Roadtrip

On this subject, there's a really, really great movie called "The Lives of Others" (2006), which depicts an East German playwright and his mistress who were suspected by the Stasi (the East German secret police) of disseminating anti-state propaganda during the early 1980s. I could be wrong, but I have no reason to believe that the tactics employed by the Stasi, as depicted in the movie, require suspension of disbelief. I had the privilege of spending three weeks in Romania in May 1979, and saw first hand the harshness and the secretiveness of latter-stage communist states, like when soldiers converged on some of my band-mates and removed the film from their cameras -- at gunpoint -- merely for taking pictures of an abandoned freighter that was beached off the coast of the Black Sea near a vacation resort for Romanian and Russian workers where my college jazz ensemble was scheduled to perform. Also, some of my band-mates and I couldn't resist the opportunity of getting pissed-up drunk with a bunch of Russian workers after the concert, drinking shots of their harsh Russian vodka, swapping toasts, trading money and other things, slapping high-fives, and generally enjoying each other's company and laughing together -- and eventually (admittedly, in a drunken stupor) hugging each other in a gesture of friendship. This was at the height of the Cold War era, but if you were to ask any of us who were in the room at the time, we couldn't have told you what the hubbub was all about. We were having too much fun! I will cherish that moment for the rest of my life. Sorry to digress. East Germany, before the fall, might have had the most sophisticated (or intrusive) domestic spying networks (the Stasi chief among them) of all the communist states. I don't know this to be a fact, but the movie, "The Lives of Others," conveys a convincing portrayal of government intrusion -- not for the purpose of threats to national security, but, rather, internal threats to national governance. Living there during that time -- especially as an artist -- can't have been fun. The movie is a fascinating study of what that must have been like. Fast forward to today: Be careful what you Google. For that matter, be careful what you type on the Internet, period.

That's true about Nixon. His program of wage and price ceilings in an effort to combat inflation flies in the face of free markets. Goldwater's advocacy for homosexuals was a libertarian plank; the rest of his platform was pretty conservative (correct me if I'm wrong). Along these lines, modern-day liberals might criticize JFK for being too conservative. After all, he cut taxes (which is anathema to modern-day liberalism). In fact, if you listen to the following two-minute segment of a speech he made in August 1962, Kennedy is describing the benefits of supply-side economics (aka: Reaganomics): . In addition, Kennedy was hawkish on defense and vociferously anti-communist -- as evidenced by his escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The Lefties must hate him for that. Well, maybe not, because after all, Kennedy was a Democrat. That may be true for you -- as long as you suffice yourself to equate the current conservative movement with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. But if you were to follow Sun Tzu's advice, you would spend less time perusing and agreeing with articles on the Huffington Post and whatever other Leftist Web sites you frequent, and get to know your enemy in earnest, and you would learn that there is some serious intellectual firepower on the conservative side. But that would require curiosity on your part. Funny, on some documentary I watched, in the same televised debate, Buckley lost control and called Gore Vidal a faggot (it was scurrilous but funny). Erudite discourse? Not necessarily. Back when WFB was debating his opponents, most of them weren't Marxists or socialists (other than Noam Chomsky), so there was no reason for WFB to call his debate opponents Marxists or socialists. Nowadays, there is an undeniable trend toward socialism in our government's policies (see ObamaCare), and I have no doubt that WFB, if he were alive today, would make cogent points as to why this is bad policy -- and it IS socialist policy, since the government has control over the means of healthcare. Not that whatever WFB said then would matter now, since our political center has shifted far to the left in the past 30 years. See my screeds on Argentina as to what happens to a country -- in spite of its bountiful resources -- when its politics and policies shift left of center. As William F. Buckley would say, "It's a goddam tragedy -- and let's make sure it doesn't happen here."

Wow, Ed, your age betrays you, because you are living in the past -- the distant past. Since you must have forgotten, or simply aren't aware, it was that evil Republican president, Richard M. Nixon, who created a new federal agency called the Evironmental Protection Agency in February 1970, two months before the first Earth Day celebration. The resulting cleanup of smog-filled cities and toxic sites since that time has been a dramatic and welcome change -- some would say miraculous by comparison. If you look at the annual report of any S&P 500 company engaged in manufacturing, mining (including coal, oil, and natural gas), transportation, etc., you will find a comprehensive statement regarding that company's policies regarding the environment. The leaders of modern companies are not stupid. They know that members of the communities they operate in are stakeholders. They know that there are an infinite number of lawyers out there looking to sue on behalf of plaintiffs claiming whatever damages due to their (leaders') company's environmental negligence -- and they know they will be held accountable if they are negligent. They are also very sensitive to claims of environmental malfeasance, to the extent that they have become pro-active in making their companies more environmentally friendly (it's true that this is a response to a market that is environmentally aware, but hey, that's marketing). Look at the railroad industry -- a notorious polluter in the past. Nowadays, railroads can move a ton of freight 430 miles on a single gallon of fuel. This is an amazing technological accomplishment that has not only brought radical change to the transportation industry (in terms of efficiency), but has also reduced the number of less-fuel-efficient tractor-trailors on the roadways -- a benefit to the environment and a benefit to those of us who like to take road trips. Look at the largest employer in North America: Walmart. Walmart has recently re-branded itself from Wal*Mart to Walmart. From this: to this: Cynics would respond that this is a marketing/branding gesture to help Wal*Mart/Walmart generate a softer image. But along with this re-branding, Walmart has also embarked on remodeling all of its Supercenters to what it calls a "Green Store" format, in which most its lighting during daylight hours is provided by sunlight, which will save significant utilities costs, and as per Walmart's mission, they will pass the savings on to their customers -- in a green sort of way. The point is, you don't know what you're talking about. I am extremely offended by your statement that "Conservatives care more for conserving their money than conserving their environment." I am a conservative who happens to love exploring the Great American Southwest, whether driving or hiking or climbing, and I pick up other people's trash whenever I find it. There's some movement, a bunch of tree hippies called the "Rainbo Gathering" that converge on a given area each year for a week or so. They convened near Cuba, New Mexico, last year. You won't find pictures of it on the Internet, but those wonderful stewards of the environment, the "Rainbo Gathering," left all kinds of trash and unprocessed human waste when they left. Evidently, liberal hippies care as little about the environment as you suggest that conservatives do. Ed, you're not as smart and informed as you think. There's a clinical definition for your condition. It's called myopia. Your knee-jerk cynicism and sarcasm toward all things conservative (as a root cause of everything wrong in this world) is a display of your shallow and superficial understanding of conservative thought. You claim to miss William F. Buckley, but you never state why. Is it because of his writing skills? His ideas? As for his ideas, Buckley was one of the main proponents of modern-day conservatism. Why do you miss him so much? Was it his ability to turn a phrase at the approppriate time, like when he said to Gore Vidal on the "Dick Cavett Show," "Fuck you?" Get a grip on reality, Ed, lest smart people cuss you out.

