Late yesterday afternoon my son informed that the bailout/rescue would have cost $700 billion while the loss yesterday in American equity was $1 trillion.  I infer that he thinks that was a bad trade.

I worry that the proposed "solution" is being engineered by those who this decade exacerbated the problem.  And it is their agenda that turned the problem into crisis.  Watch and listen to them in their own words.  There can be no compromise with someone committed to goals 180 degrees from yours.  They want wealth redistribution.  They want Pauls to have what Peters have.  Their socialism -- history tells us -- brings equality of outcomes by making everyone equally poor.  Great philosopher Forrest Gump told us that "You can't fix stupid."  Yesterday -- at least for now -- we all became $1 trillion poorer.

For liberals -- Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Obama, Biden, Frank, Waters, Raines, Gorelick, et al -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are affirmative action vehicles, wealth redistribution GSE institutions.  And in addition to enabling Pauls to have what Peters have (home ownership), there's something else -- and it's sinister -- afoot.  Fannie and the Congressional Black Caucus.  You and I have been paying slavery reparations for some time now, and I was ignorant of it.   We can't fix stupid, but we can fix ignorance, at least our own.

As a conservative ideologue, I lean toward phasing out Fannie and Freddie.  I'd also advocate immediate passing of HR-25 and S-1025, the FairTax; and introducing a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th.  While awaiting implementation of the FairTax on a January 1, I'd suspend all business and corporate taxes and the capital gains tax.  Each and all of these moves would spur investment and enable credit.  Certainly, I'm open to other suggestions, hopefully from brilliant market economists.  (Where are Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams when I need them?)

While credit is in crisis, there is another.  The perps are in charge of congress and the prexy is both a lame duck and short-timer; and he's the same guy who was aboard for "comprehensive immigration reform", for "No child Left Behind", and for "Medicare Part D".  There is no-nada-zip-zilch political solution.  There is grossly-inadequate non-socialist leadership in Washington.  And Obama-Biden with Franklin Rains aboard the bus are on our horizon.

The situation may not be above my pay grade, but it's way above my intelligence and knowledge grade.

There's a liberal perspective on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and there's a conservative perspective.
http://http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
It behooves us to understand clearly that difference.  Conservatives mistakenly see these government institutions as part of the nation's financial infrastructure, merely facilitating the managing of mortgages.  Liberals know that Fannie and Freddie are social-program institutions like, say, food stamps or aid to dependent children or subsidized housing.  For liberals, Fanny and Freddie are wealth-redistribution engines; while conservatives naively continue to look at them as backstops to Wall Street.

I wonder why there's any dispute in congress over the issue of bailing out the credit and mortgage markets.  I also wonder why conservatives don't review 1938, 1968, 1970, 1977, 1996 and 2003; why they don't review the perspectives of Presidents FDR, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.

Here's the stipulation I want in the bill.  Ok, so the government manufactures, then invests, say, $85 bil.  At some point, when the housing and credit markets recover, the government will offer shares for sale. Because the government is "buying" these shares now at a  "fire-sale-bargain-basement" price, when it sells, there are very-likely gonna be hefty profits.

The $85 bil will have come from income-tax payers.  Sans my stipulation, the profits will accrue to the treasury from whence salivating senators and reprehensible representatives will scheme how to spend those huge sums on wealth-distribution schemes both at home and abroad.  Power to the politicos.

I stipulate that every dollar in equity sales by the federal government will not go to people who defaulted on the mortgages in 2008, but rather go to a virtual lockbox.  The contents of the lockbox will be periodically distributed to federal income-taxpayers, prorated on the basis of what each paid in during the years 2008 until the payout.  So, for example, since the top 1% of earners pay 40% of federal income taxes, 40% of the proceeds from government equity sales will be sent to the 1%.  Power to the payers.

