Which one is supposed to go first?

Last week I published a piece working off of Professor Barro’s Wall Street Journal editorial Stimulus Spending Keeps Failing. Unsurprisingly, there were some excellent Letters to the Editor in response to Barro’s piece; I have said before that Journal readers often write with greater clarity and insight than many famous and well-paid pundits.

Of particular note was a letter from Kevin E. Cahill of Boise, Idaho. He observes that the modern-day Keynesian economic school so popular among academics is in reality cart-before-the-horse economics, in which facts are tailored to produce politically desirous conclusions.

Here is his letter, and after I will add two further comments, namely that this thinking has infected our political establishment, as well as our media:

Prof. Barro’s comment that the Keynesian viewpoint is “dangerously unstable” is actually a common conclusion among first-year economics graduate students. It has been more than 10 years since I’ve earned my Ph.D. in economics, and looking back I am amazed at how impractical my theoretical macroeconomics training was. The way it makes sense to me now, however, is that these theoretical models are often used as an ex-post justification of a political belief. So, as we economists like to say, the causality is backward.

Our academic economists have a political belief first and then construct an economic model (that is mathematically incomprehensible to most undergraduates) to argue that the political belief is supported by “theory.” Supporting data? Irrelevant! The real danger of this approach to economics is that it dilutes the value of our profession. The key insight of economics—how to efficiently allocate resources—gets lost because we are focused on theoretical models that have little basis in reality. Even worse, our academics teach these macroeconomic models as if mathematical structure is valuable per se. [Emphasis mine]

First, the politicization of a field of study is nothing new. But what is frightening about economics when it comes to American politics is the near-universality of opinion among economic advisors in Big Party politics. As reason’s Matt Welch reported in Manufacturing Consensus, there is a near-total lack of any difference of opinion among the economic advisors to the establishment of the two major parties, which is disturbing to say the least.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that the presumptive Republican candidate has come out and supported George W. Bush’s $150 billion stimulus, as well as Barack Obama’s $800 billion version. Romney would only have changed the structure of Obama’s stimulus—a position taken by many Democrats as well, such as Robert Reich.

Second, not only has the political establishment been inundated with Keynesian “stimulators,” they also have the upper hand in media—although The Kudlow Report and a few other programs offer important differing perspectives. Paul Krugman is probably the most widely recognized economist in the country, and he ensures that politicized faux economics play a significant role in shaping the opinions of the electorate. And as long as voters fall for the idea that stimuli work, the two major parties will continue to beat the stimulus drum.

Mr. Cahill’s letter was much appreciated, but it’s more than economic academia that has been seduced by the cart-before-the-horse Keynesian economic theories. It’s also the advisors to the political establishment, and a great deal of the media as well. Until there’s some change in that reality our economic future will remain cloudy.

End Note

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson’s top economic advisor is Harvard Economics Professor Jeffrey Miron, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute. He is an avowed free market libertarian who spoke out against both TARP and ObamaCare. Advisors matter a great deal in presidential politics, and Johnson is working outside the Democratic/Republican clique, and choosing his advisors wisely.

America’s future? Under Obama or Romney, yes.

Today I explain Romney’s total lack of comprehension of, and disregard for, the Constitution—the only defense we have against the growth of government.

Yay Gun Control!

At the Libertarian Party National Convention, I spoke with nominee Governor Gary Johnson, and his biggest concern with Romney is in the area of gun control, and with good reason. Yes, the NRA has endorsed him (which has many members livid), but the organization’s rationale is “he won’t be as bad as Obama.” (Have you noticed that’s a recurring theme with this guy?)

Once again, I will let Romney choke on his own words. From his campaign website:

 Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes … As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners.

Really? Massachusetts is ranked as a “tie” with New York for the state with the toughest gun control laws. He did nothing to support expanded gun rights, and the statement above is, to put it politely, inaccurate.

Anecdotally, I spoke with a Massachusetts delegate at the LP National Convention, and it was Mitt Romney’s gun control policies that drove him out of the Republican Party! Not only does Massachusetts have severe caliber limitations, the Bay State also has gun registration that requires gun owners to register not only which weapons they own, but where the weapons are kept. So if you move a gun from your house to your office, you have 30 days to notify authorities of the move or face felony charges and a permanent loss of the right of gun ownership. These are the kind of laws Romney says are “just right.”

But please read what the Political Guide has to say about Romney and gun control:

Governor Romney has a solid record of pursuing gun control measures to control crime and increase safety. He is vocally supportive of the assault weapons ban, supported a waiting period, and supports registration. While Governor he continued Massachusetts’s history of gun control advocacy.

In 2002, Mitt Romney stated in a debate that he supported the tough gun laws in Massachusetts and that he believed they help protect us and keep us safe. He vowed not to chip away at those laws …

… He stated that his views did not line up with the NRA.

So, in Mitt Romney’s Constitutional universe, gun registration and other strict controls are perfectly legitimate under the Second Amendment. No wonder Romney scares the heck out of presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson when it comes to gun control.

Romney, Same Sex Marriage, and the Constitution

Last week President Obama thrust the issue of same sex marriage into the spotlight by coming out in support of same sex marriage. And, as cannot be disputed, the first law to recognize same sex marriage in the U.S. bears Mitt Romney’s signature. (As a libertarian I give both of them some credit for their positions, even though conservatives don’t.)

But what has me disturbed are the Constitutional arguments being bandied about now that this hot-button issue is back in the spotlight. Both Obama and Romney have come out and said it is a states’ rights issue. Last week, Romney said the following:

“I’m not running on marriage and marijuana, those are state issues, right? Aren’t they?” he said.

(I had to titter when it seemed like he was asking reporters for help with Constitutional interpretation, as well as the implication that federal marijuana laws are Unconstitutional!)

If marriage is a states’ rights issue, DOMA is Unconstitutional, and President Obama is justified in ordering the Justice Department to stop defending it!

But consider Romney’s campaign website:

As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act—a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton—but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

So is marriage a federal issue or a state issue, Mr. Romney? And if it’s a federal issue, could you please direct me to the relevant clause in Article I that authorizes Congress to interfere in an area that has long been held to be an exclusive area of state jurisdiction?

This is typical Constitutional flip-flopping from Romney, which shows he has no underlying Constitutional principles. You may disagree with presidential candidate Gary Johnson when he says that gun registration and marriage licensing restricted to heterosexual couples are both Unconstitutional, but you will never hear him waver on those positions because they are ingrained in his political being. Romney has no such Constitutional keel, and his flip-flopping on same sex marriage is another in a litany of examples.

Conclusion

Virtually every time Mitt Romney opens his mouth he becomes a more dangerous candidate in my estimation. Mind you that I have just presented a short list of reasons not to vote for him.

I anticipate that federal spending under Romney will be as high or higher than under Obama. We will go off the fiscal cliff with either.

