« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 30, 2006
Wictory Wednesday: Mike McGavick for United States Senate for the State of Washington
Mike McGavick has been running an insurgent campaign against incumbent Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell. Bucking the trend against the GOP nationally, Mike has closed the gap between his Democratic competitor to within 5 percentage points in the last Rasmussen Reports poll. Last November, he was trailing by 15 percentage points.
Mike is a solid conservative who understands the necessity of fighting the war on terror and on regulating the flow of immigration at the border. There is a difference between welcoming immigrants in an orderly way and having a wide-open border that is open to exploitation by those who wish to harm the American way of life.
On health care, Mike realizes that the problem with health care is not that it is run by insurance companies, but that there are too many middlemen that leave the consumer out of the loop. Insurance companies are paid by companies who provide benefits to their employees. Those companies want to keep costs low so they pick one vendor and offer two plans to their employees: lower premium lower benefit plans with vendor A, or higher benefit higher benefit plans with vendor A. The needs of the consumer are only indirectly represented to the insurance company... if at all. The hospitals and doctors are paid by the insurance companies. Hospitals collect less than 30% of bills that are sent to consumers without insurance (or after their insurance has paid only part). Hospitals will therefore cater to the insurance companies that pay the bills. The solution is to put the consumer in the driver seat when dealing with their healthcare, not remove them even farther by having the government run the show.
Lastly, in an uncharacteristic position lately for a Republican, he's for fiscal conservativism. He knows that tax dollars isn't monopoly money, but money to which he is a steward, not an owner. We can count on him to support common-sense reforms to the tax-and-spend habits that have plagued Congress lately.
Please consider taking a look at Mick McGavick's website and supporting his campaign.
This was a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst, a weekly posting by bloggers supporting solid Republican candidates for office (national office or governorship. If you are interesting in joining the Wictory Wednesday blogburst, please take a look at this post or e-mail John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog (at) gmail (dot) com.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Guard the Borders Blogburst - The Senate's Version of Enforcement
by Heidi at Euphoric RealityWHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT SENATE BILL S. 2611
The new immigration bill (the most "sweeping reform in 50 years") S. 2611 is an amalgam of petty causes, illogical provisions, unstructured "solutions" with zero allowances for implementation, and self-contradictory language. Despite the mess, it was passed by self-righteous politicians who repeated the mantra "it's better than doing nothing." This from the same gaggle of do-nothings who outright rejected the House's law enforcement bill.
The Senate bill has our President's full support - this same bill is a derivative of one structured by Ted Kennedy and John McCain, and supported in full by the majority of Democrats. That alone ought to give one pause - President Bush, a Democrat?
Peggy Noonan says, "The disinterest in the White House and among congressional Republicans in establishing authority on America's borders is so amazing--the people want it, the age of terror demands it--that great histories will be written about it."
She opines that it is possible that..."the administration's slow and ambivalent action is the result of being lost in some geopolitical-globalist abstract-athon that has left them puffed with the rightness of their superior knowledge, sure in their membership in a higher brotherhood, and looking down on the low concerns of normal Americans living in America.I continue to believe the administration's problem is not that the base lately doesn't like it, but that the White House has decided it actually doesn't like the base."
S. 2611 is less about law, and more about a weird, mutant agenda that melds licentiousness with an utter disregard for the end result. There are quite a few details in S. 2611 that the media has ignored and that the legislators would rather you know nothing about. Some were provisions germane to the original Kennedy-McCain bill or the pseudo revision of Hagel-Martinez, the rest are amendments that required separate votes to accept or reject. Here's what you need to know about the Senate's fiasco.
NATIONAL SECURITY
The Senate failed to pass an amendment that would've made amnesty contingent on effectively securing the border. Their priorities are completely opposite those of the American people, who have repeatedly made it clear that our borders must be secured before anything else. Furthermore, buried in Arlen Specter's manager's package, an amendment proposed by Dodd makes it mandatory for our government to consult with Mexico before taking any security action along the border, to include building any barrier or any enforcement along the border. This includes everything from federal troops, and state-mobilized National Guard, down to local law enforcement. In other words, even if a county sheriff mobilizes a posse to guard the border, he must clear it first through Mexico. This effectively gives the Mexican government veto power over our national security concerns!
We've heard a lot about the 6,000 National Guard troops, assigned to help with back-up duties in order to free up Border Patrol agents. Unfortunately, that will make only 500 additional agents available to apprehend and detain lawbreakers at the border.
The White House adamantly insists that Guard troops take no role in law enforcement, even though, so long as they are under the command of their governors—as they will be under the president’s proposal—they are allowed to do so. Republicans worry that when the Guard shows up for duty, Lou Dobbs’ cameras won’t be far behind, recording their impotence as they merely alert border agents to the whereabouts of entering illegal immigrants whom they must passively watch."Merely alert border agents to the whereabouts of entering illegal immigrants?" Sound familiar? The National Guard will, at most, be performing Minutemen duties. But wait! I thought the Minutemen were "vigilantes", Mr. President.
A tiny concession to border security was passed (Sessions, R-AL, amendment #3979) which allows for the increase of fencing and vehicle barriers along 370 miles of the southwest border of the United States. Unfortunately, existing hardware - including rancher's broken cattle fences - would be counted towards this paltry total.
What's most appalling is that a Democrat tried to push through an amendment (Leahy, D-VT, amendment #4117) that would revise the existing ban on granting refugee status to aliens who have provided "material support" to a terrorist organization! Fortunately, the motion was killed, but the fact that it was even considered and proposed is deeply troubling! Who can take these guys seriously?
EMPLOYMENT
Ted Kennedy passed an amendment (#4066) that makes it unnecessary for any illegal alien to have an employer attest that they are employed when petitioning for permanent legal residence, and "self-employment" is sufficient. Plenty of room for fraud and corruption there!
Now here's where the whole argument for "cheap labor/doing jobs Americans won't do" flies out the window. Barak Obama (D-IL, amendment no. 3971) passed an amendment that extends the Davis-Bacon Act's "prevailing wage" levels to all temporary guest workers. That puts them ahead of American workers, who have this protection only on federal job sites:
So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats' union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.There goes their precious "cheap labor" - this provision will effectively price many guest workers out of the market. "Guest workers" will have legal status and visas that entitle them to real wages, overtime, deductions like unemployment and social security, and workers’ rights that legal workers now enjoy. Illegals will still be cheaper. Thus, twenty million illegals will be amnestied right out of the job market. Then what do we do with them when millions of new illegals flood into the country to take their place?