Today we import 100% of our graphite for lubricants; 100% of our thorium for light bulb coatings; 99% of our gallium for solar cells, semiconductors and thermometers; 91% of our platinum and 81% of our palladium for auto catalytic converters; 85% of our antimony for storage batteries; 80% of our uranium for nuclear power; 79% of our barite for oil drilling; 60% of our oil and oil products; 55% of our beryllium for reflectors in nuclear reactors; and 43% of our copper for electrical in automobiles.  Yet today’s POTUS, today’s POTUS-wannabees, and our congressmen and senators (with average IQs equal to a box of rocks) keep on touting “energy independence” as did predecessors Nixon, Ford, and Carter decades ago.

 Ain’t gonna happen.  Cannot happen.  Even if it could happen, it would be a stupid idea. In 2000 there were about 500 newspaper stories about “energy independence”.  In 2001 it more than doubled to more than 1100.  By 2006, the number had grown to more than 8,000.  So a lot of “leaders” are either grossly ignorant or are pandering to the ignorant voting populous.

 The U.S. imports about 80% of its semiconductors.  Where is the mass hue and cry for “computer independence”? Where are the news headlines?  Why haven’t we invaded Taiwan?  What if China does?  Silence.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 Speaking of semiconductors, just one example of why, even if we could produce domestically all the energy we needed today, we couldn’t do so in the future. In 1970 a CPU’s peak power demand for electricity was much less than a watt.  By 1990 it had passed a watt.  By 1992, 10 watts with the Pentium.  By 2002, 100 watts with the Pentium IV.  Google -- started in 1998 -- had 8,000 servers in 2001.  By 2006 that was 450,000 servers.

 In America, as productivity increases, so does energy consumption; as employment increases, so does energy consumption; as the economy grows, so does energy consumption.  The more energy we use, the more we want.  The more horsepower we have, the more we want.  The more electric appliances we have, the more we want.

 Saudi Arabia imports 100% of its corn.  Does it make any sense for our federal government to subsidize the production of corn, then subsidize the refining of corn ethanol so that we can use a less-energy-intensive fuel with higher emissions? Wouldn’t we be smarter to export corn to Saudi Arabia in exchange for . . . uh, ummmm . . .  what could we get from them?

 Meanwhile, should we allow drilling in ANWAR?  Should we allow drilling 5+ miles offshore?  Should we allow building and operating nuclear plants?  Should we allow mining and use of coal as long as reasonable emissions limits are met?  Should the federal government enable the private sector to profitably build and operate oil refineries?  Is T. Boone Pickens right about natural gas?  Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.  Is Pickens right about wind?  Should the federal government subsidize corn and ethanol?  Solar and wind?  Hybrid vehicles?  Anything?  No to all.

 Does the federal government need to do anything?  Yes, it needs to undo almost everything it’s done during the last forty years to hamstring, limit and regulate the private sector.  Period.  It needs to ignore the so-called “environmentalists” and “climate change” alarmists, who are really but the latest iteration of socialist-anti-capitalist-anti-America-everything’s-a-crisis- nothing’s-fair-wealth-envy-runny-nose bed wetters.

 Why do we need to do all of this?  Because no one in his right mind takes 80% of his relevant assets off the table before tackling a problem.

 

 Please get a copy of Neal Boortz and John Linder, The FairTax Book and read it.  then, go to http://fairtax.org/ and spend lots of time studying.  For a brief summary, go to http://drpetestevens.net/, click on opinions, then on The FairTax.  HR-25 and S-1025 The FairTax is what congress, POTUS, and the POTUS candidates should focus on and enact.  Simultaneously, they need to start repeal of the 16th amendment.

Don't bail out Fannie and Freddie . . . and don't bail out a failing Chevy dealer either for gosh sake.  It took the federal government seventy years (Yes, 1938, 1968, 1970, 1996) to bring us to where we are today.  The absolute last thing we need is to turn to the perps to "fix" what predecessor perps hath wrought.  The problem has become crisis.  A crisis is a problem and no time.  The problem is systemic.

The FairTax is a systemic change.  Passage would incentivise savings and investment.  Passage would bring home some $13 trillion in U.S. dollars kept overseas because of the current tax system.  Passage would make the paying of federal taxes fully transparent.  Passage of the FairTax would be the largest return of power to the people and away from government since the Founders concluded that our rights were unalienable, i.e., came from the Creator, not a king and not a government.