The article below validates everything I posted on this thread six weeks ago. I have to wonder what kind of money those think-tank guys make . . . Could the U.S. become Argentina? Richard W. Rahn A century ago, if you had told typical citizens of Argentina (which at that time was enjoying the fourth-highest per capita income in the world) that it would decline to become just the 76th richest nation on a per capita basis in 2010, they probably would not have found it believable. They might have responded, "This could not happen; we are a nation rich in natural resources, with a great climate for agriculture. Our people are well educated and largely descended from European stock. We have property rights, the rule of law and an open free-market economy." But the fact is, Argentina has been going downhill for eight decades, and it has the second-worst credit ranking in the entire world - only Venezuela has a lower ranking. Argentina, despite its natural resources and human capital, has managed to throw it all away. Argentina did not become relatively poor because of having been involved in destructive conflicts. It became poor because it has had a series of both democratically elected leaders and non-elected dictators who never missed an opportunity to make the wrong economic decisions. It is, once again, trying to renege on paying the principal and interest on Argentine government bonds to foreign bondholders, and hence New York state (where many of the bonds are serviced) may take further action against Argentina, including fines and asset seizures. In the 1930s, the Argentine government increased its interventions in the private economy. Juan Peron took over in 1946 and ended up nationalizing the railroads, the merchant marine, public utilities, public transport and other parts of the private economy. For much of the past half-century, Argentina has engaged in a series of erratic monetary policies, often resulting in periods of very high inflation and economic stagnation. Because of their political power, the unions have been coddled, resulting in unsustainable wage-and-benefit programs. Excessive government spending has caused recurrent fiscal meltdowns, where both foreign and domestic debt-holders have lost many of their investments. According to the Economic Freedom of the World Annual Report (published by the Fraser Institute in cooperation with the Cato Institute and others), Argentina ranks 105 out of 141 countries surveyed. Similarly, the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom (published by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal) ranks Argentina 135 out of the 179 countries surveyed. (The U.S. is No. 8 and falling.) The U.S. has a per capita income of about $47,000 per year, while Argentina's is just $14,000 on a purchasing-power parity (PPP) basis. A hundred years ago, Argentina's per capita income was about 80 percent of that in the U.S. If Argentina had done as well relatively as the United States, it would have a per capita income of about $38,000 today. Countries can become wealthy in a few decades, as have South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Finland, by following the correct economic policies. They also can become relatively poor, as have Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela, by doing the wrong things. Argentina has extensive import bans and controls. The Obama administration has been advocating protectionist trade policies and has opposed the ratification of previously negotiated trade agreements. Argentina has income tax rates roughly equivalent to those in the United States but also has a value-added tax (VAT) and a wealth tax. Officials of the Obama administration and some members of the U.S. Congress are flirting with a VAT. Argentina has continued to run inflationary monetary policies while at the same time attempting to treat the symptoms through price controls. The U.S. Federal Reserve has greatly increased the money supply, which is likely to produce future inflation. Officials of the Obama administration, at times, have advocated price controls of insurance companies, medical suppliers, financial institutions and even fees for carry-on luggage on airplanes. Argentina's largest bank is state-owned, as are a number of its other banks. The Obama administration forced a number of large American banks to become partially government-owned. The two largest mortgage institutions in the United States - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are now largely government-owned-and-controlled. Argentine courts are slow and corrupt. Property rights are not secure, and the government has willfully understated inflation statistics, causing foreign and domestic bondholders to lose much of their investments. The Obama administration unilaterally took away bondholders' rights in the GM and Chrysler cases and, in essence, took their assets and turned them over to the unions that had supported Mr. Obama. Argentina has extensive labor regulations to favor unions, which greatly increase the cost of hiring. The Obama administration has supported costly labor regulations that the unions favor, which eventually will drive up the cost of hiring workers and result in higher unemployment. Argentina has a long history of deficit spending, which, in turn, has made government debt burdens so high that the government refuses to pay the debt to the private domestic and international debt holders. Over the next 30 years, economists associated with the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, estimate (as have many U.S. economists) that the U.S. public debt will rise to between 200 percent and 500 percent of GDP. (It is now about 60 percent.) Debt levels of 200 percent to 500 percent cannot be supported; hence, the debt holders will face erosion of their capital through either inflation or nonpayment. The U.S. is not yet Argentina, but, if many of the policies of the Obama administration are not reversed, America will only get poorer and, in as little as 30 years, become a middle-income country, while dozens of other countries will enjoy a higher standard of living. Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

It's pretty simple, really. The U.S. navy protects the world's shipping lanes and does its best to guarantee the safety of global commerce; the U.S. military maintains a strong presence in certain foreign countries in order to deter the threat of menacing neighboring countries; and, of course, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is a big deterrent to all-out war. Doing all of that is a very costly proposition. An interesting question to ponder is this: What would the world be like if the U.S. didn't exist? If Canada or Britain or Japan or any other U.S. allies want to take a larger role in policing the world, then the U.S. would certainly welcome them to do so. But they won't, because they know the U.S. will do it for them. And they won't, because then they would have to forego or limit their social spending programs. That's the essence of the U.S. deficit conundrum: maintaining peace around the world while providing a world of social benefits domestically. Never mind that military spending is authorized by the U.S. Constitution and spending on social programs is not. ------------------- As for the Tea Party movement representing most Americans: It's ironic that a nation that fought so hard for its independence beginning in 1776 has evolved into a divided nation of people who are dependent on government, people who value their independence, and people who couldn't care less. Those brave signers of the Declaration of Independence, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor -- so that we may be free -- well, their message doesn't really resonate with the dependent crowd. They seem to be perfectly content with what they feel they are entitled to, with what the government can provide for them, with mediocrity, with serfdom. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there's the Tea Party crowd, those nasty people who cherish their independence and freedom, who have a natural distrust of government (like the signers of the Declaration of Independence), who view the Constitution as a charter, and not a "living, breathing document." Then there's the people who don't really care one way or another, who aren't politically engaged, or don't pay attention. So we have a similar situation nowadays as compared to the time leading up to the American Revolution. Back then, popular sentiment was split pretty much equally between the loyalists, the separatists, and the indifferent. In spite of being a minority, the separatists won. Against all odds, they declared independence from the Crown and greatest military power of that time. Back then, the separatists' main complaint, and what instigated the Revolution, was taxation without representation. Nowadays, 53 percent of people pay federal income tax and 47 percent don't (many of whom receive money courtesy of the 53 percent who do). Taxation without representation is a simple but valid complaint -- it's a demand for accountability. The Tea Party people may only constitute a small percentage of the electorate, but their message is gaining traction. The colonial separatists only had a third of the people backing them, but they won the war nonetheless, and the nation they created became the greatest in history.

