returns to an 80%-funded status. The COLA change is projected to save around $80 billion over the next 30 years. While the Minnesota and Colorado legal rulings aren’t binding in other state courts, judges often consider how other courts have come down when they form their own opinions.
South Carolina’s GOP presidential primary is getting some interesting press. The L.A. Times tells us the state’s historic trend of picking the nominee and opposing “insurgent” candidates may be shifting:
This state hasn’t been wrong yet. Its presidential primary has an unblemished record of picking the eventual GOP nominee, serving as a Southern firewall for national front-runners who’ve been able to stop insurgent challengers here every time.
But that firewall may be collapsing; a primary that has reliably served the interests of the Republican establishment for decades may do the opposite next year. . . .
“This is a party with a core base that is uninterested in government solutions to problems. It’s interested in the problem called government,” said Tucker Eskew, an advisor to Republican former Gov. Carroll Campbell, an establishment titan in the 1980s and 1990s.
The change began under the last governor, Mark Sanford, a tight-fisted libertarian best-known for an extramarital affair with an Argentine girlfriend that ended his national ambitions.
“Sanford left a mark,” said Eskew, who is unaligned in the presidential race. “The overall mood of the party became anti-big government, anti-government spending and very reluctant to play footsie with people who are regarded as part of the problem.”
Speaking of the GOP field, check out Steve Chapman’s Romney Strikes a Blow Against Romney:
Any candidate for president can fall victim to occasional stumbles, lapses, gaffes, and clunkers. But Mitt Romney has a shot at raising ineptitude to an art form.
The other day, he had to answer a question about how the economy has fared under the current administration. Before he was done, though, Romney managed to give the impression that if he dove off a dock, he’d miss the water. He also undermined his chief assets in the campaign: a supposed mastery of economic issues and a reputation for competence.
Wayne Allyn Root also has an interesting column from a couple of weeks ago noting that Ayn Rand Was Right: Wealthy Are on Strike Against Obama:
Everything happening today under Obama resembles the storyline of Ayn Rand’s famous book, Atlas Shrugged, one of the most popular books of all time, selling over 7 million copies. Now, under President Obama, Atlas Shrugged has come to life. Rand prophesized a country dominated by socialists, Marxists and statists, where looters, free loaders and poverty promoters live off the productive class. To rationalize the fleecing of innovative business owners and job creators, the looter class demonized the wealthy, just as Obama and his socialist cabal are doing in real life today. . . .
The latest U.S. Census proves Ayn Rand right. Under Obama the wealthy are striking, voting with their feet. They are moving to low-tax red states in droves, escaping from high-tax blue states where they are being demonized and punished by the millions.
The Census proves that Obama’s tax and spend philosophy is a dismal failure, an economic disaster killing jobs. It is no coincidence that 1.9 million FEWER Americans are working than before Obama’s stimulus. It is no coincidence that jobs are not returning to the private sector. It is no coincidence that tax revenues have dropped dramatically and cannot support Obama’s bloated Big Brother government. The innovators, risk-takers, and wealthy he demonized and punished are on strike.
The high tech revolution has killed the progressive-liberal tax-and-spend dream. Because of the Internet, email, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Satellite TV, I-phones, I-pads, and cell phones, business owners are no longer prisoners of Big Brother. Take a look at states where the latest Census shows Americans moved during the past decade: Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Virginia — all low- or no-tax red states, states that lead the USA in economic freedom.
Now look at states they escaped from: New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan. Taxpayers, business owners, jobs creators, retirees with assets are fleeing the high tax, big spending, Big Brother states — the states being run like Obama is running the nation.
Out of the Casey Anthony verdict comes a new anti-federalism movement: the proposed “Caylee’s Law,” a federal solution to the perceived problem:
More than 98,000 – and counting – people across the country have signed onto a virtual campaign calling for a new federal law that would make it a felony for parents not to alert police of a child’s disappearance.
More from the WSJ Law Blog.
For today’s video, a lesson on Austrian Economics and Pedagogy (it’s more interesting than it sounds):
New Mexico
Errors of Enchantment has a nice bit on Mayor Berry’s latest effort to stand up to bullying–and wasteful–unions:
Albuquerque Mayor Berry is taking heat from the unions again. They feel entitled to take care of union business on the taxpayers’ dime. Needless to say, paying city workers to work on behalf of their union and not the people who are paying them (the taxpayers) is a bad idea, no matter how the union bosses try to spin it.
This will save taxpayers money and will make the City a less profitable victim for the unions that feed off of the rest of us. Tell Mayor Berry and your city councilor that you support their efforts! I’m sure the unions will be voicing their opinions.