Now enter the litigation factor: foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be "terminated from employment by any employer . . . except for just cause." In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.
TAXES
We've been assured time and again that newly amnestied "guest workers" will have to pay back taxes for the years that they lived here illegally - except that they really won't. A loophole in the new bill provides that only two years of back taxes will need to be filed. I don't know any American citizen that can just choose not to pay taxes for years! Additionally, the Senate has now provided for illegal aliens to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Our government will end up paying them!
SOCIAL SECURITY
Senator Ensign (R-NV) tried to remove the provision allowing illegal immigrants who receive legal status under the legislation to receive retro-active credit for Social Security benefits for time that they worked before receiving legal status. Arlen Specter killed it. The bill allows illegal aliens to receive Social Security benefits for the years that they worked illegally, even if they paid into Social Security under a false number or using a stolen identity! As an American citizen, if I were caught stealing someone's identity or forging documentation to avoid paying taxes, I'd go to jail. Not so illegal aliens! There are NO penalties for breaking those laws - only retro-active rewards. The longer they broke the law, the bigger the pay-off.
VOTING
Senator McConnell (R-KY) sought to add to the bill a requirement that all voters in federal elections be required to present a valid photo identification.
"It is nonsense to suggest that somehow a photo ID for one of our most sacred rights should not be protected by a requirement that is increasingly routine in almost all daily activities in America today," said the Kentucky lawmaker, second-ranking Republican.But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., likened the proposal to a poll tax or a requirement for voters to pass a literacy test. "Now is not the time and this is not the place to consider an amendment that may disenfranchise a million or more poor, minority, disabled, and elderly voters -- all of them American citizens," he said.
The proposal barely passed on a vote of 49-48, but unfortunately, it remains in limbo, evidently doomed by arcane rules now that the Senate has voted for cloture.
What the bill DOES provide for is a Bureau of the Census report to Congress on the impact of illegal immigration on the apportionment of Representatives in Congress. Of course, they need to count them - they are, after all, their newly bought electorate!
"GUEST WORKER" STATUS - NOT TEMPORARY AT ALL
Here is a perfect of example of self-contradictory language within the bill itself. The bill supposedly protects American workers by ensuring that new immigrants will not take away jobs. However, the bill's own definition of "United States Worker" includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless.
Senator Kyl (R-AZ, amendment #3969) attempted to ensure that temporary workers stayed temporary by removing the bill's provision allowing guest workers to apply for permanent residency. The Senator from his own state, McCain, killed the amendment.
Also, thanks to Senator Santorum (R-PA) the bill expands the visa waiver program (Immigration and Nationality Act, Sect 217) to numerous additional countries. At this point, why even bother with a visa? Waive it all!!
BUDGET
Senator Allard (R-CO), concerned by the incalculable administrative costs of implementing S. 2611, raised a point of order about the budget. Such a move is allowed under the Budget Act when the projected cost of legislation under consideration exceeds a certain level. If the point of order is upheld, the legislation cannot proceed. The Senate irresponsibly waived the protective rules under the Budget Act, rejecting the point of order 67-31. Apparently, no cost is too great.
THE "GO BACK TO THE END OF THE LINE" FALLACY
Bush's former chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey blows the whistle on the "end of the line" fiction being used to sell the Bush/Senate immigration reform:
At present, there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who are waiting to immigrate legally to America. They have already waited in line to get their first appointment, then to submit the paperwork, then been called back to answer more questions. And still, they wait. In places like Hong Kong, the waiting time may be as long as 15 years. Most of these people have relatives--cousins or grandchildren, for example--who live and work and pay taxes in America and even have become American citizens.While the process isn't pretty, there is no good alternative. Permission to reside in America is very valuable....
Comprehensive immigration reform promises that people already in the United States illegally can apply for citizenship, but requires them to "go to the back of the line." But a key question is, the back of which line? The reform bill before the Senate doesn't require illegal immigrants to go back home--to, say, Hong Kong, to the end of the 10-to-15-year line there--to get a green card. Instead, it allows the current illegals to receive their green card immediately--having, in effect, jumped the line at the U.S. consulate abroad. Then, like other green card holders, they will be able to work here, collect government benefits like food stamps and Medicaid, and travel as freely as if they had a U.S. passport.
The line the current illegals will go to the back of is the citizenship line. Under the proposed law, current illegals, newly minted green card in hand, will have to wait six years, then get in line to apply for citizenship. But even after six years, they will be years ahead of many people who have gone through the legal process and are waiting overseas for a consular official to let them come here. Once those who have been playing by the rules all along get here, they too have to wait six years before getting in line for citizenship.
If we really mean "the back of the line," that should be behind everyone who is already in the pipeline to come here legally.
Let's be real: this bill allows those who come here illegally to gain a huge advantage over those who follow the rules. This, in effect, creates an irresistible incentive for others to ignore the rules and come here illegally. Fast track it by going illegal - there's no reason not to!
ZERO PROVISIONS TO MAKE IT ALL WORK
Lindsey has further concerns about the utter non-viability of the Senate's bill:
In 2004, the INS issued 946,000 green cards and naturalized 537,000 people. The proposed immigration reform anticipates giving green cards to up to 11 million people [likely closer to 20 million] in one fell swoop and making them eligible for citizenship six years later. It is inconceivable that the INS could handle an eleven-fold increase in its workload. Do we really intend to pass a bill that purports to document these 11 million people without setting up a system capable of providing them the promised documentation? If we don't, everyone else who is already here legally but needs a visa update, or has adopted a foreign-born child, or wants his aging mother to join him in America, will get swamped by the tsunami of newly legalized people seeking documentation.VDare concurs and says that the guest worker program is an administrative catastrophe in the making: "Already, there are backlogs of millions of applications with CIS [Citizenship and Immigration Services] for the various immigration benefits. If any guest worker program or amnesty is enacted, the sheer amount of work in processing, receiving and vetting applications and the assorted work that goes with them (interviewing, fraud investigations, verifying documentation) will without a doubt delay any application already pending—even if additional staff are added. This includes, of course, those innocents who bothered to apply to enter the U.S. the right way." No wonder, legal immigrants are so upset with this whole thing!