And unless the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law, ObamaCare will be implemented on schedule, with perhaps a few tweaks, regardless of whether Romney or Obama is sworn in next January.

And, as any conservative or libertarian knows, the key to a restrained, responsible government is for it to operate inside the confines of the Constitution. As I have demonstrated, Romney is either clueless about the Constitution or plays it fast and loose (or both). As such, I expect him to be as much of a law breaker as Obama if elected, although Romney will violate a somewhat different subset of Constitutional provisions.

His oath will be to protect and defend the Constitution, although it’s clear he doesn’t know what that means. At least as a law professor Obama admitted that he interprets the grand old document in a contorted manner. With Romney I cannot discern any underlying Constitutional theory, and he seems to “wing it” without regard to the actual text.

If you view the lay of the land as I do, it is completely rational not to vote for Romney, the threats and cajoling of partisan Republicans notwithstanding. If you choose to pull the lever for him in November I will not call you irrational, a crybaby, or any of the other platitudes being slung about by Romney supporters. But, I think you will regret your decision.

Perhaps now you can understand that Governor Johnson is not kidding when he says that he would rather die than vote for Obama or Romney. He and many of his supporters like me agree that the country dies if either is elected.

When he told the story of his NPR interview to a group of supporters at the LP National Convention, I chimed in that I didn’t have his strength, and would have to vote for Obama if my life depended on voting for one of the two Big Party candidates.

When asked why, I said the answer was simple:

Obama can only get 4 more years.

To which another supporter replied:

Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don’t.

Touché.

This article is also published at Political Realities.

UPDATE

Governor Johnson has just released his first two offical advertisements. The first sends a chill down my spine.

Choosing between Obama and Romney is like deciding whether you prefer Thelma or Louise behind the wheel.

Anyone who has read my writing knows I am a proud member of the Libertarian Party, and am working on the Johnson/Gray campaign. But, along with conservatives who are refusing to vote for Romney, I have been subjected to a litany of accusations. “You just want Obama to win,” some say. Others call those of us in the neither-Obama-nor-Romney camp crybabies, whiners, hotheads, idiots, and a litany of other names. Besides being a blatant attempt to bully a vote from another, it’s just flat-out incorrect.

It comes down to expectations. Many of us know that the country is bankrupt, and that we have very tough times ahead of us if we don’t get our act together in short order. Our national debt presents the greatest existential threat to our nation in generations, if not our nation’s history. When it comes to Romney, the question becomes: Do you think he’s up to the heady task before him?

There are perfectly rational reasons to say either yes or no. For example, the owner of Political Realities where this article is cross-posted, LD Jackson, is a perfectly sane, rational individual who has endorsed the guy from the Bay State. I can say with full confidence that he has well-reasoned justifications for his endorsement.

Similarly, I am more-or-less sane, and I can say with confidence that I would not vote for Romney for any elected office. I, too, have perfectly rational reasons for my decision. Yes, I am a card-carrying Libertarian. But I am not opposed to his candidacy because he’s from another party; I’m in the LP because the Republican Party consistently does things like nominate Romney for president!

The primary difference between those who support Romney and those vehemently opposed to his candidacy is the former are more likely to believe what he is saying now, and the latter what he did as Governor (as well as many of the things he’s currently saying). He has a liberal track record, period. Universal health care. New taxes on businesses. Gun control. Same sex marriage (which I applaud; most conservatives do not). Nominated liberal justices to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. His liberal track record is undeniable.

But first, let me be perfectly clear on one thing: Barack Obama has been a disaster of a president, and the country is in deep trouble if he is reelected. I just don’t buy into the “anybody but Obama” shtick. That line is an attempt to shield Romney from serious analysis, and nothing more.

And let me be perfectly clear on another thing: if Romney wins in November, the country still goes into the dumpster. Perhaps slightly later than if Obama is reelected, but maybe not. If you agree with that point, your refusal to vote for the Republican is perfectly rational and justified.

Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson said the following during the National Convention, and I think he captures the flavor of my views pretty well:

I was on NPR’s All Things Considered yesterday. The question was, “You’re on the torture rack, they’re going to kill you, who are you going to vote for? Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama?” I said, “Look, I’ve climbed Mount Everest. I know what it’s like to hunker down and do what it takes. Take this to the bank: I would rather die.” Collectively, the country does not need to die.

I agree with Governor Johnson that the country dies whether Obama or Romney wins in November. I will spend the next two days defending my position. Had the GOP nominated a qualified candidate such as Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, my criticism would be much more subdued. After all, by wanting to set social issues aside, Daniels sounds more libertarian than conservative these days!

That said, let me go through what I anticipate from a Romney administration. You can argue with my expectations, but you will be hard-pressed to say it is illogical to vote a different way if you believe these things.

Spending Will Be Higher Under Romney than Obama

Our soaring national debt presents a grave existential threat to our nation. Solving the problem will take enormous courage and political capital to accomplish. Everything—and I do mean everything—must be on the chopping block. All things; large, small, and everything in between. Trimming on the margins will not save our country.

So what has Romney proposed? He wants to increase defense spending faster than President Obama. In typical Washingtonese, he calls it reversing Obama’s defense “cuts” because Obama has lowered the growth trajectory of defense spending. Keep in mind that defense spending is roughly tied for second place with Social Security as a category of spending.

And what about the largest category of spending, Medicare? Romney wants to reverse Obama’s “cuts” there, too, and save Medicare “as we know it.” To be fair, the so-called cuts were part of the ObamaCare deal, and so far haven’t materialized. But when looking at projected deficits, at least on paper Romney wants to add $100 billion-plus to anticipated deficits.

And what about welfare entitlement reform? Let the man say it himself:

I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.

And most recently, Romney supported the extension of student loan subsidies without offsetting budget cuts as House Republicans wanted. This is to the tune of $6 billion, which probably exceeds all of Romney’s proposed budget “cuts.” As Richard Viguerie at Conservative HQ wrote:

Apparently Romney’s strategy for the fall campaign will be, “if you can’t out bid Obama, at least join him.”

And what about the 2009 stimulus bill? In his autobiography No Apology, Romney supported that, too, just like Bush’s $150 billion stimulus. He thought it should have been modified, but he supported it nonetheless. You can expect more of the same.

So why do I say spending will be higher under Romney than Obama? In addition to the reasons I have just stated, if reelected, Obama’s spending will be limited as long as the GOP remains the minority Party of No. But, as I’ve said before, the First Rule of American Politics is that it is easier to increase spending than to cut it. Democrats, who will control enough of the Senate to control any budgetary outcome, will grumblingly agree to increase defense spending, but will block any substantial cuts. The First Rule will prevail, and spending will increase faster with the Republican in the White House than Obama.

Consider the six major categories of federal spending: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, Non-defense discretionary, Mandatory, and Interest.