Grbeck, I agree with your assessment of the two main causes of, or exacerbation of a bad economic cycle that resulted in, the Great Depression. One of which was deflating or tightening of the money supply -- which was precisely the wrong thing to do at the time, since it made money scarcer and scarcer, and had the effect of punishing risk takers and investors, since future returns would be worth less in then-current dollars. The harm that the Hawley-Smoot tariff caused the U.S. economy is a no-brainer: It punished global trading partners for exporting their products to the U.S., and they reciprocated in kind. You correctly pointed out (in an earlier post) that the U.S. agriculture industry (and its exports) was especially hard hit by the Depression; however, you neglected to mention that nasty little problem that plagued the Midwest during much of the 1930s, which was the Dust Bowl. Had the Dust Bowl never occurred -- or even better, had modern land-use and farming techniques been in place at the time -- who knows how the Great Depression would have played itself out? Had there been no Dust Bowl, there would have been plenty of supply -- possibly enough to offset the cost of tariffs imposed by importing countries, and which, perhaps, would have prevented the fate of the "Joads" of that era. In that regard, at least some portion of the Great Depression can be attributed to an "Act of God" (a phrase universally observed by lawyers and the judiciary). (Not that I'm letting Hoover, and especially FDR, off the hook for their failed policies . . .) But you were a bit off by implying that the Federal Reserve Board and its actions are a function of government. The Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed) is NOT part of the federal government. It is a private corporation. See the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It is true that the president has the power to appoint a chairman to the federal reserve, but the chairman and his board of governors are who set monetary policy (print money) and set the interest rates that they offer to their member banks -- the government has nothing to do with this process. And even though Alan Greenspan kept interest rates too low for too long and presided over two humongous asset bubbles (in his defense, he famously warned about "irrational exuberance"), he was operating independently of the U.S. Congress -- which happens to be the chief spending dispensary of the government. Which begs the question: What would happen if Congress were to be allowed to set monetary policy and print money indiscriminately? I shudder to think.

This (the subject of starting a micro-distillery) sounds pretty interesting! I have to wonder, though, about how important the aging process is in creating a worthwhile product, and how profitable it might be in the short term. As I understand it, whisky or whiskey is stored in wooden barrels or casks for a number of years after distillation, and it is from those wooden barrels that the whisky or whiskey derives its color and its particular flavor characteristics. And I don't know of any reputable brand of whisky or whiskey that has not been aged for at least eight years. (Old Mr. Boston and Ten High do not qualify as reputable.) In this regard, starting a micro-distillery is much different than opening a typical small business, since you won't accrue any positive cash flows until at least eight years into the future. Still (no pun intended), I wish you luck. Your project -- if you can manage to pull it off -- sounds like a lot of fun! I have a similar dream for when I retire: buy a small Malbec-producing vinyard on the eastern-side of the Andes near Mendoza in Argentina. There I can spend the rest of my life drinking the most delicious red wine and eating the most delicious steaks in the world, ignoring world politics, and die comfortably.

I did say that, but it was part of a larger point, which you might have missed. I pointed out reasons why I believe that legalizing marijuana will stimulate demand. I then pointed out how increased demand, combined with regulations and taxes, will lead to higher prices for product that is puchased legally. This is an economic reality. But I admit that I left out an important part of the equation, which is whether the government would take over the production of marijuana to be made available legally, as well as whether the government would fix prices or allow them to be set by market forces (my guess is the former). That part is unknowable. But the larger point is this: Regardless of how the government treats the legalization of marijuana, the people who have been operating illegally will continue to do so, for good reason: Since the illegal product does not have regulatory costs and taxes baked in to the retail price, the illegal drug traders would be able to undercut the price of legal marijuana (whether it is government-produced or not) while maintaining high profits and high volume. So the price of illegal marijuana is likely to be much lower than the price of legal marijuana. (Hope that makes you happy.) However, if the government makes it legal for people to grow and even sell their own, then that's a game changer for the long term, where marijuana would be just another agricultural commodity that could be sold at the local produce stand or farmer's market at market prices. But I don't see that happening. Marijuana is a drug, and the government will be compelled to regulate it. And, once again, if the government makes marijuana legal but wants to regulate and tax it, the suppliers of illegal marijuana will just issue a collective yawn and continue business as usual. There's too much money at stake, especially for the bigger players, who don't play by any set of rules. I appreciate your comment about the guy growing weed in his backyard not having to compete against large corporations if he were in the booze business. One minor detail you left out is that he is in violation of the law. But that places the guy growing weed on the same playing field as the big drug cartels. One of the beauties (if you can call it that) of the illegal drug business is a low barrier to entry (low start-up costs). A guy can possibly make some pretty good money growing weed in his backyard or his basement (provided he doesn't get caught by the police). He might be able to do okay as a small-timer, as long as he doesn't fall under the radar of the big boys, who will eliminate him. On the legal side, lots of people start up small vinyards and produce wine (this is a little more expensive than growing pot in one's basement, I admit), and make a little money doing it while competing against the big boys in their trade, but at least they won't get whacked if the big boys notice. .

Probably not, because of the opportunity cost associated with running a still. There are far more lucrative ways for a guy to make a buck, like growing and selling marijuana.

The way I see it, legalizing marijuana will probably increase demand for the drug. The four biggest reasons that come to mind are: (1) people who are former users and who enjoyed the drug but now have good jobs which preclude them from participating in illegal activity; (2) folks who are curious about the "recreational benefits" but were reluctant to participate in an illegal activity; (3) increased accessibility ("Honey, stop at the 7-11 on your way home and pick up some pot"); and (4) the prospect of people no longer having to depend on unsavory, unreliable drug dealers for their dope. This spells increased demand. Add government regulation and taxation to increased demand, and you get higher prices for the drug than when it was available illegally. The current illegal suppliers will be laughing all the way to the bank! Maybe those folks described above will feel better about themselves, but the current illegal trade is not going away. And the illegal trade will have a competitive advantage, since they won't feel the need to pay for the cost of compliance with the various regulatory agencies and taxing authorities. This competitive advantage will allow the illegal drug trade to undercut legal market prices ("Anti-trust laws? We don't need no stinking anti-trust laws!"). So, in other words, legalizing marijuana would not be a threat to the drug cartels. Rather, it would be an opportunity -- even in the marijuana channel of their business -- and a huge opportunity for growth overall. With legalization comes social acceptance that smoking pot is okay. Regardless of where or how consumers bought their weed, whether legally or illegally, there is no reasonable law-enforcement mechanism that I can foresee that could determine which is which. In a scenario where sale and consumption of marijuana is completely legal, imagine a cop approaching someone and asking whether his marijuana cigarette is a government-approved product and to prove it. It's not gonna happen, because smoking pot is perfectly legal, and will become commonly and publicly accepted behavior. Victory for the cartels. Widespread social acceptance of marijuana consumption will enable the cartels to gain further reach and penetration into the American market of marijuana consumers because of the fact that they will be able to undercut American suppliers in a market where consumption of their product is legal. The cartels' distribution methods and lack of regulatory compliance may be illegal, but consumers won't care. Consumers want quality at EveryDayLowPrices. And as a result, consumers will bypass their government-compliant retailers in favor of underground drug dealers -- who have newfound respectability with the added benefit of no law-enforcement agencies having any incentive to enforce the law, since it's only pot. Underground marijuana dealers will no longer carry the negative stigma they once had. Victory for the cartels. It's almost an age-old debate as to whether marijuana is a "gateway" drug that leads to the use of more-harmful, "harder" drugs. I imagine that there are numerous academic papers and studies that address the subject. But if it's true that marijuana is a gateway drug, it stands to reason that legalization of it in this country -- by virtue of more demand -- represents a major potential victory for the cartels.