I do not understand how the Senate has been so willfully blind to the will of the people and so determined to ignore the future costs of their folly:
The approved bill would send the U.S. population skyrocketing towards a billion people by the close of the century -- with no analysis done of the impacts of this mass population explosion on housing, congestion, overcrowding, education, the environment and the overall quality of life. Local communities have not been consulted, and virtually no preparation has been undertaken to provide for the enormous burdens this legislation would entail. It reflects the degree to which the Senate is completely out of touch with the average American.Nor does the bill take any serious steps that would improve immigration enforcement -- especially in the interior. It merely continues a cycle of rewarding lawbreakers and clothing a loss of border control with the patina of legality. Rather than face the reality of today's immigration crisis, the Senate has enacted a terrible bill that once again puts the interests of the American people last. The bill's cost is staggering, the administrative burdens crushing and the consequences for the cohesion of the future American nation -- no longer bound by a common destiny of the rule of law -- are severe.
_________________________________ This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 29, 2006
FairTax Blogburst: The FairTax Rally
This week's Fair Tax Blogburst is written by fellow blogger and friend Ms. Underestimated.
This is not just an idea anymore…it’s a movement! The Fair Tax movement.
What else do you call an event about something as dull and boring as the U.S. Tax Code that draws almost 7,000 to a rally? About 4,500 people got inside the doors, which had to be closed due to the 50,000 square foot Gwinnett Convention Center being at capacity at SIX THIRTY P.M.! The rally didn’t start for another hour, yet another almost 3,000 had to be turned away. People drove from Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and all over the southeast. Hindsight being 20/20, I’ve heard some of them express disappointment over radio because they only heard the broadcast en route to the rally, and at 6:30 they weren’t even in Georgia yet. They knew they had to turn around and go home, but every single one said that next time, they’ll come a day or two in advance! Some who were turned away simply went to their cars and “tail-gated” with fellow Fair Taxers so they could all listen to the rally as WSB Radio broadcast it live.
After all, who knew there would even be a thousand that would attend? Neal Boortz, the co-author of the Fair Tax Book, certainly didn’t think so himself. In fact, when Neal took the stage at about 8PM, the old curmudgeon was visibly moved. But that’s just where it all begins. Let me take you inside the event in my memory.
I left my office at 3PM, drove 35 miles through horrific Atlanta traffic, and was about the 1,500th person in line. You could feel the passion in the air as attendees clutched their books, displayed their buttons or signs, or signed petitions that were being passed around. We slowly made our way into the Convention Center, and it was packed already. The setup was fantastic, with huge screens dangling from the ceiling above just about every seating section, so everyone was guaranteed a good view of what was going on on the stage. Neal has some fantastic pictures at his site. Here’s a couple of them.
(Photos by Carrie Carden)
Here’s what the inside of the Convention Center looked like, and above is what a portion of the line looked like just to get inside. I am not even a SPECK at the end of this line!
These are just a few of the supporters waving their signs of support inside the center.
Once I got inside, I hunted down a t-shirt, but to no avail - sold out. I did get a signed book, well, two actually, and a “fairtax.org” stamp for money:
What the heck… I figure if I stamp all of my bills, at least ONE of them might prompt someone who knows nothing about HR25/S.25,HR5 to at least look at the bill they’ve just been given from the store clerk, go “what’s fair tax?” and then go to the internet to read about it. Oh, well... back to the rally...
Neal was first up, and spoke to a rousing applause. He told us of how awed he was by the turn-out, and that it spoke volumes to him of just what this had become. He was actually surprised because he thought people wouldn’t come because it was the night of the American Idol finale (oh, please!). He also let us know that not only did the Gwinnett Convention Center DONATE the facility and time, but the stage, lighting, sound equipment, video screens, etc., were also all donated for the cause!
Neal spoke about the Fair Tax, then introduced Congressman John Linder. They both engaged the audience in rapt attention, raucous applause, and cat-calls when the IRS was mentioned. Then, as we’d been promised, Congressman Linder came bearing good news. In the past week, Hastert’s office had been in contact with Linder’s office, and Hastert has set aside a one-hour block of face-to-face time for Congressman Linder to discuss the Fair Tax (HR25) with President Bush! That eclipsed the other good news we would receive by video from Sen. Saxby Chambliss later on, that finally Sen. Johnny Isaakson has signed on to co-sponsor the bill with Sen. Chambliss!
Then Sean joined the fray. Sean came prepared with written questions he’d gotten from his listeners that day as he broadcast from Neal’s studio at WSB Radio. Sean proposed the questions to both Congressman Linder & Neal, and you know that Neal brought the most howls with his wry sense of humor.
As they talked up the Fair Tax, Congressman Linder reminded us that before the Revolutionary War, a clear 2/3 of the people didn’t want to have anything to do with a battle against the British Crown. But due to the hard work and persistent of a few determined people who yearned for their liberty, they fought all rationality and the majority who were okay with the status quo, and forged ahead to secure that very freedom that we have today. If it weren’t for those determined few, who knows what our America would be like today? Many thanks go to them.
Sean had to hurry off to do Hannity & Colmes from the Atlanta Fox affiliate, so he came in specifically to be with us for that 20-minute period of time. Sean really gets it. Next up, former senatorial candidate, Herman Cain.
For those of you who’ve never been blessed enough to hear Herman Cain speak, you have no idea what you’re missing. I am really sorry he lost out that campaign to Johny Isaakson in GA, because Herman Cain is TRULY a dedicated REAGAN conservative Republican, and he is wholly behind the Fair Tax. In fact, he sits in for Neal on his show when Neal’s out. Neal’s affiliates will accept NO OTHER substitute except for Herman Cain. Otherwise, they prefer to just run a “best of” in Neal’s absence.
Herman regaled us with anecdotal stories about his grandfather, who was a poor Georgia dirt farmer. He remembered that going into town, his grandfather used to say to the kids “them that’s goin, get in the truck.. them that’s stayin, GET OUT OF THE WAY!” The audience went WILD! He reminded us that those who want to forge ahead and make change in the world should use that analogy in our lives if we want to affect change. He had the audience, at the appropriate times, shouting “GET OUT OF THE WAY!” A lot of people were yelling “AMEN, REV. CAIN!” I don’t know if he’s a reverend or not, but he definitely moves me. In fact, the gentleman next to me said “Lord, if he keeps this up, I’m gonna start speaking in tongues!” That was not only humorous, it was also true. Herman Cain is riveting. He didn’t stop there.