Heath Haussamen has a piece today assessing U.S. Senate candidate Hector Balderas’ chance:
When State Auditor Hector Balderas entered the U.S. Senate race in April, some excited Democrats said he might be their Susana Martinez.
Meaning, of course, that he might be their underdog candidate who defies the odds to become one of the most prominent Hispanic elected officials in America.
At the time, I thought such talk was premature. Sure, it’s possible, but there are differences between this year’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary and last year’s Republican gubernatorial primary. For starters, there was no superstar in that GOP race, so there was lots of room for Martinez.
The challenge is different for Balderas. He has to elbow superstar U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich out of the way. Heinrich showed surprising strength in winning re-election last year, defeating his opponent by almost 7,000 votes against the tide of a GOP wave. In fact, Heinrich won thousands of votes in his House race that Martinez won in the gubernatorial race.
Related Posts:
24
Jun 2011
Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received–hatred. The great creators–the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors–stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The first airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won. –The Fountainhead
Related Posts:
20
May 2011
The root of production is man’s mind; the mind is an attribute of the individual and it does not work under orders, controls and compulsion, as centuries of stagnation have demonstrated. Progress cannot be planned by government, and it cannot be restricted or retarded; it can only be stopped, as every statist government has demonstrated. | Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 281
Related Posts:
06
May 2011
It is true that the welfare-statists are not socialists, that they never advocated or intended the socialization of private property, that they want to “preserve” private property—with government control of its use and disposal. But that is the fundamental characteristic of fascism. | “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 211
Related Posts:
27
Apr 2011
Much as we all (or most of us) enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, it now looks unfortunately like Parts 2 and 3 are in doubt. First, producer John Aglialoro is facing some pretty unfortunate business trouble, as described by John Fund in today’s Political Diary email:
But Mr. Aglialoro’s satisfaction [with the movie] is accompanied by a dark cloud that is hovering over his company from what he views as “a tort system run amok.” Just last Thursday, a New York judge formalized a $49.5 million jury award against Cybex in favor of Natalie Barnhard, a 30-year-old woman who was left a quadriplegic after a Cybex leg extension machine fell on her while she was using it to stretch. Ms. Barnhard was a physical therapist at the Amherst Orthopedic Clinic outside of Buffalo, N.Y., at the time. Last December the jury found Cybex 75 percent liable for the accident; the Amherst clinic 20 percent liable; and Ms. Barnhard 5 percent liable. It was the largest personal injury verdict in Western New York’s history. Amherst Orthopedic’s counsel indicated Cybex will have to pay the entire $66 million judgment before it can seek money from his client.
Mr. Aglialoro says what happened to the young woman is “a tragedy beyond comprehension” but that he now faces ruin because his company’s insurance coverage is only $5 million, the typical award judgment in such a liability case. “We actually make our equipment in the U.S., have 600 employees and export to 85 countries,” he says. “Now we face disaster as the result of a completely unfair jury award. I emotionally felt like going on strike a la Atlas Shrugged when it happened.”
Cybex’s lawyers pointed out that warning signs outlining proper use of the leg-extension machine were posted next to it, but an eyewitness who would have testified that Ms. Barnhard improperly used the machine to stretch and caused it to tip over was not allowed to testify. The machine’s instructions recommended it be bolted down for maximum safety — something Amherst Orthopedic had not done.
Ms. Barnhard’s attorneys responded that Cybex should have warned users that only 40 pounds of horizontal force was needed to cause the machine to tip and that in the 11 years preceding Barnhard’s accident, at least seven tip-over accidents had occurred in the U.S. involving Cybex machines.
The case is now on appeal, and Mr. Aglialoro is confident that the jury award will be reduced. But he says what happened to Cybex is just another reminder of how difficult it is for U.S. companies to survive and employ people. If his company’s lawyers can keep its doors open, there is clearly market demand for its products. Last Friday, Cybex announced a 19% increase in sales during the first quarter of this year, and it will introduce two new treadmill models this year.
Second, after the dramatic success of the first week, it now seems that the movie is not the smash hit we had hoped for as Matt Welch explains in Atlas Croaked:
Forget the musical speeches, come down off that post-first-weekend afterglow, and look at the dollar signs: The L.A. Times reports that Parts II and III may not get made after all, following the disappointing response to the Ayn Rand movie[.]
According to the L.A. Times report:
“Critics, you won,” said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” which covers the first third of Rand’s dystopian novel. “I’m having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2.”
“Atlas Shrugged” was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the box office dropped off 47% in the film’s second week in release even as “Atlas Shrugged” expanded to 425 screens.
Though the film has made only $3.1 million so far, Aglialoro said he believes he’ll recoup his investment after TV, DVD and other ancillary rights are sold. But he is backing off an earlier strategy to expand “Atlas” to 1,000 screens and reconsidering his plans to start production on a second film this fall.
“Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?” said Aglialoro, who is chief executive of the exercise equipment manufacturer Cybex. “I’ll make my money back and I’ll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike.”
Related Posts:
25
Apr 2011
Perhaps we should change this to “semi-weekly” but here you go:
Morally and economically, the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull. Morally, the chance to satisfy demands by force spreads the demands wider and wider, with less and less pretense at justification. Economically, the forced demands of one group create hardships for all others, thus producing an inextricable mixture of actual victims and plain parasites. | “A Preview,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 23, 1
Related Posts:
24
Apr 2011
With the release of the new movie last week, much attention is being paid to Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. Reviewing the posts and comments about her work on the Internet, it seems some of Ms. Rand’s more ardent fans have never been exposed to a critical analysis of her work, or its moral implications.
One of the earliest commentaries on the novel was written by Whittaker Chambers, and published in The National Review in December 1957. Mr. Chambers critique of the book was vociferous, but is worth reading:
Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible.
Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!”
As a man of faith, I am troubled by much of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. However, I part ways with the extreme and sometimes vulgar denunciations of her work. Far too many critics of Ms. Rand oversimplify her views, and then proceed to attack a straw man. Atlas Shrugged espouses the heroic nature of man, affirms the virtue of creative and productive work, and advocates reason. It makes a persuasive case for the morality of free market capitalism. These values are not an anathema to those of religious faith.
In his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Vertate, Pope Benedict XVI affirmed these same virtues:
Besides requiring freedom, integral human development as a vocation also demands respect for its truth. The vocation to progress drives us to “do more, know more and have more in order to be more”
Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end that provides a sense both of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.
The deficiency in Ms. Rand’s work is her ardent atheism. In a world without God, there is no objective measure of morality. Thus, her “heroes” go on strike, leaving the world and their fellow men to die of starvation, with nary a hint of remorse. Such an act would not be laudable, but monstrous. Reason divorced from faith can lead to such an absurdity. Victor Hugo’s Jean Valjean is more heroic than John Galt because he was both a productive businessman who rose from humble beginnings, but also a man who sacrificed himself to save others — the criminal who became Christ.
On this Easter Sunday, it is appropriate to reflect on Pope Benedict XVI’s discussion of the interplay between faith and reason in his 2005 encyclical Deus Caritas Est:
From God’s standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.
Atlas Shrugged is a monumental work, deserving serious reflection and contemplation. Nonetheless, readers should subject it to the same level of scrutiny Ayn Rand, herself, subjected religious faith. Reason dictates that even Ms. Rand’s most ardent admirers should consider her blind spot.
__________
Father Charles Myriel Amadeus is Jim Taggert’s priest. A man of deep faith who joined the strike out of religious conviction, he had a prominent role in Atlas Shrugged until Ayn Rand cut him from the final version of the novel, because she came to see his inclusion as an endorsement of religion.
Related Posts:
19
Apr 2011
Reason.tv uploaded this excellent video of a Q & A session with the movie’s producers and actor Matthew Marsden (James Taggart):
Also, check the producers’ website for some great treats including voicemail messages received from Francisco d’Anconia, Wesley Mouch, Hank Rearden, James Taggart, and Lillian Rearden. You can also now purchase your very own Rearden metal bracelet.
Check here for more on Reason’s Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 coverage.
Related Posts:
17
Apr 2011
“My God, Ellsworth, that was the worst movie I’ve ever seen. I actually started having flash-backs of being back in school at Stanton, with you-know-who.”
My friend Peter Keating and I were grabbing a late dinner at Café Jean Pierre, which happens to be across the parking lot from the Century Rio 24 Multiplex. Keating and I are big movie buffs – we see everything with Hugh Grant, George Clooney or Meryl Streep – but Friday night was no such occasion. We had just finished enduring Atlas Shrugged Part I.
We didn’t pay admission to see Atlas Shrugged, of course. Neither of us wanted to send a dime to the right-wing nut who independently produced the movie. Rather, we purchased tickets to Robert Redford’s new flick about the Lincoln assassination. Bob is a reliable Progressive, and we always make a point of supporting his work. So, we paid to see The Conspirator, and then snuck into the theater next door to watch the Ayn Rand screed.
“Oh, stop whining, Petey,” I said, as I dug into my Ratatouille and sipped a nice Beaujolais recommended by the sommelier. “Opposition research is important. Think of it as enemy reconnaissance, doing our part for the cause.”
“I know, Ellsworth,” Peter sighed. “But it really was horrible. All those smug, self-absorbed jerks in suits texting on their iPhones – and that was just the audience.”