No, I don't feel like a dunce, because I try to avoid reaching conclusions based on questionable premises and apples-to-oranges comparisons. Legalizing the production, distribution, sale, and consumption of marijuana will do little (at least in the short term) in reducing criminal activity associated with marijuana. In fact, legalization could open up new opportunities for mischief. There was an AP article in the March 18 edition of the Albuquerque Journal that illustrates this point, entitled "Medical marijuana a frequent target for criminals". By LISA LEFF Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Patients, growers and clinics in some of the 14 states that allow medical marijuana are falling victim to robberies, home invasions, shootings and even murders at the hands of pot thieves. There have been dozens of cases in recent months alone. The issue received more attention this week after a prominent medical marijuana activist in a Seattle suburb nearly killed a robber in a shootout - the eighth time thieves had targeted his pot-growing operation. Critics say the heists and holdups prove that marijuana and crime are inseparable, though marijuana advocates contend that further legalization is the answer. News of crimes related to medical marijuana comes at an awkward time for California and Washington advocates who are pushing to pass ballot measures to allow all adults, not just the chronically ill, to possess the drug. "Whenever you are dealing with drugs and money, there is going to be crime. If people think otherwise, they are very naive," said Scott Kirkland, the police chief in El Cerrito, Calif., and a vocal critic of his state's voter-approved medical marijuana law. "People think if we decriminalize it, the Mexican cartels and Asian gangs are going to walk away. That's not the world I live in," Kirkland said. . . . Most medical marijuana states have only vague rules for caregivers or dispensaries participating in a business with products that can fetch $600 an ounce. (Emphasis mine.) . . . When asked why he robs banks, bank robber Willie Sutton quipped, "Because that's where the money is." The same applies to the drug trade, legal or illegal -- that's where the money is. For a product that grows like a weed in many different climates and with very little maintenance, $600 an ounce for the stuff at the retail level offers margins that are difficult to resist. And at a little more than half the per-ounce price of gold, marijuana has the advantage of being a consumable commodity, meaning that there will always be future demand, thus making it a far-superior investment on the supply side of the equation. Of course, even if the cost of production of marijuana is low, the cost of establishing the logistical pipelines, the bribes of officials, and setting up trusted distribution liaisons, may be higher than what one could expect in above-board markets, but that's where demand comes into play: There is a high price elasticity of demand among users of illegal drugs -- since they are either addicted (physically or psychologically) or otherwise dependent, they tend to have a high threshold for the price they are willing to pay for the drugs they crave so much. You can argue that I am generalizing here, and I am, but I'm just speaking from an economic perspective -- and economics is the study of how societies (not individuals) allocate scarce resources. As I indicated earlier, it's all about the demand. I am truly curious about how making marijuana legal to "grow and sell," as you say, although you left out the necessary components of distribution and consumption, and dare I say marketing (can't wait to see the TV spots!), would be regulated, and by whom, and how effectively. If marijuana is to be made legal for sale and consumption, then there's no reason to believe that the government would not step in and regulate its potency, just as it regulates the potency of aspirin. After all, marijuana is a drug (hence, its approval for medicinal use by some states, and which requires a doctor's prescription for sale). That means meeting strict guidelines for indications and contraindications, uses, directions for use, product warnings, active ingredients, inactive ingredients, and UPC registration with the Federal Trade Commission -- which requires branding and implies necessary incorporation in order to absolve personal liability of the supplier/owner of the brand. I can envision corporate marijuana farms/suppliers going through this process and meeting these requirements (after all, the overhead is low -- or, at least the cost of production is low. . .). What I can't imagine is a bunch of illegal drug merchants -- who are used to dictating the terms of their trade by bribery and bloodshed -- suddenly complying with government regulations. It would be more like some Alfonso Bedoya-looking character telling his accomplices: "Regulations? We don't need no stinking regulations!" The drug cartels don't -- and they won't -- need regulations to stay in business. They already have the upper hand when it comes to supply-chain management in the illegal drug trade. They are well established; they are mobile (they've moved from Colombia to Mexico, and some suggest that Guatemala is their next base of operations); they have incredibly low operating and production costs; they are demonstratively serious about and protective of their business; and they don't give a damn about who gets caught in the crossfire. These people are so vicious that I have to wonder if making marijuana legal to grow and sell wouldn't be an open invitation for them to come to this side of the border to introduce their brand of competitiveness on erstwhile, well-intentioned marijuana farmers. It's just a thought. For the above reasons, people who advocate legalizing marijuana on the grounds that it could be a source of tax revenue may want to switch to a different brand of herb. The pipeline is already in place, and most people -- especially people who participate in the underground drug trade -- are tax averse: "Taxes? We don't pay no stinking taxes!" Nancy Reagan was ridiculed for her anti-drug campaign, the slogan of which was "Just Say No." But she was perfectly and succinctly correct in addressing the problem: It's all about demand. And until the demand goes away, the problem will persist. Nancy's solution is sort of like ignoring an Internet troll -- he eventually goes away. Please provide supporting data or cite sources for your claim that tobacco is "the most profitable controlled substance on the planet." Inquiring investors want to know.

I think people were smoking a lot more pot back then, too. This is where I separate myself from the Libertarians (after all, as the old saying goes: Libertarians are Republicans who smoke weed). In the truest Libertarian economic sense, Colombian farmers should be allowed to grow Coca at will, since that particular agricultural product has a far greater economic yield than anything else Colombian farmers could produce. And, as you said, increased efficiency of production would stimulate consumption. Problem is, this is exactly what happened with Colombian Coca production in the 1970s, with a complacent government that looked the other way. The result? Narco-terrorism in Colombia and surrounding regions, drug cartels, and exponentially increased consumption of Cocaine in the U.S. during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s and beyond, and with its ugly byproducts "freebasing" (which the comedian Richard Pryor would probably tell you was a flash in the pan, so to speak) and crack, which is still popular. I remember news stories at the time lauding Cocaine as a "recreational drug." This nonsense stopped suddenly when the University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias, who had been drafted as a first-round pick by the Boston Celtics, suddenly dropped dead from a Cocaine-induced heart attack in 1986. Unfortunately, increased consumption of narcotics usually has the adverse effect of decreased productivity; in any case, recreational consumption of narcotics is a waste of a person's scarce financial resources, not to mention a source of family problems, as well as a threat to personal health. Although the storyline is a source of some pretty good movies ("Bad Lieutenant" is my personal favorite), it doesn't have a happy ending in the movies, nor does it in the real world. But what about those Colombian farmers who righteously chose to grow other crops, such as coffee or cocoa? Oh, do your reading about the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarios de Colombia -- or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), an anti-government, Marxist group that arose during the 1970s which derives much of its funding from the drug cartels (and Leftist governments). One of the FARC's tactics is to invade small non-Coca-producing family farms and kill the parents, kidnap the kids, and give the kids food, shelter, and AK-47s, which then allows their fellow comrades to resume Coca production on the family farm. And the kids don't have much choice but to join the FARC's cause. And then there's the drug cartels. See the carnage in Mexico: 7,000 people killed in the last year -- more than twice the number killed in Iraq. And those cartels are not just about cocaine and herioin, but involve marijuana, too. All this tragedy because of American demand. The demand is there; it's real. So, let's follow the Colombian model of the 1970s. Grow the best weed in California (which is already famous for its quality), stimulate consumption, and watch what happens. . . .