Medicare and Social Security spending will increase due to the Baby Boom retirement. Medicare and Medicaid spending will increase due to health care inflation. The Interest expense is set to increase, and is the fast growing segment of the budget. Romney wants to increase Defense spending. He doesn’t want to tackle welfare reform (“Mandatory” spending.)

That leaves Non-defense discretionary spending, which accounts for only 18% of the budget, and shrinking fast as a percentage. Reduce it to zero and we don’t even cut the deficit in half.

The numbers simply do not work out for Mr. Romney—or the country if he is elected. Based on what I’m hearing from the campaign trail, his proposed spending increases exceed his proposed spending cuts. We are in serious trouble if he is elected.

Romney Will Not Repeal ObamaCare

That Mitt Romney is the “Godfather of Universal Health Care in America” is not in dispute. He took the Bay State far further than even the Democratic controlled state legislature had intended. Yet the former Governor who never calls himself Governor is now claiming that he supports the repeal of ObamaCare.

His opaque Constitutional argument to justify repeal doesn’t withstand even the most cursory review. That should lend comfort to conservatives; another Republican presidential nominee who plays fast and loose with the Constitution.

He claims that RomneyCare is Constitutional, but ObamaCare is not. Why? Does Congress lack authority to provide health care services? If so, Medicare and Medicaid are Unconstitutional. I haven’t heard a peep out of him on that one.

As late as 2010 he still supported duplicating the Massacusetts model across the country in his autobiography No Apology. Sensing the potential political backlash from conservatives, the offending portion was removed from the paperback edition! Romney has even said that he “likes insurance mandates” and that “they work”—even during the 2008 presidential debates!

And even early in the 2012 campaign he was in the ObamaCare “reform” camp. Rick Santorum (who I rarely compliment) effectively forced Romney to adopt repeal as a position. And even then, as Santorum frequently noted, the former Governor never pressed the argument with much zeal and Santorum was correct to hammer him for giving away an important issue.

The bottom line is that repealing ObamaCare is going to require a lot of political capital. It will require relentless pursuit to accomplish. There is no evidence that Romney will be willing to make the political sacrifices necessary to repeal ObamaCare, especially since it’s a brand new position for him—if it is indeed his position—and he does not defend it vigorously. (Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t switch back to “fixing” ObamaCare by November.)

Indeed, it’s highly doubtful he actually believes in repeal in the first place. He’s a forked-tongue politician who will say anything to snare your vote. And when you look at his political past, at one time or another he has tried out every possible position on everything.

My expectation is this: He will go through the motions of pretending to repeal, will blame Democrats for obstructing with a wink-and-a-nod, and then they will all sit down and “fix” ObamaCare—something even Democrats admit needs done.

Romney repeal ObamaCare? Ain’t gonna happen.

This article will conclude tomorrow, and is also published at Political Realities.

Last year I declared the second Monday of May to be “Thank a Lawyer Day.” It is a day to celebrate all the wonderful improvements the legal industry has brought to our lives.

I had a different subject in mind for today, but while mowing yesterday the warning labels on my lawn tractor screamed out as a perfect topic for Thank a Lawyer Day.

Warning labels are generally justified as a relatively low-cost way to make a product safer. The theory goes that if people see the warnings (whether the words or the pictures), they will be less likely to do something to injure themselves. Consequently, adding a few stickers to a $3000 lawn tractor is a relatively small price to pay to ensure that people use dangerous equipment in the safest manner possible.

But the question is: Who is made safer by these warning labels? Most people know not to put their fingers under a mower deck while the blades are turning, so the target audience for the labels on my tractor is a small number of our nation’s stupidest people. These people are the least likely to heed a warning label even if they saw it, so it’s hard to see that many severed digits are prevented by warning labels on lawn equipment.

Manufacturers, however, are made safer. Most warning labels splattered all over our consumer goods do little or nothing to avoid the injuries they are intended to prevent. But it is more difficult to have a successful lawsuit against a company if an appropriate label was in place.

Let’s face it, for the most part, warning labels are intended to prevent lawsuits, not injuries. They are just visible reminders of the extent to which the omnipresent and very real fear of lawsuits adversely affects us in a multitude of ways. Our liberal civil litigation system makes us defensive, and not in a positive way. Common sense has been replaced by an amorphous fear of lawyers hiding in the bushes, waiting to spring out and advance the next novel theory to allow a plaintiff to recover.

So let’s take a look at the warning labels on my lawn tractor. (You can enlarge them by clicking on them.)

First, you can see the same basic label on the mower deck in two places on the right side of the mower deck.

The first graphic shows that if you stick your fingers under the deck, your fingers will get chopped off. The same goes for your tip of your boot if you stick your foot under there.

The second graphic shows that chunks of your body will be removed by flying objects expelled by the mower. Note that the label only tells the operator to remove objects that might get launched, but does not instruct operators to tell people to get the hell out of the way while mowing.

Next, the same basic warning appears on the left side of the mower deck.

Next is this lovely graphic showing a baby getting its leg chopped off. I suppose their are people out there that need to be reminded not to give a baby a haircut with a lawnmower, and I doubt they would heed the label even if they looked. (I also want to note that the blades turn off when you go in reverse, so the one image is mechanically impossible.)

Finally, there is perhaps the most useful of the labels in terms of advice, but the graphic is quite amusing.

So, if you see a ridiculous warning label or a device plastered with so many that they lose their effectiveness, thank a lawyer! They’re there to protect us from lawyers, not from ourselves.

Happy Thank a Lawyer Day!

This article is also published at Alexandria.

This feature is intended to provide a little levity at the end of the work week.

* * *

From Bret Stephens’ editorial To the Class of 2012:

Fact One is that in our “knowledge-based” economy, knowledge counts. Yet here you are, probably the least knowledgeable graduating class in history.

* * *

I was on NPR’s All Things Considered yesterday. The question was, ‘You’re on the torture rack, they’re going to kill you, who are you going to vote for? Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama? I said, ‘Look, I’ve climbed Mount Everest. I know how to do what it takes. Take this to the bank: I would rather die.’

Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party presidential nominee, in his nomination speech at the National Convention last weekend.

* * *

To those who say that there isn’t enough time between now and the election to get the word out regarding Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign, I have one response: Herman Cain!

Nine-nine-nine!

* * *

From this month’s issue of reason magazine in the Brickbats section:

Marilyn Louie’s newsstand has stood in the same spot in New York City’s Chinatown for 35 years. But city officials have just discovered that the stand is three inches too close to the building it faces, and so it must be torn down.

* * *

Also from this month’s reason, MTV’s Kennedy regarding lessons politicians can learn from pop culture:

Whether you’re Demi Moore, Michael Richards, or Mel Gibson, there’s nothing the 12-step shuffle can’t cure. Congress and the president are absolutely addicted to spending money they don’t have. I’m sure Dr. Drew wouldn’t mind setting up shop inside the Beltway for 28 days to do some group therapy.