He continued stories about his grandfather, about when all the potatoes had been pulled from the ground and loaded on his truck, that all the kids would load in the truck with him. He said his grandfather didn’t take the smooth, already-dug grooves in the road.
Rather, his grandfather drove over every bump, rock, rut, etc., and when they came to the market, he asked his grandfather, “why didn’t you just take the regular road instead of making the ride so rough?” He said it was then he noticed that back in the truck bed, all the big potatoes had risen to the top; and all of the little potatoes had settled at the bottom. Then he turned his attention directly forward, and forcefully shouted “.. and YOU people ARE THE BIG POTATOES!”
My God, I though it was the second coming! Would the roof stay on? Or would the trembling of the building turn out to be just be the response of the crowd? Either way, it was absolutely electrifying! And talk about feeling empowered.. WOW! I have goosebumps just remembering it as I write! He definitely had the crowd motivated, and that’s what made us feel so good. That we ARE the ones who want change, and are determined enough to see it through. There was also a tangible sense of camaraderie in the building, as if we have all just been reminded of our mission, and accepted the challenge.
John Stossel of ABC also came to speak for a few minutes, and he gave us this amazing tidbit: 1% of the people of this planet affect change; 9% of the people watch change being affected; and the other 90% wake up one day and say “what happened?” We ARE that One Percent!!!
I’m sick to death of those people who support the Fair Tax, but don’t participate in these events or even sign petitions because of their defeatist attitudes. “Oh, it’s a good idea, but it will never happen,” or “well, it won’t really work because of XYZ.” If our founding fathers had had that attitude, then… well, I don’t even want to ponder that lunacy.
If the patriots of the revolutionary war can do something as monumental as they did, then can’t this bunch of “potatoes” do even less? Let’s do it, everyone… let’s get rid of the IRS, and get the government out of our lives!
Folks, I’m here to tell you; after what I witnessed at the rally, I cannot and will not be defeatist about it. Everything good or bad that exists today in our country was brought about by grassroots movements. And if there’s one thing I learned last Wednesday, it is this: IT’S POSSIBLE!
The Fair Tax Book : Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
Buy the book TODAY (click the above link). Heck, buy 2 or 5, and send them to friends! And many thanks to
the Americans for Fair Taxation, who sponsored the event. Group President Ken Hoagland (right) also spoke to a roundly appreciative crowd.
If you have Comcast cable, you may be able to see video of this rally free from Comcast’s On-Demand service. Details are here.
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Enterprise Security – IT Security Solutions: Concepts, Practical Experiences, Technologies edited by Fumy and Sauerbrey
This book has the look and feel of a business school textbook, moving from topic to topic in a fairly academic matter. It is a combination of 14 essays from prominent authors in the topics they are writing on. This allows for a book that can treat a wide range of concepts and still maintain credibility and a tone of expertise with the downside being the structure of each essay is slightly different between authors. As such, it is meant more as a higher-level introduction to concepts and ideas that swirl around the information security industry but it is couched in the language of business in the hopes that enterprises will adopt a measure of culture change in the area of security. The book seems to have a more European focus, but it is not without value to an American audience.
The book begins with an introduction by the editors laying out what they view as three areas driving enterprise security and what they hope to accomplish with the book. They finger security threats, creating new business opportunities, and regulatory compliance as the main drivers of security investment for the enterprise. In their experience, the editors see businesses still creating processes and applications designed around speed and convenience with security being an afterthought. The editors then establish 4 items they wish to see changed in industry: review of information security requirements, assuming legal liability for poor security practices (it'll never happen), creating a security-aware culture, and security against insider threats. The rest of the book doesn't seem to truly address how to bring these four changes to fruition.
The rest of the book is divided into three sections: (1) Concepts & Trends (better described as emerging security technologies), (2) Practical Experiences, and (3) Technologies & Standards. As far as organization, it would seem better to have Practical Experiences come last in the book and address the technologies discussed previously; however this is not a serious deficiency in the book.
Parts 1 and 3 are presented to the reader from a high-level perspective. It assumes little prior technical knowledge and thus is accessible to a wide audience, particularly the business community. It helps the reader understand why these technologies are beneficial from an economic standpoint. Readers who are technically savvy may get easily bored from this section unless they are trying to develop a "business case" for the adoption of security mechanisms for their organization. In that regard, these essays help bridge the gap between "tech heads" and the "pointy-haired management".
The Practical Experience section is a collection of four case studies of four different organizations facing four different problems. It helps the reader to understand the challenges and obstacles in actual implementation of technologies. It helps bridge the gap between book-learning and real-world experience. 3 of the 4 essays revolve around PKI and digital identities. It is clear based on the focus of the editors that authentication is important to them, however and expansion of case studies based on their other goals would make the text that much more effective.
All in all, the book is a valuable primer for consultants and non-savvy managers who are seeking to get their minds around security and how best to sell the investment of security.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 27, 2006
The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time
This amuses me... I'm surprised no one thought of compiling a list of the 25 worst of all time. It's a hoot.
1 America Online (1989-2006) 2 RealNetworks RealPlayer (1999) 3 Syncronys SoftRAM (1995) 4 Microsoft Windows Millennium (2000) 5 Sony BMG Music CDs (2005) 6 Disney The Lion King CD-ROM (1994) 7 Microsoft Bob (1995) 8 Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 (2001) 9 Pressplay and Musicnet (2002) 10 dBASE IV (1988)
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Good for them
Gonzales, Mueller, and others threatened to resign if they had to give back evidence after raiding Rep. Jefferson's office. I would too. If you can't prosecute members of Congress because they hide all the incriminating evidence in their congressional office, there isn't much point to trying anymore. If there is nothing else that should give hope that there are honest Republicans still about, they should look no farther that Attorney General Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller, as well as the other fine men and women who made a principled stand here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 26, 2006
Wictory Wednesday has Returned!!
Wictory Wednesday has returned! It is a once-a-week event where hundreds of bloggers ask their readers to support a Republican candidate by donating to their campaign (or at least blogging about them). After over a year break, I've taken the initiative to set it back up and put it together again. 2006 is a big election year and now is the time to assert the influence of the grass roots (or the "connected" will assert it for us).
Each Wednesday, I will send out the "default" candidate to support for that week. Since we aren't Democrats or liberals, you are free to change the candidate and support someone else of your own choice. We like free-thinkers here. All we ask is that you support some candidate on Wednesday and help advance the ideas we hold dear.