Wow! You sound angry! For one thing, this message board crashed a few years ago, and so none of us has any record on it for opposing or supporting Bush's fiscal policies. So you have no basis in knowing where any of us guys were in regards to those policies during most of the period from 2000 to 2008. You'll have to trust me, as a fiscal conservative, when I say I opposed Bush's approval of the Medicare Prescription Drug Program (which was a massive expansion of Medicare). I also opposed Bush's approval for commodities subsidies, specifically for agriculture: Subsidies for agriculture make agricultural products more expensive for the consumer, since they entice farmers to produce certain products in favor of other products that they would have produced more efficiently. The price of bread went up approximately 50 percent because former wheat farmers suddenly found it more profitable to grow corn for ethanol. Corn for ethanol became such a rage that there was a global shortage of corn for food, which led to food riots in places like Mexico City and Cairo. Bush was also wrong in supporting and signing into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which I opposed at the time it was enacted, which has not achieved a net gain in national test scores as Bush envisioned, and which has actually harmed some school districts in terms of funding. And Bush's institution of the Department of Homeland Security has added levels upon levels of bureaucracy to the federal government -- specifically the TSA (admittedly a pet peeve of mine), which by its measure of success (zero percent), is the most incompetent and therefore worthless of all government agencies. There's something wrong when shoe bombers and underwear bombers must be thwarted by passengers and stewardesses. These two programs don't weigh on the federal budget like entitlement programs do, but they certainly have not proven their worth. Back to the future . . . According to Wiki, 18.67 percent of President Obama's 2010 budget is devoted to the Department of Defense (including "Overseas Contingency Operations" -- ObamaSpeak for the two wars). Yet the amount of money devoted to the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is more than double, at 40.2 percent. Never mind the fact that defense spending is authorized by the Constitution, while spending on entitlements is not. Why, as a liberal, would you not be joyous over the fact that this country spends more than twice as much on social programs than it does on defense -- and soon to be a lot more?

I heard there was a Treasury auction this week and nobody came. I wonder if the CBO figured future interest rates into their equations.

Please elaborate as to why the methodology of Rasmussen's polls, and their results, produce a right-leaning bias. Please supply evidence that Gallup is "widely regarded as the most accurate and impartial polling group." And while you're at it, please explain the following contradictory evidence: In their final respective surveys leading up to the 2008 presidential election, Rasmussen had Obama winning 52 to 46 (percent of the popular vote); Gallup had Obama winning 55 to 44; and the final tally was 53 to 46. Both Rasmussen's and Gallup's surveys both publicized a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points. See the results for yourself. The Rasmussen poll was off by 1 percentage point in the win column and accurate in its projection for the loss column (and within its margin of error of two percentage points), while Gallup was off by 2 in the win column and off by 2 in the loss column, for a total of 4 percentage points outside its projections, and a full 2 percentage points outside its margin of error. Inquiring minds eagerly await your response.

Foreign aid in relation to GDP is a meaningless statistic. It doesn't take into account such factors as the amount of money the U.S. spends serving as the world's police force, keeping global waterways safe for global commerce; private investment in R&D to create vaccines and treatments that benefit disease-ravaged people in third-world countries (chiefly Africa); or public investment in military installations in foreign countries to help protect them from the threat of menacing neighboring countries (see South Korea as a good example). There's a good argument to be made for the "nuclear deterrent," that it has staved off wars and has forced reconciliation. Actually, there is a huge example: Ask people from Eastern European countries what freedom means to them. This and the above examples are extremely expensive -- courtesy of the United States -- and without them, you wouldn't have a planet to live on, much less a planet worth saving. The U.S. is by far the world leader in these types of expenditures -- which, in my book, constitutes a "respectable bracket." Another "respectable bracket" the U.S. leads the world in, is in the category of total expenditures (public and private) in foreign aid. Even under the evil Republican George W. Bush, the U.S. led the league in total foreign aid at the height of his presidency:

You've got your facts wrong. A bank doesn't "spend" depositors' money; it INVESTS it in the form of loans and mortgages, which in turn cover operating costs of the bank, with some proceeds returned to depositors in the form of interest or dividends. Bank deposits are insured by the FDIC, not the Federal Reserve -- these are two entirely separate entities -- and the latter is not even an agency of the federal government. Banks do make money on transaction fees (and if you don't like it, find another bank, or better yet, join a non-profit credit union), but whether you like it or not, banks have to make money to stay in business. Monies are not "deposited" "from" the Social Security Administration, they are CONFISCATED from the SSA by politicians, and in turn, the Federal Treasury issues Treasury notes, which are backed by "The Full Faith and Credit" of the United States Government. And the Social Security Trust Fund was never intended to operate as a bank or a lending institution. It is a trust fund -- period -- a property to be held by those in trust (in this case, American citizens who paid into it) -- whose otherwise $2.5 trillion in assets have been riven over the years by self-serving and disingenuous politicians in order to disguise what would have been budget deficits. That $2.5 trillion has been replaced by Treasurys, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government, whose creditworthiness is becoming more questionable with each passing day. That's far different than a bank lending depositors' money for a home loan, with the house used as collateral. Let me re-state: THERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY "SURPLUS." And the government did not rob itself; it robbed you and me -- we the people who have paid into it over our working lives. Since the Social Security Trust Fund was designated as a trust fund from Social Security's inception in 1935, none of what you say should have come into play or come into question had the rule of law prevailed. But, OOPS!, once again, politicians have trumped the rule of law. No, in reality, it's pretty simple. Social Security is paying out more in benefits than it is receiving in revenue, and its underlying assets are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government, which itself is insolvent, and therefore increasing its debt. You can spin it and deny it anyway you want, but that is a fact. Why else would the U.S. Government need to conduct Treasury auctions, like the one today? No, let's stick with the subject of sound accounting. Government agencies use an accounting practice called "cash-basis" accounting, which recognizes expenses when they are to be paid (at present value) -- rather than the "accrual basis" of when those expenses are expected to occur (taking into account the time value of money). The latter gives a more accurate picture of long-term financial estimates (which is what businesses use, and falls under the guidelines of Generally Accepted Accounting Principals), but the "cash basis" accounting method is what the government uses, and is totally disingenuous when it comes to projecting the future costs of massive medical and other programs -- which might explain (at least partly) why government accounting agencies have a reputation of being disreputable in regards to their projections. Are you actually suggesting that the "Rob Peter to pay Paul" method of financial management constitutes sound, long-term fiscal management? By a government no less? By the U.S. government? I'm not given to Internet acronyms, but all I can say is: OMG! We know it doesn't work like that. The government floats more debt to meet the payments. Sell that to retirees living on fixed income and dependent on their monthly Social Security checks. True, but there are (and will be into the foreseeable future) fewer workers paying in and more beneficiaries than in years past. It's a demographic fact. Once the U.S. Government has to "make arrangements" or pay a "late fee" on the service of its public debt, the party's over. The "Full Faith and Credit" of the U.S. Government will be laughed at the world over. And trust me on this: there is no world body, no country or financial body, not the European Union nor the IMF that will come to bail the U.S. out of any sort of financial distress, should that occur. You seem not to recognize or value what the phrase "Full Faith and Credit" of the United States Government really means, especially its historical meaning and cost in blood. The U.S. does NOT pay $75 per $100 on what it owes; it does not "make arrangements"; or pay late fees. But you're right: Once this happens, the U.S. will be penalized severely, and there's no "might" about it.