I didn't watch the President's speech last night.  My daughter called from Texas just as he was to begin.

Paulson has been persuasive one-on one in recent days, but ineffectual speaking to large groups.  At least up to yesterday, the President was failing miserably to persuade . . . even Republicans.  The House is short some 128 votes of being able to pass a bill.  A survey of congressional offices finds uniformly that constituent calls are ten-to-one against.

Nothing is likely to pass through the end of next week at least.  During the election's closing days it'll be hard for reps to go with the prexy and up against 10-1 opposition from constituents.  Ditto for a third of senators who are up this year.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (aka Fannie Mae) was founded by a Democrat president and a Democrat congress in 1938 as part of the New Deal.  In 1968, in order to balance the federal budget via some Enron-style accounting gimmicks, another Democrat president and another Democrat congress turned Fannie Mae “private” and then in 1970 formed the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (aka Freddie Mac) as part of The Great Society.  Each provided secondary mortgage support to primary lenders, had lower liquidity requirements to allow greater financial leverage and, thus, profitability in the good times.  Of course, that also yielded greater risks in down times.

In 1968 that latter Democrat president and Democrat congress passed the Fair Housing Act.  It was that bill that began to pressure mortgage lenders to stop “redlining”, i.e., discriminating in financing.  The result was federal intimidation, forcing the lending to those with inadequate credit and wherewithal to repay.  That same POTUS and congress, incidentally, also passed National Flood Insurance.  Private insurers cannot and will not sell flood “insurance” to, say, residents of New Orleans, which is coastal and below sea level.  That is because people who live far from bodies of water and on hills or mountains don’t buy flood “insurance”.  There’s no “risk pool”.  Is there a pattern here?

 In 2000 a Republican president and a Republican congress inherited a recession.  Then there was September 11.  Through 2006, the economy hummed with record employment, low unemployment,  and record home ownership.  President Bush grabbed onto the third-rail Social Security issue, which was good, but was demagogued by Democrats and the initiative failed.  Bush also supported a new huge entitlement, Medicare Part D, which was stupid and catastrophic, but with Democrat help, that initiative succeeded.  In 2006 Republicans lost both the house and the senate, so Democrats took over in January 2007.  The mortgage crisis began in 2007 when demand declined for mortgage-based securities (MBS).  These investors looked at the risky loans and growing defaults, and declined to invest their money there.

Of course many investment banks were already heavily invested in MBS.  When the bubble burst, they were in deep doo-doo (an advanced economics term).  So, last night Lehman went belly-up, joining Bear Stearns.  Bank of America overnight bought Merrill Lynch, thus saving its bacon.

Fault?  Blame?  Clearly, as you can see above, it was all George Bush’s fault.  If you think this is bad, just wait for the crashes to come:  Social Security, Medicaire, Medicaid, federal government pensions.

 

    I just watched and listened to President Bush admonish businesses to be fair with consumers.  He said they'd be watching out for "price gouging".

    The economic ignorance and illiteracy of John McCain, of Barack Obama, and, indeed, of the POTUS is stunning.  In a market economy -- the best economic system ever known to humankind -- price is the messenger explaining the relationship of supply to demand.  Sans collusion (which is illegal), there is no-nil-nada-zip-zilch such thing as price gouging.

    First, a prospective buyer and a prospective seller each have an unalienable right to liberty and property.  The seller owns, let's say, a gas station and the product in the tanks.  She has the unalienable right to offer her product for sale at absolutely any price she wishes, as long as price isn't below her cost with intent to drive competitors out of business (predation).  The buyer owns his money and may spend it however he wishes.  The two only need to come to agreement on price.  If a gallon of gasoline sells for a thousand bucks, it will have occured because two persons agreed . . . voluntarily to that price.  Please remember that the prospective buyer has no unalienable right to either the prospective seller's gasoline or to the price he'd like.