If you wish to participate in Wictory Wednesday which will begin on May 31st, 2006 (incidently my birthday), please send an e-mail to jcb.blog (at) gmail.com with your blog name, blog URL, and add the following blogroll code to your site (optional). If you don't post the full blogroll, a link to this post with some advertisement for Wictory Wednesday is appreciated.
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=cb04198e51db8289c2cfa56593350843"> </script>
The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 25, 2006
StoptheACLU Blogburst: War against a discredited story
Stop the ACLU has the latest on the NSA's litigation against phone companies and their state-by-state effort to hammer those phone companies (and thus drive up the price we pay for telephone service) based on the USA Today story detailing the NSA buying phone records from those companies. Problem is? There doesn't seem to be any evidence it happened, and evidence that it didn't. Read more at Stop the ACLU. Gazoo.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 24, 2006
Wow... Good Job Denny, You're Under Investigation Too
This is amazing, perhaps he's complaining loudly because his office is next to get raided for running a criminal gambit out of it...
Good job.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 23, 2006
If Hastert wasn't retiring, I'd say he should be thrown out
Listen, Denny, if a Congressman uses his office to break the law, it isn't unconstitutional for the executive branch to take a look at his office to prosecute him. It wasn't like he was drunk and drove a car into a barrier, or he slapped around a Capitol cop. He took bribes for official action and that makes his office fair game.
UPDATE:
Or maybe he isn't under investigation... mislead by the MSM again...
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 22, 2006
Defending the Right of Congressmen to Break the Law in Private
Over the weekend, the FBI executed a search warrant to search Representative William Jefferson’s congressional office. While it might be amusing to point out that the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana is a Democrat, the intent here is not to make partisan jabs (okay, maybe a little). Corruption has been a part of both parties and neither has a lock on it. (Just look at Illinois).
A politician, particularly from Louisiana, being on the take is not a big surprise. Nor is the fact that the same politician was caught on tape taking the money, nor the money having been found neatly wrapped still in his freezer at home. The biggest thing that voters should sit up and take notice is that congressional leaders from both parties are taking offense to the fact an object of a criminal bribery probe had his congressional office searched. That's right. These congressmen have the audacity to complain that searching Rep. Jefferson's office violated separation of powers.
To review, any police department (an executive agency) is required to ask a court before getting a search warrant. They have to lay out what they are searching for and why they want to search where they're requesting to go. A judge (a member of the judiciary) hears them out and either approves or denies the warrant. Odds are, because of the high-profile nature of this warrant, a judge took his time and carefully considered this warrant. At the end of the day, both the executive and judiciary landed on the same page with regards to this legislator's corruption. Or, you could look at it as the two other branches of government are checking the corruption of the third.
The facts are these, Rep. Jefferson is accused of using his legislative office to perform official acts for private pay… he took bribes. The FBI states that they have this bribe-taking on tape and that they found the money in Jefferson's home. While there is "two sides to every story" and he is "innocent until proven guilty" it certainly looks like the FBI might have a pretty solid case here. Perhaps if Jefferson is so concerned about executive and judicial scrutiny of his office, he ought to have considered not being corrupt in the first place.
The party leaders and other congressional members carrying the water for Jefferson, however, is beyond the pale. Instead of being angry with Jefferson for abusing his office or calling for impeachment hearings, they are complaining that the FBI… did their job. The message they are sending is that they demand the right of privacy for congressman who use their office for illegal activities.
If someone was shot in one of their offices, could there be an investigation?
What if one of them was dealing drugs out of their office, could they try to catch the Congressman in the act?
Any right-thinking person can see why a congressional office shouldn't be an impregnable veil against those who investigate and punish criminal activity. Apparently, congressional leaders of both parties thing there are more important things than stopping criminal activity, at least if one of their own is involved.
Voters of both parties need to send a clear message. Not only will we not tolerate corrupt individuals among our elected representatives, but we must not tolerate those who seek to protect them or otherwise prevent investigation and prosecution of them. We cannot let these congressmen… our employees tell us that the Constitution requires that we let them get away with taking bribes.
Any congressman who seeks to defend this activity, or construct absurd walls to investigating congressional misbehavior, need to be thrown out of office regardless of partisan affiliation. It is time that these lawmakers focus more of cleaning their own house instead of protecting the criminals within it.
Tags: jefferson, congress, corruption, bribes, separation of powers, united states, politics, FBI, judiciary, law
Thanks to Mudville Gazette,
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Please, Rep. Jefferson, keep talking...
"You have no right to search my office. I have the right to commit any crimes in my office free from law enforcement interference!" (a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/jefferson/index.html">here)
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
My Response to the 24 Finale
24 is like crack. No matter how bad you feel when you come down, you know next week you're still gonna be coming back to the rock.
24 makes a career of dragging the viewers along forever.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 21, 2006
The Pettiness of Politics
I've talked to a few people lately who have soured on politics as of late (see Captain's Quarters latest). Far too many people respond to ideas they disagree with by immediately attacking the character of the person voicing those ideas. On several occasions I've written a controversial column to be personally attacked for it. One person co-worker threatened to anally rape me, for instance, if he ever met me. While it may be an interesting sociological study to see why people's tempers flare so high when the stakes are so low, we must not let ourselves get bogged down by the gibbering yard apes all political stripes. The best way to deal with those who pout like children is to ignore them. In order to continue advocating the ideas we hold dear, there comes a time to simply ignore the idiots. The great thing about free speech is that it makes it easy to identify who those idiots are.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 16, 2006
Yet Another Journalistic Fraud?
It appears another drive-by media attempt to discredit the President and advance the claim that Republicans are trying to usher in a new era of fascism has fallen flat on its face. Claims by USA Today using sources with “direct knowledge of the program” that the NSA has been collecting massive databases of phone calls don’t appear to match with the records of two of the three apparent participants, Verizon and Bell South.
Sure, they could be lying but that would be stupid considering they’re going to be on the frontline for litigation over this issue as it is easier to sue a company for breach of privacy then getting anything out of the NSA. If they took the time to search their records (as it appears they did) all they would have done was generate more evidence for such a relationship. However, it appears now that there really was no relationship at all, or for that matter, any requests by the NSA in the first place. Some of the bitter-enders will still insist the program exists and there is a massive cover-up, just like some continue to insist that 9/11 was staged despite the release of flight recorders, telephone calls, and video feeds that show the opposite.
