Fished Out

"Now what?"
--John Finnegan (Deep Rising)

Seems this lake's all fished out.

Where will Dems cast their lines next?

Independence Meme

Jim Malone: What I'm saying is, what are you prepared to do?

Eliot Ness: Anything within the law.

Jim Malone: And THEN what are you prepared to do?

--The Untouchables

In his commentary following yesterday's farcical congressional testimony of former FBI director James Comey, David Stockman discusses Comey's repeated invocations of the FBI's 'traditionally independent status in the executive branch.'

This is a false and dangerous view of any agency within the federal government--particularly one that possesses extraordinary police power. As these pages have recently observed, when federal bureaucrats are not directly accountable to voters, they are free to pursue their own agendas. They govern without 'consent of the governed.' 

Agencies such as the FBI must be politically accountable lest they become a policing arm of the deep state reminiscent of J. Edgar Hoover's feds.

As Stockman observes, however, Comey's behavior over the past year suggests that he doesn't believe the independence meme himself. He has subordinated his actions and those of the bureau to the political will of others. Indeed, it was his violation of protocol for the sake of politics that merited his dismissal by not one but two presidents.

Comey's behavior and his subsequent termination suggests that the state may not be as deep as some may presume.

Virginia's Resolution

Benjamin Martin: May I sit with you?
Charlotte Selton: It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
--The Patriot

Tara Ross notes that yesterday in 1776, Virginia statesman Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution to the Continental Congress proposing that the colonies separate from Great Britain. Virginia legislators had been sensing that America was in 'a state of extreme danger' and concluded that they should either a) completely submit to the will of the British tyrants, or b) break away from Crown rule.

Once the Virginia legislature had written its resolution, Lee forwarded it to John Adams of Massachusetts. Adams received it warmly and with some amazement, as he knew that other colonies were coming to similar conclusions.

In fact, Adams would later suggest that the fact that people in various states came to the same realization at the same time was no accident. It had to be the hand of Divine Providence that was guiding America toward liberty.

A more secular view might suggest that people in the various colonies were merely being driven by the same natural laws to throw off tyranny in favor of freedom.

In any event, after Lee presented the Virginia resolution to the Continental Congress, declaring that 'these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states," Adams seconded the motion.

A few days later three committees were appointed. One was to draft a declaration of independence, a second was to draft a plan for a confederation of the several states, and a third was to prepare a plan for allying with foreign nations. Meanwhile, delegates headed home to meet with their state legislatures and deliberate their authority to declare independence.

Less than a month later, our First Law was passed.

Deep State

"You just don't get it. These people can make us disappear."
--Nina Chance (Murder at 1600)

In a recent television interview, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned President Donald Trump about crossing intelligence officials: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community--they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

This is one way to view the 'deep state.' The deep state consists of unelected federal government bureaucrats who, because they are not directly accountable to voters, can pursue their own agendas without fear of reprisal. Bureaucrats and their agencies become more deeply entrenched as they accumulate power independent of elected officials. The Federal Reserve is an example of a deep state agency.

Intelligence agencies also possess capacity for deepness. Since they monitor communications of everyone, including government officials, they can accumulate 'dirt' that can be used against opponents that threaten deep state livelihood. Moreover, intelligence agencies are versed in counter-intelligence practices capable of deceiving large groups of people. They are also capable of inciting or committing acts of physical violence.

The primary goal of the deep state is to maintain power regardless of what political party holds elected office. Trump, being a Washington outsider who has signaled that he will not play ball with the deep state status quo, presents a clear and present threat to these bureaucrats.

Schumer knows it. Others in Washington know it.

However, the more the people of the US develop an awareness of the deep state, then the greater the likelihood that the deep state is in jeopardy.

Perhaps this is Trump's purpose.

Redistribution, Not Insurance

I can always find someone
To say they sympathize
If I wear my heart out on my sleeve
--Billy Joel

Prof Galles explains why state sponsored health insurance is not insurance at all. It is simply a program of redistribution.

Insurance, he notes, is about reducing risk in the face of uncertain events. Insuring things that would happen for certain, such as routine checkups in a doctor's office, offers no risk reduction. Yet coverage for such events is required under most state sponsored health plans.

Stated differently, regular health maintenance does not fall within the proper scope of health insurance policies. When healthcare resources are drawn from an insurance pool to service routine needs, the insurance is not reducing risk to society at large. Instead, costs are likely to increase as there are no added benefits to outweigh the added cost of insurance administration.

Risk reduction is also difficult because of the fact that healthcare services covered by insurance induces over-consumption. When most health care costs are borne by third parties, then those covered by those insurance policies will want more and better services causing them to consume far more resources than they would have if they paid out their own pocket. This is the essence of moral hazard.