    Second, gas prices all across the south should have increased dramatically.    Supply, beyond what was already in retail tanks, was completely cut off.  Demand, given all of those folks evacuating, increased.  If, as the POTUS says he wishes, I were forced to sell my gasoline at pre-crisis prices, some buyers would rush to buy me out, filling both cars and all the gas cans they own.  They'd hoard.  Many in need of fuel would then come only to see the plastic bags on my pump nozzles and a sign, saying "No Gas!"

    Exactly the same paradigm applies to chain saws, bottled water, motel rooms and etc.  Have you got any idea what I'll have to pay for four tickets to next Sunday's last game ever at Yankees Stadium?  Price is the messenger explaining the relationship of supply to demand.
    
    Sensible immediately is getting the interrupted supply back online.  Sensible longer-term is get out of the way of the private sector's efforts to drill in ANWAR, drill offshore, process shale, capture natural gas in the process, invent a way to get coal to burn cleaner; and to ignore the "man-made global warming" hoax and the "energy independence" hoax.  Not sensible, indeed silly, is shooting the messenger.

Force-rank ( 1= greatest to 16=least) the following vis-à-vis which poses the greatest threat to America’s survival as a thriving constitutional republic, a beacon for the world, and a “shining city on the hill.”  To respond/comment, you can copy [Ctrl C] the below, then paste [Cntrl V] into your comment; then typeover the provided "blanks".

 ___ a.       Islamofascism, aka The War on Terror

___ b.      The National Education Association (NEA)

___ c.       illegal immigration

___ d.      Congress

___ e.       “corporate greed”

___ f.        “environmentalism”

___ g.       Iran

___ h.       Christian fundamentalism

___ i.         government schools

___ j.        China

___ k.      “global warming”, aka “climate change”

___ l.         ignorance

___ m.     women voters

___ n.       liberalism

___ o.      “universal healthcare”

   ___p.     other: __________________________________________________________

Read the above-identified values, being careful to understand the definitions of the terms as herein meant.  Then force-rank them in terms of your priorities, i.e., most important, second most important, second least important, and least important. Okay, c’mon.  Complete the ranking.  Don’t read ahead.  Complete your ranking first.  Geeeeeeeez, just go along with me, okay?  Alright.  Thank you.

                      If your ranking is peace-social justice- liberty-sovereignty, you’re a Liberal.  If your ranking is sovereignty-liberty-peace-social justice, you’re a Conservative.  If your ranking is liberty-peace-sovereignty-social justice, you’re a Libertarian. All of this thus far is taken from James Burnham’s book Suicide of the West, circa 1964, though I have changed both terms and definitions to contemporary usage.  If your ranking is, say, sovereignty-peace-liberty-social justice, you’re really confused.

            Liberals are pacifists who believe that humans are improvable, even perfectible by Liberal institutions; that disarmament is achievable and that war can be eliminated . . . through dialog.  They believe in the welfare state.  They are utopian.  They eschew nationalism and national sovereignty, preferring internationalism and social justice (See above definition.) among nations.  Conservatives are patriotic and nationalistic; and believe individuals should have great freedom to work in their own way  -- succeed, fail, and try again -- all without government intervention either to limit or assist.  They believe that individuals can improve themselves, though only God can perfect them.  Conservatives believe that America is exceptional and to be preserved . . . as designed and envisioned by The Founders.  I’m also indebted for this material thus far to Michael Rosen and his piece in the Denver Post of August 6, 1986.

            The United States Constitution enumerates federal government powers . . . and they are few.  It also proscribes that what is not enumerated is prohibited, and left to individuals and/or states.  Libertarians’ numero uno is liberty (and responsibility) even to the point of ranking sovereignty down in third.  They won’t trade an ounce of personal freedom in the “national interest”.

            If your ranking is liberty–sovereignty-peace – social justice, you’re conflicted between libertarianism and conservatism.  And the Patriot Act gives you fits.  And voting is problematic.

If your ranking is reelection-peace-justice-liberty-sovereignty, you’re a Liberal politician.  If your ranking is reelection-sovereignty-liberty- peace-social justice, you’re a Conservative politician.  If your ranking is reelection-liberty-peace-sovereignty-social justice, you’re a Libertarian politician . . . and lonely (since there are very few of you).   The reasons most Libertarians say that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans (politicians, they mean) are: first, both have the identical numero uno priority; and second, the Libertarians speaking haven’t yet managed to get elected.

