Potpourri CLII

Let's get to it, shall we? I've got a lot of junk clogging up the arteries of my inbox.

This one came to me via Lin and Father Dan. Food for thought as we continue to debate the Ground Zero Mosque.

From Greg: It's a little old (2008 or so), but this story purports to cover Spain's efforts to give apes and similar non-human hominids "human rights." Assuming the story is true (and one wonders about anything one sees on the internet these days), I think it's a bit of a legalistic stretch regardless. Can laws be made to protect animals or punish crimes against animals more severely? No doubt a convincing case can be made. However, granting animals the same "rights" as humans presumes the capacity of said animals to accept, appreciate, and act upon such rights. Can animals enter into legally binding contracts, for instance? Would they know how to sue if that contract was violated? Can animals be held liable for crimes if they commit them? Oh, they're not liable? Why is that? Are we going to give them special status without any strings attached? Rights also have responsibilities attached to them. Or don't we believe that anymore?

Also from Greg: deep-fried beer. Really.

A few items I found while surfing:

• Role models for boys down to “superheroes and slackers.”
• The art and science of whiskey making.

Karen in Bay Hill sent me an interesting bit of political thought. I've deleted the extra rambling around it so that you can focus on the heart of the matter:

This law (or amendment) makes eminent sense to me. Which means that someone with a J.D. will probably tell me why such a law would be a BAD idea and shouldn't even be considered. I read somewhere awhile back that 90% of the Politburo of the People's Republic of China has an education in science or engineering, vs. the U.S. Congress, where I'm pretty certain that a large chunk of them have degrees in law (actually, it's 179 members of the House and 57 senators). Food for thought.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .."

What's the biggest threat to our national defenses? Al-Qaeda? North Korea? China? Nope. Guess again.

This is now old news, and the perpetrator has since been moved on to his eternal fate, but here are the demands of the man who held employees at Discovery Communications hostage last week. As with the equal-rights-for-apes story, this begs a serious question: are some of these folks really serious about elevating respect for the Earth and other living creatures in it, or is their real purpose to denigrate the value of human beings--and if so, to what end? If you downgrade the value of human beings individually or collectively, who stands to gain from that stance? My guess: anyone who wants to reduce the freedoms of said human beings in the name of "the planet" or some other equally general notion. It's a shame, really. Some of my favorite people are human beings.

From Lin:

• What now passes for "scandal" if you're a conservative. Wow. Some reporters need to get a life.
• A Charles Krauthammer editorial on governing liberalism and its reactions to (or against) the people it means to rule. One of the most difficult things about interacting on the internet is the knee-jerk reactions of some folks if you politely state that you are for one position or against another. The assumption is not that you disagree and therefore have a worthy point of view but that you are OBVIOUSLY evil, corrupt, stupid, bigoted, etc. I find this method of attack (which seeks to humble, humiliate, or beat back, not argument, which would seek to convince) offensive. As I've said before, disagreeing with the President does not automatically make you a racist. If liberals want to win more of the electorate's hearts and minds, they might stop assuming or baldly stating that this is so.
• A TED video on the cultural roots and effects of choice. Caveat visor: I haven't watched this yet.

From Martin:

• A "manly" reading list. Great. More stuff for my Amazon wish list. On the plus side, I have at least read some of these already...oh, well. I've got another 40 years or so. Certainly the time will come up, right?
• An argument against the X-20 spaceplane.

From Gwen: a Star Wars shower curtain.

From Twila: a discussion of the effects of NASA stimulus spending.

Speaking of the stimulus, government spending on such things has now exceeded the seven years of the Iraq War, which certain friends of mine assured me would destroy or bankrupt the country.

Some amateur rocketeers in Denmark want to launch a human being into space on their rocket. Um, eek?

This interested me: how faculty authors can implement an open access policy (to reading their papers) at their institutions.
From D2: another TED talk on civilizational ethics.
 
From Father Dan: the world's top 50 resorts.
 
Okay, that'll do for now. Have a good, short, week.