Perhaps you missed a March 15, 2010, Associated Press article entitled "Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs" by Stephen Ohlemacher: PARKERSBURG, W.Va. (AP) -- The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration. It's time to start cashing them in. For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits - billions more each year. Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes - nearly $29 billion more. It's true that a financial entity is not necessarily insolvent if its current accounts payable (in this case, benefits) exceed its receivables (in this case, tax revenues) as long as the entity has other assets that can cover the shortfall -- even though you yourself defined insolvency as "to say that is [sic] pays out more money that it takes in" in your fifth paragraph. The problem, which you hinted at, is that those other assets (which you call a "surplus") are in the form of money that has already been spent and are represented in the form of special bonds, payable only to the Social Security Administration. From the article: Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs - in the form of Treasury bonds - which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg's municipal offices. Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn't be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come. That's a problem, because those special Treasurys that are locked in some vault in West Virginia are not considered assets on the Federal Government's balance sheet -- the government will have to borrow even more money to repay those bonds. And they are legitimate Treasurys (although non-negotiable and payable only to the Social Security Administration) and therefore good for principal and interest. Evidently, since all money the government collects is fungible (or interchangable), those special Treasurys that you call a surplus are really only a liability that must be paid by the federal government (thus the phrase "unfunded liabilities"). And currently, since the government is not exactly operating at a surplus itself, it must issue more public debt in order to repay these bonds, at least in times when Social Security benefits exceed revenues. I've taken several 500-level accounting and finance courses, and nowhere in the academic literature was it presented that having to borrow money in order to meet an obligation to pay constitutes a surplus. Meanwhile, that same day, the New York Times reported in an article entitled "Moody's Says U.S. Debt Could Test Triple-A Rating", it seems clear to me that this is precisely the wrong time for the government to be borrowing more money (even though I realize that the government must do this to maintain current Social Security benefits payments). Maintaining that Aaa bond rating is a very big deal for the long-term future of this country. The Social Security "surplus" you speak of, along with all the other out-of-control spending by the government is putting that Aaa rating at risk. The above-mentioned article about the Social Security Administration having to cash in some of its "IOUs" came as something of a surprise to most people, and is probably attributable to the poor economy and high unemployment rate; actually, the SSA is expected to have positive revenues in the next few years. ("Expected" and "forecast" are terms used by economists, who are no more reliable than your local TV weatherman.) You seem to have a sunny vision for Social Security's future. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, seems to present a less-than-rosy outlook in his letter on the cover page of my most recent Social Security Statement. An excerpt: About Social Security's future... Social Security is a compact between generations. For decades, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement. In 2016, we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 76 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. . . . This is grim statement by Mr. Astrue on behalf of his own administration for several reasons: First, saying "Social Security is a compact between generations" is a de facto admission that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (the definition of which, according to my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., is: "an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks"). Social Security was not first created to become a Ponzi scheme, but because the federal government raided the Social Security Trust Fund long ago, that's what it has become. Today's workers are paying for the benefits of today's retirees. And that's a fact. It didn't have to be that way, and I'll explain in a minute. Second, saying "action is needed" is a gross understatement. Governments that take from their people with the promise to deliver future goodies, and then fail to deliver, tend to subject themselves to, shall we say, public discord. Action is certainly needed, starting with an admission of the past failings of the Social Security Administration -- as well as an admission of past failings by the federal government -- to maintain and safeguard what was the Social Security Trust Fund. Congressional spendaholics were/are no different than the infamous Teamsters Boss Jackie Presser, who raided his own Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund in order to help finance mafia-controlled Las Vegas Casinos -- except for the fact that Jackie Presser was prosecuted. Those politicians, on the other hand, who looted the Social Security Trust Fund, were/are not held culpable and accountable. And that is a goddam shame, because these people are charged with being custodians of our money. Third, Mr. Astrue's admission that "by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted" conveys the notion that the Trust Fund actually exists, which is simply not true. But even if we take his statement about the Trust Fund (in the form of government IOUs) being exhausted by 2037 on its face, it speaks to the utter ineptitude of the Trust Fund's ability to meet its end goals of providing financial security for retirees. I know it's taboo to suggest that Social Security funds be invested in anything other than Treasurys, but individual states typically invest the money they receive from floating state-government bonds in all sorts of investment vehicles -- through investment advisors -- until they actually need the money. Consider a current 25-year-old college graduate who lands a job at $25,000 a year. Assuming his 6.2 percent Social Security deduction and his employer's matching deduction, a modest 5 percent return on investment (far below the average return in the stock market since Social Security was enacted in 1935), and a modest 2.5 percent average annual increase in wages over the course of a 40-year career, he will have accrued $704,500 to his account by the time he retires at age 65. At a mere 4 percent annual deduction (a benchmark for financial/retirement planners) this equates to $28,180 in future retirement income -- in perpetuity. Never mind that should he die and his spouse dies, too, that that money does not belong to his estate, but rather the federal government. What would have actually accrued under the guise of the Social Security Trust Fund would have been much less: It's pretty safe to assume that those funky Treasurys in that government vault in West Virginia have the kind of low yield that a government agency would issue to an agency of the same government. I fully appreciate your sentiments about what Social Security was meant to be and what it was designed for. I agree with you in this regard. Social Security has always been a noble cause and serves an important function in our society. What aggreives me most about Social Security is the government's mistreatment of the Social Security Trust Fund. It is truly a betrayal of trust by our government and our politicians.