            There are only three reasons for any occasion of bipartisanship between a Liberal and a Conservative:  (1) The item on the table is inconsequential and trivial; (2) at least one has completely foregone principle and fundamental values; and/or (3) reelection time is approaching.  There can be, and often is, bipartisanship between “Moderates” and anyone else.  A “Moderate” is someone who, when asked to force-rank the fundamental values above, either cheated by looking at others’ answers or wanted to see the survey results before beginning.  Having no established values, they are usually seen with wetted finger aloft checking wind direction.

            It is, I think, noteworthy that it is liberal democrats who are consistently calling on conservative republicans to be “bipartisan” rather than the other way around.  First, what is meant here by “bipartisan” is the republican coming over to agree with the democrats’ position and view.  Second, it is consistent with the liberals’ view that wayward people are improvable, even perfectible, that disarmament is achievable and that war can be eliminated . . . through dialog.  “Can’t we all just get along . . . by seeing it and doing it my way, the right correct way?”

            It is, I think, also noteworthy that republicans repeatedly believe that being “bipartisan” seems reasonable and sounds like a good thing.  They also seem to believe repeatedly that, if they are “bipartisan”, democrats will respond in kind with cooperation.  But, a liberal is a liberal is a liberal.  They confidently look through liberal lenses, knowing that they are right correct and that republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, are dead wrong and just don’t get it.

            If your ranking is: (1) being accepted and liked by inside-the-beltway-society elites, (2) being invited to Washington parties and the Sunday morning network news shows, (3) reelection, (4) being praised in the New York Times and Washington Post, (5) a tie among liberty, social justice, sovereignty and peace; then you’re a RINO (Republican in name only).  It’s a social disease that inflicts many, even those who arrived with real values and fire in the belly.

            I can’t remember who it was who said something like, if a twenty-one-year-old isn’t a liberal, he has no compassion; if a thirty-something isn’t a conservative, she has no sense.  It’s natural to grow up believing in utopia and peace through compromise.  With age and worldly experience, though, one is supposed to acquire some wisdom.  The problem with youthful liberalism is reality.  Peace, for example, has never been achieved other than following victory.  The nonviolence of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi could never have been sustained without the coercion and threat of force brought by federal marshals and the British Army respectively.  Liberals have always been liberals.  Conservatives used to be.  Stockwell Day once said, “A conservative is a liberal who got mugged by reality.”

            Conservatives can understand how one can be a liberal, but they have trouble understanding why reality doesn’t set in.  I mean, humans are human, not utopian.  Liberals, having always been liberals, however, are absolutely incapable of understanding what could possibly have gone wrong such that a human being actually became a conservative.

            As result of this incredulity by liberals, and of conservatives’ dislike for forced wealth redistribution and love of national security, liberals rant against them and label them “selfish”, “racist”, “homophobic”, “sexist”, “ultra-right-wing”, “extremist”, “uncaring”, and a recent favorite “Nazis”.  The liberals then get really -- I mean really -- upset when conservatives call them “liberal” as opposed to, say, “mainstream” or just “correct”.  They do seem to like “progressive”.

            “Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy responded to the proposal by ultra-right-wing conservative congressman . . .”

This is ubiquitous as a style of “reporting” on the nightly news on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc., as well as on their morning shows as well as in the New York Times, Washington Post and almost any other newspaper or weekly magazine except the Washington Times and Fox News.  News media currently label “conservatives” six times as often as “liberals”.  In reality, Kennedy may be to the left of Marx and Engels and the graduates of journalism schools since the 1970s may be 99.9 percent liberals, but these “journalists” see absolutely no bias in this story lead.  And explaining it to them wouldn’t help a bit.  George Will said recently, “For conservatives seeing is believing, but for liberals believing is seeing.”