Once again, we are faced with an “objective” journalistic medium that didn’t do enough footwork to verify the claims that were made before it splashed them on the front page and riled the population. The irony is that it appears the population would support such a database if it existed.
Time after time there are those who continue to make up claims (i.e. KoranGate and RatherGate) in the media who never seem to be held to account on their frauds. If the media wishes to continue to be seen as a serious medium of information (and more and more people are turning elsewhere for news) it needs to take seriously its responsibility to report accurately the news instead of pandering to the worst elements of the left.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 14, 2006
Federal Courts Require Funding of Supporters of Forced Prostitution
USAID requires that grant recipients of its AIDS humanitarian funds must sign a pledge that they oppose commercial sex work. A federal court recently ruled that this is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Despite the fact the US holds that prostitution is illegal (with the exception of Nevada) and that there is a near-universal condemnation for the practice, apparently allowing the government to restrict its humanitarian funds to actually be humane is unconscionable.
Let’s be honest for a moment. Most women (or for that matter, girls) don’t get into prostitution as a career of first choice. When was the last time you asked a girl what she wanted to be when she grows up and that girl answered “I want to be a hooker!”? Most women get into prostitution out of desperation, or worse, because they were forced into it. Further, prostitutes are subject to much higher levels of abuse and maltreatment because of the nature of the work. Nothing epitomizes male domination over women more than the sex trade and sex trafficking industries.
The problem with the sex trade goes far beyond those who simply sign up for it. More often than not, women or girls are forced into it. In fact, many governments and other larger organizations have gone beyond the simple sex trade and gone into organized rape as an industry. On these issues we must tolerate diversity of opinion by the virtue of the First Amendment. That does not require that we capitulate to something that should be universally condemned. The solution to 12 year olds being forced into prostitution is not “unionization”; the solution is preventing it from happening in the first place and prosecuting those responsible.
There came a time when positions could be advocated without asking the government for a handout. Only those positions that can’t stand on their own require outside assistance. Now those positions have an ally in the federal court system.
It seems the current trend in jurisprudence is to normalize more and more outlandish behavior. NAMBLA has a right to state their position; it doesn’t mean the government should or needs to fund it. However, the courts seem to think otherwise. What’s next? Government funds to help cover up child sex abuse?
When the United States wants to fund humanitarian work, it wants to do so in a humane way. It isn’t a matter of simply policy choice, but rather a matter of justice. While there can be opinions that legalized and unregulated prostitution is best for society, nothing the Founding Fathers intended required the government to subsidize those positions.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 13, 2006
Book Review: The Meaning of Marriage by Robert George and Jean Elshtain
The debate on gay marriage is full of conjecture and assumption on all sides. In preparing for a recent panel discussion on gay marriage, I looked for resources that could help me cut through the various facets of marriage and its history. I found those resources in The Meaning of Marriage.
This book is a collection of essays (see below) that take different approaches to marriage and its recent development in the United States. As a complex social institution, all too often discussion on marriage is over-simplified depending on the area of expertise (or for that matter, the agenda) of the author. This book overcomes those problems by presenting a wide range of thinkers from a variety of fields to present their views on marriage. It takes approaches from the law, philosophy, sociology, history, economics, and religion and puts them into a concise volume.
The essays themselves are easy to access and digestible, even for readers not fluent in the fields the author is coming at marriage from. The authors are well-known and respected in their fields of study. They provide fresh intellectual ammunition that seems lacking in the gay marriage debate by answering and providing a framework to discuss what marriage has meant, what it means, and what is should mean.
Many of the essays shed light on the philosophical underpinnings of marriage that make it possible to overcome the various rhetorical traps gay marriage advocates use to deconstruct the traditional view of marriage. The legal analyses bring to the fore some of the disturbing and absurd trends in marriage law that has virtually made marriage into nothing more than any relationship between two people who share property. For instance, recent court decisions have stated that sex is not required nor an essential component of marriage. Lastly, the sociological discussions take apart the recent studies that gay marriage advocates like to use to defend their viewpoints even though those studies are fatally flawed.
The collection is a timely work that presents the history and theory of marriage in a cogent manner that makes discussing marriage policy not only possible, but can provide a framework for actually coming to a serious policy other than the typical libertarian “do-whatever-you-want” nonsense that ends up going nowhere.
1 - "Sacrilege and Sacrament," by Roger Scruton 2 - "What About the Children? Liberal Cautions on Same- Sex Marriage," by Don Browning
3 - "Changing Dynamics of the Family in Recent European History," by Harold James
4 - "Why Unilateral Divorce Has No Place in a Free Society," by Jennifer Roback Morse
5 - "The Framers' Idea of Marriage and Family," by David F. Forte
6 - "The Family and the Laws," by Hadley Arkes
7 - "What's Sex Got to do with It? Marriage, Morality, and Rationality," by Robert P. George
8 - "Soft Despotism and Same-Sex Marriage," by Seana Sugrue
9 - "(How) Does Marriage Protect Child Well-Being?" by Maggie Gallagher
10 - "The Current Crisis in Marriage Law, Its Origins, and Its Impact," by Katherine Shaw Spaht
11 - "Suffer the Little Children: Marriage the Poor, and the Commonweal" by W. Bradford Wilcox
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Is Big Brother watching?
The latest controversy about the NSA spying on Americans once again takes facts, twists them to the breaking point, and then panics that the sky is falling. The sole source for this program has been the USA Today article that alarmingly says the NSA is spying on Americans.
The program was voluntary
According to the USA Today article, giving the information to the NSA was not required. In fact, one carrier (Qwest) declined to participate. This means that the federal government did not require these companies to participate, it merely asked them. In fact, it paid the companies for the information and it was provided “under contract”.
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
The government is not prevented by any law from buying records that companies willingly will sell. If those companies violated their privacy policy, an entrepreneurial lawyer will have a cause of action in litigating the phone companies for their breach of privacy policy. However, the government is not “spying” when it buys records that are put out on the common market, even if there is only one buyer.
Data-mining in not spying
Once again, data-mining is not the same as spying. What the NSA received was a list of phone calls with call durations and source and destination phone numbers. That’s it. Spying would be listening to the call. Spying would be recording the call. This was not spying.
