Lately, the Republicans have been claiming that Obama’s policy proposals are socialist. CNN quotes from McCain’s speech on Saturday:

“You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism,” McCain said Saturday.

McCain also said in his radio address, “At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are up front about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it’s just another government giveaway.”

This is all true. But it’s also - and I apologize for the cliche - the pot calling the kettle black. The Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006 and the presidency from 2000 until now, and there was still plenty of wealth redistribution going on. Consider a few examples:

• Social Security - One of the oldest and largest methods of wealth redistribution in America, this massive ponzi scheme has been around in one form or another since 1935. To his credit, Bush did try to push through a privatization reform, but failed even with Republican control of both houses of Congress, because Republicans in general support this socialist program.
• Medicare - Signed into law by LBJ, a Democrat, this massive socialist program is now a much bigger problem than Social Security, especially after being expanded by Republicans under Medicare Part D - the prescription drug benefit. This program, combined with the employer insurance mandate and other regulations, has been distorting the health care market and driving up medical care prices in the US for decades.
• Farm subsidies - American taxpayers have the pleasure of paying about $16 billion per year to subsidize the production of feed grains, cotton, wheat, rice, soybeans, sugar, and other products. These farm bills have been repeatedly passed by both Republican and Democratic administrations since the 1930’s.
• Corporate welfare - This report by the Cato Institute shows that in FY 2006 alone, taxpayers paid $92 billion in subsidies to private entities such as Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric. This was, once again, under a Republican administration.
• The recent massive bailout for the financial sector - This one really takes the cake. I never thought I would see Republicans so blatantly abandon their supposedly ‘free market’ principles, but I was wrong. Republican support was somewhat weaker than Democratic support, but the bill still passed with Republican help and was signed by a Republican president.

These are just a few examples. The truth is, many of the federal government’s redistributive programs are quite popular with voters. It’s hard to get elected to Congress, much less the Presidency, without supporting at least some socialist programs.

But it’s time that Republicans admit to themselves that they are not the defenders of capitalism and free markets that they imagine themselves to be. As far as economic policy, the only real choice in this election is one of degrees. You can vote Republican and get a good helping of socialism, or you can vote Democrat and go back for seconds.

If you want to vote for the free market, your only real choice is the Libertarian Party. The poor showing of this party in national elections shows you how popular capitalism really is in the U.S.A.

Today was the first day of school for kids in Dallas. I only know this because I’ve become partially financially responsible for a 9-year-old and 13-year-old girl in the last few months… it’s a long story I won’t get into. In any case, we enrolled them in the public schools near our home, and today was their first day.

I had misgivings about putting them in public school, of course. As any reader of this blog knows, I am politically libertarian, which means I don’t think the public school system should exist at all. Even so, I don’t have any problem taking advantage of it - my tax money helps pay for it, after all. My problem with public schools is that they are full of kids that don’t want to be there with parents who have no real investment (financial or otherwise) in the education of their children. This doesn’t apply to all children and parents, of course, but as long as a sizable fraction of the school population is made up of these people, I think it brings down the quality of education. That’s my opinion based on my own experience in the public school system, anyway. I want something better for my kids.

Unfortunately, private schools are prohibitively expensive for most people. If I had been planning for children, I would have started saving for their elementary education early so I could avoid the public school system as much as possible. These two girls came into my life a few months ago, which didn’t allow much time to rearrange my finances in such a way as to fund a private school education. So here we were with two girls who needed to start school and most of our income already spent. Thus, public school was the choice. I knew I would probably have issues with that choice sooner or later, but I was hoping it would be later.

I didn’t get past day one.

The 9-year-old came home from school and explained that the supplies we bought her had been taken from her and distributed to other students. For instance, we bought her four folders as instructed on the school supply list - she came home with one. We bought her several glue sticks - she came home with one, smaller glue stick. All the students were told to stack these items up, and then the teacher went around and redistributed the items. Apparently, their first class was Socialism 101.

Here is the letter we sent to the teacher:

Ms [Teacher],

I would like your take on today’s events regarding school supplies. I have a real issue when my daughter comes home and tells me that she needs more folders and other items - school supplies that I spent hours trying to locate to complete her entire list. I bought her good quality supplies because I understand how rough kids are on their supplies.

I sent [my daughter] to school today with all of the supplies we were told she would need for the school year. She came home with only one of the several folders and only one small glue stick of the several large glue sticks, and I’m not sure what else might be missing. I’m told these were taken from her and then handed out to other students.  

I want these items returned. I bought these for [my daughter] - not for other students. If you intend to confiscate any other property from my daughter, I would like notice in advance so we do not send her to school with any such property. If you wish to ask me to donate supplies for other students, please do so in an upfront and honest manner rather than taking property I specifically bought for my daughter.

If these items are not returned, I suppose I have little recourse. However, I certainly will no longer be buying the requested school supplies for the first day of school in any future years.

Thank you for your time.