            There’s another substantial and growing category on the political landscape, the gimmees.  We might also call them the Pauls.  These are individuals who just want what Peters have, as in “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”  It’s not that they value social justice as herein defined; it’s not principled.  It’s greed, selfishness, laziness and jealousy.

            Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.”  Seniors say, “I’m old, therefore government should support me.”  Blacks say, “There was slavery, therefore government should provide reparations to me.”  People who’ve been irresponsible and unproductive say, “I’m poor or hungry or homeless or sick or pregnant or etcetera, therefore government should provide welfare or food or housing or free unlimited healthcare or all of the above.”  Obviously this doesn’t apply to all or even nearly all seniors or blacks or “needy”, just lots of them as well as other groups.  More on this in a moment (or paragraph).

            And, of course, government doesn’t have money or food or housing or healthcare.  Government has to take money and housing and food and healthcare by force from the Peters (the people who’ve worked hard and long, sacrificed immediate gratification, made prudent decisions and choices, and been personally responsible and productive).  When one is forced to work for someone else’s benefit (and that’s what this system does), it’s called “slavery”.  And the reason that America’s “founding fathers” didn’t design a democracy (rather than a republic) is that there’ll always be more Pauls than Peters.

            Some “other groups” of gimmees are American sugar producers, steel producers, tobacco farmers, milk producers, all labor unions and many other recipients of “corporate welfare”.  Government takes money from individual Peters to provide price supports and restrict free trade.  “Corporate welfare” works because these organizations give big bucks to politicians, but individual Peters aren’t so motivated, given that it was just an extra dime for the bag of sugar and they don’t see the steel tariff show up in the price of their Ford or Chevy.

            Gimmees and RINOs will act as they do for as long as it works.  Liberals and conservatives will be bipartisan only in the limited circumstances previously stated.  But, otherwise, unless liberals and conservatives are also simultaneously gimmees and/or RINOs, they are and will be inexorably incapable of working together.  That is why there is such rancor in Washington and that is why the president’s nominees for the Supremes were unconstitutionally filibustered and why Speaker Pelosi just turned of the lights and mics and went n vacation, leaving Republicans sans audience and in the dark. 

Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Bolton, Dr./Senator Tom Coburn and Tom DeLay are conservatives who give not a wit about inside-the-beltway social standing, not a tinker’s damn about kudos from the New York Times or Washington Post, and can easily do without face time on the networks.  They are principled, committed, outspoken and straight talking.  What does this get them?  Vilified, never sought as a commencement speaker, brought before an ethics committee, and “Borked”.  Witness the newspaper
cartoons of Condoleeza Rice or the liberal press vilification of Governor Sarah Palin following her veep nomination.

With all the humility I can possibly muster, I offer some recommendations:  To liberals I say grow up and deal with reality.  To RINOs and moderates I say locate your spine and show some backbone . . . and put down that whetted finger.  To gimmees I say look to thine own self and start taking personal responsibility for your life.  To libertarians I say think about the consequences of having liberty (as herein defined) numero uno with respect to achieving numbers, critical mass and a unified voice.  To conservatives I say organize and play to win.  Don’t wimp and don’t equivocate. 

Read the above-identified values, being careful to understand the definitions of the terms as herein meant.  Then force-rank them in terms of your priorities, i.e., most important, second most important, second least important, and least important. Okay, c’mon.  Complete the ranking.  Don’t read ahead.  Complete your ranking first.  Geeeeeeeez, just go along with me, okay?  Alright.  Thank you.

            If your ranking is peace-justice-freedom-liberty, you’re a Liberal.  If your ranking is liberty-freedom-peace-justice, you’re a Conservative.  If your ranking is freedom-peace-liberty-justice, you’re a Libertarian. All of this thus far is from James Burnham’s book Suicide of the West, circa 1964.  If your ranking is, say, liberty-peace-freedom-justice, you’re really confused.