Potpourri CV

This has been in my inbox for awhile. Veronique Koken and her partner Howard Chipman, a doctor with his own Czech L-39 jet fighter, have opened an astronaut training center called Aurora Aerospace in the Tampa Bay (Oldsmar) area. The training, a la carte or all together, is not cheap ($8,000 for the whole thing), but sounds like quite an adventure. The full package includes, per the brochure:

• L-39 flight
• Zero-G flight
• Spacecraft/L-39 simulator
• "MAD" machine
• High altitude hypoxia training
• Ground school
• Flight suit, leather jacket, L-39 model, t-shirt, cap, and more

This is a two-day experience that operates out of a local airport in Oldsmar, and it includes a medical screening to ensure that your body can handle all this stuff. I was just flipping through the brochure and noted that the L-39 has ejection seats if needed. Well, jump in as you see fit. I've already made my choice: Earth is my home. For those of you so inclined, I'll add the link to my permanent rotation.

*

Yesterday's Lunar Crater Reconnaissance and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) was a little disappointing from a visual point of view. To be blunt, I saw nothing--no flash, no plume of stuff thrown into the air--nada. I admit to having a little fun with this. I posted Marvin the Martian as my user image on Facebook and asked, "Where's the kaboom? There's supposed to be a moon-shattering kaboom!" Part of that was to express my shared disappointment that the NASA simulation graphics were more dramatic than the actual event; part of it was to poke fun at the people I griped about on Thursday who thought the mission was going to somehow damage the Moon. Now, of course, the mission is being pummeled in the press. If there weren't any fireworks, the press assumed, the mission was a failure. The truth is, until they sort through the data, we won't know what they've got. But the only real reason that LCROSS matters is, if we find water ice on the Moon, we can build long-term bases and permanent settlements there. NASA can't say that because the administration isn't talking about it. However, in my off-duty hours as a National Space Society person, I think that's exactly what they should be talking about. If you agree, join NSS today, and start the campaign to get that started. I want my hotel (not home) with a view of the Earth!

Oh yeah: our president--the guy who was elected nine months ago--has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's consider what some previous winners have done:

• Mediated between countries at war (Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Bunche)
• Ministered to the needs of the poor and suffering (Mother Teresa, UNICEF, the International Committee of the Red Cross)
• Negotiated a peace treaty (Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, Henry Kissinger)
• Fought for the rights of prisoners (Amnesty International)
• Fought for freedom of conscience (Andrei Sakharov)
• Fought for equality under the law (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
• Designed a plan to help rebuild countries destroyed by war (George C. Marshall)

President Obama has done none of these things. Now I commend Obama and his speech writers for acknowledging that he's done nothing (yet?) to earn the award, but jeez, if you know you've done nothing, why accept it? So what has Obama done? The Nobel organization notes on its web site that the nomination process ends in February. I leave it to the reader to review WhiteHouse.gov to look for themselves:

• Presidential actions and proclamations
• Speeches given
• Weekly addresses given
• Nominations and appointments made
• Statments and releases made
• Press briefings given

I still think someone in the international community is setting this guy up. He's very sensitive to public and press opinion, here and abroad. If he's turned down for the Olympics, it affects his attitude toward the press, as does his surprise award for the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe he's also very susceptible to flattery. Why would the Nobel Foundation give such a prize to someone who, 12 days into his presidency, had yet to make any substantial contribution to world peace? As Obama saw it,

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

Again, I appreciate his humility and candor. But you've got to wonder, don't you, why you're being given an (arguably) important award before you've done anything? Could it be a message that "We're awarding you up front so you do things in a way that will make us happy in the future"? Is this some sort of message that "We want you to remain a man of peace, and by a man of peace, we mean undoing everything George W. Bush has done"? (Sure, give Iraq back to the Baathists and Afghanistan back to the Taliban--that'll make everyone happy and safe!)

I'm very much a merit-minded person. If I've earned something specific, I take that as a matter of course. If I'm rewarded for extra effort, I'm appreciative. If I'm awarded for doing little to nothing (as I see it), I feel uneasy and try to deflect attention elsewhere. But no, our president is going to accept the award as an incentive to go forth and do things. Interesting take on things, but a little disingenuous. And if someone gave me a big prize without me having done anything, I'd wonder what game was afoot. I'm probably overly suspicious that way, but really...

*

I got this item from Lin: the Democrats are looking at a "second stimulus," as the economy shows little sign of improving (unemployment now at 9.8 percent--is it still Bush's fault?).

There are two approaches to governing in the U.S. One side tries to do what it can for the individual citizens to make it on their own with as little government charity as possible. The other side says that government needs to make sure that the goods of society are distributed as equally as possible, usually through taxation and wealth transfers. Conservatives overlook the fact that everyone isn't equipped to do things on their own; liberals overlook the fact that if you make people dependent on someone else, they'll never learn to do things for themselves. The conservative approach to governance empowers more individuals, but results in inequality of outcomes among those individuals due to differences in ability, willingness to work, and starting position. The liberal approach empowers government by giving the political class the power and (assumed) right to decide who gets what--ostensibly to raise up the poor, but more often to punish the rich.

It's been 30 years since the nation went through one of these exercises. Perhaps it will take another "Carter presidency" to hammer the lesson home. Alas, we must await the next swing of the pendulum.

*

Got this from my company yesterday: an FBI press release on a Jordanian who was looking to bomb a building in Dallas, Texas. This wasn't an old release from just after 9/11, but a fresh one, from September of this year. Our peace-loving president would do well to remember that he's supposed to maintain peace and security in his own back yard, not just in the court of world opinion. Safe bet: if he takes actions that protect Americans--you know, the folks who voted for him--he'll be regarded as an outlaw and a cowboy, just like Bush. That might do him some good and earn him a second term. As it stands right now, I don't see that happening.

That's about it for now.

Various Things Going on in the World

Some good, some bad, some that will make you wonder about the state of our world.

Hugo Chavez won a referendum to eliminate term limits, allowing him to become "President for Life." Such a thing, of course, could never happen here...

North Korea claims that it is planning another rocket/missile launch.

The launch of Space Shuttle Discovery has been delayed again, this time to no earlier than February 27.

The signing of the oh-so-urgent stimulus bill will have to wait until Obama gets back from a three-day weekend. This is actually a really dumb idea. The longer the bill remains unsigned, the more the public will have a chance to read it (but then, why should they bother? The Senate voted for it, and most of them didn't read it, either). And one must ask: if retail sales are making a comeback without the stimulus bill, is the bill really necessary??? I ask that question at work a lot, and I usually get in trouble for it. So it goes.

Speaking of Obama, it looks like he might be dumping the "car czar" idea, allowing senior members of his staff to make decisions on how to run private-sector companies instead. And I must ask: once a private-sector company accepts partial government ownership, is it truly a "private sector" company anymore? Businesses should find other ways to ride out the recovery, because as soon as they accept government money, the public, the media, and (most importantly) the government will have an expectation that Washington will dictate what the company will do. A gentle reminder on the definition of socialism:

[A] social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members. [Emphasis mine.]

And I am still thinking long and hard about the social, political, economic, and cultural impacts of Ray Kurzweil's "Singularity." Again, I'm not doubting that such a thing is possible (though it interests me that my friends who have more scientific and technical training do doubt it). Rather, I question the desirability of the Singularity. Nevertheless, I look forward to the answers Dr. Kurzweil provides to the questions that I, Darlene the Science Cheerleader, and our readers pose to him this week. I will post his responses (or a link to them) when Darlene and I receive them.

Sayonara for this evening. Let's be careful out there.

Government Watching Continues

After I signed off the other night, it occurred to me that the first time I heard "czar" in connection with a U.S. government official was when Ronald Reagan appointed his "Drug Czar." That's when I started getting a lesson from more libertarian family members on Prohibition and the amount of money wasted on criminalizing drugs and alcohol.

Over the years, other czars have appeared on the scene: a copyright czar, an energy czar, and so forth. The Secretary of the Treasury is, for all practical purposes, an "economic czar," and was given extraordinary powers to spend federal money to bail out businesses he perceived to be in distress. We could get a "car czar" to address our failing auto industry.

What the heck are all these "czars" for, anyway? Do they do any good? Just so there's no mistake here: a "czar" is the title that used to be worn by Russian monarchs (and might be again, at the rate they're going). It's a Slavic rendering of "Caesar," ruler of the old Roman and Byzantine Empires. It means, in contemporary parlance, "the person in charge"; I can only guess that "czar" was applied as a cute term to convey that status.

As near as I can determine, these "czars" are put in place by Presidents to make things happen that federal agencies in their present form cannot address or to address problems that cut across multiple agencies' jurisdiction (the War on Drugs certainly qualifies in that respect). These czars are supposed to be "rainmakers" who can make things happen that others within existing agencies cannot. Again, rather than appoint yet another official and complicate the bureaucracy further, my simplistic mind would ask, "Why can't you just change the person in charge of the agency or agencies in question or fix how they operate to make them work better? Why not reform instead of complication?"

These positions remind me of the "Chancellor of the Exchequer," the man appointed by the King of England to guard the nation's treasury, which at the time was kept in a checkered bag, or the special titles bestowed in medieval European or Chinese courts as rewards for services to the king. There's a certain monarchical feeling to the whole thing. And, quite frankly, does anyone else have a problem with little Caesars being included in the apparatus of our nation's government?? Nixon instituted the practice, just around the time complaints arose about the "imperial presidency" (a term that arose in the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson was in charge). As the power of the U.S. continues to increase, so too does the power of the president, and this "most powerful man in the free world" has only increased in power since the end of the Cold War.

*

And why should "czars" bother me so much? Maybe because of the great speed with which President Obama wishes to push through one of the largest spending bills I've ever seen. Recessions are not unprecedented. In my nearly 40-year lifetime, there have been five, including the present situation. None of them resulted in government takeovers of HUGE chunks of the economy or actual businesses. Much of this stimulus bill goes, as I noted yesterday, into government projects, not on infrastructure or activities necessarily relevant to government policy ($75M for smoking prevention? I thought he wanted to tax cigarettes so they could use the money to fund nationalized healthcare). Some of the money won't even be SPENT until 2010, so what's the big frickin' emergency?

If Obama is determined to have the most ethical administration since the Clinton Administration, shouldn't he give the Congress and the American people time to read the bill carefully to make sure there's nothing in it that's awry or counterproductive? And, again, if he intends to spend some of the money in 2010, why pass it as part of this year's budget?

For most of the 2000s, I heard how George W. Bush was using the war on terror as an excuse to give the Chief Executive unprecedented--nay, dictatorial--powers. I might have even half-believed some of it. On the flip side, I would say that President Obama is trying to use a recession--NOT a depression--as an excuse to give the federal government unprecedented economic power.

Immanuel Kant had a concept he called the "categorical imperative," which I will quote here:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

This is, essentially, the Golden Rule with teeth: not just "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Rather, "Act toward others as you would expect to be treated in every single case." While I'm not a huge fan of Kant, I do believe that more than half of our laws would not get passed if lawmakers thought this way: "Would I want this law to be passed if I knew my political opponents would use it against me when I'm out of power?" One might ask the same question of waterboarding or pay cuts or estate taxes or warrantless wiretaps or unemployment insurance. "Would you want this law passed if it applied to YOU?"

I have more reading to do. Let's be careful out there.

What's In the Stimulus Bill?

Far be it for me to be ungracious...I'd like to thank CNN.com for providing this summary of some of the more interesting items included in President Obama's "stimulus" bill.

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations

One thing becomes clear to the careful reader: there is very little spending on private-sector activities, theoretically where the most help is needed, since the economy is usually the result of private citizens buying and selling goods and services, not the government. However, that is clearly not the point of this bill. I think like a private citizen and member of the private sector, so I look at results, not intentions. "He means well" doesn't cut it with me if his policies further damage the economy. I loved this line (he says, dripping sarcasm):

“Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the essential,” Obama said while acknowledging criticisms of the plan. “A failure to act and to act now will turn crisis into catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession.”

Regarding making "perfect" the enemy of the "essential," Obama is so far off the mark as to require a course in basic economics. Massive government spending on more government is not a stimulus for the private sector, but only the government.

Then there's his assertion that a failure to act will guarantee a longer recession. Hardly. His willingness to tinker with the economy on a scale that would have beggared even Franklin D. Roosevelt's imagination, is a recipe for sure extension of the recession. The economy managed to recover from the previous two recessions--1991-93 and 2000-02--with little to no government intervention. And the unemployment rate was as bad or worse in '92 as it is now.

Because of the housing market (caused in part by government action), perhaps government activists feel they need to make amends? I'm baffled, but economic historians have shown that government activism tends to lengthen economic recession and strengthen government, while leaving "the forgotten man" basically untouched.

*

I'm utterly frustrated by the "bailouts" and the "stimulus," neither of which will do much to stabilize the markets. I've already laid down the law on myself--if I get another "stimulus check," I'm sending it back to Uncle Sam, unopened, unspent, but not unanswered. My opinions will be received (if not read), along with the uncashed check. Let the IRS make of that what they may. Why would I do such a thing when the government is sending me "free money?" Consider this: several companies have received bailout money already, and when they have used the money as they see fit, they have been pummeled in the media for spending it in various ways (executive junkets, upgrading the corporate offices, etc.). There's a simple lesson in those events. As Robert A. Heinlein would put it, "TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." Suppose I, Bart Leahy, Private Citizen, spent my taxpayer-funded gimme check any way I wanted, and I spent it in a way the government did not approve of? Aren't they attaching strings to my economic activity? Aren't they, in fact, infringing upon my freedom?

Okay, I freely admit that I spent the previous checks--what were they for, $300 and $600?--so I'm not as much of an ideological purist as I'd like to think. I'm also still paying off a federally funded student loan, too (note that I am paying it back, though, not defaulting). Anyhow, so why take a stance against handouts now? Probably because I don't need the money, as I did in 2001 and 2007. If I'm comfortable by my lights, why should I take a handout, especially a handout that's coming out of my own taxes, anyway? Why not just cut my taxes $1,000 or whatever and leave me be? For one thing, the stimulus of '01 cost about $100 billion, as opposed to $800B, and it was accompanied by actual tax cuts, which have a longer-lasting effect on my ability and willingness to spend. And besides, this time, who knows? There might really BE restrictions and detailed strings attached. Am I going to be the next private citizen pilloried for spending my "stimulus" in an "inappropriate" or "shameful" manner? Hardly.

Now one suggestion that has been floated around out there is to just send every individual taxpayer around $10,000, which is what the bailout would amount to per person. This isn't as stupid an idea as some people might think. Libertarian sociologist Charles Murray actually recommended a scheme like this in his 2007 book In Our Hands, in which he proposed to eliminate much of the vast welfare bureaucracy and just automatically send every citizen a $10,000 check every year to do with as they pleased...with the understanding that no other relief would be coming. Heck, with ten grand, I could pay off my debt and my European vacation, leaving me flush and debt-free for 2010, and the next $10,000 available for investment purposes. Of course the current government wouldn't do that, any more than economic liberal George Bush would have done it. But jeez, there's got to be a way to send a message to Washington that resonates: "Leave us alone!" doesn't seem to sink in anymore.

Various Items and Comments Regarding the Economy

President Obama's $800+ billion-dollar "stimulus" bill is a problem for people who believe in classical economics. It is mostly about federal spending on various sorts of pet projects, political favors, bailouts of failed banks and businesses, and perhaps creating a nationalized Bank of the United States. The tax base cannot support it. Since the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped from 11,000 to around 8,000, we've lost at least a trillion dollars in value from our economy. Businesses have closed their doors, unemployment has gone up, interest rates are at essentially zero yet no bank will issue new loans. This is a crisis of confidence, and a new government expenditure of a trillion dollars, unsupported by the tax base or the monetary system, can only mean one thing down the road: hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is simple to understand--too much money is created, prices continue to increase, leading the government to print more money to help people artificially keep up with rising prices, causing the value of the currency to drop.

My "favorite" image of hyperinflation occurred in Weimar Germany, the republic formed after Kaiser Wilhelm II's regime collapsed in 1918. In the economic hardship and uncertainty that followed from crushing war debts, Germany's currency was inflated to pay the debt. Citizens of Germany faced mounting inflation, to the point where instead of US$1 equalling 60 Marks, US$1 equalled 8,000 marks. People were going to the store with wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread. The value of the Mark collapsed because there was nothing of value backing it--at the time, gold was the standard for backing national currencies.

Since the U.S. went off the Gold Standard in 1973, the dollar has had a value accepted based on currency speculation and the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. That is, people in this country and around the world believe the dollar has value because the U.S. Government says it does and is willing and able to back up that value with something of tangible worth. It is "fiat money," from the Latin term "fiat" meaning "let there be" (ex. "fiat lux" - let there be light). So: the U.S. Government says, "Let there be money," and lo, it was so. But that sort of money only lasts so long as people believe in the ability of the U.S. Government or its people to create enough value in this country to consider the dollar still believable. When the government says, "We're going to spend a trillion dollars to fix the economy!" some folks might say, "Great!" Others, a little more cautious, would ask, "Where's the money going to come from?" The sources, given the current state of things, are limited:

1. Print more money (inflation)
2. Increase taxes
3. Borrow money from someone else who has it
4. Create new wealth

Curious about what happens with inflation? See that article on Weimar Germany or these items on the inflation occurring right now under dictator Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3264644/Zimbabwe-shops-stop-accepting-local-currency.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/4224947/New-Zimbabwe-50bn-note-buys-three-newspapers.html

Okay, so what about raising taxes? You might recall that businesses all over the country are facing profit losses because the economy is slowing. Unemployment is rising because businesses are cutting costs (employment) in order to stay afloat. They are unable to expand into new ventures because fewer consumers and investors have money to buy into them and because banks are unwilling to loan money. So there's less money to go around to support economic growth, and some folks want to raise taxes on businesses. That will slow down how well money flows through the economy (liquidity), as the government gets more and businesses capable of building long-term employment shrink further.

We could, have, and probably will, borrow more from other countries who can afford to buy U.S. Treasury Bills: Europe, Japan, China, and (surprise, surprise), the oil sheikdoms of the Middle East. The first problem is that an economic slowdown here cuts down economic activity elsewhere, reducing the amount of money available overseas to buy our debt. Second, T-Bills are, like the dollar, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, with the difference that they actually have a due date for a return on investment. If other countries no longer believe that the U.S. will ever repay the debt, they might stop buying our T-Bills or declare us to be in default, which amounts to the same thing. Back when Japan was still our biggest economic competitor (from the mid '80s to the early '90s), there was some loose talk about Japan accepting the state of Hawaii or California as "payment" for our debts. Could that idea arise again? Who would buy that?

The best ways government itself can increase tax revenues, create jobs, and stimulate businesses are to lower taxes, reduce intrusive regulations, create and maintain infrastructure, and keep government out of competition with the private sector. The best ways private industry can create growth are to find new sources of wealth, develop new technologies, and create new businesses.

The best place for this nation to do those things is in space. As of yet, I've not heard about any new money going to NASA or any tax breaks going to businesses seeking to start businesses or prospect for resources there. But, of course, I'm a conservative and a kook, so what do I know?

This whole thing is just insane because the government is most likely to pick options 1, 2, and 3, which will stifle option 4, thereby slowing the recovery. Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man has never been more timely.

The Current Financial Mess and What It Means for Space

As if space advocates don't have enough to worry about, now we've got a shaky economy as well as a federal government willing to spend five times NASA's budget at the stroke of a pen to rescue one company (AIG) and one and a half times NASA's budget to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And if my discussions with liberal friends are any indications, we can expect more nationalizing of large businesses if there's a perception that not doing so would crash the economy.

Where are those strident voices asking, "Where is the money going to come from?" or "Shouldn't we be spending our money on more important things?" But of course what could be more important than "saving" the economy from individual and corporate bad decision making?

Back in college I had a history teacher who insisted that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did because "the government wasn't doing enough." Another theory suggests that the government was doing too much, and that the nationalization of banks and other activities, combined with a lot of make-work government jobs in fact extended the Depression. It is safe to say that both Marxist and Austrian economists agree that World War II got the U.S. out of the Depression, though they would pick different reasons--Marxists would focus on government spending (which was already going on under the New Deal), while classical economists would focus on the need for American goods overseas. In both cases, it was the private sector creating the jobs and employing people, regardless of who was in charge.

The next major economic crisis of the 20th century was the extended period of "Stagflation" in the 1970s and early 1980s under Nixon-Ford-Carter. Ronald Reagan's economic advisers took the dramatic step of reducing the top marginal tax rates. Using the so-called Laffer Curve, Reagan simultaneously increased economic activity and, counterintuitively, increased federal taxes. The deficits of the 1980s can be attributed partly to Reagan's defense buildup, but economic and political historians tend to ignore the simultaneous increases domestic, non-defense spending that were made possible by the tax cuts. Congressional lawmakers saw all the money flowing in, and couldn't resist feeding their own pet projects. Nevertheless, the Reagan tax rates held for ten years, and the U.S. has continued to benefit from them, even though the Clinton Administration raised the top marginal tax rate to 39.5% in 1993.

Now we're in another potentially ugly economic crisis, worse than the "Dot-com" mess of 2000 if some folks have their way, and the big choices will be there for the next president to make: increase taxes and direct handouts to citizens to pump more government money into the economy or decrease taxes ("make the Bush tax cuts permanent") and allow the productive classes to use their increased incomes to invest in more economic activity.

The economic history above is rather high-level, but it provides some of the context for spending on space. In 1990, the Cold War was ending, and the savings and loan industry was undergoing its own bailout. At approximately the same time, the Bush 41 Administration was proposing its Space Exploration Initiative to go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. We know the decisions of that time: citizens were rightly outraged at the amount of money being spent to rescue other people's bad decisions ($175 billion), but defenders of the action said it was necessary to stabilize the economy. Domestic spending was made a priority, and human space exploration was allowed to languish.

The lessons for the Constellation Program and for space advocates in general should be obvious. The S&L bailout did not stop people from making bad decisions, nor did it stop the government from bailing out businesses. However, it should be obvious which economic policies will allow the United States to continue spending money on space: only a rich nation can afford space travel. It is complex and expensive.

Taxing the rich even more will not increase or improve economic activity. The top 10% of income earners pay nearly 80% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3% of federal income taxes. And the odds are pretty good that folks in the bottom 50% are employed by folks in the upper 50%. So: the money that the top 10% pay for taxes does not go toward new investments, new businesses, or new jobs for others. Tax the rich, and you squeeze the poor, who find themselves unemployed and subjects of the welfare state, which only grows and grows, squeezing out all other forms of federal spending--including investments in science, technology, and space, which could actually create wealth.

We've got a big problem here, people: if the federal government's primary spending is on supporting individual consumption and medical care, that is money that will not be spent on basic infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc.), homeland defense and security, or critical investments in science and technology, never mind local pet projects and bridges to nowhere. And that is where we are heading. Therefore, it is not enough for space advocates to be single-issue voters and focus solely on which "space architecture" is going to best create a spacefaring civilization. We need to consider the economic and political environments in which those space architectures are being built. And lastly, we need to take a good, hard look--as citizens and taxpayers concerned about our common future--at what we can and cannot afford to do.