* * *

Have a nice weekend if you so choose!

I really do not like thinking about, much less writing about, Europe these days. I would love to put a curtain around the Continent so none of us have to watch as most of the nations across the pond soil themselves as they try to extricate themselves from their self-inflicted budgetary traps.

But, life being what it is, Europe is impossible to ignore. And, it has some life lessons we in America could stand to learn.

Unsurprisingly, many Keynesian theorists are arguing that the failing European nations need to keep up the fiscal “stimulus” to revive their economies. That’s silly on its face. The answer to a debt problem is more debt!

But the calls for stimulus in Europe bring up two critical points. First, the historical evidence shows that stimulus does not work, and Europe is a case-in-point. Second, Keynesian thinkers shine a light on why GDP is dangerous when used for more than the limited purposes this particular measure of economic growth was designed for.

Professor Robert Barro of Harvard has an excellent editorial in today’s issue of The Wall Street Journal, and he reviews many of the failed efforts to use fiscal stimulus to revitalize economies. Under modern Keynesian theory, governments should use “appropriate” deficit spending to fill in for the slack in consumer demand during a downturn to “jump start” the economy.

Yet, as Professor Barro points out, in the wake of the most recent recession the European nations with the lowest deficits are growing nicely—Sweden and Germany—while those with the highest deficits are going down the tubes. Spain, for instance, is 5 years into a Depression, and no amount of stimulus spending has, or could have, snapped them out of their funk.

The early 20th Century here in America showed a similar result. We had two Depressions; the Depression of 1920–21, and the Great Depression. In the former President Harding responded with fiscal austerity, and in the latter, FDR responded with fiscal stimulus commonly known as The New Deal. Austerity ended the first depression in relatively short order, and stimulus prolonged the second. I don’t care what the fancy-shmancy econometric models show; fiscal stimulus does not revive an economy.

Additionally Professor Barro points out a well-known fact that even Keynesians won’t deny; the long-term impact of deficit stimulus spending is negative. Stimuli are risky, and if they don’t deliver the promised “bump,” the economy is stuck with a pile of debt that represses future economic growth. That’s what the bankrupt nations of Europe are learning, and I’m fearful we’re suffering from the same malaise.

Getting to the second point, I think it’s appropriate to bring up a point I’ve made before, namely that GDP is an economic measure of limited use, and can be downright dangerous when policymakers use it as the be-all and end-all of their economic policies.

Basically GDP measures how much economic “activity” is going on, regardless of whether the activity is beneficial to anyone. In my humble opinion it is popular with politicians because it gives them an excuse to encourage taxable behavior. It is a very government-friendly metric.

For example, Keynesians get downright giddy when a tornado flattens a town in Oklahoma. Not the loss of life, of course, but they know the town will be rebuilt. That means lots of taxable behavior.

But, a tornado is a natural act of destruction. All of the scarce resources that went into the flattened homes and businesses have been destroyed. All of the scarce resources that will go into rebuilding could have been used elsewhere. GDP does not take the destruction into account.

Similarly—and this is central to modern Keynesian thinking—saving is bad. Keynes called it the “paradox of thrift.” With GDP as a measure, it gives policymakers on both the fiscal and monetary sides of the equation an excuse to encourage people to drain their savings accounts, run up their credit cards, and spend, spend, spend. The spending is, of course, taxable.

That lesson should have been learned after the housing bubble. Instead, Keynesians seek to duplicate the feat with a government bubble.

Returning to Europe, if you listen to the Keynesians crying for more stimulus spending for the beleaguered nations of Europe, notice that they rarely (if ever) justify the spending on the grounds of actual necessity. “Greece needs to upgrade its ports.” Or, “Spain needs to expand its power grid.”

No, the justification for more deficit spending is that these countries simply need to spend more. Period. Sure, even Keynesians acknowledge that some sorts of spending are better than others, but the end goal is to spend. Period. Paying a thousand Greeks to walk around in circles is better than doing nothing, they argue. The truth is they’d be better off going fishing and at least bringing home dinner.

And what economic measure picks up pointless exercises such as Greeks walking around in circles (which is a more appropriate analogy for many bureaucrats here and abroad than many would admit)? GDP, of course. The obsession with GDP as a measure of the economy has clouded the thinking of many and economist and economic policymaker.

And as long as Europe continues to obsess over GDP, and as long as there are economists who will feed the fires of absurdity, many European nations will continue to struggle, continue to make their situation even worse, and eventually, will completely collapse as viable sovereigns. That, sadly, is the lesson of history. Just don’t waste your breath trying to convince Paul Krugman or Robert Reich. They have their own parallel universe that suits their purposes just fine. Unfortunately, we have to sift through the wreckage these folks create.

Be afraid. Very afraid.

Midweek Thoughts

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal published a scathing editorial yesterday, rightly excoriating the House Republican leadership for supporting an increase in the total loan guarantees made by the U.S. government to the Import/Export bank. According the WSJ, House Majority leader Eric Cantor and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer agreed to a deal that would “increase the bank’s exposure cap to $140 billion by 2014 from $100 billion today.” It should come as no surprise that Democrats favore crony capitalistic economic engineering, but shame on the GOP leadership for considering it.

Basically, the Ex-Im Bank makes loans to businesses—primarily big businesses, and these loans are guaranteed by the American taxpayer. The only good news is that the “House is considering the Ex-Im bill under suspension rules, which requires two-thirds approval for passage.” We’ll see if 135 House Republicans are willing to buck the GOP leadership and vote against the Ex-Im expansion. My best guess is no.

There are three fundamental laws of the American legislative process:

1) It is easier to increase spending than to lower it.

2) It is easier to lower taxes than to raise them.

3) It is easier to dole out handouts than to claw them back.

The House Republican leadership has again provided proof positive that Rule #3 is alive and well. And at least in regards to #1 and #3, these rules explain why it is bad news for the country when there is “bipartisan compromise.”

So what is the Republican leadership thinking? The WSJ posits that GOP lawmakers don’t want to look anti-business when Democrats favor expanding the Ex-Im cap.

I offer a different explanation. The Republican Party—in particular the leadership and establishment—is as addicted to spending and crony capitalist subsidies like the Ex-Im bank bill. House Republicans are either banking on the Tea Party either being dormant and/or dead, or that they can “sneak one past” the fiscal hawks in the citizenry. Thank heavens that the Tea Party has The Wall Street Journal to point out Republican shenanigans like this.

The bottom line is that the Republican Party is not a party of either fiscal responsibility or free market capitalism. This is just further proof. As the editorial board concluded:

The essential tasks of government of a bankrupt federal government should not include subsidies for the biggest corporations.

The problem is that the Congressional Republican leadership doesn’t realize we’re bankrupt. They were glad to take over the House in 2010 with the Tea Party’s help, but otherwise want “business as usual,” which means dishing out the dough to their cronies. And their comrades across the aisle are more than happy to help.