Survey after survey indicated that, by a large margin, the majority of the people were against this bill. We already know about the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase bribes that took place in the Senate. There are unsubstantiated reports of similar mischief in the House, in the form of bribes (financial support for the upcoming campaign), threats (namely, threats against Bart Stupak and his family, but in general threats by important campaign contributors -- unions -- to support primary opponents), "funding gifts" to members' districts (a form of bribe), rumors of political appointments for "courageous members who walked the plank", and so on and so forth. It's a sham. The American people didn't want this bill. Congress passed it anyway. This isn't representative government. It's authoritarianism.

The outstanding U.S. public debt as of March 22, 2010, at 03:14:51 a.m. GMT is $12,674,333,508,415.33. The estimated population of the United States is 308,051,615 so each citizen's share of this debt is $41,143.54. The U.S. public debt is growing at a rate of $4.05 billion per day. Yes you have . . . managed to hasten the economic demise of this country. If you think that government health-insurance sponsorship of an additional 30 million people will reduce the national debt and budget deficits, I would be curious to know which planet it is you're trying to save. According to fundamental economic principals on planet Earth, accruing the health-insurance expenses of 30 million people onto the public dole will only add to the public debt, not subtract from it. And when the credit rating of U.S. Treasurys becomes downgraded by the assorted global bond-ratings agencies, the resulting currency meltdown (see Argentina 2001 and Iceland 2008 -- both caused by excessive national debt resulting in credit downgrades), will suddenly have you more concerned about your own self preservation than you are about saving the planet. Along with our country's $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, tonight's passage of ObamaCare in effect doubles down on that bad bet. So why stop there? Why settle for Cap and Trade and Amnesty? Why not go for Card Check, too, while you're on a roll? Why not just go for broke and throw in more regulations and create the worst possible climate for job growth? Anyhow, you got and will get what you want, which is growth of the Welfare State, more government intrusion, more government dependency, and the demise of America. Congratulations.

Indeed! Not only is our country suffering the effects of a nasty recession (much of which was caused by fiscal irresponsibility by Congress and faulty monetary policy by the Fed), but it is also facing the largest federal budget deficit since 1946. And the difference between 1946 and now is that back then, the U.S. was in a position to grow its economy (and thus reduce its deficits) because its own manufacturing infrastructure was unscathed from the effects of WWII compared to much of the rest of the world's industrialized countries. The global economy is much different nowadays, however, with emerging markets such as China, India, Brazil, South Korea, and even Russia growing the fastest, with the U.S., Japan, and European economies lagging. That's not an investment tip; that's the reality. In other words, the current U.S. economy is not in a position to grow itself out of its deep financial hole like it did in the post-war years. The Democrats' solution for this problem is to create a massive government entitlement program -- the size of which the world has never seen. And they seem to be oblivious to the fact that other entitlement programs that they have enacted, such as Social Security and Medicare are insolvent. They don't care that cost estimates for these programs at the time they were enacted were grossly underestimated (which in the private sector would trigger lawsuits based on fraud, misrepresentation, and negligence). No, the Democrats' solution for overspending and massive deficits is more spending -- in the form of the largest entitlement program in history. And they're ready to plow full steam ahead after receiving the preliminary CBO score that had the cost at "only" $940 billion over the next ten years, as if they were thankful it didn't exceed the $1 trillion threshold. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D--S.C., said on Thursday that the Democratic leadership in the House was "absolutely giddy" after receiving the preliminary score. Evidently, a preliminary score by the CBO is good enough for the Democrats, even though the full 2,700-page bill, with all its boilerplate and legislative gobbledegook, was released that same day. So the Congressional Democrats were high-fiving each other over the CBO's preliminary score, when in reality, such a complex piece of legislation would take months of examination by an army of bean counters to get a true picture of the costs. No need for that! Let's get this done! There are 50,000 people who die every year from lack of health insurance! (They say.) However, this program won't become effective until 2014, meaning that ObamaCare doesn't really care about the supposed 200,000 people who will die in the interim. But it sure cares about collecting the new taxes to pay for it, which will become effective upon passage of the bill (which anyone with even an ounce of economic literacy will tell you is the wrong thing to do in a bad economy). And while the Democrats were pushing for healthcare "reform" and downplaying the additional debt burden it could possibly entail, they either ignored or dismissed this March 15 article in the New York Times: Moody’s Says U.S. Debt Could Test Triple-A Rating To Democrat politicians, this is not that big a deal, since it merely represents other peoples' money. But to the Chinese and Japanese governments (the two largest foreign holders of -- and investors in -- U.S. Treasurys) it is a very big deal, and they will be keeping a very close eye on how the United States government manages its finances. It's hard to ascertain how deeply it would affect the U.S. economy should they (particularly the Chinese) don't like what they see and decide to unload their Treasury bonds on the open market, other than the fact that the bonds would be sold at deeper than normal discounts, and would cheapen the value of U.S. Treasurys worldwide. But there's no doubt that if Moody's were to downgrade the U.S.'s credit rating, it will result in higher interest rates and deeper discounts in future Treasury auctions -- which are a function of keeping our government afloat -- which will make the U.S. debt that much more expensive. At taxpayers' expense, of course. Beginning with the fourth paragraph (this is the New York Times, mind you), the same article has some cryptic admonitions: That last bit: "In some cases, will test social cohesion," I can personally speak to. I was having a phone conversation with my mom and the subject of Social Security came up. I pointed out to Mom that the money she and Dad paid in has already been spent by the government (this is a fact). And Mom became so defensive and outraged by my assertion that she slammed the phone down. She then started typing e-mails to me, screaming at me in ALL CAPS, saying things like "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION YOUR FATHER'S WORTHINESS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY!" I never questioned Dad's worthiness for Social Security; in fact, I think he is perfectly worthy of Social Security benefits by virtue of his career contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund. We've gotten past it, but this little family spat illustrates how certain entitlement programs can "test social cohesion." I just love that phrase "test social cohesion," especially in the context of entitlements and public debt. . . .

