Princess River with Two Forks

First Native American woman poised to become U.S. Senator. This news is just in. With a distinguished record as academic and consumer advocate, as well as being the president’s confidant and a liberal stalwart, this person has also achieved the impossible: Despite a background among the well-healed, well-educated and well-spoken, this white woman has made the transition to being a Native American. Still to be determined are her tribal status and share of reparations, gambling proceeds, and Native American name. Liberal, democrat pundits have no problem with application of Native American status to this individual because she did what she had to for the greater good. Conservative, republican pundits are struggling with how to refer to her now that her Native American status has been revealed (She did not want her status to be corruptly used to insure her election in this state that routinely supports affirmative action and massive government – preferring the honorable approach of being elected on her merits – and is currently considering legal action against the person who revealed her status). Most republicans favor referring to her by a name forwarded by an anonymous blogger who writes on Native American issues: Princess River with Two Forks.

The Greater Good?

I have coffee with a friend about once a week. He and I have distinctly different views of government. Last week he said, “In a modern, complex society I am willing to give up some individual liberty for the sake of the greater good.” This was said specifically in defense of the healthcare law under review by the Supreme Court, but I think I am being fair when I say he would invoke this premise to justify many of the nobly intentioned programs of the federal government. His statement sent me into a rant (whose uncontrolled and not very principled nature I won’t try to recreate here). Still that rant revealed to me a principle that I describe now. First, think about the premise of his statement: In a modern society the greater good can only be served at the expense of individual liberty. I reject this premise as false and challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. If the premise is false, then what is the justification for “greater-good” arguments in the case of public policy? At a minimum at the federal level, I believe they should rest on: (a) the constitutional authority to act, (b) an open and truthful costs/benefits analyses, (c) overall affordability, and (d) the consent of the governed. Was the healthcare law subject to such scrutiny? Did the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, not say, “we have to pass this bill in order to see what’s in it.”? In my mind the necessary arguments were not entered into nor were the subsequent justifications adequate. Now imagine that the premise of a statement about serving the greater good were framed this way: In a modern society the greater good can only be served in a manner that increases individual liberty. Also imagine that the Congress tried to write a healthcare law and behaved in accordance with the revised principle. How different the law might be! Certainly the country would not be split in half on the resulting law. Further, I don’t think such a deliberation would have turned into a health insurance law, rather it would have focused on cause of the costs, the rationale for insurance, how to build flexibility and choice into the system, and many other positive efforts to increase the choices of individuals. This might mean that the employer mandate would go away. It might mean that individuals would have to make hard choices about whether or not to have insurance, and what type of insurance to have. A truly dedicated Congress might initiate a national debate on the right to choose the manner of one’s death, and how criminalizing that choice effects health care costs. All sorts of important issues might have been raised and discussed. Instead, we were treated to a President demonizing both insurance companies and opponents who raised concerns about costs. Instead we were treated to the worst possible governance display – passing a monumental bill via budget reconciliation. Time for a change of premises if you ask me.

Fear of death creates democrats

17 April 2011. I don’t vote for republicans or democrats. They are not serious people, but they pretend to be. Both parties conspire to prevent the emergence of third parties. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative but are not: Meager reductions in the deficit are not conservative fiscal policy. Democrats claim to be caring but are not: Heaping debt on the next and following generations is crass and uncaring to the max. However, of the two parties, why would anyone ever vote for democrats? With the current administration the national debt has doubled, the number of men employed has reached its lowest level (as a percent of population) since the depression, and the coming campaign is more of the same. Are you really better off than you were under Bush? How are you doing at the pump and the grocery store? Are you making more or less money? Here’s the bottom line. Money not going to Washington stays local. Being for limited government and low taxes means you must do more for yourself, rather than pay bureaucrats to do it for you. Don’t be afraid. You can do it.
There is a case to be made for the federal government to defend the nation, not police the world. There is a case to be made for the federal government to set standards for reading, mathematics and science achievement, not fund the vested interests of teachers and support failing school systems. There is a case to be made for the federal government to care for the four or five percent of persons incapable of doing so themselves, not pay for every single medical expense for every single person in the country or ensure food on the table for 20 percent of the population. There is a case for a federal ability to respond to national disasters like the hurricane and flood damage in New Orleans or the coming major earthquakes in California, not funding local police and firefighters everywhere on a continuing basis.
Let’s be strong again, not afraid. By the way, there is nothing big government can do to keep you from meeting your maker.

Christian enthusiasm and a society of respect and manners

14 April 2011. Some in my family are evangelical, others are more conventional Christians. I respect their right to be so. I consider my own spiritual and religious beliefs to be a private concern. Yesterday I spoke at my brother Herb’s funeral held at his church. I would describe this church as an enthusiastic version of Christianity. Another of my brother’s, my nephew and a church friend of Herb's also spoke. Our combined thoughts, orally expressed, comprised about 25 minutes of the service. The remaining 30 to 40 minutes was comprised of two songs, one a favorite of my brother, and what I can only say were two sermons by the pastor of the church. In my view these were sermons that used Herb’s passing as a stimulus to strongly and at length profess the pastor's beliefs. Only respect for the fact that it was Herb’s church kept me from leaving. Here’s why.
A funeral is attended by the deceased relatives, friends, and others connected to the deceased person’s life. I think it is safe to say that a variety of faiths are present among the attendees (in fact, as I view faith as a private matter, I would not normally even bring the topic up). Attending such a service places one in a captive setting. All who speak to captive audiences ought to do so with a maximum respect for those who may hold beliefs that are quite different from those of the enthusiastic or evangelical Christian -- because the audience is captive and it is poor manners to deliver messages that they did not come to hear, and that implicitly, sometimes explicitly deny the validity of those beliefs. I do not begrudge or belittle the beliefs of enthusiastic and evangelical Christians. However, if I have placed myself in a setting devoted to the memory of my brother, I do not expect the event to be hijacked for the purpose of expressing enthusiasm for a particular view of Christianity. My brother would not have wanted that either – at the end of his life he was an enthusiastic Christian, but he was not impolite, unmannered, and insensitive to others.