I attended the Libertarian Party National Convention as an Ohio delegate last weekend, as well as worked as a floor captain for Governor Johnson’s campaign (my duty was to persuade undecided voters to cast their ballots for Governor Johnson for president and Judge Jim Gray for Vice President). I came away from the Convention extremely optimistic about the campaign, the future of the Libertarian Party, and consequently, the hopes for our nation’s future.

I have three main points.

The Johnson/Gray Ticket Can Win in November

Everyone knows this is a long shot, but not as long as many believe. While a number of things have to happen, none are a long shot in and of themselves. First, Ron Paul needs to concede. Assuming he does, these voters will flood to the Libertarian Party, which is their natural home anyway. Indeed, those of us on the campaign are already putting in place a game plan to maximize their impact once they arrive. And, of course, an endorsement from Dr. Paul would be very welcome.

Second, if the economy continues to struggle—even if it is due to the travails in Europe (no fault of President Obama’s)—many Democratic voters will continue to look elsewhere, as many already are. We will welcome them with open arms.

Third, if Governor Johnson can get to 15% in the polls, he will get on the debate stage next fall. If that happens, anything can happen. Indeed, many Republicans are so disgusted with Mitt Romney (D-Mass.) as a candidate that they are justifiably giving up on the GOP. If Johnson becomes more prominent as a candidate, fiscal conservatives (including many Tea Partiers) will be forced to choose between a candidate who will submit a balanced in 2013 (Johnson), and one who wants to tackle the budget deficit by increasing defense and Medicare spending, as well as “fixing” the safety net if needed, as opposed to reducing entitlement spending (Romney (D-Mass.)).

While it is a narrow path, it is a viable one. Republicans can laugh all they want. I’m a Tea Party libertarian, and I’m used to Democrats deriding the Tea Party movement. I can handle the derision from nominally conservative Republicans. As Gandhi famously said:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

The Freedom Message Will Win Regardless of November’s Results

Governor Johnson has noted that Dr. Ron Paul frequently refers to himself as a “messenger.” The message is freedom, and Governor Johnson is the next standard bearer for the freedom movement in America. Dr. Paul has gotten the message past the point of being ignored, and has moved it to the point of being laughed at, and even fought. That means in Gandhi’s timetable, Dr. Paul has almost singlehandedly moved the freedom needle from step one to step two, and almost has it to step three. If those of us in the Libertarian Party can secure those gains—or advance the ball forward—it will be a tremendous victory.

Moving the message to the Libertarian Party and out of the polluted air of the GOP was an inevitable and brilliant decision by Governor Johnson. I can safely say that with a few rare exceptions, voters under 25 years of age are not going to vote Republican, ever. George W. Bush and crew permanently tarnished the GOP brand name in the eyes of these younger voters. They are very receptive to libertarian ideas and the Libertarian Party, which does not have Bush baggage to drag around. Call the GOP a living fossil; there are living specimens, but they’re past reproductive age.

Consequently we are targeting the college vote with great success. If we did not have an eloquent statesman to deliver the message to these voters, as well as to offer them a choice in November, the message of freedom might begin to fade. That Governor Johnson and Judge Gray will be campaigning on behalf of freedom throughout the summer and fall is a victory unto itself.

Growing the Libertarian Party (and Possibly Defeating the GOP)

Readers may think that I am so vehemently opposed to both Obama and Romney (D-Mass.) because I am a partisan, and it is the job of partisans to advocate for their candidates. True. Anyone who has read my writing knows I am about as fierce of an opponent of Obama’s as you will find. I warned people about him during the 2008 election cycle, but few listened. Then, once he was elected, some urged me to give him a chance. My response was always some version of this: “Hell no; I know what he wants to do to us.”

But when it comes to the former Governor of Massachusetts—have you ever notice his campaign never refers to him by his formal title?—some think my fierce opposition to his candidacy is the just the sour grapes of a former Republican. Au contraire. I am a former Republican precisely because the GOP does things like nominate Romney (D-Mass.) for president. Think McCain, Bush, Dole…

But what about the argument that voting Johnson is the same as voting for Obama? Not true. Next week I will explain why a Romney (D-Mass.) administration presents as great of a threat to our nation’s future as Obama.

(As a side note, exactly how much input do you Republicans have in nominating “your” Vice Presidential candidate? How about zip-zero-nada? The same is not true of the Libertarian Party. Governor Johnson endorsed Judge Jim Gray for VP, but Gray faced a fierce challenge from old guard favorite, R. Lee Wrights (who is a hell of a gentleman, by the way). On the morning of the VP nomination our polling showed the race about even, with a lot of undecideds. That’s why my work as a floor captain and swaying the undecideds was so critical, and Judge Gray won with 60% of the vote. Naturally he did a lot to help himself by delivering a powerful nomination speech.)

Anyhow, Johnson’s candidacy has led to a significant influx in new LP members. And—this is very critical—there is a growing sense that the GOP is skating on thin ice. It’s holding for now, but far from safe.

For example, I spoke with a recently-converted Libertarian who served as an advisor in every Republican administration since Nixon. Yes, he is on a first-name basis with every living Republican president. In the words of this former top GOP advisor, “the Republican Party is a total piece of s**t.”

He also said that relatively few of his colleagues criticized his move. Most admitted that the GOP has badly lost its way, but they weren’t quite ready to jump. I asked him if it was like a dam waiting to burst, as many were just waiting for a few more to go first. He responded: “Absolutely!”

So, if the Johnson/Gray campaign can contribute to either a) the growth of the Libertarian Party as a viable third party, or, b) continue to chip away at the thin ice on which the Republican Party is skating, the campaign will be a huge success. Based on early data, the campaign has already been very successful.

(I want to note that we are getting large numbers of Democrats as well. In general we are snagging Republican leadership, but Democratic rank-and-file.)

But you can take away from this piece one basic fact: the Johnson/Gray campaign will win—and is already winning—this year. It just depends on the definition of success.

This article is also published at Political Realities.

Judge Jim Gray speaking at the Libertarian Party National Convention.

Thoughts on Law

As everyone should know by know, the Libertarian Party nominated Judge Jim Gray for Vice President on Saturday to serve as Governor Gary Johnson’s running mate. A judge running for an executive office isn’t an everyday occurrence, but after speaking with Judge Gray about it, I am convinced that serving on the bench is an excellent background for the position he is seeking.

I generally do not support lawyers for elected office. Lawyers are trained to be advocates, which means that they will push the limits of their arguments to win elections and while debating legislation and other policies—and feel no guilt about doing so. After all, that’s their training. That doesn’t make them bad people, but it’s often hard (if not impossible) to get a straight answer from lawyer-politicians if they don’t want to give it. (Think Michele Bachmann.)

But a judge is not an advocate. A judge is an arbiter. But that still doesn’t answer the question of whether service in the judiciary offers the kind of experience that is beneficial for a Vice President.