            Liberals are pacifists who believe that humans are improvable, even perfectible by Liberal institutions; that disarmament is achievable and that war can be eliminated . . . through dialog.  They believe in the welfare state.  They are utopian.  They eschew nationalism and national sovereignty, preferring internationalism and justice (See above definition.) among nations.  Conser-vatives are patriotic and nationalistic; and believe individuals should have great freedom to work in their own way  -- succeed, fail, and try again -- all without government intervention either to limit or assist.  They believe that individuals can improve themselves, though only God can perfect them.  Conservatives believe that America is exceptional and to be preserved . . . as designed and envisioned by The Founders.  I’m also indebted for this material thus far to Michael Rosen and his piece in the Denver Post of August 6, 1986.

            The United States Constitution enumerates federal government powers . . . and they are few.  It also proscribes that what is not enumerated is prohibited, and left to individuals and/or states.  Libertarians’ numero uno is personal freedom (and responsibility) even to the point of ranking national liberty down in third.  They won’t trade an ounce of personal freedom in the “national interest”.

            If your ranking is freedom – liberty – peace – justice, you’re conflicted between libertarianism and conservatism.  And the Patriot Act gives you fits.  And voting is problematic.

If your ranking is reelection-peace-justice-freedom-liberty, you’re a Liberal politician.  If your ranking is reelection-liberty-freedom-peace-justice, you’re a Conservative politician.  If your ranking is reelection-freedom-peace-liberty-justice, you’re a Libertarian politician . . . and lonely (since there are very few of you).   The reasons most Libertarians say that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans (politicians, they mean) are: first, both have the identical numero uno priority; and second, the Libertarians speaking haven’t yet managed to get elected.

            There are only three reasons for any occasion of bipartisanship between a Liberal and a Conservative:  (1) The item on the table is inconsequential and trivial; (2) at least one has completely foregone principle and fundamental values; and/or (3) reelection time is approaching.  There can be, and often is, bipartisanship between “Moderates” and anyone else.  A “Moderate” is someone who, when asked to force-rank the fundamental values above, either cheated by looking at others’ answers or wanted to see the survey results before beginning.  Having no established values, they are usually seen with wetted finger aloft checking wind direction.

            It is, I think, noteworthy that it is liberal democrats who are consistently calling on conservative republicans to be “bipartisan” rather than the other way around.  First, what is meant here by “bipartisan” is the republican coming over to agree with the democrats’ position and view.  Second, it is consistent with the liberals’ view that wayward people are improvable, even perfectible, that disarmament is achievable and that war can be eliminated . . . through dialog.  “Can’t we all just get along . . . by seeing it and doing it my way, the right way?”

            It is, I think, also noteworthy that republicans repeatedly believe that being “bipartisan” seems reasonable and sounds like a good thing.  They also seem to believe repeatedly that, if they are “bipartisan”, democrats will respond in kind with cooperation.  But, a liberal is a liberal is a liberal.  They confidently look through liberal lenses, knowing that they are right and that republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, are dead wrong and just don’t get it.

            If your ranking is: (1) being accepted and liked by inside-the-beltway-society elites, (2) being invited to Washington parties and the Sunday morning network news shows, (3) reelection, (4) being praised in the New York Times and Washington Post, (5) a tie among freedom, justice, liberty and peace; then you’re a RINO (Republican in name only).  It’s a social disease that inflicts many, even those who arrived with real values and fire in the belly.

            I can’t remember who it was who said something like, if a twenty-one-year-old isn’t a liberal, he has no compassion; if a thirty-something isn’t a conservative, she has no sense.  It’s natural to grow up believing in utopia and peace through compromise.  With age and worldly experience, though, one is supposed to acquire some wisdom.  The problem with youthful liberalism is reality.  Peace, for example, has never been achieved other than following victory.  The nonviolence of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi could never have been sustained without the coercion and threat of force brought by federal marshals and the British Army respectively.  Liberals have always been liberals.  Conservatives used to be.

            Conservatives can understand how one can be a liberal, but they have trouble understanding why reality doesn’t set in.  I mean, humans are human, not utopian.  Liberals, having always been liberals, however, are absolutely incapable of understanding what could possibly have gone wrong such that a human being actually became a conservative.

