Neither US political party Democrat or Republican has a unified policy. Members of each party need not have the same beliefs, message, or policies. Each party is a coalition of politicians, and I mean that as an insult. Think of them as being (almost always) mercenaries gathered under two flags, fighting for the income of the taxpayer. One central theme is not enough to capture the support of most Americans, but two themes mostly does the job.

Each party uses power to enrich itself while delivering policies which appeal to a majority of the populace. Neither party cares much that these policies are the best for the peasants, or even sustainable. Both parties support the increasing power of the state, the power which they want for themselves, to do well "by doing good" for the peasants.

The people running for the nomination of the Republican party cannot be called Republicans because of their common understanding of public policy. They are only Republicans because they last held office or registered to vote in the Republican coalition, and they have at some time or another spoken in favor of some theme which is more common to Republicans than Democrats.

That is why the message of the Republican candidates is argumentative and negative. They don't have to support the central policy of the Republican Party, because there is no central policy to respect. The nomination is a competition of themes, lies, and accusations. Some accusations could have been made by Democrats.

The first priority is to win the nomination by any means. Whover wins has a chance to rule. The eventual policy of the Republican Party is whatever the winners say it is.

EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

The Democrats are not getting sufficient credit for their tremendous accomplishments, efficiency, and attention to detail. They act, they implement, they sign secret orders, and they interpret whatever they want to support their actions. This is in the grand tradition of FDR in the 1930's. The public respects action, especially when they don't understand what is going on.

Democrats have passed amazing legislation. They certainly have enacted into law more words in fewer bills than any other Congress in history.

More amazing is that those bills are so intuitive and natural in what they accomplish, that it is not even necessary to read them. The President and his viziers can now decree what is necessary and right, confident that this power to do good is contained somewhere in these documents. And, there is more good news to come.

The "Do the Right Thing" Bill
========
Future news:

"Do The Right Thing" will give us open, consistent, dynamic government. It grants President Michelle Obama (now in her 3rd term in office) all principles and powers to consider all matters and then "Do the right thing". The Congress retains the important function of advising on the President's actions should she desire this.

The Congress is now free to do what it does best, arrange for hospital admissions, allocate liquor licenses, and grant carbohydrate waivers to restaurants.
=========

We have a choice in the next few elections. Vote out any legislator, Pub or Dem, who wants to increase control over your life without the clearest necessity. Or, embrace a government which will Do the Right Thing for you, in every detail.

I was appalled at Disney's Beauty and the Beast the first time I saw it.

The original tale of BnB is of a kind, intelligent, and handsome prince who is made ugly by an evil spell. A beautiful girl sees those great inner qualities and ignores the ugliness. The spell is broken by her insightful love.

Moral: Look below the surface into the true and valuable qualities of someone, and your love for them will make them beautiful.

The Disney BnB story is of a kind, intelligent, and handsome prince who is made ugly and cruel by a spell. He starts by kidnapping and threatening the beautiful girl and her father. The girl does not know this is a spell. Somehow, the girl comes to love the Beast anyway! Her irrational and stupid love for a cruel, threatening, (and ugly) Beast breaks the spell.

Moral: Ignore the cruel and evil actions of someone ugly, and your love for them will transform them.

The moral of the original story makes sense. You can do better in life by appreciating someone's valuable qualities and tolerating superficial ones.

The moral of the Disney version is stupid and misleading. It is a one-in-a-million power fantasy that love is going to convert someone into being kind. In fact, the best approach toward evil and cruelty is to defend and run away.

To DB523: It doesn't take much to drive you around the bend. Get a grip.

Yes, the Illinois Lottery bounced a check. I don't defend Lang's use of language. It is proper that the Lottery will reimburse the bank fees. If they don't, that would be another story.

In the meantime, what is the policy implication of the Lottery's actions? What is political about this story? The policy errors of government are important; its admitted errors are not (unless often repeated through bad administration).

From the linked article.
== ==
“Not bounced … returned,” says Mike Lang, spokesman for the Illinois Lottery. He says lottery officials failed to key in the required security verification on the checks issued on Dec. 28.

Lang says Furio and the 84 other winners who tried to get their winnings but couldn’t can re-submit the checks. He says the state lottery will reimburse them for any bank fees.
== ==

this was a clerical error within an Illinois state department. They are reimbursing the forseeable costs of the error. I don't see the political significance of this story.

Government does so many bad things intentionally through bad policy. Why clutter the discussion with simple errors of no further meaning?

EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

Politicians acquire power, and yet more power, claiming that they need this to shape a society which will be more efficient, fair, and prosperous, and to counter fraud and greed. They claim that their accountability, public spirit, honesty, and honor make them suitable for this task.

Groups of people (corporations and partnerships, including law firms) have economic interests and plans that can be affected by the decisions of these honorable politicians. They offer political contributions of a few hundred thousand dollars to gain benefits in the range of a few hundred million dollars from the politicians. A campaign contribution of just $5,000 will influence a congressman to support a local financial interest.

The public sees this process and blames the unelected corporations for being greedy. The public does not blame the powerful politicians for selling out their offices, cheaply at that. The public wants to give yet more power to the politicians to oppose the corporations, although this power is what attracts the contributions (bribes) and gives politicians the ability to accept them.

Political power will always attract bribes and provide the means for accepting them. If you want to have a better society, then blame the politicians and limit their power. Make it legal to offer a bribe to a politician, and illegal for the politician to accept one. Politicians have the power to refuse bribes. They can not claim that they are simple children, unable to refuse the candy of the evil corporations, after they make it clear that they want that candy.

Can we blame Obama for not trying to remove these regulations? It would be a political coup to revive the economy and increase job participation by removing the leftover regulations of the evil Bush.

I understand. The only reports which can be believed that are critical of liberal policy, are those published by liberal organizations. The rest are lies paid for by business interests.

More regulation feeds into the plans of many large businesses. It imposes a complexity and cost that drives smaller firms out of business.

Larger companies don't mind the extra costs, as long as everyone has to pay them and there is a tariff against foreign imports. Then, these costs can be passed along in increased product prices. Also, larger companies can lobby for gentler regulatory treatment, citing their large emloyment in a particular congressional district.

Keynesianism feeds into the idea that our wise social planners know best, and lulls the public into supporting regulation to protect against the "unplanned", free market. We get crony-capitalism along the way.

Regulation of, by, and for Big Business

12/06/10 - Econlog by Arnold Kling
=== ===
Regulation in general, far from coming against the wishes of the regulated interests, was openly welcomed by them in nearly every case. As Upton Sinclair said of the meat industry, which he is given credit for having tamed, "the federal inspection of meat was historically established at the packers' request. ... It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers."

In any case, congressional hearings during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt revealed that "the big Chicago packers wanted more meat inspection both to bring the small packers under control and to aid them in their position in the export trade." Formally representing the large Chicago packers, Thomas E. Wilson publicly announced: "We are now and have always been in favor of the extension of the inspection."
=== ===

EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

Some researchers at Columbia recently concluded from their sudy that Internet browsing decreases memory function. Evidence? People who knew that information was available on the Internet did not memorize that information as well as people who were told that their memory would be their only resource.

We must assume that these researchers are also against the distribution of books, for similar reasons.

The Memory of Idiots