SeaViews: Insights from the Gray
Havens
February 2001
(formerly the _Rochester Rag_, formerly the _News
from Detroit_)
Motto: The surest way to get a reputation for
being a trouble maker these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases that the Founders used in the struggle for
independence.
-- C.A. Beard
Editorial:
email Steve
Anon ftp site
News Archives
Standard disclaimers apply. In addition, the author makes
no guarantees concerning the grammatical accuracy of his
writing. Submitted text files must be in raw or compressed
(.Z, .gz or PK Zip) ASCII. Image files must be in raw or
compressed (see above) GIF89 (or older).
On last month's Fix;
the answer to last month's Fix,
"How do we best convince people that it's not in their long
term best interest to cede control of their lives to the
govt.?"
is
David Gay's response to this challenge is an excellent
one. However, it has a couple of drawbacks: it would require
that the lesson be repeated every few years (since people
forget and there are always new voters) and it would lead to
increasing damage to the nation. Someone once said,
"those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat
it." Sadly, and here I must agree with David, this
seems to be the case for most voters.
Case in point: last November's election in the state of
Washington. While simultaneously voting against property tax
increases, voters supported increasing pay for grade school
teachers and expanded road construction and repairs
throughout the state. Exit polls showed that no one felt
that these contrary attitudes were in anyway
inconsistent.
Why is it that we can't learn from the horrendous
blunders of other nations? During the first two years of the
Clinton Administration, everyone was keen to adopt
socialized health care, even while we saw how it left the
British health-care system in ruins and was threatening to
do so in Canada. And few people in the popular media
cultures seem to draw the correlation that those very areas
that continue to have thousands of starving children tend to
be a ruled by military dictatorships promoting Marxist
ideology.
Closer to home, we have a new president who dares to
suggest that the people may have better ideas of what to do
with their money than the government. Liberals, both
in the media and the government, have done and excellent job
of rewriting the history of the '80s. This was well
demonstrated to me when I happened to notice some graffiti
in a restaurant that said, " Reagan 1980, Bush 2000 (if you
like 20 percent interest and 10 percent unemployment)."
Of course, the author of the statement had it completely
backwards. Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's 20
percent interest, 10 percent inflation, and 10 percent
unemployment. Reagan ran on three things: cut taxes, rebuild
the military, and balance the budget. He delivered on
2/3 of those promises. Back then, as now, Democrats said
"how will Reagan pay for these new programs if he cuts
tax rates?"
This very question belies the static thinking of
Democratic economics. Democrats believe that the economy is
a fixed dollar volume, therefore tax cuts must somehow be
paid for. It does not occur to them that cutting taxes
actually promotes new business growth and thereby increases
revenue.
Well, the results are in. From 1981 through 1988, real
revenue to the treasury more than doubled - and this
occurred after the top marginal tax rate was reduced from 70
percent to 28 percent. In addition, luxury taxes were
slashed, and capital gains taxes reduced from 38 percent to
26 percent. Of course, we also know that deficits
increased during the '80s. The military cost buildup was
planned for in the Reagan budgets and in fact they reached a
peak in 1987 and began to shrink before Reagan left office.
However, Bush Sr. was saddled with a 400 billion dollar
S&L bailout due to the Democratic boys that made up the
Keating five, who left taxpayers rather than investors carry
the risk for bad S&L investments. Entitlements
spending also more than doubled during this period.
So where are we? Probably back where David Gay
started. I think the public can learn the truth, but
with the overwhelming bias of the popular media this
will not happen because few people have the time, energy or
desire to seek out alternative viewpoints on history.
Towards this end, I offer the following moderate
proposals:
1. Show people the real price of everything that
they buy. Show them the pretax price of gasoline, or
their phone service, or a beer. Force them to realize
the percentage that taxes make up of everyday products.
2. Ban tax withholding on paychecks, force people
to write a check for the full amount every April 15.
3. Suspend voting rights to people who are on
public assistance for the duration that they are on it.
On the late issue:
February has been a busy month in Lake Wobegon, my hometown
... at about 11 a.m. on Feb. 21 we had a 6.8 Richter
earthquake. The night before that, fat Tuesday, Mardis
Gras revelers broke out in riots which produced 40
some injuries and two deaths. A week before that, on
Friday 16 February, mother nature played the rare trick and
dumped 10 inches of snow on a city that can muster at most
two dozen snow plows to cover roads used by three
million motorists, which pretty much paralyzed things for 2
days. During this time, yours truly was playing host to
several state inspectors that were trying to assess the
quality of care at our far-flung radiology departments.