The continuing use of the most inflammatory language possible indicates an agenda and an attempt to drum up fear that “Bush will kill us all”
Don’t believe everything you read
It is important to note that the first draft of these so-called scandals that get run by the MSM tend not to hold up much more than a week after being scrutinized. The press has to gain readership to raise their advertising income. They tend to do this two ways, by making their readers afraid or making their readers angry. This influences how they write their stories.
In this case, the inflammatory language is misleading and the legal question rests not on whether or not warrants were needed, but whether or not the phone companies should have sold the information in the first place. Certainly in the complete absence of any coercion.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 11, 2006
Smoke-Free CU
I'm sure if you read the local CU blogs, you've read about the attempts to make the Champaign-Urbana area smoke-free. Well, I've written to the local paper on the subject (here).
Basically, nothing is stopping people from talking to their favorite restaurants and getting them to go smoke-free. However, instead of being responsible for ones own desires, they want their Momma (the government) to do it for them.
Grow up and do it yourself. This is America, if you want something done you have to do it yourself, not whine until the government gives you what you want. This is an entitlement attitude gone sideways and it needs to stop.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 8, 2006
Toward a More Perfect CIA
The appointment of General Hayden to run the Central Intelligence Agency is the ideal appointment to help reform the CIA at this critical point in time.
What many people don’t understand is the relationship between the military and the CIA. The military, quite obviously, is aligned with the Department of Defense and the CIA is aligned with the Department of State. While this doesn’t seem to have much of a meaning, the two departments really have very different ways of looking at the world and looking at conflict.
The purpose of the Department of Defense is to kill people and break things. That’s what the military does best. When the military looks at the world, they look at ways to win wars. When they find threats, they eliminate them.
The Department of State, however, looks at the world very differently. They look at the world diplomatically and seek to maximize the amount of information on adversaries or potential adversaries. When the CIA finds threats, they seek to get as much information as possible, including who is supporting or financing those threats, what their intentions are, and whom else they are working with.
To be perfectly clear, both are necessary. In order to adequately deal with threats, one needs to fully understand where those threats come from and who is involved to eliminate them. Knowing everything you can about the enemy is useless without eventual action. Knowing who the 9/11 hijackers are doesn’t, by itself, prevent them from flying into buildings.
The situation, combined with typical inter-agency rivalry, has led both Departments into a form of opposition. While the military (and Bush for that matter) have backed action into Iraq to end the conflict that has been going on for 12 years (at the time of the second invasion), State and the CIA was opposed because that conflict would end the information flow and diplomacy. That difference in world-view has been the source of much public contention on the Iraq War and the War on Terror in general.
By appointing Hayden to the CIA, it appears that the intent is to shift the viewpoint of the CIA to be more action-oriented. Hayden is in intelligence, so he obviously knows the value of information, however, as a soldier he also surely knows the value of action and that there comes a point to act on intelligence even if there is more information that could be gathered.
This change is a good thing, as it will help both Defense and State to moderate the poles that have been generated from the rivalry. This appointment is a good thing at a great time that will help both agencies to understand the values each provide and help them learn to work together in the future. The military will learn the value of diplomacy and information and the CIA will learn the value of action. Our national defense will be the clear winner.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 5, 2006
Book Review: Linux Desktop Pocket Guide by David Brickner
The Linux Desktop Pocket Guide is a valuable resource for new users to the Linux world. Almost everyone has heard of Linux and recognizes it as the “next big thing”. However, many people are taken aback at the shear number of Linux distributions. The advantage of Windows is that there is only one company to go to and that provides some simplicity. With Linux, there is no one-stop shopping, and each distribution has different strengths and weaknesses. This book helps the novice user to navigate the most popular distributions to decide which will work best for them.
The book compares Fedora, Gentoo, Mandriva, SUSE, and Ubuntu with a focus on their desktop environments. This book has some value for system administrators, particularly new ones, but will make the biggest impact to the casual home-user to the beginner power-user.
It covers a wide range of desktop issues including Gnome/KDE support, application support, updating the OS, configuration for hardware support, and probably most usefully laptop support. Laptops have traditionally been less than friendly with laptops and this book helps navigate the big issues making Linux a viable option for laptops.
It is a little thick as pocket guides go but that’s more of a factor of the breadth of material covered. Like many of the O’Reilly books, it is concise and easy-to-read. It is accessible to the unsophisticated user and presents information in manageable chunks. For those looking to get a handle on Linux and making it work for them, this book is a great resource.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Book Review: Google: The Missing Manual by Milstein, Biersdorfer, and MacDonald
The problem with Google is that it does not seem to advertise all of its tools, or for that matter, all the functions within their tools. For instance, did you know that you could search for Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) with Google as see the auto history?
Google: The Missing Manual provides an essential source that brings together all the tools and hidden functions in the tools and puts it into an easy-to-read volume. The book is separated into four main components: searches with Google, general Google tools, Google tools specific to webmasters, and Gmail.
Google searching is the best-known tool that Google offers. It is the most popular web search on the Internet also. However, many of its functions are not as widely known, as they ought to be. This book goes through all the different items besides web pages that can be searched for (phone numbers, UPC codes, tracking numbers, and so on) and then goes into the search syntax. It presents search tools individually in easy-to-digest chunks to make it accessible to even the novice user.
The general Google tools include some of the newest Google tools such as Google Maps, Google Desktop and Google Print. The book goes through these point-by-point to give the reader a solid grasp on the latest tools available. It even includes a chapter on how to shop with Google and integrated Google with your web browser.
There are two tools, in specific, that have been to some measure controversial, Google Desktop and Google Search History. Google Desktop allows you to Google search the files on your computer for words and phrases. Google Desktop has to be explicitly installed and set up, but Google makes it clear (and the book re-emphasizes) that no data from your PC is sent to Google. Google Search History allows you to view previously executed searches (if you have a Google account and are logged in). Some are less than comfortable with the prospect of having all web searches archived, however, there are instructions in the book to delete the data and the service.
Third, the book goes through how to use Google to get the most out of your website. It talks about the rudimentary tasks of getting listed in Google searches and how to use AdSense and AdWords, which is invaluable information for the uninitiated. However, the most interesting chapter is on a tool not yet publicly available (you have to request an account and they grant them on a slow but ongoing basis), Google Analytics. Google Analytics harnesses the power of Google to get the most data and statistics out of your website visitors. It helps you know what keywords work, what your visitors are interested in, and what pages are or are not popular. After reading this section you’ll unfortunately have to curb your enthusiasm because you’ll have to wait in line like everyone else after you sign up.
