Friedman on the proper role of government

This is circa 1999, but it is an interesting interview of Milton Friedman by Peter Robinson.  The full 'Uncommon Knowledge' interview is here.

In part 5 of the 5-part interview (link), Friedman provides his definition of the proper role of government (federal and local): 

            
            1. Preserve the peace / defend the country
            2. Provide a mechanism whereby individuals can adjudicate their disputes
            3. Prevent individuals from being coerced by other individuals

Robinson then provides a checklist of 14 federal government cabinet departments and Friedman says which should stay and which should go away:

1. Agriculture:  Eliminate
2. Commerce:  Eliminate
3. Defense:  Keep
4. Education:  Eliminate
5. Energy:  Eliminate
6. Health & Human Services:  Cut by 1/2
7. Housing &Urban Development:  Eliminate
8. Interior:  Eliminate
9. Justice:  Keep
10. Labor:  Eliminate
11. State:  Keep
12. Transportation:  Eliminate
13. Treasury:  Keep
14. Veterans Affairs:  Eliminate(* replace core functions)

Debt Ceiling Scaremongering

We have posted on this topic a while ago, here and here.

The Democrats need to be called out on this (from James Pethokoukis) ... This cash flow diagram illustrates the disingenuous scaremongering strategy the Democrats have decided to go with.

"As is clearly shown, there is enough cumulative money coming to pay interest, SS, Medicare and defense ... "

While the short-term scenario is less dire than the Democrats claim, the situation is indeed unsustainable over the long term, as government spending is currently 1.6 times income.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

This article appeared, surprisingly, in Salon.

To summarize ...

"The arguments for converting the U.S. economy to wind, solar and biomass energy have collapsed. The date of depletion of fossil fuels has been pushed back into the future by centuries -- or millennia. The abundance and geographic diversity of fossil fuels made possible by technology in time will reduce the dependence of the U.S. on particular foreign energy exporters, eliminating the national security argument for renewable energy."

Channeling Netanyahu

Obama gets shredded whenever he roams off-the-prompter in any sort of substantive, face-to-face debate.

Netanyahu did it.  Paul Ryan did it.  Joe the Plumber did it.

Whoever can channel these performances can run with the GOP nomination and beat Obama in 2012.

... to the Queen

Watching this video, is it any wonder why Obama relies so much on his teleprompter (TPOTUS)? The great orator of our time, Obama, had to consult his paper-prompter no less than 9 times for a one-sentence toast.

Either the band started too soon, or Obama missed his cue to shut up. Either way, awkward hilarity ensues ...

Lecturing the Professor ...

... err, I mean Lecturing the "Senior Lecturer" ...

This photo op turned into a complete schooling of President Obama by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on why the '67 borders are a non-starter in peace negotiations. A clearly uncomfortable Obama squirmed through the entire lecture.

Illegal Immigration

A sparring match on immigration and border policy between Mark Krikorian and Angelo Codevilla is underway on the Corner at National Review, here and here.

In his response to Krikorian's critique, Codevilla makes this point...

"Whereas within living memory Americans did their own society’s rough, dirty work, the social changes that began in the 1960s created an underclass that is basically unemployable — and, more important, made physical labor seem dishonorable to the middle class. I pointed out that even John C. Calhoun, slavery’s most eloquent defender, was proud to do the plowing on his plantation. Today, swarms of youths in malls and campuses are no more physically or psychologically able to help with the harvest than they are of helping to care for their grandmothers. And so, yes, what would we do without Mexicans?"

Codevilla dusts off the old canard that illegal aliens do jobs that Americans won’t do ...  Actually, he goes further than that, implying that these are jobs that Americans *can't* do, rather than won't, but let's ignore that detail for a moment.

A corrupt business owner can pay an illegal 50 cents on the dollar that he'd have to pay for a legal American worker. If Codevilla's point is that an American won't work for the same wage that an illegal alien works for, then he's probably right.  A legal worker is not willing to work for illegal wages.  Codevilla is comparing apples to oranges.