The original version was a little shorter and more direct, but my other half thought it best to soften the tone slightly. Still, I think it makes the point nicely. I do not want my children taught to sit meekly by while their things are taken from them, or that taking another person’s hard-earned property is ok, or that they are entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor when they show up unprepared. If one wants something that belongs to someone else, one should have to ask.

If a private school pulled this stunt, I would remove my child from that school and the school would lose out on my money. I could send my child to a school that doesn’t do this, and the problem would be solved. I only wish I could pull my tax dollars from this public school.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would think that this was a purposeful attack on the concept of property rights - an effort to turn the children into good little subjects that don’t question their leaders when their earnings are taken and spent on foreign wars, corporate welfare, or ethanol subsidies. I don’t give the school that much credit, though. I think this is likely an unconscious side-effect of the mentality required to work for the public school system. The whole system is based on the idea that everyone pays for the schools, even if you disagree with what they teach, how they teach, or don’t even have kids or use the system. You can’t opt out and fund a school you agree with or choose to send your kids to some other public school. You’re trapped based on where you live, unless you’re fortunate enough to have the financial means to pay for a private school (on top of the taxes you already pay to support the public schools).

Of course an institution based on those ideals wouldn’t have kids ask other kids if they could have or borrow what they needed. If they had to ask, maybe they would get what they needed, and maybe they wouldn’t, but they would learn that voluntary association and trade is the proper way to conduct themselves - the very foundation of a free society and what makes our economy work. Instead they learned the basis of a welfare mentality - don’t worry about providing for yourself, because you won’t even have to suffer the indignity of asking for something. It will be taken from others and given to you.

Apparently plenty of students came to class without the listed supplies - probably the children of other parents who had more experience with the public school system. We won’t make the same mistake again.

In the future, we intend to make sure the girls have enough of an allowance to cover their school supplies with their own money. Then, if they want to, they can give away the supplies they bought. Or, they can say no, and we will back them up if the teacher has a problem with it. Or maybe they will choose to simply not bring the supplies. The point is that it should be their decision - not an automatic thing or some subtle trick played by the school district.

Needless to say, we will be working hard to come up with the money for a private school.

It has been harder than usual for me to blog this year. Election years are hard to stomach. It’s easier to be optimistic earlier in the process, when one can imagine that we’ll actually get a new kind of president. Maybe an economist or a political scientist with a Ph.D. - someone with an extensive education in what sorts of policies work. Then the choices are narrowed, and I come to realize that it’s going to be another lawyer or war hero - another four years of business as usual. Everyone is all fired up, saying we must elect this candidate or that candidate, and I can only sit back in disbelief that these are our options. These are the leaders that excite you? I just don’t get it.

Usually I can at least rely on the Libertarian party to have a candidate on the ballot who I can vote for in good conscience. This year, though, I’m even cringing at that option. Bob Barr, former drug war advocate and Defense Of Marriage Act author? This is the guy on the LP ticket? Yes, I realize he’s changed his tune on both of those issues lately, but this guy is 59 years old. When it takes someone that long to finally come around to a somewhat consistent view supporting individual freedom, it does not give me much confidence in his core values.

So today, the day after George Carlin’s death, though I disagree with many of his political views, his commentary on voting really hits home.

Supporters of the war in Iraq have repeatedly argued that in order to “support our troops” we must send more of them to Iraq and keep them there indefinitely. This idea is reflected in articles like this one from Senator Joseph Lieberman, but there is certainly no shortage of such articles. Take your pick.

However, the Center for Responsive Politics has found some interesting data from presidential campaign donation records:

Republican Ron Paul, an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, continues to draw the most contributions from uniformed service members, pulling far ahead of the rest of the presidential hopefuls by the end of 2007. Paul raised a total of $213,000… Democrat Barack Obama, who stresses his opposition to the Iraq war since its start, is still the number-two recipient with $94,000. Obama was also the favorite at the Department of Defense, collecting $14,000 from employees there.

I totaled up their data for all donations from members of the US Army. Assuming that Paul, Obama, and Clinton are seen as anti-war and all other candidates are pro-war, that means roughly 70% of donations from the US Army went to anti-war candidates. It would seem that our troops who are donating have a very different idea of what “support” entails.

I participated in an email thread with someone who had an interesting theory of his own:

Back when I served, we had a concept known as ROADS.  When a Sr. Enlisted or Middle-Level Officer realized he/she was not destined for greatness in the service, they’d Retired while On Active Duty Service.  They were waiting to fulfill their 20yr obligation to get their lifetime retirement.  These folks were typically no-loads and worthless.  They’d do enough to keep themselves out of trouble.  Common trait among them is they’d be bitterly pissed when they had to do some work – like go make war, or play cop on foreign soil.

If I had the mindset – I’d donate to get myself out of the pickle I was in.

Now it all makes sense. Either 70% of the US Army is worthless, or the few worthless ones are the only ones willing to donate to presidential candidates. Either way, the implications are pretty sad. Personally, I prefer the theory that most troops just want to come home. But then, I’ve never been in the military.

Today on Queercents, I describe my rather cynical view of Washington, D.C.:

“The other day on Sirius satellite radio, Howard Stern was complaining about the fact that the merger between XM and Sirius has not yet been approved by US government regulators. The National Association of Broadcasters, which is made up of companies such as Clear Channel who compete against satellite radio, has been lobbying against the merger. Stern was indignant that his competitors would blatantly use the government to harm their competition. It’s hard for me to believe that this was a new revelation for a man over the age of 50, especially one who has been the focus of so much government scrutiny. Maybe he was feigning surprise for his show.”

Read the rest here.

Today on Queercents, I question the benefit of the stimulus package currently working its way through Congress:

“The US government has been moving fairly quickly to pass some form of stimulus package to try to head off a recession. The stimulus package would basically amount to mailing $150 billion out to everyone, with the point being for them to spend it to keep the economy going. Not everyone agrees that an actual recession (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) is in the cards, but I guess no one in Washington, D.C., wants to deal with a recession in the middle of a presidential election, so they’re trying to do something just in case. I have a rather negative view of the federal government’s ability to do anything useful with the money we send their way, and I am usually happy to keep more of my money, so how could I possibly object to the government sending me a few hundred dollars to spend?”

Read the rest here.

Today on Queercents, I describe how I proposed to my partner and how much I ended up spending to do so:

“I previously blogged about how I would eschew diamonds in my marriage proposal to my partner. At the time of that post, I was still trying to figure out exactly how I would go about proposing. Over the holidays I finally did propose, so here’s how it went.

Heterosexual couples have some well-established guidelines that describe all sorts of things surrounding engagements. The man is supposed to propose to the woman. The engagement ring is supposed to have a diamond and cost a certain amount. Immediately after the proposal you’re supposed to call your family. The bride’s parents are supposed to throw an engagement party. In deciding how to propose to my partner during the recent holiday season, none of those guidelines were much help, because they just don’t make sense when a man is proposing to another man.”

Read the rest here.

Over on Cato Unbound, there is a thought-provoking debate over the radical extension of the human lifespan. In his lead essay, Dr. Aubrey de Grey of the Methuselah Foundation argues that we should be doing all we can to cure aging. According to the web site, he thinks we are likely to be able to do this within 30 years if we start trying.

The idea of humans living for 1,000 years immediately brings to mind the image of old, frail people lingering about in nursing homes for centuries, but that’s not what the doctor has in mind. He argues that we could preserve and extend the vitality people have in their 20’s or 30’s. He envisions people who are still young, strong, and energetic at the age of 80… or 800. Some argue that we should not try to achieve such feats of longevity, but I find most of their arguments unconvincing.

One common argument is that it would cause overpopulation. However, overpopulation does not really seem to be much of a problem. Current forecasts say that the world will reach sub-replacement fertility levels by 2050. The fertility rate among non-Hispanic whites in the US is already below replacement levels - we can basically thank immigrants and Mormons for our growing population. An increase in population which forces more urbanization will likely just reduce fertility levels further. In any case, it’s a self-correcting problem.

Another argument is that we might get “tired of it all, or bored”. But this basically means that instead of being able to choose when you’re tired of living and end it, the decision should be made for you as your body slowly falls apart. If one is tired of living, there’s already a solution to that problem which people use every day - suicide. Perhaps extended lifespans would force the anti-assisted-suicide lobby to take a more rational view of the decision to end one’s life.

Maybe I’ve read too many fantasy novels where elves live incredibly long lifetimes and reproduce slowly. They have the time and enduring vitality to change careers several times over their lifetimes and accumulate the wisdom of centuries of experience. They’re just silly fantasy books, but Dr. de Grey’s position makes me wonder… What could we accomplish if the geniuses of our time could sustain the mental acuity of their peak years for centuries on end? How much better would our elected leaders be if they were 600 years old instead of 60?

In my post on Queercents today, I review The Little Book That Makes You Rich by Louis Navellier:

“While travelling for a business trip last week, I had the opportunity to read The Little Book That Makes You Rich, by Louis Navellier. It’s one of several books in the Little Books Big Profits series, in which various investment professionals cover different investing strategies. The book claims to contain “a proven market-beating formula for growth investing.” Since I personally lean towards the value side of the investing style scale, I was curious to see if Mr. Navellier’s growth strategy would sway me.”

Read the rest here.

Today on Queercents, I discuss some of the charity ratings that are available:

When investors buy shares of company stock, they expect that company to use their money to generate returns by using the money wisely. A good investor will do a lot of research, including looking at the company’s past financial statements, free cash flow, return on equity, and other factors, to be confident that their money will be put to good use and generate a suitable return. Giving money to charity is similar - the returns are just in a different form. Instead of using your money to make more money, you expect the charity to fund AIDS research, find missing children, feed the hungry, etc. Some charities are better at this than others, and just like buying company stock, it’s a good idea to do some research before handing over your money. There are some organizations out there that research and rate charities in order to help you get the biggest bang for your charity buck, but how helpful are these ratings really?

 Read the rest here.