So I asked Judge Gray that specific question at the Libertarian Party Convention last weekend. After all, I’m working on Governor Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign (now the Johnson/Gray campaign), and I want to be prepared as to how to handle the question. I found his response convincing.

As a judge, he explained, he had to sift through evidence—sometimes enormous amounts—and cautiously weigh all of the facts presented. Only after careful consideration of all of the evidence does a judge arrive at his or her conclusion. This skill at sorting through information and reaching a reasoned conclusion has a great many applications for a Vice President, from reviewing proposed legislation, to proposed regulations, to foreign policy matters, and so on.

In addition, a judge often gets involved in helping disputing parties reach a settlement. He recounted several instances of cases where he helped parties far apart on difficult issues reach not just a settlement, but an actual resolution to the underlying problems—such as between the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and victims of sexual abuse.

Unsurprisingly, Judge Gray has worked as an arbitrator and mediator since leaving the bench in 2009. Again, he has labored to resolve disputes, not advocate on behalf of one party or the other. In particular he believes his experience in dispute resolution will be beneficial in the arena of foreign affairs, and it’s hard to argue that experience as an arbiter isn’t good training to mediate disputes on a grander scale.

So when you consider the various potential backgrounds for a Vice Presidential nominee—Governor, legislator, businessperson, military—judicial experience stacks up pretty well. It may not be the conventional path for a Vice President, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a worthy one.

I am not addressing the substance of Judge Gray’s political beliefs here (I will do the when I review his book A Voter’s Handbook: Effective Solutions to America’s Problems), this post is meant solely to address the issue of a judge running for VP.

Many Americans feel our morass of laws has grown too complex and too omnipresent, as well as out of step with the morals and beliefs of the average citizen. Far fewer, however, understand that the primary intellectual well for the flood of law we have witnessed over the last century is legal academia, most notably the top “elite” law schools such as Harvard and Yale. Walter Olson’s Schools for Misrule pulls back the curtain and reveals the Oz behind.

Central to Olson’s work is the reality that most law professors are part of a politically liberal elite clique, and that most professors are less interested in teaching what the law is or how to practicethan instructing students on what the law ought to be. To the extent that law professors practice, it is typically in the name of pursuing “cutting edge” legal theories that advance the liberal agenda. Thus, law reviews—the esteemed journals that once were of tremendous value to practicing attorneys and judges—have now become filled with opaque, quasi-intellectual articles discussing what area of law needs to be changed next, and how to advance the agenda.

Olson reviews a great number of legal theories that originated with legal academia and have been put into practice, such as public interest law and institutional reform litigation. He also reviews some of the endless litany of new legal theories invented by academics (many of which are laughable on their face), such as critical race theory. And in the end, many of the same professors and the same funding organizations, such as the Ford Foundation, show up time and again with each new effort to shape public policy through the courts.

That the small, elite legal academic clique is so uniform in its thinking should come as no surprise when you consider the avenue one must take to gain entrance into the faculty lounges of the ivory towers. First, you get a bachelor’s degree, and the more worthless in the real world, the better. Then you go straight from undergrad to an elite law school if you can get admission. Next, you clerk for a federal judge—or Supreme Court Justice if you want to be the cream of the crop. After your clerkship you move on to a big law firm for two years or so, so you can claim “real world experience,” even though most first and second year associates spend their time doing fairly menial work, such as going through boxes of discovery documents. At some point you need to get some law review articles published, so the faculty can determine if you’re truly liberal enough to join their ranks. Those are the standard steps for becoming an elite law professor.

Having shared the same basic sheltered training, it is no wonder elite legal academia seems at times like a monolith. And looking at the world through the lens of law, academia is inevitably turns to the creation of more law to fix every perceived grievance—and perceived is not an understatement. For example, Olson reviews the endless Indian claims litigation, in which legal academia continuously invents new theories to justify compensation for lands the Native Americans lost as the U.S. expanded westward. Although an unpleasant chapter in our nation’s history, most Americans would prefer to leave the episode in the past, but legal academia is insistent that this is a grievance that needs to be resolved.

In addition to the expansion of the volume of law, as more and more grievances find their way to court, the elites have also pressed for consolidation of law at increasingly higher levels. After all, it’s easy to control the country if a single rule applies across the country. So state and local law are frowned upon as an avenue for advancing liberal agenda, and federal, and increasingly, international law are preferred.

There is an implied distrust of the average voter in the legal academia’s methodology, and an implicit trust of the judiciary. After all, many judges went to law school, too, and many share the same narrow liberal worldview of the academics. Why try and convince thousands of voters that your new cause of action is necessary, when you can simply convince one of your former students?

For as much influence as the faculty of our elite law schools has (all nine Justices of the Supreme Court went to elite law schools), it begs the question as to whether they have too much power given their backgrounds. In the Conclusion, Olson writes:

Are law professors and legal intellectuals the rightful arbiters of what the law should be? Probably not. Whatever distinctive insights they can contribute, and there are many, they are hardly the ones trained in thinking about human motivations and incentives, fairness and practicality, problems of proof, probability, and evidence, or a dozen other aspects of the problem.

Thus, though they consider themselves experts on the inner workings of the world, few have any significant real-world experience on their resumes. This probably explains why so many of the ideas they produce generate all sorts of nasty side effects they didn’t anticipate. In my personal experience, law professors are some of the last people who should be forming public policy, and their belief to the contrary is unfettered arrogance.

Olson writes:

Overall the ideology of law schools is biased toward the expansion of law and its uses, and away from a recognition of the inevitable costs, limitations, and inaccuracies of law.

Although seeking changes to the law in defense of “fairness,” the overall impact on society at large is all too often ignored.

While Schools for Misrule is a bit of a tough read in places, and probably pushes the argument a bit too far, it is a worthy read nonetheless. If you have ever wondered how our legal system got so massive, so intrusive, and at times, so bizarre, Olson reveals its birthplace. We live a world significantly shaped by the bad ideas of a handful of philosopher-monarchs who roam the halls of our elite law schools.

Mr. Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and blogs at Overlawyered.

The Country Thinker is at the Libertarian Party National Convention, and will return Monday.

I scheduled this post before I left for the Libertarian Party National Convention, and it’s some more amusing images I found on Facebook.

Have a nice weekend if you so choose!

Most Americans understand that the American health care system is royally messed up. On the one hand we deliver some of the best health care in the world, but on the other hand it is far too expensive.

Looking at the long-term trend lines, Americans spent a fairly steady percentage of GDP on health care. As soon as Medicare opened its doors, health care inflation took off like a rocket, as Peter Suderman noted here. Medicare, and liberal medical malpractice laws that came into being around the same time, have led to massive overutilization of health care services. Overutilization, then, is the primary driver of high health care costs in the U.S.