Take away the supply of illegal labor, and you'll increase the demand for legal labor. Force the business to pay a legal wage, and you'll find the American workers willing to do it.

In the words of the Rolling Stones ...

 "You Can't Always Get What You Want".

When conservatives talk about who they'd like to see opposing Obama in 2012, the favored candidates are always the ones who haven't said they're running or have specifically said that they aren't running.

The GOP is waiting to be rescued ...

Who could rescue the GOP in 2012?

Update: Ace of Spaces on the same topic:

"Right now the field as constructed is heavy on people who can really energize small segments of the party (Santorum, Paul and yes, Herman Cain) or are likely to be viewed as "serious" candidates but don't get too many people really excited (Romney, Pawlenty and maybe Daniels). I'd put Palin in Huckabeee in another group...at this point they are polarizing figures that have more support than the first group but face a challenge in growing beyond their current support."

Obama administration floats plan to tax cars by the mile

This article describes the plan:

"The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive. "

As others have pointed out, there already IS a such a tax.  The US  federal excise tax on gasoline is currently 18.4 cents per gallon (more for diesel).  Adding in other local/state taxes and the national average of taxes per gallon is 48.1 cents per gallon (more for diesel).

Using 22.6 miles per gallon as a rough estimate for the average fuel efficiency of a passenger car in the US, we see that for every 100 miles driven:

- about $2.12 is paid to local/state/federal governments.

- about $0.81 of that figure goes to the federal excise tax.

Apparently Obama feels the government deserves more.

Understanding the debt ceiling

We commented on this topic a while ago, here.  But, this video does a great job explaining the debt ceiling.

"... Act like you been there before."

via Ace ...

"As they say: If you get to the endzone, act like you been there before.

Instead of just drinking from the cup of captured intelligence, this Administration has to parade it around and show it off for their media friends."

One would think that, given the planning that must have gone into the operation to get Bin Laden, the Administration would have had some game plan for what happened next, whether it was successful or not.  It's as if it didn't occur to them that these questions would be asked afterward ...

- Will you release pictures of the body?

- Will you release video of the burial at sea?

- Will you have a consistent story of events as relayed by administration officials before they speak publicly?

Instead, we witness the administration fumbling for days after the operation, not sure how to address questions that they should have had the answer for *in advance*.

Osama Bin Laden's death

If Obama really wanted Bin Laden's death to be according to Islamic tradition ... this would have worked:

Which is it Pakistan?

Currently on Drudge there are 2 headlines near to, but not quite adjacent to each other ...

Pakistan: It was a 'joint operation'

and

Pakistan condemns 'unauthorized unilateral action' ...

Which is it Pakistan?  It's safe to say the latter headline is closer to the truth, in that surely Pakistan was not informed of the raid.

Was bin Laden hiding under there noses or under their protection?  Again, the latter is infinitely more likely.

Obama deserves at least some credit for the boldness and secrecy of the operation.  It is clear that informing Pakistan of our military operations on Pakistani soil inherently compromises the operation.  It's also clear now, thankfully, that the US is willing to operate in Pakistan without Islamabad's consent or knowledge.  

So, this begs the question:
If we can't trust Pakistan to tell us what it knows,and we can't trust Pakistan to tell it what we know ...
... then what value do we get from the tens of billions of dollars that the US provides to Pakistan in the form of foreign aid?

According to this site, 

"between 2002-2010, Pakistan received approximately 18 billion in military and economic aid from the United States. In February 2010, the Obama administration requested an additional 3 billion in aid, for a total of 20.7 billion."

Why?

Next ...

Ayman al-Zawahri, you're next.

Obamalaise?

Gas prices at $5

Unemployment 9.2% 

S&P downgrades outlook on U.S. debt

Value of dollar sinking

Obama's job approval at all-time low

Anyone else getting a general feeling of Obamalaise lately?

I sure feel it.