            As result of this incredulity by liberals, and of conservatives’ dislike for forced wealth redistribution and love of national security, liberals rant against them and label them “selfish”, “racist”, “homophobic”, “sexist”, “ultra-right-wing”, “extremist”, “uncaring”, and a recent favorite “Nazis”.  The liberals then get really -- I mean really -- upset when conservatives call them “liberal” as opposed to, say, “mainstream” or just “correct”.  They do seem to like “progressive”.

            “Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy responded to the proposal by ultra-right-wing conservative congressman . . .”

This is ubiquitous as a style of “reporting” on the nightly news on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc., as well as on their morning shows as well as in the New York Times, Washington Post and almost any other newspaper or weekly magazine except the Washington Times and Fox News.  News media currently label “conservatives” six times as often as “liberals”.  In reality, Kennedy may be to the left of Marx and Engels and the graduates of journalism schools since the 1970s may be 99.9 percent liberals, but these “journalists” see absolutely no bias in this story lead.  And explaining it to them wouldn’t help a bit.

            There’s another substantial and growing category on the political landscape, the gimmees.  We might also call them the Pauls.  These are individuals who just want what Peters have, as in “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”  It’s not that they value justice as herein defined; it’s not principled.  It’s greed, selfishness, laziness and jealousy.

            Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.”  Seniors say, “I’m old, therefore government should support me.”  Blacks say, “There was slavery, therefore government should provide reparations to me.”  People who’ve been irresponsible and unproductive say, “I’m poor or hungry or homeless or sick or pregnant or etcetera, therefore government should provide welfare or food or housing or free unlimited healthcare or all of the above.”  Obviously this doesn’t apply to all or even nearly all seniors or blacks or “needy”, just lots of them as well as other groups.  More on this in a moment (or paragraph).

            And, of course, government doesn’t have money or food or housing or healthcare.  Government has to take money and housing and food and healthcare by force from the Peters (the people who’ve worked hard and long, sacrificed immediate gratification, made prudent decisions and choices, and been personally responsible and productive).  When one is forced to work for someone else’s benefit (and that’s what this system does), it’s called “slavery”.  And the reason that America’s “founding fathers” didn’t design a democracy (rather than a republic) is that there’ll always be more Pauls than Peters.

            Some “other groups” of gimmees are American sugar producers, steel producers, tobacco farmers, milk producers, all labor unions and many other recipients of “corporate welfare”.  Government takes money from individual Peters to provide price supports and restrict free trade.  “Corporate welfare” works because these organizations give big bucks to politicians, but individual Peters aren’t so motivated, given that it was just an extra dime for the bag of sugar and they don’t see the steel tariff show up in the price of their Ford or Chevy.

            Gimmees and RINOs will act as they do for as long as it works.  Liberals and conservatives will be bipartisan only in the limited circumstances previously stated.  But, otherwise, unless liberals and conservatives are also simultaneously gimmees and/or RINOs, they are and will be inexorably incapable of working together.  That is why there is such rancor in Washington and that is why the president’s nominees have been unconstitutionally filibustered. 

Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Bolton, Dr./Senator Tom Coburn and Tom DeLay are conservatives who give not a wit about inside-the-beltway social standing, not a tinker’s damn about kudos from the New York Times or Washington Post, and can easily do without face time on the networks.  They are principled, committed, outspoken and straight talking.  What does this get them?  Vilified, never sought as a commencement speaker, brought before an ethics committee, and “Borked”.

With all the humility I can possibly muster, I offer some recommendations:  To liberals I say grow up and deal with reality.  To RINOs and moderates I say locate your spine and show some backbone . . . and put down that whetted finger.  To gimmees I say look to thine own self and start taking personal responsibility for your life.  To libertarians I say think about the consequences of having personal freedom (as herein defined) numero uno with respect to achieving numbers, critical mass and a unified voice.  To conservatives I say organize and play to win.  Don’t wimp and don’t equivocate. 

gumballs (ala Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice) because if you wind me up, the ideas in my brain just roll down to my tongue and then out my open mouth.  There's no censor, no PC, just my thoughts.  I can also be found at http://drpetestevens.net/