Politicians and bureaucrats, primarily in Washington, have responded with a variety of ham-fisted price control schemes. Like any price control scheme, these plans have exacerbated the problem.

Now, as Doctors Pamela Hartzband and Jerome Groopman noted in their Wall Street Journal article here, both Republicans and Democrats have bought into the most recent health care price control fad: “best practices.”

The idea seems simple. “Experts,” which the authors call the “Expertocracy,” cull reams of data, and determine what treatment regimen works best for any given diagnosis. I call it “cookbook medicine,” and liken it to the auto repair business. A mechanic determines what is wrong with your vehicle, follows the steps in the repair manual, and the shop gets paid a fixed price for the repair, regardless of how much time was spent by the mechanic. Best practices in medicine are designed to make health care more efficient and affordable, by removing discretion from medical practitioners and focusing on those treatment regimens that the Expertocracy declares to be most effective.

The problem, Hartzband and Groopman note, is that human individuals are unique. As hard as it may be for political power seekers to comprehend, a system in which human ailments are treated like broken car parts is not going to work. Those closest to the problem—the doctor and the patient—are the ones who should decide what treatment regime is appropriate given the totality of the circumstances.

Additionally—believe it or not—experts often disagree. True consensus is the rare case. “Best practices” rests on the fundamental idea that majority rule leads to the optimal result overall; not much comfort if you’re denied a beneficial treatment because the Expertocracy believes it doesn’t help “most people.”

Like any price control system that has been tried since Medicare began wreaking havoc on health care in America, “best practices” is doomed to fail as a means of controlling health care inflation. It will simply lead to overutilization of treatments approved as best practices, and underutilization of treatments that do not meet the experts’ criteria. Worse, the quality of care will suffer as health care practitioners are effectively barred from providing treatments that may be effective in specific circumstances.

According to Hartzband and Groopman, the only way in which Democrats and Republicans differ on the new best practices mania is in for whom they believe the Expertocrats should work. Democrats think they should work for government. Republicans think they should work for private insurance companies. Neither have our best interests at heart. Both prioritize their own survival over our recovery from our ailments.

And as long as the Expertocracy continues to rise, we can expect heath care costs to continue to rise at an alarming rate, and the quality of our care to decline. Health care is one of the largest sectors of our economy, and it is far removed from any sort of real market-based system. As long as it remains that way we can anticipate continued rampant health care inflation. And as long as Democrats and Republicans support the best practices Expertocracy and treat medical practice like auto repair, that’s exactly what we’re going to get.

The Country Thinker is currently at the Libertarian Party National Convention.

I really should be getting ready for the Libertarian Party Convention, but I came across a blog post from Libertarian Neocon titled Screw the GOP, They Don’t Seem to Want My Vote Anyway, and it is just too juicy to ignore. Increasingly people are seeing that Romney (D-Mass.)’s nomination is emblematic of how totally screwed up the GOP really is. I’ll just give you a sample and let you draw your own conclusions—and please go and read the whole thing:

I’m done.  I’m a lifelong Republican and I’m done.  I’ve been a Republican since I was 6 and I saw Reagan speak on our old 13” black and white television set about freedom and about the evils of the Soviet Union, where I was born.  I grew up listening to Reagan and I kind of always thought that he was what the Republican Party stood for.  For individual liberty at home & abroad.  “Moderates” like George H. W. Bush seemed like some sort of aberration to me, an exception to the conservative Republican rule. Looking back though, it’s pretty clear that Ronald Reagan was the aberration … Romney [D-Mass.] is just the last straw for me.  I can’t really say for certain what I agree with him on or exactly how he differs from how Obama has been governing (as George Soros said, “If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them”).

It’s a lengthy post, but well worth a read. Anyhow, let me get back to the business I’m supposed to be attending to, namely, saving the country from Obama and his nominal opponent from Massachusetts.

I’ll make this short and sweet, as I’m preparing to leave for Las Vegas tomorrow for the Libertarian Party National Convention, as well as my wife’s birthday celebration for tonight. But I’m pleased to announce that retired Judge Jim Gray has thrown his hat in the ring for the Libertarian Vice Presidential nomination, and I wholeheartedly endorse him—and as an Ohio delegate will have the opportunity to vote for him.

I’ve written positively about Judge Gray before, so my support for him isn’t out of the blue. He’s one of a growing flood of Republicans abandoning the GOP and its neoconservative statism in favor of the Libertarian Party’s freedom agenda. Momentum is on the LP’s side, and it’s growing by the day, and that Gray is willing to step up and offer to serve his country in such an important capacity is honorable.

While I maintain a general prohibition on voting for lawyers for elected office, his experience as a jurist makes him different from run-of-the-mill attorneys like Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Bill Clinton. Indeed, it is his experience from the bench that led him to conclude that many conservative ideas in the area of social policy don’t work in the real world, most notably the War on Drugs. So Gray is the rare exception when being a lawyer doesn’t count against him in my political calculus.

Hopefully I will have a chance to speak with him at the Convention, and if so I will report back what I learn!

I will be leaving for Las Vegas Thursday morning to attend the Libertarian Party National Conference. I will be serving as a delegate from Ohio, and as many of you already know, I have endorsed Governor Johnson, and am working on his campaign.

I am confident that Johnson will receive the nomination, and when he does, the campaign will really heat up. Party leaders at state and national have had to remain neutral until the process plays out, and that restriction will be lifted on Saturday.

As you can imagine, Governor Johnson’s decision to run on the Libertarian Party ticket has energized the party. As an increasing number of prominent Republicans have gotten fed up with the GOP, we know our ascendancy as a major force in American politics is around the corner.

Currently, Johnson is polling at 6–7%, which is a large enough number to invalidate any poll that includes only Obama and Romney (D-Mass.). We expect to go over 10% when Ron Paul officially drops out, and are targeting 15% so Governor Johnson can get on the debate stage this fall.

Anecdotally I estimate that currently 2 out of 3 Johnson supporters would have been more likely to vote for Obama than a Republican. Republicans should be glad that the Governor has made marriage equality, marijuana legalization, and peace prominent in his platform, because there are a lot of single-issue voters motivated by those issues, and they sure ain’t going to vote Republican.

When I have previously written about Johnson, some readers have said that a vote for anyone but the Republican nominee is a vote for Obama. That is wrong on two scores. First, taken as a group, it appears that the Johnson camp is more heavily Democratic than Republican, so my work on the campaign is hurting Obama more than Romney (D-Mass.) Second, as I’ve said before, I would not vote for Romney (D-Mass.) for any elected office—not even County dog catcher—so Johnson isn’t “stealing” my vote for the failed Governor of the Bay State because he wouldn’t get it under any circumstances.

Anyhow, the Libertarian Party is on the rise, and Gary Johnson is set to be the libertarian standard bearer with Ron Paul’s retirement. In the current election cycle he is by far the best candidate for president, and probably represents our last chance to avoid a major debt crisis.