I agree that it looks like ObamaCare will pass, but I'm not convinced that the insurance companies are in cahoots with Congress and "spending tons of money to try to pass it." (Cite a source if you want, but for now, I'm not convinced.) As I understand it (and no, I haven't bothered to read the 2,700-page bill that was released yesterday, as if I -- or anyone else -- could comprehend its full meaning), the bill is a path to the public option, which will eventually drive the health-insurance industry out of business. The Senate bill, which is what is under consideration by the House, dropped the public option for this reason (which might be what you're talking about), but now members of the House are talking about passing the bill anyway, whichever way they can -- even bypassing constitutional requirements, if necessary, and subjecting themselves to Court scrutiny -- because they envision passing future amendments to the bill that would include the public option, and therefore achieve their ultimate goal of a single-payer, government-run, healthcare system. It is true that corporate campaign donations tend to favor the incumbent party, with the incumbent party gladly accepting them (we have the finest politicians money can buy), and lobbying money tends to favor incumbents as well, but I strongly doubt the insurance industry would support a measure that would eventually put itself out of business. But, then again, I haven't read the "fine print," as you say. The whole thing is a farce. If forcing people to buy health insurance (lest they be fined), and tying people's health-insurance expenditures to their IRS records, survives Supreme Court muster, then it will be time to start researching which banana republic we would prefer to live in, because the U.S. will be among them (because the Constitution is obviously no longer recognized by the Court -- a trademark characteristic of banana republics -- the recent Honduras example being the exception that proves the rule). And if ObamaCare passes, President Obama will claim a significant victory, and he will be emboldened to pass other measures in his vision to "fundamentally change America." Next up: Amnesty. Corporate America probably likes this (cheap labor). Formerly illegal immigrants represent a huge voting block for Democrat politicians in future elections, and which could influence this year's elections among their sympathetic, registered cohorts. After that: Card Check. No corporate money here, but it will be funded substantially by unions. Which, in a terrible economy, pits union members against illegal immigrants seeking amnesty -- and jobs. Should be interesting. After that: Cap and Trade. The House passed this bill a year ago, which gives corporate strategists and trading schemers plenty of time to do the homework necessary to make money on the deal. Even though traders might be able to make money on Cap and Trade, I can't imagine any scenario in which Corporate America could make more money from the increased cost of energy inputs that Cap and Trade would impose on them. But as much as they don't like it, it doesn't really matter, since they will pass their additional operating costs onto you and me. Sounds fun!

Three points: Until science proves that (1) homosexuality is an innate condition; (2) until science can explain why some people somehow discover that they are homosexual only after they have entered into heterosexual marital relationships; and (3) until science can explain why some individuals who have previously considered themselves homosexuals now view themselves as heterosexuals -- it's going to be difficult for the scientific communitiy to reconcile point 1 with points 2 and 3. Given the absence of scientific proof, homosexuality can only be construed as a behavioral characteristic, and not rising to the level of a protected class (certain Supreme Court decisions would disagree (see Romer v. Evans as an example -- and I would be a dissenter) such as race, sex, age, creed (religious affiliation, as protected by the First Amendment). Three facts: (1) Homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights in the U.S. as heterosexuals; (2) there are no laws preventing homosexuals from living together; and (3) homosexuals are free to write contracts with one another (such as wills and other agreements). Also, more and more government agencies are allowing their employees to include their homosexual partners in their healthcare coverage. Lots of companies, too. People who want to equate the current "gay rights" movement with the civil rights movement have no historical perspective, and have no sense of shame.

Thank you again, Edstock, for your kind words. I don't know that I deserve them, because I was just trying to make a point. The reason I wrote what I did is that I don't think it's a sin to learn from others' mistakes. I can only hope that my government's leaders (and my country's voters -- which is probably wishful thinking) can learn from Argentina's mistakes -- which, in sum, was to try to create a Utopia financed by high taxation directed at first towards the rich, and later, after most of the rich had fled, towards the middle class. Argentina's 20th-century economic governance is a prime example of how government largess can inflict terrible and lasting damage to what once was a world-class economy. We see a modern-day parallel in the U.S., with wealthy people in high-taxation states such as California, New York, and New Jersey fleeing to other states that have lower tax rates, leaving middle-class taxpayers to pick up the tab for their respective state governments' largess. As far as sovereign debt defaults go, Spain may have defaulted, and France, too, but according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, in its October 2004 Report to Congress, Argentina's default in 2001 (at over $100 billion U.S.) was the largest in history. And to reiterate: Argentina's sovereign debt default was caused by excessive government spending (chief culprits: government-sponsored healthcare, pension programs, welfare, "free" college education, and massive infrastructure spending). This resulted in deficits, which resulted in higher taxation, which resulted in capital flight, which resulted in reduced investment, which resulted in lost jobs, which resulted in reduced tax revenues, which probably had economist Art Laffer (of "Laffer Curve" fame) laughing out loud. Except that it wasn't all that funny for Argentines who, at the time, had all their savings in Argentine pesos (which at the time were pegged 1 = 1 to the U.S. dollar) and saw that value drop by two-thirds overnight as a result of their government's fiscal mismanagement. It's also important to say that the people of Argentina should be commended for their resilience (the 2001 Argentine credit default was the equivalent of the Great Depression in the U.S.). The Argentine people are incredibly strong and productive (again, resembling the American people) -- in spite of their government's destructive policies. The lesson of Argentina's sovereign default is a lesson that should be learned by all, lest George Santayana be turning in his grave.

Thank you for the compliment! I don't see land distribution as the root of Argentina's problems. Argentina has a history much like that of the U.S., which is a history of conquest over indiginous peoples (who in all fairness didn't recognize property rights themselves). Just substitute British colonialism for Spanish colonialism. And just like the U.S., the productive farmlands are parceled among small family farms, larger estates (or ranches like you described, called "estancias") which are not unlike large ranches in the western U.S. or plantations in the southern U.S., and, of course nowadays, the corporate "animal factories" like we have in the U.S. The ag industry is by far the most important means of production for the Argentine economy (Argentina is one of the world's major breadbaskets), and is therefore the largest source of that country's wealth -- and that production comes from the "elite" as well as from small family farms. To concede a point: It's interesting that you mention the "elite." When I went to Argentina the first time, I learned that that country is the center of the sport of polo. It's where they have all the polo championships, where the best breeding and training grounds of polo ponies are. Like climbing Himalayan peaks, polo is a ridiculously expensive sport to participate in. Land distribution was not and is not the cause of Argentina's problems; rather, it is a matter of wealth distribution. Too much creeping socialism, along with too many promises made by the government that were never fulfilled; too-high taxes that resulted in capital flight and reduced investment; too much public debt that eventually led to the first sovereign default in history (Google: Argentina financial crisis 2001) which led to a devaluation of the Argentine peso by two thirds; and, it goes without saying, corrupt kleptocrats (including the current Kirchner Admistration) posing as government leadership. THAT'S the problem. As I said, Argentina has a history much like that of the U.S. As such, it has a heritage of being a melting pot of mostly European immigrants, mostly from Spain and Italy, but not to the exclusion other European countries. There's a large Welsh settlement in southern Patagonia. As it happens, in spite of the "flood of nazis into the country" (as you say), Buenos Aires has the largest Jewish community in South America (I guess they were such a threat to Islamic terrorists that the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish community center were attacked by terrorist bombings in 1992 and 1994, killing 29 and 87 people, respectively). Even still, it's apparent that the "flood of nazis" you describe didn't discourage a flood of Jews to migrate to Argentina as well. There are a whole bunch of "blondies'' in Argentina who speak perfect Castillian Spanish, but they wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about, and they couldn't care less about ODESSA pipelines and right-wing paranoia -- they're more worried about whether the government is going to fulfill its promises or whether the government is going to take more of their income. And the U.S. hired Werhner von Braun. The U.S. got to the moon, and Argentina remains mired in its welfare state. Go figure.