As Galles observes, this is why 'lunch insurance' doesn't exist. If someone else is paying your bill, then you will be prone to order more extravagantly than you would otherwise.

There is also the problem of mandating coverage for services that some people would never pay for out-of-pocket. For example, people certain that they would not need them would not ask for a quote for birth control or addiction service coverage. Yet, state sponsored health insurance programs are full of such mandates.

Mandates that require coverage of those more likely to get sick, such as old people or those with pre-existing conditions, clearly demonstrate that state sponsored health care is not about risk reduction. Rather than pooling those with similar circumstances, state sponsored plans force healthy people into plans. Consequently, policy pricing cannot reflect actuarial risks as healthy people pay less and sick people more than they would otherwise. Healthy people are thus forced to subsidize the sick.

All of this has been compounded by government misinformation that has masked massive income redistribution as programs for overcoming insurance market failures and reducing heartless harm on the sick. Honesty is, of course, impossible when trying to promote state sponsored health care.

Dems Suddenly Like Debt Ceiling

"That's right. Brantley is Whitfield. Whitfield is Brantley."
--Brantley Foster (The Secret of My Success)

Hard not to chuckle in amusement over the blatant hypocrisy. Democrats now threatening to not raise the debt ceiling in an effort to thwart Republican tax cut proposals.

In any event, here's hoping that Dems are successful at keeping the debt ceiling where it is, and that Republicans retaliate in the future by not raising the debt ceiling in lieu of future progressive-led agendas.

While things are upside down, perhaps Dems will ultimately lead the way in reducing the debt ceiling...

Partisanship and Hypocrisy

"Listen, I'm a politician, which means I'm a cheat and a liar. And when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops."
--Jeffrey Pelt (The Hunt for Red October)

The blatant hypocrisy exhibited by politicians and their partisans has long captured my attention. But I shouldn't be surprised, really. People who belong to groups are likely to use different yardsticks for assessing behavior depending on whether they are judging in-group vs out-group members (including themselves).

Moreover, as political stakes escalate, groups are increasingly prone to pulling out all stops in order to maintain control over the strong arm of government and to keep power out the hands of their opponents. This would include eliminating all scruples about acting with duplicity.

The greater the political stakes, the greater the political partisanship. The greater the political partisanship, the greater the hypocrisy.

Climate for Change

Look in the mirror
And you see how you've been taken
You won't surrender
But now your heart is breakin'
--John Waite

A primary objective of the Left is to throw so much 'chaos' at the Trump administration that the president is so busy dodging blows that he can't get his agenda accomplished. The mainstream media narrative would like people to think that this strategy has been successful.

However, Trump has already delivered on several promises. Appointment of a supreme court justice is probably number one of the list. On his first full day in office, Trump pulled the US out of the Trans Pacific Partnership. He has also rolled back various regulations by executive order.

In his latest accomplishment, last week Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Accord. The Paris Accord is a non-binding agreement among nations to adopt 'clean energy' sources and reduce fossil fuel emissions in the context of the 'global warming' proposition.

Trump's rationale for leaving is that the agreement hinders US jobs and economic growth.

Of course, the president's move has left watermelon socialists aghast worldwide.

How can Trump simply withdraw the US from the Paris Accord by executive order? Because that's precisely how we got into it. Rather than submitting the agreement to Congress for approval, then President Barack Obama, per his constitutional authority regarding treaties, simply signed an executive order to commit the US to the agreement.

Because the agreement never went thru the legislative process on the way in, the previous president essentially empowered his successor to do the same on the way out.

Snake in the Grass

You can't concern yourself with bigger things
You catch the pearl and ride the dragon's wings
--Asia

Easy to understand example of how licensing keeps people out of work and protects incumbents from competition. A teenager mows neighborhood lawns in an Alabama town. Someone working for a rival service threatens to report her to town officials because she is cutting grass without a license. A license costs $110.

The teen either has to pony up the fee and manage associated bureaucracy or leave the industry.

It should be readily apparent that licensing limits entrepreneurial actions of upstarts. It also tends to impact marginal workers the most.

Which is fine news for those already in the industry.

Whack-A-Mole Censorship

I try so hard not to get upset
Because I know all the trouble I'll get
--Til Tuesday

Make no mistake, current efforts by the Left to shut down media commentators that they do not like is an admission that the Left cannot compete in the market for ideas. They fear that their own ideas will be rejected in uninhibited exchanges of thought. Therefore, they seek to interfere in markets where competing designs are likely to be judged superior.

Unfortunately for these people, the market for ideas has never been less controllable. Shut down a voice on one venue, and the voice subsequently pops up elsewhere.

The Left is playing a game of whack-a-mole censorship.