This article is also published at Political Realities.

Suing the IRS would be fun, wouldn’t it?

I promised to give you occasional updates on the great work being done by the “merry band of litigators” at the Institute for Justice. In particular their economic liberty division fits the subject of this blog, “polawnics,” which is the intersection of politics, law, and economics. Recently IJ sued the IRS over its new licening scheme.

The video here explains the suit, which IJ filed on behalf of three small tax preparers.

As Dan Alban of IJ 1explained in his USA Today editorial, the IRS does not have authority to create a licensing scheme, but it has done so anyway. The Obama administration has shown no shame about violating the law, and this is just another example.

The nominal reason for the licensing program is the claim that tax preparers are making to many errors on tax returns. That’s awfully rich, because as Alban also notes, IRS employees answer tax questions correctly and completely less than half the time.

The real reason for the new licensing scheme becomes apparent when you look at who supported it: big accounting firms and other entities that prepare taxes. These firms can afford the additional costs of compliance better than smaller preparers. They will pass on the costs to their customers, and they hope to drive thousands of small preparers out of business. This is a case of crony capitalism at its worst, and the additional costs are a new regulatory tax on anyone who uses someone to prepare their taxes.

IJ also notes the following:

The regulations require every paid tax return preparer—except for attorneys, CPAs and several categories of “enrolled agents”—to become a “registered tax return preparer” by paying extra fees, passing a government exam, and taking 15 hours of continuing education classes every year.

As the Sabina Loving stated in the video, most of her clients are poor and need affordable tax help. They can’t afford a tax attorney or CPA. As so often happens, the poor become the biggest victim of trade cartel crony capitalist regulations.

Fortunately, if IJ is correct that there is no statutory authority for this scheme, this should be a pretty easy victory, and another black eye for the Obama administration.

Steve Laffey’s recently released documentary Fixing America is a gripping work that captures the mood of present-day Main Street America in vivid color. The anger, frustration, and sense of disempowerment that pours from the mouths of the ordinary Americans are heart-wrenching.

Laffey and his crew travelled a serpentine path across the country from his home near Ft. Collins, Colorado, to Washington D.C. Along the way he stopped and interviewed hundreds of ordinary Americans, and asked them to express their thoughts on the state of the nation, as well as what can be done to solve our nation’s most pressing problems. The documentary focuses primarily on the national debt, but also discusses energy, jobs, and several other issues.

The central thesis of the project is that Main Street Americans—the Country Class—not only knows what the problems are, but also knows what the solutions are. He posits that if a group of ordinary Americans were closed in a room that this group would solve the nation’s problems in relatively short order. Ultimately this suggests that the Country Class is competent, and the Ruling Class (both major parties) is not. The current state of the nation is strong evidence Laffey is correct.

Laffey did a superb job of giving us a broad cross-section of the country; young and old, male and female, black and white. The sense of despair across the country transcends all of these classifications. As well it should—a debt crisis will hit everyone.

To give you a taste of what people are saying, let me quote Larry Walker of Stuttgart, Arkansas, a man who chose to be self-employed after his father was laid off by his employer after many years of employment:

The thing is, people, you know, they’re in a wreck right now, and they’re trying to calm their nerves. You ride by and look at some these beautiful homes at night, and you only see one light burning, and that’s in the bedroom. A lot of people ain’t sleepin’ at night. You know, it’s rough, it’s rough on everyone, everywhere, the rich and the poor. And in between? I don’t know if there’s a middle class. I just know there’s a lot of suffering people in every situation. But it seems like the only one that doesn’t have a problem is the politicians. Everybody else, you know, is going down the tubes.

Laffey then asked Walker what he would say to his elected officials if he had twenty seconds:

Well, there’s nothing I could say to them they don’t already know. We just need some honest people to just do right, to do justice for all. You know, if they, the country they claim they love, they need to show their love, not just talk it. This thing goes back, like I said, politics is messed up on us. We’re out here fightin’ and scrappin,’ you know, fightin’ each other and scrappin,’ while they’re behind closed doors huggin’ and kissin’ each other and cuttin’ deals and cuttin’ us out. You know, we just need to, first, we need to get together and go right to the root of all this and start over ’cause we got a major mess. We don’t need to go and cut off no branches, we need to go to the root of it.

Walker’s sentiments were echoed throughout. Lest you think the situation is lost on the younger generation, consider this statement from Neely Thomas of Memphis, Tennessee, who appears to be late high school/early college age.

I don’t plan on social security being around when I’m old.

The three friends around her all nodded in agreement, which suggests that Americans young and old have lost faith in the fundamental public institutions in this country.

Laffey also interviews experts, such as economics professor Lawrence Kotlikoff (a presidential candidate seeking the Americans Elect nomination), MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan, and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. The commentary from these individuals lends credibility to the observations of the ordinary Americans. All in all, however, the interviews with ordinary Americans are the compelling component of the documentary, and the project would have been stronger with a little less commentary and a few more interviews.

The section on China also falls a bit flat. It’s long on expressing the generally held sentiment that China is playing the economic game unfairly to our disadvantage. But the film fails to discuss whether the game can be played indefinitely, and offers little in the way of solutions to the China problem, if it is indeed a problem.

But the minor shortcomings are insufficient to diminish what is a very powerful work, which gets stronger with each viewing—rare for a documentary. During a discussion after a recent screening, one of the viewers confessed to tearing up while watching several of the interviews. (The interview with Viola Kay Wright of Moscow, Tennessee is particularly heart-wrenching. “I figure if I’m struggling, I do it with a smile … I try not to complain in front of the children … but I know the children know we’re strugglin,’ ’cause they ask for less.”)

In speaking with Mr. Laffey, he reached out to many members of Congress and gave them the opportunity to express their thoughts and ideas on America’s most difficult issues. The only politician who expressed an interest—Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.)—ultimately backed out. So the ones who would benefit the most from Fixing America are probably the ones least likely to watch it or grasp its significance if they did—the people inside the Beltway.

The good news for anyone who feels frustrated and helpless in the face of what appear to be insurmountable problems, and an inept federal government that seems unable to grasp the obvious (much less solve the problems), the opening line from Fixing America offers hope:

You are not alone.

End Note

For full disclosure, I appear in the film. My father, Dr. James W. Lacksonen figures prominently, including a lengthy discussion to solving our nation’s energy problem.

The story of my involvement with the project is rather interesting. While Laffey and crew were on the road I wrote a blog post that elaborated on a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal. Laffey read the same letter and wanted to speak with the author, and did an internet search for the gentleman. Instead of finding information about the letter writer, he found my blog post and decided he wanted to speak with me.

Ironically the crew’s charted course was set to pass through Knox County, Ohio three days later. So when they called me, I proposed that we conduct the interview in the shadow of our community’s infamous “bridge to nowhere.” The rest is history, and Mr. Laffey and I are now in regular contact.