I feel like I’m becoming a George W. Bush cheerleader.

I was very heartened to read this NY Times article proclaiming that Bush’s budget favors security over social spending. Well, that’s what governments should do.

I, of course, would love to see much greater cuts (e.g. War On Drugs, “education”, unneeded military weapons systems and deployments); but, it’s possible that this budget is already pushing the limits of what is politically feasible. I hope Bush is serious about defending these budget goals with credible veto threats (and actual vetos, if necessary). He has been a failure to make any serious effort to control spending thusfar.

This might just be an opening offer in a bargaining process, but it’s so much better than first-term Bush had to offer that the result, if he follows through, is likely to be far better than I had expected.

UPDATE: The folks at Cato aren’t quite as impressed as I am. I don’t disagree with their goals, I’m just not sure if demanding something closer to perfection will help or hinder the chances of getting the best possible outcome.

I recently came across this article by Duane D. Freese, written before the presidential election.

The premise is that a major reason why the Democrats are so afraid of Social Security reform that makes everyone an investor in the economy is that it will hurt their future electoral chances.

A poll released Tuesday…found that Bush has an 8 percentage point advantage over Kerry among the 71 percent of likely voters who invest in the markets (margin of error of 3.46). Meanwhile, among those who don’t have investments, Kerry holds a 14 percentage point lead.

While polls can be skewed by ignoring demographic groups, this poll looked across the demographic spectrum and found the gap between investors and non-investors held true among all segments. It has what stats geeks call “internal validity.”

It will be much harder for Democrats to engage in class warfare when everybody is an owner. Attacking the interests of corporations has always really meant attacking the interests of people, but if everyone owns stock many will realize that they are the people being attacked. It won’t be quite as appealing anymore.

With the growth of IRAs and mutual funds, ownership has already begun spreading; which might explain why the traditional anti-trade, anti-business populist rhetoric isn’t as popular as it once was.

I’m sure that there are many other political considerations, but this idea strikes me as interesting, and I suspect it is at least a part of the story.

Another thought I have is that even if Social Security reform is defeated (by a filibuster in the Senate, say), it might hurt the Democrats. If the Republicans can successfully frame the issue as their attempt to fix a broken system, and the Democrats being obstructionist for purely partisan reasons against the interests of the people, then the Democrats might suffer for it during the 2006 elections. That’s what happened to the Republicans because of their budget battles with Clinton.

Whatever happens, it is likely to get interesting. The Democrats have consistently underestimated Bush in the past, and I suspect they’re doing it again.

Today would have been Ayn Rand’s 100th birthday.

I think it’s fair to say that she was one of the most influential writers of the 20th Century. She was certainly one of the major influences of mine.

Cox & Forkum have posted a very nice tribute with some good links for those who are interested in learning more about her. I thought I’d just jot down some of my thoughts, starting with how I was first exposed to her work.

When I entered college, I hadn’t heard of her at all, but that didn’t last very long.

In the first quarter, I had to take a humanities class called “Utopia”, which was basically a survey of various utopian (and dystopian) writings as a way to get us to think about politics. The first assignment was to, before doing any of the reading, write our own description of our vision of the perfect society. This was intended to help us contrast our thinking with “the greats” and to see how our ideas change throughout the class.

I had never been very explicitly political in high school. But I was one of the few students who didn’t nod in stupid agreement as the teacher extolled the virtues of the European-style cradle-to-grave welfare state. I understood enough economics to know that most economic regulations did more harm than good, and that markets tended to work very well without them. I also was appalled by the idea of “victimless crimes” and the military draft and thought that people should generally be free to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.

So, my paper was basically a description of a Jeffersonian minimal state, with laissez-faire capitalism. I don’t even remember very much of what I wrote (but I’m sure it was good). What I do remember is the professor’s comment. When I got my paper back, I could see that he had written in large, angry, red letters:

YOU’VE OBVIOUSLY READ A LOT OF AYN RAND!!

I also remember my immediate thought:
Who is He???

So, I went to the library that same afternoon to check out (literally) this Rand fellow’s work. When I saw her books on the shelf, I figured I’d start with the shortest one: Anthem. It was a marvelous little statement about individualism vs. collectivism, told in a simple but powerful way. I really liked it and was eager to move on to the book that seemed to be her masterpiece: Atlas Shrugged.

The next few days, I had my head stuck in Atlas Shrugged and my studies and sleep definitely suffered. It was amazing. Here were characters saying and thinking what I had been thinking but doing it much more eloquently than I could have managed. And all from an immigrant, no less! I loved it.

I eventually read the rest of the available fiction, and non-fiction. I won’t get into the details of her books and philosophy, and I don’t want to leave the impression that I agree with every word, but I think that everyone should eventually read her works, particularly Atlas Shrugged.

As Michael S. Berliner wrote in an article quoted in the link above:

Ayn Rand left a legacy in defense of reason and freedom that serves as a guidepost for the American spirit — especially pertinent today when America and what it stands for are under assault.

UPDATE: Check out these Rand Day links: here, here, here, here, here, and here.

It appears to have been a very successful election. I don’t have much to add to what Muhammed and Omar had to say:

The media is reporting only explosions and suicide attacks that killed and injured many Iraqis but this hasn’t stopped the Iraqis from marching towards their voting stations with more determination. Iraqis have truly raced the sun.

I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world’s tyrants.

I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn’t hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said “brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn”.

Yes brothers, proceed and fill the box!

These are stories that will be written on the brightest pages of history.

It was hard for us to leave the center but we were happy because we were sure that we will stand here in front of the box again and again and again.

Today, there’s no voice louder than that of freedom.

No more confusion about what the people want, they have said their word and they said it loud and the world has got to respect and support the people’s will.

God bless your brave steps sons of Iraq and God bless the defenders of freedom.

I was driving behind a vehicle on my way home from work tonight with a license plate that read:

It took me a minute to figure it out, but then it seemed incredibly obvious.

Was it obvious to you?

I’ll put the solution in the first comment.

I read an interesting point today about how different groups seem to take opposite approaches with respect to the Social Security Reform issue and the Global Warming issue.

Those who generally oppose restrictions on economic liberty (like me) tend to think that there’s a looming crisis for Social Security and the sooner it is reformed the better; but the Global Warming issue is probably not a real crisis that warrants drastic changes, and we can deal with any potential problems better later. Those who tend to support economic restrictions take exactly the opposite positions.

Some may say that this shows how we are all a bit dishonest when it comes to evaluating the dangers of potential problems, and the urgency of addressing them immediately, depending on how the “problem” fits into our world view; and I suppose we are to some extent.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s not the case that one side is correct on both of these issues. And, of course, I think that the anti-economic-restrictions side is the correct one.

I may be wrong (but I’m not).

I will always have fond memories of Johnny Carson.

I remember how great it was to stay up late, as a kid, to watch the Tonight Show. He was funny and charming.

I remember many jokes from the Tonight Show, but two that stand out in my mind are:

When doing Carnac The Magnificent (a psychic) he would hold an envelope to his head, say an answer, and then open the envelope to read the question. The one I remember is when the answer was “Catch-22” and the question was “What would the Dodgers do if you hit them 100 pop flies.”

I also remember, when Jaws was first released and many people were frightened of swimming in the ocean, he gave some tips to avoid shark attacks two of which were: “Don’t leave Kansas City” and “Use the buddy system. If a shark attacks, give him your buddy!”

I like Jay Leno, too (I saw him perform in Vegas earlier this month), but Johnny had a different kind of charm and wit that was very special.