Herb's Eulogy

13 April 2011
Before talking about Herb, I want to address some persons here now.
First, I thank Pastor …… and members of the …. for providing this facility, and thank members of the … who supported Herb – both before his stroke and during his stay at the nursing home. These persons did much to stay connected to Herb, and to connect him to the world. Next, I praise the staff of the home who gave care and service – to Herb and to many others unable to care for themselves – always under trying conditions. They do so with a tenderness and humor, and in a way intended to maintain patient dignity. Brian and Megan deserve warm and special thanks. These two made changes to their own lives in order to help Herb. They did so unselfishly. On Herb’s behalf, I say here I am proud of them. Last, I give honor and love to my father. He visited Herb three times a week while he was at the Pavilions and he tried everything he knew how to make Herb’s life more comfortable there.
My brother, Herb…
People who knew Herb know he had his strengths and weaknesses. He knew this himself – although in public he would deny any claim of his imperfection, all the while flashing his wry and rascally grin. I have much to remember but little to say about Herb’s strengths or weaknesses. All of us have them. They are what it means to be human. Herb was no different.
Here is a fact I know was important to Herb – because we talked about it once or twice a week from the time of his divorce until two days before the stroke that killed him. He loved each of his children. B, A, J, M, M and W, your father loved you. In life and in death, in contact or estranged, in pride or disappointment, in anger or joy, he loved you. Now, I hope each of you forgives him for any and all his faults however important they once may have seemed. I hope you will simply love him. I do.
Herb was fulfilled by working with his hands and mind. He could be a mad frenetic worker. When construction did not provide enough income, he had the courage to change professions. As his heart problem and later his kidney failure took from him the ability to do sustained work, he persevered. He adjusted, worked part-time, and kept on. Confined to a bed at the home, it was easy to see how restless he was. Yet he persevered as long as he could. I am happy he is at rest.
In my earlier visits with Herb at the home, he was more articulate. Speaking was quite difficult, yet from time to time he expressed some amazing things. He told me he was in love again. And I could see in his eyes that it was true. I remember – word for word – the last complete thought he said to me, uttered with that wry and rascally grin on his face, with that sparkle of truth in his eyes.
He said “I have been… no, I am enlightened.”
Wouldn’t we all be pleased if we could say that at the end of our own life?

A rare day

6 April 2011. Today is a rare desert day -- sky overcast and rain coming down, not as in thunderstorms rather in that way with a lot of space between drops. I enjoy going in and outside all day. Kelly gives me a haircut. I return home and as I sit watching the news my cousin calls from Florida to ask advice on a family matter. As I finish the sentence “I think you should do what you think is best for you”, the phone signals I have another call. I switch over and it’s Dad who says “Herb died today” and I say “I will call you right back, Leroy is on the other line”. “OK” I switch back and give Leroy the news and tell him I have to go, but before we say goodbye the phone signals again and I just say “Gotta go” and switch over. Herb’s son Brian says “Dad died today.” I say I know and we make arrangements to talk about plans later. I am back in this beautiful desert day. My brother would have loved it.

Bad policy invariably creates bad outcomes

5 April 2011. I am not rich – just say my earnings put in the lowest third of the upper middle class. You might think I’d jump on the democrat’s “tax the rich” solution to our country’s debt and deficit problems (Yeah get those bad rich people!). Alas, I read an array of economic texts, am a statistician by trade, and can spot specious arguments when I see them (read some of Huey Long’s speeches on taxing the rich – they are word for word paraphrases of Obama’s and other big government types rants against the rich, except that Huey wrote his speeches 70 years ago. Talk about failed policies of the past.). There are at least two flaws with this scheme.
First, consider the word “fair” in the jingle “the rich should pay their fair share”. Simply put they pay more than their fair share already. Take me for example. the federal taxes that I pay are enough to support a family of four for a year. Those who make more than me pay taxes that support many more such families. If my family of three supports a family of four then what does that family of four support? Government statistics indicate that half of income earners effectively pay no federal income taxes. What’s fair about half of potential tax payers not paying? It beats me.
Second, a lot of b…s… is being thrown around using tax takings as investments in America’s future. I have nothing against the persons who serve in government – I don’t think of them as evil. However, I do not think of them as the best people to be making investments either. If I want to invest, I want to entrust my money to people who have a track record of successful investment. We can’t afford to keep “investing” in education (double the spending in the last 30 years, no gains in student achievement), in poverty reduction (trillions spent, millions still crying for more), or alternative energies (How much farm and pasture land will it take to power America with solar panels – too much). No I don’t want these people to invest another dollar on my behalf with these types of outcomes. Economists generally agree that, performing optimally, government only mildly distorts capital investment efficiency (the cause of the growth of jobs) and, not performing optimally, markedly worsens capital investment efficiency, economic growth and job creation. Decide for yourself how our government is performing. I already have, and my conclusion is government has to be much, much, much smaller to start undoing 50 years of really bad policies.
You don’t think things are going to get worse if we don’t change course? Consider the following data point. In the 1990’s I went to Spain and had the opportunity to speak to many Spanish people. I learned most of the best and brightest university students were pursuing paths leading to government positions. Do we need most of the best and brightest to go into government? Perhaps, but look what’s happened to Spain in the past 20 years. It’s not an economically bright picture.

Bad policies sort of work until they don't. Then all the news is bad all of the time.