I'm reminded of the Chinese curse, " may you live in
interesting times." In any case, here is the
February issue.
And thanks to everyone who asked about us. We're
fine.
Guest Editorial:
George Will
March 11, 2001
Memo to First Amendment: Look out!
WASHINGTON--The coming debate on campaign finance
``reforms'' that would vastly expand government regulation
of
political communication will measure just how much jeopardy
the First Amendment, and hence political freedom, faces.
Recent
evidence is ominous.
In 1997, 38 senators voted to amend the First Amendment
to empower government to impose ``reasonable'' restrictions
on
political speech. Dick Gephardt has said, ``What we have is
two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech
and our
desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy.'' Bill
Bradley has proposed suppressing issue advocacy ads of
independent groups by imposing a (BEG ITAL)100 percent tax
on such ads. John McCain has said he wishes he could
constitutionally ban negative ads--ads critical of
politicians.
The basis of political-speech regulation is the 1971
Federal Election Campaign Act. Bradley Smith, a member of
the Federal
Election Commission and author of ``Unfree Speech: The Folly
of Campaign Finance Reform,'' calls the FECA ``one of
the
most radical laws ever passed in the United States.''
Because of it, for the first time Americans were required to
register with the
government before spending money to disseminate criticism of
its officeholders.
Liberals eager for more regulation of political speech
should note the pedigree of their project. The first FECA
enforcement
action came in 1972, when some citizens organized as the
National Committee for Impeachment paid $17,850 to run a
New
York Times ad criticizing President Nixon. His Justice
Department got a court to enjoin the committee from further
spending to
disseminate its beliefs. Justice said the committee had not
properly registered with the government and the committee's
activities
might ``affect'' the 1972 election, so it was barred from
spending more than $1,000 to communicate its opinions. After
the
expense of reaching a federal appellate court, the committee
defeated the FEC, but only because the committee had not
engaged in ``express advocacy'' by explicitly urging people
to vote for or against a specific candidate.
In 1976 some citizens formed the Central Long Island Tax
Reform Immediately Committee, which spent $135 to distribute
the
voting record of a congressman who displeased them. Two
years later this dissemination of truthful information
brought a suit
from the FEC's speech police, who said the committee's
speech was illegal because the committee had not fulfilled
all the
registering and reporting the FECA requires of those who
engage in independent expenditure supporting or opposing
a
candidate. The committee won in a federal appellate court,
but only because it had not engaged in ``express
advocacy.''
In 1998, with impeachment approaching, Leo Smith, a
Connecticut voter, designed a Web site urging support for
Clinton and
defeat of Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn. When the campaign of
Johnson's opponent contacted Smith, worried that his site
put
him and their campaign in violation of the FECA, he sought
an FEC advisory opinion.
Although Smith neither received nor expended money to
create this particular Web site, the FEC said the law's
definition of a
political expenditure includes a gift of ``something of
value,'' and the FEC noted that his site was ``administered
and maintained''
by his personal computer, which cost money. And that the
``domain name Web site'' was registered in 1996 for $100 for
two
years and for $35 a year thereafter. And ``costs associated
with the creation and maintaining'' of the site are
considered an
expenditure because the site uses the words that bring on
the speech police--it ``expressly advocates'' the election
of one
candidate and the defeat of another.
The FEC advised Smith that if his site really was
independent, he would be ``required to file reports with the
Commission if the
total value of your expenditures exceeds $250 during 1998.''
If his activity were not truly independent, his
``expenditures''
would have to be reported as an in-kind contribution to
Johnson's opponent. Smith ignored the FEC, which, perhaps
too busy
policing speech elsewhere, let him get away with free
speech.
Today Internet pornography is protected from regulation,
but not Internet political speech. And campaign finance
``reformers''
aspire to much, much more regulation because, they say,
there is ``too much money in politics.''
Actually, too much money that could fund political
discourse is spent on complying with FECA speech
regulations. To cover
compliance costs, the Bush and Gore campaigns combined
raised $15,135,382.54. And Bradley Smith notes that because
of
the law's ambiguities and the FEC's vast discretion,
litigation has become a campaign weapon: Candidates file
charges to
embarrass opponents and force them to expend resources
fending off the speech police. Consider this legacy of
``reforms''
during this month's debate about adding to them.
Letters:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:04:19 -0600
From: dhgay@uswest.com
To: sglanger@Oakland.edu
Subject: RE: lastcall
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character
set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.
]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly.
]
"How do we teach people that it's not in their long term
best interest to
cede control to the govt of their lives?"
Given that nobody learns from other peoples mistakes, and
only smart people
eventually learn from their own, there is only one way to
approach this.