Lastly, the book goes through all the power and functions of Google Mail. As a relatively new service, Gmail keeps adding functions for the user. This book has the most up-to-date information on how the manage mailboxes; work with the contact list, and setting up keyboard shortcuts. Unfortunately with the speed of Gmail development some functions like Google Talk integration are missed by the time the book hit the shelves.
All in all, the book is a solid resource for anyone trying to get the most out of Google and harness that many powerful tools Google brings to bear.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 3, 2006
DI Column up: Academic Serfdom
You can read it here. For the record, I booked this topic a month ahead of time, so it's not to jump on the Billy Joe bandwagon.
I eagerly await the response of the unofficial John Bambenek fanclub.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 1, 2006
Toward a Living Wage
After attending the annual ISI Leadership Conference in Indianapolis, one of the things I thought about was a living wage. Since the topic was Friedman it did come up that he wasn't a fan of welfare programs. The argument by many of the participants was that the best way to lift people out of poverty and provide a living wage was a robust economy. Basically trickle down economics. Even Thomas Woods' talk which had a religious character had this general idea. In fact, when he was asked to reconcile St. Peter's teaching on obedience to the government with disagreement on welfare policy, he largely fumbled the question in my opinion (my response to that question is here).
The problem with talking about the living wage is that it always talks about the problem from only one end of it. Either you have to artificially raise wages or trickle down will raise wages. This only talks about the problem from the aspect of raising the amount of money getting paid. There is another way to get to a living wage… decrease the cost of living so that current wages are sufficient.
Increasing wages by raising the minimum wage is an unsatisfactory solution by itself. There is a finite amount of money going around and all things being equal a business will offset increased costs by cutting costs elsewhere. In the realm of employment, they will usually not hire as many people or not pay people above the minimum wage as generously (i.e. stagnate wages at the minimum wage line). It presents an intractable problem. What is better, 90% employment at 80% of a living wage, or 80% employment at 90% of a living wage? Costs could be cut elsewhere but businesses already have the incentive to do that, creating a burden is unlikely to help them be more efficient. This skips past that difficultly of setting a living wage (for what type of living arrangement) and that some people shouldn't be paid a living wage (high school students, college students, temp. workers).
This also can lead to inflation because any cost a business incurs will be passed on in its prices. Those increased labor costs will get passed on again and again to the only entity that is unable to pass off costs. We'll call that person "the consumer". We could theoretically determine a living wage at some snapshot in time and mandate that all workers be paid that wage. Even if there is no additional unemployment, that increased labor cost will result in increased prices across the board. This translates to an increased cost of living and makes the living wage insufficient once the costs pass through the system. Even if you could control the rate of employment, there is no way to set a living wage such that it would increase the cost of living and make that living wage insufficient again.
The solution to this problem is to stop focusing on the size of the paycheck and to start focusing on the cost of living. There are several components that make up the cost of living. There is food, and the sales tax to buy that food. There is housing, and the property tax levied against that property. There is medicine, government fees, income tax, etc.
One way to cut the cost of living directly and immediately is to cut taxes. This can be accomplished be getting rid of wasteful and unnecessary government spending which is always inefficient and bleeds money away from the economy. Even welfare payments bleed money off that remains in the black-hole of Washington DC.
Another way is to decrease transaction costs for people doing business. For instance, the legal and insurance systems allow for businesses to not only prepay their future lawsuit settlements, but provide a nice way to compartmentalize those costs and pass them on to the consumer. The dirty little secret about suing companies is that they aren't the ones paying… society is. And in fact, you've already paid.
Likewise, property tax gets passed down to renters in the form of higher rents. Sales tax raised prices for consumer goods. Higher business taxes make for higher prices. Increased regulation makes for higher regulation costs and higher prices.
To effectively reduce the cost of living, every regulation, every tax, and every wasteful or unnecessary government spending initiative needs to be stopped. There are important regulations and things the government should tax and spend money on. However, it will always spend money inefficiently and bleed money away from the economy when they do it. This needs to be minimized.
Productivity gains, increases in efficiency of production and distribution, and new technologies will also help (as it always has) increase the quality of life of all workers. This is where trickle down is most helpful. However, it's only part of the solution.
The more the cost of living can be reduced by reducing the bleeding effect of government spending and regulation will be more people living above poverty.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
St. Peter, the Government, and Social Justice
At a recent conference that discussed economics, a question was posed to a speaker on reconciling a vehement disagreement with welfare policy with St. Peter's teaching (1 Peter 3:13-17) on obedience to the Government. The general idea in the conference was that "trickle down" economics was preferable in lifting people up.
The response was underwhelming, namely he hemmed and hawed about the difficulty in Biblical exegesis and left it at that. This is my attempt to answer the question (with the caveat that I don't think trickle down is the sole solution to the problem). (To be fair, he made parts of the point at varying points during his talk, but had a good opportunity to bring it together in response to one question and it didn't seem like he did.)
Disagreeing with the government is not an act of "insubmission" to the government. You can think the government's policies are wrong and not transgress here. This is especially true because there is no way really to manifest disobedience to welfare laws except perhaps by not paying taxes (which is obviously wrong on many levels). In this case, we aren't talking about disobedience but disagreement.
We have a right to disagree with our government, and particularly, to petition our government for a change in policy. This is a right external to our governmental system but it certainly helps that our government does explicitly recognize it in the First Amendment. In short, there is nothing wrong and much to be encouraged in petitioning the government for different policies. I don't think any politician would have a problem with participatory democracy, at least they wouldn't say they do if they want to keep their job.
Lastly, the obligation to "feed the hungry", "clothe the naked", etc. is mandatory. No Christian can be in good standing and not care about the poor. This obligation is personal and direct on all believers. How those believers go about it is a matter of personal discernment and individuals may focus on some aspects and not others because of their personal talents and opportunities. However, each person according to their state has a binding moral obligation to do something.
The answer to this question is that as Christians we are obligated to advocate for the poor where appropriate. In participating in democracy, we should use our voice to advocate those policies which we believe to best help the poor. The expression of ideas contrary to conventional welfare wisdom isn't disobedience to authority or contrary to Christian belief. They are mandatory acts in which we use our freedom to advance our fellow man according to what we truly and honestly believe is best (with all due research and investigation into the options and which is superior).
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