“True,” I replied. “All the Ayn Rand Assholes really were out in force, weren’t they?”
“So what nasty things are you going to write about the movie in your column, Ellsworth? I hope you really let them have it.”
“I’m going to write as much about that movie as I did the Enwright House, Peter. Nothing, not a word.”
“But why? How are you going to keep people away if you don’t tell them how awful it was?”
“Oh, don’t worry about that, Petey. The media has already done a nice job of slamming the movie – Variety, Roger Ebert, The Washington Post, Maureen Dowd – all the usual suspects. Even some on the other side have panned it.
“No, at this point, the less said about that movie the better. It doesn’t have a single car chase, or sex scene, or gratuitous display of medieval violence – which apparently will have to wait for Part II, when Danneskjöld makes his appearance. No, audiences will fall asleep watching self-absorbed industrialists arguing with each other in boardrooms, and sipping wine in hotel lobbies. It won’t last long in the theaters.”
“But isn’t this a golden opportunity for you to discredit Rand’s philosophy?”
“Peter, I don’t waste my time debating the minutia of Objectivism. It’s fine to paint it with a broad brush – ‘Ayn Rand preached selfishness and greed as virtues,’ or ‘Remember Whittaker Chamber’s denunciation of the book over fifty years ago – ‘From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: To the gas chambers — go!’”
“But why not pile on, Ellsworth? Her philosophy is monstrous.”
“From afar, yes. If you look at it more closely, however, you run the risk of people actually picking up the book and reading it, and that’s where we can get into trouble. Take for example Rand’s admiration of the human spirit, her advocacy of what she repeatedly calls ‘the heroic nature of man.’ What do we do if people take that to heart? They might start to believe it. We Progressives know people are dolts — sheep to be led to the slaughter — but we can’t say that to masses. They’ll get their backs up.
“Let’s take another example. Should we argue against the virtue of productive work, or denounce the creation of wealth? The old bromide that ‘money is the root of all evil’ appeals to the simple minded, but is ultimately self-defeating. The producers of wealth — the work horses we in power rely upon to start businesses, employ people and pay taxes — might get pissed off. What if the producers start to realize they don’t need us? What if they quit, like John Galt advocates in the book? We can get away with denouncing the idle rich, but we have to lay off the producers, because we need them to survive.
Ayn Rand in a Hat - Bizzaro
“My point, Peter, is that digging too deep into Rand’s philosophy can get us in to trouble. The best approach goes like this – ‘Ayn Rand? You don’t take her seriously, do you? Her philosophy is simplistic, a phase people go through as sophomores in college. You’ve grown out of that, haven’t you?’
“Or this – ‘Atlas Shrugged? My dear, that’s an awful book. Don’t waste your time reading that tripe. I thought you were a Christian? You know Ayn Rand was an atheist, don’t you? She’s in hell with all the other robber barons. You should stay away from her.’ That line really works with the tea baggers, who are all a bunch of bible thumpers.
“If they persist, ask if they realize Objectivism is a cult, like the Scientologists or the Hari Krishna. Point out how Ayn Rand excommunicated supporters, her bizarre sexual affair with a member of her inner circle, and her feud with conservative icon William F. Buckley. Tell them that when Rand died in 1982, a 6-foot-high floral dollar sign was erected by her open coffin.
“In other words, turn her into a cartoon. Ridicule is the way to pry people away from Ayn Rand, not reason.”
“I just don’t see what the big deal is, Ellsworth,” Keating said. “The theater just now was only half full. Not that many people have ever heard of Ayn Rand, and few are able to make it through her book.”
Congressman Paul Ryan - a Mortal Threat
“The problem is not the number of her acolytes, but their influence. Alan Greenspan was one of her closest followers back in the day, and look where he ended up. Now she has a whole new group of disciples – Congressman Paul Ryan, for example, the new Chairman of the House Budget Committee, requires everyone on his staff to read Atlas Shrugged. Ryan’s new budget is premised on the notation that people don’t need all of our new government welfare programs, or even those of us in the elite to lead them by the nose.
“Ryan is a true believer, Peter, and allowing people like him, who fully absorb her philosophy, to get into power threatens everything we Progressives have worked for since the New Deal. Who knows how many ignoramuses will watch that awful movie, and then buy the book. Some of them – a small number, mind you – will actually read the damn thing and understand it. Then, they will have their Ayn Rand Epiphany, and we will have lost them forever.
“Make no mistake. Ayn Rand is dead and buried, but she remains a mortal threat to people like us. We need to pry people away before they understand her, not by arguing the merits, but with a sneer and a shrug – if you will.”
______________________
Here’s a video clip from a few years back, where Stephen Colbert did a brilliant job of ridiculing Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand. Colbert is a pro: