Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

My father, who went to Columbia University about 25 years before I did, recently asked me to respond to an email that was being circulated among his class members. The initial question was about any "military experience" at Columbia, but as I didn't serve and as the ROTC is not allowed at Columbia, I wrote a more broad comment in response. It's a bit of a rant, but I hope you find it interesting and/or enjoyable...

The writer of the note below is partly right: New York City is a great place to be in college. He's also right that the "core" curriculum is very valuable and hard to find elsewhere, but it's less valuable than it could be because while political discussion frequently arises from studying the classics, many or most of which are inherently political, any attempt to bring a conservative or libertarian idea into the classroom is opposed, even ridiculed, by almost everyone, particularly the professors. As far as "cultural diversity", I personally think that's not a very important characteristic, and to the extent that you value "diversity" as an end in itself, you can satisfy that craving simply by being in NYC or by taking some trips after you graduate. At a place of learning, intellectual diversity is far more important than cultural diversity and Columbia is horribly lacking in intellectual diversity with the few non-leftists confined to a few small groups and given less than zero support by the school.

Many Columbia alumni will remember the record-worst football team of the mid-1980s. It was so bad that I went out for the team, having never played in high school. I was on the team for a while before I had to give it up because my school work was suffering, and I knew in the long run it was more important. Or I thought I knew that. I probably would never have gotten into a game, at least not one that mattered, but maybe I should have stuck with it. In any case, I knew at the time and wrote in the Columbia Spectator at the time that my months on the football team were by far my best months at Columbia, and the football players were the best people I met at Columbia. When Columbia contacted me a few years later asking for money, I answered as follows: "I'll give $1,000 under two conditions. First, the money must go to the football program. Second, you must never call me again." They agreed, and that was the only time I have given Columbia money. (For the record, they kept their promise for a few years.)

As for giving money to Columbia as a general matter, I think it's INSANE unless you have to in order to get an idiot relative into the school. I feel the same way about giving to any school with an endowment that has 10 or 11 digits in its value. Columbia's endowment is in excess of $6 billion. Yes, that's $6,000,000,000. If they have fairly bad investment managers, they should easily make $400,000,000 a year. Good managers could possibly double that. Columbia claims that their annual budget is about $2.5 billion, but my guess is that it's at least as full of waste, fraud, and abuse as any government in the northern hemisphere.

But regardless of the numbers, I think you have to look at Columbia objectively. Unless you are someone who thinks that Hillary Clinton is far too conservative and believes in liberty far too much, there is basically no place for you at Columbia. They refuse to protect the head of the Minutemen and refuse to allow ROTC on campus, but then offer legitimacy to one of the world's leading terrorists (Iranian President ImInAJihad) in the name of "free speech". They give tenure to professors who are anti-intellectual anti-Semites and are not fit to teach anywhere except a propaganda class in Cairo University. Columbia is possibly the most hypocritical institution in the free world, though I suppose Congress gives them a run for their money (or for our money.)

Yes, the "core curriculum" is great, but what use is it if the result of the education overall is a student with no understanding of the real world, no appreciation for his or her country or the values that made it great? And what use is it to send a kid to a place where he'll feel out of place most of the time for 4 years. There's a reason I graduated early. I hated Columbia, except for the football team, the street hockey club, editing the short-lived conservative newspaper, and being in New York. (And it's not because I was a bad student....after a rough first semester, I was basically straight-A's for the rest of my time served which, fortunately for me, was a semester less than most sentences.)

I remember, when I was just starting at Columbia, I was going to be a history major. I audited a class (went to it before committing to sign up for it) on American History between the Revolution and the Civil War taught by a history professor named Metzger. He spent the entire class talking about how Ronald Reagan was pure evil and going to mean nuclear destruction for all of civilization. Not only did I drop the class, but I decided not to major in history. If I might pick on someone unfairly, but just to make a point, I found an article (from 2002) as I was writing this note describing how Metzger's daughter, Gillian, was joining Columbia's law school as a professor. Some of her biographic information shows exactly what's wrong with Columbia's professors and why they turn out students who are so biased against the "real world" that it's amazing any of them succeed. Ms. Metzger worked as a legislative aid for a union in New York. She studied at Yale and Oxford, which are both great but neither of which has anything to do with reality. (At Oxford, she focused on Wittgenstein...one of the most mind-numbing philosophers ever.) She then worked "as a staff analyst for New York City" and then clerked for a couple of judges including Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the Supreme Court. For those of you who didn't know it, Ginsburg used to be chief counsel at the ACLU. Metzger taught for a time at NYU law school where "she handled cases dealing with felon disenfranchisement." Metzger's husband does "tax policy research" for the NYC government. Trulyl, can you imagine any way this person who grew up in a socialist academic family and then has spent a career working in ivory towers working with liberals who, like herself, have no experience in the real world, probably think that criminals deserve better treatment than their victims, and work for government and unions trying to figure out how the really smart people like themselves can spend your money better than you can and make the important decisions for you because there's no way you could successfully manage it yourself. Do I sound bitter? It's just because I wish I had gone to a school with professors exactly unlike the Metzgers. They are the problem, not the solution. And curing the disease of long-term exposure to people like them is a long, painful (for everyone around the victims), and expensive process.

There is no way I would encourage anybody to go to Columbia, and therefore there is no way I would countenance giving money to them. To me, as a lover of liberty, a believer in American first principles as described in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and basically a libertarian/objectivist, Columbia is the enemy. (I should emphasize that I am not a religious person, but if I were, Columbia would be even more unfriendly than it already is to those who don't fit the mold.) This is not to say that most other colleges, especially the top-tier ones, are better. But Columbia goes out of its way to make sure the world knows that it's a cesspool of socialists, anti-Semites, anti-Americans, and intolerant radicals of the left. The "liberal" groups who care so much about "diversity" only like it if it's liberal, non-white, non-male, and preferably homosexual diversity.

Again, I'm not a social conservative, so I couldn't care less what people do behind closed doors, but at Columbia we were always made to feel that every group which wasn't straight, white, and male was somehow a bunch of victims that I, who had the misfortune of being a straight white guy, owed an apology to and should feel bad for oppressing. I wish that if I were going to be convicted of such a crime I would at least have had the opportunity for what little fun or profit a bit of oppression might have gotten me. But no, there's no upside for people like me at Columbia. There's no use at all for a libertarian heterosexual white guy...which I suppose is why there's no room at all for James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, or even the Columbia grad, Alexander Hamilton.

So, as far as giving money to Columbia, I'll pass...but thanks for asking.

Ross K
CC '87 (but fortunate to have been able to leave in '86)

-------------------

FYI, here is the note I was responding to when mentioning "the note below":

Tony: I never served - deferred because of law school, marriage and children. I was one step ahead of President Johnson's deferral policies.

I take issue with the sentiment about not believing Columbia is THE school to go to now. No other school provides the education opportunity Columbia does. The "core" has not been duplicated at any other institution. The youngsters I interview as a member of ARC are tremendously bright and eager to attend for three main reasons: its in New York City, there is cultural diversity and the "core". I interviewed a young woman last week who was excited by the fact that Columbia invited a world "misleader" to lecture and thought it was wonderful. The cost of education is so expensive now that almost all students are on some scholarship aid. We need to help and the College Fund is a good way to do so. There are other ways to express our disapproval (if such there be) with the policies of the school.

In response to this story about Valdosta State University expelling a student as "a clear and present danger" because he was protesting the building of new parking garages, Christopher sent the following letter to the President of the University as well as the Chairman of the Board of Regents and the Governor and Lt. Governor of Georgia. After Christopher's note are a response from the school's victim, a response from the State of Georgia, and my response to Georgia.

Mr. Davis,

I was stunned to read about the effective expulsion of Hayden Barnes from VSU, a decision made by Ronald Zaccari. Mr Zaccari claims that Mr. Barnes was a "clear and present danger" because of his obviously protected free speech. I can only conclude that Mr. Zaccari has been so sheltered as to have no idea what a "clear and present danger" actually looked like. I would also submit that Mr. Zaccari's action demonstrate an unfitness to judge either the mental state of a student or the proper actions to be taken.

Mr. Zaccari has stolen from Mr. Barnes. He has stolen his time, his money spent to this point on his VSU education and he has stolen his good name. I am sure that you have sufficient education to know what Shakespeare said about name stealing. Mr. Zaccari has done this in a clear effort to suppress free speech. As such I would encourage you to make this situation right. To restore Mr. Barnes to his place on campus. To refund him any moneys spent in his own defense. And to run multiple full page ads in the student paper apologizing to Mr. Barnes for Mr. Zaccari's egregious incompetence. I think you should use exactly that phrase. To right this wrong is what a good man would do.

I do not agree with much of what Mr. Barnes stands for, however I am zealous in the defense of free speech. As such I would also encourage the board of regents to consider seriously the following actions as a condition of Mr. Zaccari's continued employment. That he a.) at his own expense attend classes about the Bill of rights. These classes should be comprehensive. I would suggest that they be tailored for him to address areas where his education seems to be lacking. I would suggest Dr. Tom Krannawitter of Hillsdale College as a good candidate to educate Mr. Zaccari. And b.) that Mr. Zaccari be educated as to what really constitutes a "clear and present danger" so as to properly recognize and deal with these sorts of things in the future. This last item is as important as the first. With out this education Mr. Zaccari will continue to come off as a hysteric.

Dealing with this properly is important. It demeans American higher education to have this kind of behavior taken by a school official. I know that it leaves me with the feeling that VSU is not a credible institution. It also causes me to be willing to gleefully give money to FIRE for Mr. Barnes' litigation against VSU, and to encourage my peers in the Hedge Fund business to do the same.

I do hope that you will act quickly and decisively.

Christopher S

---------------------------

Hayden Barnes sent this reply to Christopher:

Thank you for your letter of support. FIRE forwarded it to me.

At this time, I have been accepted to Kennesaw State University and I am beginning classes there in January, at significant personal expense, stress, and lost academic credit.

I am working with FIRE to raise awareness of my case and I am in the process of locating a private attorney to represent me.

Again, thank you for your support.

Hayden

----------------

Here is the oh so courageous response from Georgia:

Dear Christopher:

Thank you for your correspondence to Chancellor Erroll Davis, Jr. regarding the situation at Valdosta State University. In my interim role as Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer of the University System of Georgia, the comprehensive universities, which include Valdosta State University, report to me; thus, I represent Chancellor Davis in responding to you.

With specific reference to Valdosta State University, I am certain that you will understand that the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act prevents us from discussing the educational record of any University System student with unauthorized third parties. As such, neither the Chancellor nor members of his staff are at liberty to discuss the specifics of any student's situation.

We appreciate your interest in the welfare of the students of the University System of Georgia.

Sincerely,

Lisa A. Rossbacher, Ph.D.

Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer (Interim)
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
V 404.656.2274
F 404.453.6682
lisa.rossbacher@usg.edu

"Creating a more educated Georgia"

------------------------

And my response to that response:

Dear Ms. Rossbacher,

While I understand that your job is to use bureaucratic language to dodge the issue when something as unflattering to the University System as this comes around, your response here is particularly uncourageous and unsatisfying.

The issues being discussed are already a matter of public record. There is no violating of confidence here, nor are we talking about his "educational record" (as that term would commonly be understood) as far as I can tell. If there were extenuating circumstances beyond what's been published, I'm sure we would have heard about it. If I'm wrong, then I do not believe you would be violating a rule to say that there were factors other than what has been reported involved in the decision...but nobody has said that.

Christopher and I are interested not simply in "the welfare of the students" but in the welfare of our constitutional republic, and the plain language of the First Amendment. Indeed, if anybody should be protecting our constitution it is a government employee at a government school. Sadly, the opposite seems to be the case in this situation as in countless others.

So while I understand why you might not want to discuss a case which makes the President of VSU look so petty and silly, at least you should be honest about it and not say it's because of Hayden Barnes' "educational record" that you won't give a substantive comment.

Sincerely,

Ross K

My letter to the WSJ was PUBLISHED on 11/3/07:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119405655951081320.html

The Wall Street Journal had an article on Wednesday discussing whether the President of the United States should obey unconstitutional laws, concluding that he shouldn't, and that congressional restrictions on intelligence and wiretapping of foreigners was an intrusion into executive authority.

The article is here:
The Surveillance Law That Matters
Robert F Turner, Wall Street Journal, 10/24/07
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010773

I note, however, the subtitle of the article:
"The president is bound by the Constitution, not the whims of Congress."

This almost made me laugh out loud when thinking about how little regard this president (or this Congress) seems to have for the constitution.

The ultimate example is Bush's signing statement when he signed the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act also known as the McCain-Feingold Censorship and Anti-Citizenwhip Act (thanks to Newt Gingrich for that one).

Quoting the last several paragraphs of that document...the paper which I believe more than anything defines the Bush presidency as a failure:

However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership.

Individuals have a right not to have their money spent in support of candidates or causes with which they disagree, and those rights should be better protected by law. I hope that in the future the Congress and I can work together to remedy this defect of the current financing structure.

This legislation is the culmination of more than 6 years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens, and groups. Accordingly, it does not represent the full ideals of any one point of view.

But it does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate. Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 27, 2002.

In other words, according to the President, abrogating the constitution is OK as long as it was done with "debate" or as long as legislators and citizens agreed on it.

This is the most egregious dereliction of duty that a president could undertake, at least in terms of domestic policy. The oath of office, "to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" is not a random, meaningless set of words. They represent the foundation of the job itself, indeed of our entire government. Short of intentionally letting a foreign enemy defeat us in war, there is nothing more important for the executive branch to do properly than to protect and defend the constitution, especially in the last 75 years of the Supreme Court's erroneous rulings allowing Congress to regulate everything under the sun in the name of "the general welfare" or "interestate commerce".

How many of you are aware of the 1942 Supreme Court case Wickard v Filburn where a farmer was not allowed to grow wheat for his family's personal use in excess of a government-imposed quota for maximum production, even though his family was poor and being able to make their own bread rather than having to buy it made a real difference to them? It took until the 1995 Lopez case for the Court to make even a marginal attempt to limit the range of Congress' abuse of the Commerce Clause.

Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled in Raich v. Ashcroft that Angel Raich, described by the Washington Post as "a mother of two from Oakland suffering from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments" could not grow marijuana solely for her own use to relieve pain because since she would grow it herself she would not be buying it in the open market, and therefore was effecting interstate commerce...never mind that the same federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it is absolutely prohibited and has no medical use, (whereas cocaine and opium are Schedule II, meaning they may be available by prescription and have some accepted medical use) so any open market for marijuana is inherently illegal.

I bring these cases up to underscore how critical it is for our president to protect and defend the constitution when no other branch of government is doing so.

For a president not to recognize potential unconstitutionality where there is a minor technicality is one thing. But to say twice in a signing statement that what he's signing is unconstitutional is not just embarrassing for our nation...it's exceptionally dangerous.

So, when an article describes the president as being "bound by the constitution", I want to laugh but a more suitable reaction would be to cry for the erosion of our nation's fundamental principles and the insult to the genius of our founders.

-----------------

Here's the short version which I sent to the Wall Street Journal.

While it’s true that Congress, with the erroneous approval of the Supreme Court, regulates things that it does not have authority to regulate, the idea that the president (or at least this president) is bound by the Constitution is laughable.

There is a reason that presidents (and other federal elected officials) take an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution.” Just because Congress and the Court abandon that oath does not mean the president should also. To the contrary, the president must now be especially vigilant in defending our nation’s fundamental principles.

When the president twice mentioned unconstitutional aspects of the McCain-Feingold act while he was in the process of signing it, he knowingly committed dereliction of duty, of the most important duty other than his role as commander in chief. So while the president should be bound by the Constitution, he clearly isn’t.

In response to a piece I had written about some local Colorado politics, a person named "Dave" who seems to have an obsession with 9/11 conspiracy theories had the nerve to call me and leave two rambling, slightly insane messages talking about how the Twin Towers must already have been damaged (i.e. by government action conspiring with the attackers) in order for them to have come down so fast. In his second message, he must have held his phone up to a recording of President Bush discussing his seeing the attacks on video. "Dave" then said that a camera pointing at the WTC before the attacks is proof that Bush knew the attacks were coming.

Most politically insane people I have met have been leftists. "Dave" seems to actually be concerned about constitutional government, liberty, and other principles that I value.

Yet he is still insane. In a way, he gave me the definition of his insanity: In the first voice mail, he asked me "Ross, why do you refuse to rule out the impossible?"

Earth to Dave: Sorry to say, but that's pretty much how I live my life. If I didn't rule out the impossible, life would be even harder than it is now...as I presume it is for you who seems to be making at least a hobby out of trying to rationalize the impossible and the ridiculous.

As mentioned before, Dave, debating you is a bad use of my time. Let me just ask you one rhetorical question: If a cannon was shot from fairly close range at a door, or even at a series of doors, and the speed of the cannonball was then measured after it had gone through the doors, do you think the cannonball would be going substantially slower than if it hadn't hit anything? No, because the momentum of that cannonball is massive compared to the (stationary) momentum of the door(s). Your arguments about why the towers couldn't have fallen that fast are, as I've said before, just silly. The heat from the fires weakened steel floor supports and other structural elements (it didn't need to be hot enough to melt steel, just to make it somewhat malleable). And once the collapse got through the first several weakened floors, the entire mass was then falling at such a speed that nothing would have stopped it or even slowed it noticeably.

Dave, it is beyond unacceptable for you to call me to ramble on with your 9/11 lunacy. Go believe what you want to believe. I don't give a damn. Leave me out of your fantasy world. Do not even think about calling me again. And please stay on your medication.

[Note to Readers: The first comment to this article, made by Mike R, is a must-read.]

Citing his 10 year sentence for having consensual sex oral sex with a 15-year old girl when he was 17 as "cruel and unusual", the Georgia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 split decision, has ordered the release of Genarlow Wilson.

See the court's decision here:
http://www.gasupreme.us/press_releases/wilson_op.pdf

I have written about this case, a true embarrassment for Georgia, more than once before. You can read some more about the case here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson

It's too bad for Georgia that even though they got the answer right, it was another embarrassing 4-3 decision to do it. This was a clear case for a unanimous verdict.

In response to the must-read article below, I sent this note to the Wall Street Journal:

It has for years been the false belief of liberals and conservatives alike that corporations are inherently Republican. The truth is that they are inherently profit-seeking rather than truly free-market or ideological. They are more than willing to buy politicians, favorable legislation, and protection when possible. With the Democrats taking power in Congress and with online betting sites showing Hillary Clinton as our most likely next president, corporations are rationally buying insurance, showing us how accurate P.J. O’Rourke was to call our Congress a “Parliament of Whores”.

-------------

Here's what I was responding to. Read it and weep...

The Corporate Welfare Congress
Wall Street Journal, 10/23/07
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119309729802267740.html

Perhaps you've heard that this is the Congress for "the little guy," the "forgotten" middle class, the working stiff. If that was the plan, it isn't working. On present trends, the 110th Congress will go down as one of the biggest blowouts in corporate welfare history.

That's saying something, considering that the last GOP Congress gave big business some $92 billion a year in subsidies, according to the Cato Institute. Cato's latest analysis indicates that if all the pending spending bills pass, corporate welfare will exceed $100 billion in direct outlays in 2008.

The handouts for the rich that have a good chance of passing include the most expensive farm bill ever; a rise in the mortgage limits on loans that can be securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (see related article1); some $2 billion in loan guarantees to ethanol producers; and expansions in flood and terrorism insurance to benefit home builders, mortgage banks, and real estate developers.

Many of the 40 largest existing corporate welfare are set to get a raise, including the Commerce Department's $116 million manufacturing extension program, the $100 million Advanced Technology Program (which funds R&D for the likes of IBM, General Electric and Xerox), and the $200 million Agriculture Market Access Program, which underwrites foreign advertising for the likes of Pillsbury and Dole. We'd call all of this the "K Street" project, but even Tom DeLay never thought this big:

Big agribusiness. The House has already passed a five-year farm bill with a cost of $286 billion. The USDA calculates that two-thirds of these subsidies are directed to the richest 10% of farmers. The huge cooperatives that grow rice, cotton, corn, wheat and soybeans will get $7.5 billion a year. These handouts will come despite record crop prices, and farm land selling at an average of 18% above a year ago. The USDA estimates that farm net income will reach $87 billion this year, nearly 50% higher than in 2006.

Ethanol. On top of the 51 cent per gallon tax credit for this inefficient fuel, the Senate energy bill requires a doubling of ethanol production from corn, $500 million in new direct payments to ethanol producers, and $2 billion more for loan guarantees for new ethanol refineries.

Big Sugar. The farm bill requires the USDA to buy up domestic sugar equal to the amount that is imported from Mexico under Nafta, which is a disguised form of trade protection. This sweet deal is like requiring the Transportation Department to purchase a Ford and GM car for every Nissan and Toyota imported into the U.S. The taxpayer cost: $1.4 billion.

Flood insurance. The House has passed a bill that replenishes a fund drained by Hurricane Katrina. But along the way it also raises the maximum coverage limits, and for the first time covers wind damage for commercial properties. The National Taxpayers Union calculates that taxpayers could be on the hook for $100 billion of future losses.

Terror insurance. On September 19, the House approved a new federal terrorism backstop for developers at an estimated 10-year cost of $10.4 billion. The original terrorism insurance bill, passed in the wake of 9/11, was supposed to be temporary. But under pressure from business lobbies and insurers, industry won a 15-year extension covering up to 90% of terrorism-related losses.

"Renewable" fuels. Energy bills moving through Congress tax oil companies and pass most of the $25 billion or so in expected revenue to wind, solar and Midwestern biofuels companies, even though private venture capital for such fuels hit new peaks in 2005 and 2006. For 20 years, the feds have poured more than $10 billion into this industry with little reduction in U.S. oil dependence.

Corporate pork. There are 13,000 earmarks in this year's appropriations bills, including hundreds that benefit narrow business groups. Such as: $500,000 to build a baseball stadium for the Cincinnati Reds minor league team in Billings, Montana; $150,000 for the Troy, Michigan Chamber of Commerce; $500,000 for the Arkansas World Trade Center; $4 million for a rail bridge for CSX railroad.

If you want to know how good liberals can tolerate such largesse for the rich, keep in mind that in Washington quids often come with a quo. The latest FEC fundraising reports indicate that industry lobbyists have shifted their allegiance from Republicans and are now funneling cash to Democrats they expect to hold their majority. Roll Call newspaper, which covers Congress, reports that in the first half of 2007 business lobbyists gave "all or most of their cash to Democratic candidates and party committees."

They're getting their money's worth.

Housing statistics reported by the Commerce Department this morning show a continued implosion of the real estate bubble of recent years.

Existing home sales fell 8% in September to an annual rate of 5.04 million versus a Bloomberg survey of 5.25 million representing a drop of 4.5%.

The median home price is down over 4% from a year ago, with single family homes down almost 5%, the biggest decline since the government started keeping track about 40 years ago.

Inventory rose to over 10 months supply.

Here's how my friend Brian Wesbury analyzes the report:

Today’s numbers on existing home sales are ugly. For the past two months the decline in existing home sales has occurred in every major region of the country and nationwide sales are now the lowest in about nine years. It would take 10.2 months at the current sales rate to clear the inventory of single-family existing homes on the market today – the highest in about 20 years. Given this high level of inventory, prices have been dropping, with the median price of an existing single-family home down 4.9%, a record 1-year decline. The question is whether all of this is due to some fundamental problem with the economy or if it is industry specific. We believe the latter. Because of extremely low interest rates between 2002 and 2005, and unbelievably lax lending standards, housing activity soared above anything justified by the underlying fundamentals of demographics, jobs and incomes. For this, the housing market must pay a price and it may undershoot in the months ahead, pushing sales down to levels not seen since the mid-1990s during more normal times. One offset to today’s weak data is the fact that existing home sales are counted at closing, so September sales were for contracts signed in July/August – at the height of the credit crisis. Tomorrow’s data on new home sales will reflect contracts signed in September and will be a more reliable indicator of current activity.

I have told Brian repeatedly for the past year or more that I think he's far too optimistic about housing and about its impact on the economy. I think the impact will be real and substantial.

As far as tomorrow's number, its hard to put much stock into the new home sales number since they're such a small part of the overall market. However, if I had to guess, I bet those numbers come in much worse than expected as well.

[Update from today: The new home sales number was right on the Bloomberg survey, but the August numbers were revised downward substantially. In the 15 minutes after the number came out, there was about a 70 point jump up in the Dow Jones, but the market gave up all those gains and more in the next 90 minutes.]

Between the housing numbers, the report by Merrill Lynch of loan losses, anecdotal stories of credit problems seeping into the auto market and other non-real-estate areas, it's not surprising that Fed Funds futures are now pricing in a real chance of a 50 basis point cut by the Fed on October 31st.

I love Brian's optimism, but I don't share it....

As the President and Congress aim for a "compromise" about SCHIP, I encourage you to remember than any likely deal will not be a good outcome for the taxpayer, the health care system, or our constitution.

It's much like two burglars getting to your house at the same time. One of them only wants the jewelry. One of them wants the jewelry, your TV, your comic book collection (no, I don't have one), and your pet goldfish. They come to a "compromise", in which the first thief gets 3/4 of your jewelry and the second thief gets 1/4 of your jewelry, plus your TV, and half of the comic book collection (he didn't see the shelf with the other half). They generously leave your goldfish. Exactly how grateful are you for that compromise? How much better off would you have been if you had somehow prevented the burglars from getting into the house to begin with (or if you had been home and shot them?)

This is the nature of the SCHIP debate. Do not let the "spirit of compromise" fool you into thinking that the outcome is a good one. You're still being robbed. They’re just trying to get you to open the door for them and help them load their cars with your stuff.

The beauty of a capitalist economy is that it is not a zero-sum game. Wealth is created in the aggregate. Although we always hear cries from the left that income inequality is rising (in terms of how much richer the richest are than the poorest) or that the “middle class” is shrinking in size, we never hear people make the best responses to those claims:

1. The rich are getting richer… So what? Do you (incorrectly) assume that the rich getting richer means the poor are getting poorer?

2. Why do you think there is any role for government in interfering with people’s ability to earn money or keep what they earn?

3. Even if you can twist the constitution to find government authority to do so, what do you propose that history and common sense have not shown repeatedly to lead to economic disaster?

4. If you are really interested in “fairness”, can you argue with a straight face that it is “fair” for the top 1% of earners to pay 34% of all income taxes, the top 5% to pay 55% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% to pay only 3.5% of all income taxes? Do you truly believe that the rich are not paying their “fair share” after learning just how “progressive” (i.e. punitive of success) the system already is? (The number of liberals who know these numbers is roughly equal to the number of Italian war heroes or Jewish sports legends.)

Don Boudreaux, Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University, recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:

Judith Warner writes that "More and more people are being priced out of a middle class existence". This statement is true, but only because more and more Americans are getting richer. Consider the percentage of American households in each of these different annual-income categories in 1967 and in 2003 (all reckoned in 2003 dollars to account for inflation):

               1967     2003
$75K and up    8.2      26.1
$50K - $75K    16.7     18.0
$35K - $50K    22.3     15.0
$15K - $35K    31.1     25.0
under $15K     21.7     15.9

If the middle class is disappearing, it's doing so by swelling the ranks of the upper classes.

A free market economy can and usually does make most people richer, even if it doesn’t increase everyone’s wealth equally or proportionately. This can not happen in a zero-sum game.

Government, however, is at best a zero-sum game. In order for Big Brother to spend money on something, including “insurance” or income redistribution plans like SCHIP, it must get that money by taxation or borrowing (which simply represents future taxation.) In order for someone to win the government lottery, it means that other Americans are losing.

I don’t want to sound cruel, and clearly that’s how the left tries to portray anyone who opposes SCHIP or its expansion, but when Nancy Pelosi said that “children must be the winners” in the upcoming discussions with the president, my reaction was “so taxpaying adults must be the losers”.

In addition to all the usual problems of entitlement programs (like driving governments toward bankruptcy), SCHIP competes directly with private insurance, giving incentive to people who are eligible for the program to cancel their existing insurance and take the government’s free lunch.

According to a recent Heritage Foundation study, “Congress's expansion proposals for SCHIP could cover as many as 2.4 million newly eligible children, but because of crowd out, the ranks of the uninsured would decrease by only 1 million. This is because, for every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), 54 to 60 children would lose the private coverage that they have today.” This crowd out effect would cause the cost of covering a currently uninsured child to more than double…to around three times the cost of private insurance.

SCHIP is a bad idea for other reasons, too: It is another step away from encouraging child-raising responsibility where it belongs, with the parents. It is an unjustifiable transfer of income from people without children to people with children. It is being used to cover adults and to cover children who are not poor; in other words it is a giant step toward truly socialized medicine. SCHIP is the evil love child of “HillaryCare” socialism and her “It takes a village” nanny state.

Unfortunately, President Bush’s counselor Ed Gillespie recently said that Bush’s objections to SCHIP were “not about the money”. I can just picture President Bush and Nancy Pelosi, wearing stockings over their faces, arriving at my house to rob me and just trying to decide between themselves how much I’m going to lose.

In case you missed it, and in case you care, you can read my recap of Sunday's GOP debate at:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22961

As that article was reporting rather than analysis, let me add a few words of my own opinion about the candidates (in alphabetical order) here:

Rudy Giuliani: I thought Rudy won the debate. He defended himself well against the claims of not being "a real conservative". He came across as funny nad personable. He projected the image of a real leader (which I believe he is.) Although all the candidates went after Hillary, I thought Rudy's attack was the most effective when he said that "America can't afford you!" (speaking through the TV to Hillary.)

Mike Huckabee: A strong performance with fairly limited camera time. He made well-received points that "there is nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being President of the United States" and that he wasn't very interested in attacking other Republicans...he was "happy to let them shed their own blood, and then (he'll) be ready to run for president."

Duncan Hunter: Seemed to lapse into only marginally relevant information which was in his area of expertise, such as taking nearly a minute to describe the recent success of a missile defense test. Additionally, he made what was to me a nonsensical argument that since our trade deficit is so big, we should impose tariffs and use that money to help with the cost of entitlement programs. Basically he demonstrated that he shares the common incorrect opinion of the relevance of a trade deficit.

John McCain: Did a good job, especially coming across as principled and experienced, but lacked a bit of passion. He got the only standing ovation of the evening when he mentioned that he was "tied up at the time" of the Woodstock concert. He was strong on the issues and understood the value of free markets in solving problems. But still, I felt much more interested in John McCain the man, rather than John McCain the candidate. And still, as I've said before, I would not vote for John McCain unless he repudiated McCain-Feingold as the assault on the First Amendment that it is.

Ron Paul: While he made some good points about Republicans having forgotten about the constitution, he was booed more than once for attacking American foreign policy as too interventionist, saying that "we don't need to go looking for trouble", and blaming the current tensions between Turkey and terrorists in northern Iraq on our Iraq policy. I really enjoy Ron Paul's steadfast defense of the constitution, especially when it comes to how to think about domestic issues like entitlements. But his rhetoric about US foreign policy, even if he is correct that it is "nation-building" or "too intervenionist" is so strident that he is fast losing credibility among all but the most "libertarian" wing of the GOP.

Mitt Romney: Gave one of the weaker performances of the evening, including an incredibly confused statement about building a house (which you can read in the Human Events article linked above.) He did not defend himself as well as he could have against charges of not being "a real conservative" and didn't help himself with conservatives when he hedged on Social Security reform by saying "I'm not prepared to cut benefits for low-income people." It may be true...indeed it's fine if it is true...but it should not have been his leading point about Social Security reform. Also, John McCain's continuing attacks on Romney have hit their target more than once in recent weeks, including McCain saying on Sunday that Romney was fooling people about Romney's record but McCain wouldn't let Romney fool people about McCain's record. If there was a loser in the debate, I think it was Mitt Romney.

Tom Tancredo: Along with Duncan Hunter, got very little time to speak. He was eloquent and accurate in most of his statements, although I wish he hadn't been so predictable as to bring up illegal immigration in relation to health care policy. The media doesn't take Tancredo seriously as a candidate, so he doesn't get enough time to make a real impact on the audience. I suppose that's reasonable since there's no way he could get the nomination or win the general election. Tancredo is very strong on the principles of our republic; he understands that most of what the federal government does is not constitutional. Unfortunately, those very important points get drowned out by his repetition of "illegal immigration" no matter what the subject.

Fred Thompson: It was an interesting start to the evening for Fred Thompson because the first two questions were to Giuliani and Romney asking them about recent verbal attacks against them by Thompson. They responded adequately, including Giuliani's claiming that Thompson was a consistent opponent of federal tort reform legislation, and then Thompson attacked again. Although I'm only guessing, it's hard for me to believe that Thompson will win a lot of friends by being the candidate most seen to be attacking other Republicans, especially with such a scatter-shot approach. Thompson's answers to issue questions were acceptable but not intense or passionate. His best answer of the evening was probably defending himself against charges of laziness with the last question of the evening. Still, the fact that he has to answer such questions probably does not bode well.

All in all, I thought Rudy had the best night, and Romney the worst. McCain might have helped himself a bit, as did Huckabee. Thompson probably didn't help himself, but since expectations for him are still rather low, he probably didn't hurt himself a lot either.

Although I enjoy the particularly constitutional approach of Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, I look forward to a few of the candidates dropping out so we can have more intense debates among the men who actually have a chance to get the nomination.

I've been having an interesting political discussion with a regular reader (and occasional contributer to these pages) about the electability of Mitt Romney versus that of Rudy Giuliani.

Here's the conversation, starting with the first note I received. The reader's notes to me are in indented italics, my responses in regular text. I'd be very interested in your thoughts if you'd take the time to leave a comment...

If you recall I said a long time ago that McCain would never get the GOP nomination. I still believe that. Romney is the only one who will have a chance to beat Hillary because if it's Rudy too many evangelicals will stay home. Unfortuantely, the most impressive of the bunch-Huckabee- has little chance except maybe for VP. I still believe there is even more anti-Hillaryites out there than polls reflect which would give the GOP a chance to take a close one-but not if the candidate is Rudy. This weekend evangelical conference in DC will be enormously important.

I never thought McCain would get the nomination. (Here's one of my prior articles on the subject.) If Romney wins, bet a lot of money on Hillary. Romney can't possibly beat her. If Rudy gets more endorsements like Rick Perry, and if he can get the NRA on his side, he'll be OK with evangelicals and in the south. Huckabee has said some disappointing things recently, such as about free trade. In any case, despite a brief infatuation with "Huck" by some, it was pretty hard for me ever to take him very seriously as a candidate...though maybe in 4 or 8 years he may be ready for prime time.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think Romney can beat Hillary when the spotlight is just on the two of them. And even with NRA help and Perry I still think alot of evangelicals will stay home if Rudy gets the nomination. I hope not because four years of Hillary will be awful for the country that's for sure!

I simply think that there's a much higher risk of Romney losing Ohio than Rudy losing among evangelicals or in the South. Furthermore, being a Mormon isn't exactly a big plus among either of those groups so I don't see an argument that Romney must be stronger among them than Rudy is, especially given Romney's history of campaigning as pro-choice, despite what he says now. I also think that there's little chance Romney could put Pennsylvania in play for the GOP and no chance he could put California in play, where Rudy could do both. Even if Rudy didn't end up winning either, he would force the Dems to spend a huge amount of energy and money in those places and keep them from being able to focus as intensely on Ohio or Florida. This is not a small issue.

I should be clear about one thing: I can't imagine anything worse for the country, especially at this time, than to elect a Democrat to be our next president, especially since I believe the Dems will increase their majorities in both houses of Congress in the next election, particularly in the Senate. Hillary really is frightening (and Obama and Edwards are even more frightening). So I would not be sad if Romney became our president, nor would I be sad if any of the other leading Republicans won. They all seem like quality people and they all understand liberty and free markets whereas the Democrats don't...which means the Democrats don't understand the foundation of America's greatness and success.

At the end of the day, I'll vote for a Republican in the presidential election for the first time since 1992 (unless the nominee is John McCain in which case I'll stay home unless he repudiates McCain-Feingold, which is the greatest attack on the First Amendment for generations.) For me, whom to support in the primary comes down to both issues and electability. For me, Rudy is the best on both. But even if I were more of a social conservative, the electability question is so important this time that I would strongly support Rudy anyway.

I also sent the reader a couple of links which I thought interesting:

Giuliani Advances
The mayor makes inroads with social conservatives.
Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 10/20/07
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/257vvjtn.asp

Rudy steps right
Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/21/07
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_533649.html

So, readers, if you have any thoughts you'd like to share, I'd be pleased to receive them and to respond...

Thanks to Don Boudreaux for bringing this video to my attention.

Here's a 2-minute video of one of history's greatest economists explaining the basics of capitalism in a way that few people ever could...in plain English:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=31580507

The video is based on the classic economics essay, "I, Pencil", by Leonard Read, published in 1958. You can read the essay as well as some short comments by Milton Friedman here:

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Thanks for Christopher for sending this along. I hope that someone finds this Ms. Dawkins mentioned in the article and gives her the verbal spanking she so richly deserves. For the record, I contacted the NY Dept. of Sanitation and suggested that Ms. Dawkins be reprimanded and that people like her were a primary reason that people dislike government.

New face of vandalism?
Gersh Kuntzman, The Brooklyn Paper, 10/13/07
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/40/30_40graffitigirl.html

Thanks to Mike for sending this along...

Afghanistan TV guide

SUNDAY
0800 - My 33 Sons
0830 - Osama Knows Best
0900- I Dream Of Mohammed
0930 - Let's Mecca Deal
1000 - The Kabul Hillbillies

MONDAY
0800 - Husseinfeld
0830 - Mad About Everything
0930 - Monday Night Stoning
1000 - Win Bin Laden's Money
1030 - Allah McBeal

TUESDAY
0800 - Wheel Of Poverty
0830 - The Price Is Right If Osama Says It's Right
0900 - Children are Forbidden From Saying the Darndest Things
0930 - Taliban's Wackiest Public Execution Bloopers
1000 - Buffy the Yankee Imperialist Dog Slayer

WEDNESDAY
0800 - Fatima Loves Chachi
0830 - M*U*S*T*A*S*H
0900 - Veronica's Closet Full of Long, Black, Shapeless Dresses and Veils
0930 - Married With 139 Children
1000 - Eye For An Eye Witness News

THURSDAY
0800 - Beat The Press
0830 - Two Guys, A Girl, and a Pita Bread
0900 - Just Shoot Everyone
0930 - Veilwatch

FRIDAY
0800 - Judge Bin Laden
0830 - Suddenly Sanctions
0900 - Who Wants To Marry a Terrorist Millionaire?
0930 - Better Caves and Gardens
1000 - No Witness News

SATURDAY
0800 - Spongebob Squareturban
0830 - Who's Koran Is It Anyway?
0900 - Teletalibans
0930 - Death To America's Funniest Home Videos
1000 - Stoning Those Dancing With The Stars

Marsha Blackburn, Republican Congresswoman from Tennessee offers us a particularly good explanation of the reasons that upholding President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion was correct.

It's particularly relevant given her home state's disastrous experience with socialized medicine.

For any of you who are represented by a member of Congress who voted to uphold the veto, I urge you to contact his or her office and thank them for standing up for liberty, limited government, and quality health care.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1121982675&btclp=1&

Comment by Congressman Marsha Blackburn, R-TN
Blackburn Statement on Failed SCHIP Override Vote

Today, Congressman Marsha Blackburn moved to rein in the liberal Leadership's move to "slow motion socialism" by voting to sustain President Bush's veto of H.R. 976. Rep. Blackburn had the following statement after the House voted to sustain the veto 273 to 156.

"Everyone in Tennessee watched TennCare, Tennessee's attempt to institutionalize Hillary Clinton's plan for universal healthcare, inflict pain and pressure on our healthcare system. We observed first hand that expanded enrollments weakened eligibility requirements, which lead to access and affordability problems. I am therefore proud of my colleagues for sustaining the President's veto on H.R. 976, legislation that ignores the TennCare lessons, while spending billions of dollars to substitute private health insurance coverage with government-run healthcare coverage."

Blackburn, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on Health, noted that H.R 976 would weaken current law requiring states to document a beneficiary's citizenship status; a move that would allow illegal immigrants to access government-funded health care benefits.

"By attempting to strip current law prohibiting Medicaid benefits to illegal immigrants, H.R. 976 would prevent the federal government from ensuring that taxpayer-funded SCHIP services are only distributed to qualified individuals. The vetoed bill would have moved SCHIP from a block grant to an entitlement program and would have increased spending more than $120 billion in federal funding over the next ten years. The poorly drafted bill would have left the program under funded by $40 billion in mid 2012. Why would someone vote for a bill that plans to fail?"

"I remain committed to working with my colleagues across the aisle to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program to protect underprivileged children who currently lack health insurance. However, I cannot support legislation that will expand the welfare state, provide government health care benefits to illegal immigrants, and irresponsibly draw-down the public purse."

A few thoughts on the various Q3 political fundraising reports, as reported in this story by the Rocky Mountain News:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_5723835,00.html

First, regarding the Schaffer vs. Udall race to replace Senator Wayne Allard who is retiring, despite the spin of Udall’s campaign manager Bob Schaffer should be happy with his Q3 fundraising results as he raises money in an environment that is exceptionally unfriendly for Republicans at the moment. For Schaffer to raise nearly 80% of what Udall raised in a political climate like this is a real achievement.