Elect Algore! We could just let OSHA into everybody's home
to see if their
computer, television and furniture meet OSHA standards.
Better yet get OSHA
to go after workplace conditions for professional athletes.
When there is no
football on Sunday, everybody will notice that the
government has become too
intrusive. Clearly, with the death of Dale Earnhardt and all
the injuries to football, soccer, baseball, basketball and
hockey players, the working conditions for these employees
is clearly unsafe!
The only way to clearly demonstrate this to people is if
they see an
application that applies to them!
How about starting a charity to purchase homes in
affluent neighborhoods
(where liberal leaders live) and rent them out to poor
families for nominal
fees. Another could be set up to pay the tuition to send
poor children to
the same private schools as the liberal leaders send their
children too.
However, this will only demonstrate the hypocrisy of the
left, an nobody
really seems to care about that.
For local news. Jesse "The Governor" Ventura, between XFL
games, is trying
to fight the big education lobby in Minnesota. He is also
advocating
unfastened seatbelts as a primary offence. So while you
don't have to wear a
motorcycle helmet, you can be pulled over by a cop if it
looks like you are not wearing a seatbelt. (Good-bye 4th
Amendment)
Dave Gay
Quote(s) of the month:
"If I'd have known about it, it would not have
happened"
-- 5 March, Hillary Rhodam Clinton, expressing her
disappointment in her brother who appears to have brokered
pardons for cash to President Clinton in his final
days
Fix of the month:
"Is deregulating power companies a bad
thing?"
News:
Washington;
1. Seattle, 16 February: in an 10 inches and heavy snow
blanket Puget Sound area overnight, leaving the city nearly
completely paralyzed for today's. While sensible
people stayed home, those who insisted that they knew how to
drive their SUV's caused over 400 accidents.
2. Seattle, 26 February: Fat Tuesday, the eve of
ash Wednesday and the season of Lent. Otherwise known as
Mardis Gras. Several hundred revelers broke out in riots in
Pioneer Square district. Forty people were
hospitalized with two deaths.moving
3. Tacoma, 27 February: 30 miles South and
underground of Seattle, a 6.8 Richter earthquake rattled the
area. Oddly enough, most of the areas of downtown were not
visibly affected as the more modern skyscrapers were
well-designed. However, the older university buildings
and warehouses of brick and mortar did not fare as well.
There was no loss of life.
While most private businesses are back in operation, the
district courts and state legislature are continuing to not
report to work until building inspections are thoroughly
completed. Of course, it's not necessarily a bad thing when
the legislature is not in session.
New York;
1. NY city, five March: in or out of office, the
Clintons can't seem to avoid the limelight. It now
turns out that the final day's burst of pardons before the
Clintons left the White House may have been connected to a
financial inducement. Hillary's brother was paid over four
hundred thousand dollars to broker introductions among those
who were trying to induce Bill Clinton to pardon
them. One of the most famous, Denise Rich, ex-wife of
billionaire tax evader Mark Rich, was a frequent visitor of
both Bill and Hillary's brother.
In her press conference from her senatorial office today,
Hillary expressed that she was disappointed in her
brother and said, "if I knew he was doing it it wouldn't
have happened." Of course, at the time this was
occurring, brother Rhodam was staying in the White
House.
Florida;
1. Dade County, 26 Feb: Kudos to today's USA Today
for having the courage to announce on the top fold front
page that in the full manual recount of last November's
election, Al Gore still lost. In fact, according to the
Miami Herald (which managed the recount) Gore gained only 49
votes. The New York Times buried the news in its political
section. The Washington Post, CNN and NPR have not mentioned
it at all.
Ed: Likely, these media giants are running on the
philosophy that if they don't report it, it isn't true,
therefore Bush is still illegitimate.
Washington D.C.
1. 27th February: Bush Jr. outlined his plan for a
nationwide tax cut this evening. Despite the tax cut,
his budget calls for increased funding for education, health
care, and Medicare prescription payments for needy
elderly. Five seats in the front row of the Democratic
section of the house were symboliccaly left empty - as
a protest against Bush's refusal to use statistical methods
to adjust the census count, methods which would have gained
5 seats in Democratic held city districts.
2. Seven March: in the first of what promises to be
numerous moves, Republican leaders in the house and Senate
undid one of Clinton's final day executive orders. In
in a move certain to draw the ire of traditional liberals
and warm the hearts of evil white businessmen, Congress will
repeal the "ergonomic act" which would have given OSHA the
authority to fine businesses that did not take steps to
reduce the chances for repetitive stress injuries at the
workplace.
Net News;
|