In any case, the real money chase in this senate race will be between 527 groups. Left wing groups and especially environmental groups will pour a lot of money into Udall’s campaign. I hope that the Club for Growth and other pro-free market and conservative groups can match the organization and motivation of the left and bring substantial resources to Schaffer’s campaign. I also hope that Udall’s obvious (to me) inferiority as a candidate and an intellect will cause independent voters to contribute to Schaffer or at least not contribute to Udall. Time will tell…

Second, regarding Joan Fitz-Gerald’s small fundraising lead over Jared Polis in the race to replace Mark Udall in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, given Polis’ personal resources it’s hard to imagine that Fitz-Gerald is feeling particularly confident in that lead or that Polis reacted to the news with more than a yawn.

For the record, the winner of this Democratic primary will be my representative in Congress since a Republican hasn’t held this seat in over 30 years. Given that, I expect to support Jared Polis even though he is a Democrat. Joan Fitz-Gerald is sort of like Hillary Clinton with less personal warmth, a greater interest in big government, and roughly an equal sense of ethics. People I know who have worked with Fitz-Gerald think that my estimation of her is too generous.

Third, in the 5th Congressional District, for incumbent Doug Lamborn to only have raised $10,000 more than Jeff Crank points to Lamborn being exceptionally vulnerable. As my regular readers know, I certainly hope that he is. Additionally the absolute amount raised by Lamborn, at about $85,000, compared to an average of $290,000 for Fitz-Gerald, Polis, and Marilyn Musgrave show how little enthusiasm there is for Congressman Lamborn. I continue to hope that the Club for Growth will not come to Doug Lamborn’s rescue as they did in 2006 because that could do serious damage to the Club’s ability to help Bob Schaffer, at least among Colorado contributors.

For your reading and political thinking enjoyment, allow me to suggest this article I wrote for Human Events:

Marist College Poll Results
Ross Kaminsky, HumanEvents.com, 10/17/07
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22857

Yesterday, in discussing the diminishing support in Congress for a resolution describing the killings of Armenians in Turkey before World War I as "genocide" The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal mentioned Colorado's junior congressman Doug Lamborn:

"It will be a nail-biter," says Rep. Doug Lamborn, a freshman Colorado Republican who dropped his co-sponsorship yesterday. He told a group of bloggers meeting on Capitol Hill that he "had been persuaded that this bill was harmful to the interests of our troops."

I'm not sure just how many Armenian votes there are in Colorado Springs that Congressman Lamborn felt the need to pander for by co-sponsoring the bill prior to yesterday.

Actually, I shouldn't accuse Lamborn of pandering. Even Doug Lamborn must realize that there is not a massive Armenian population in El Paso County, Colorado.

The problem is that Lamborn isn't smart enough to realize the massively negative national security implications of the measure which risks wrecking our already tenuous relationship with Turkey at a critical time.

From the same Opinion Journal article:

General David Petraeus was making phone calls to Capitol Hill yesterday in a heartfelt attempt to dissuade members of the House from voting for a resolution to declare the 1915 massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire a genocide. His message was simple: Now is not the time to damage Turkey's relationship with the U.S., given that two-thirds of our supplies to troops in Iraq flow through that country.

It is obvious to a casual observer of the news that the situation in the border area between Turkey and northern Iraq is a tinderbox with Kurdish PKK rebels making incursions in to Turkish territory.

Indeed, Turkey seems to be preparing for military action in Iraqi territory according to news reports. Some reports imply that Turkey is coordinating with the Iraqi government and some say that Iraq is urging restraint by Turkey. My guess is that both are true.
For example, this story from Australia:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/17/2062459.htm

And this report from Stratfor: "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has proposed a joint military operation with Turkey, CNN Turk television quoted him as saying during a phone conversation with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Iraq had been trying to stop a possible Turkish military incursion in northern Iraq against Kurdish rebels hiding there."

Why would a Republican congressman co-sponsor a measure which is clearly little more than a Democratic attempt to hurt the Bush administration and to continue their efforts to undermine our chances of success in Iraq?

Because Doug Lamborn doesn't have a clue.

While I'm glad to see that Congressman Lamborn is now on the correct side of the issue, the fact that he was close to supporting the measure is just the most recent piece of evidence that he is unqualified to represent Coloradoans in Congress.

May I recommend to you an article I wrote for Human Events about a week ago after I heard an interview of New York Times pseudo-economist Paul Krugman:

NPR’s Siegel Helps Krugman Lie
Ross Kaminsky, HumanEvents.com, 10/11/07
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22787&page=1#c1

I just received an email from the Mark Udall campaign asking me to write a note to Congressman Udall (my representative) urging him to vote to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion. The campaign web site was even kind enough to provide me with a form letter and some writing tips. Needless to say, I made a few changes to their suggested letter. Here's what I sent Mark Udall...

Dear Congressman Udall,

On Thursday, I urge you to vote to sustain President Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill. This veto helps protect the best, if not perfect, health care system in the world.

While SCHIP itself is already unconstitutional, the expansion proposed by Democrats is nothing more than a giant step toward implementing HillaryCare.

There is no excuse for giving hundreds of thousands of people incentive to drop private insurance in order to get "free" government coverage, meaning letting them pick the pockets of their fellow citizens to cover their health care costs. There is no excuse for letting adults into a program explicitly created for children. There is no excuse for letting middle-class earners into a program explicitly created for the poor or near-poor.

All evidence from foreign countries which have socialized medicine shows that it is a disaster with worse outcomes, long lines, and citizens who come to the US for the health care if the can afford it.

Even General Motors and the United Auto Workers just agreed on a new contract which eliminated what was essentially socialized medicine for retirees, realizing the existing plan would bankrupt GM and that the retirees would end up with nothing.

If even auto workers realize that socialism is doomed to failure, it's hard to imagine why anyone else should still support it.

I urge you to stand up for liberty, for quality health care, for the right of people and their doctors to make medical decisions without the interference of Big Nanny government, and vote to sustain President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion.

Thank you.

This morning, the Commerce Department reported that September housing starts fell more than 10% to an annual rate of 1.19 million homes, well below the Bloomberg survey of 1.28 million homes.