That quote, commonly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, comes to mind when contemplating yesterday's vote in Congress to ban Internet gambling.
It passed, 317-93. What's interesting is that Rep. John Conyers introduced an amendment that would have removed the exemption the bill grants to allow states to put their lotteries online. That amendment overwhelmingly failed.
Which means that a good number of Congressmen, most of them Republican, voted to ban Internet gambling sites operated by private citizens, but voted to allow them when operated by the government.
A fascinating AP report says that Iraqis are using fake IDs in light of the recent growth in sectarian killings. The major groups in Iraq are not distinguishable by physical traits, but they are by name. To avoid being killed, people are getting false identification cards:
Surnames refer to tribe and clan, while first names are often chosen to honor historical figures revered by one sect but sometimes despised by the other.
For about $35, someone with a common Sunni name like Omar could become Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite name that might provide safe passage through dangerous areas.
This illustrates very well how genuinely complex security can be. At any time, the relevant authorities in Iraq could have decreed that all people get (as near as possible) forgery-proof biometric ID cards and carry them at all times - a great way to batten down a country, right?
Doing so would have fed directly into the strategy being used by the enemies of peace and security in Iraq today: setting up fake checkpoints and killing people who arrive there members of the wrong sect. Identity cards had a role in the Rwandan genocide just over 10 years ago, as well.
Those who believe that identity cards are a simple route to good security, well, they suffer what is so rightly known as the fatal conceit. Central planning that deprives people of control over their lives can be deadly--literally--in surprising and unpredictable ways.
Thank goodness for the fake ID outlets in Iraq today, and thank goodness the promoters of "secure ID" in the United States didn't take their message to Iraq.
The tradeoffs involved in identification are discussed in my book, Identity Crisis.
According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com:
Federal lobbying of the legislative and executive branches totaled $1.2 billion ($1,201,255,222) during the last six months of 2005. This is the first period lobbying expenditures have averaged over $200 million a month. For all of 2005 the total spent was $2,363,102,190.
Lobbying by health care interests led the pack ($183,324,757 spent in the last half of 2005), just as it has for the last 10 or so years. That might have something to do with the fact that government purchases about half of all health care in the United States and controls the other half indirectly.
The American Medical Association was among the top five organizational spenders ($9,720,000 spent in the last half of 2005) in part because they successfully lobbied to block Medicare payment cuts, which had already been enacted into law and were scheduled to take effect this year. That would be the third or fourth year in a row that providers have staved off those payment cuts.
Jagadeesh Gokhale and I have a theory. It is that politicians have no intention of reducing how much Medicare pays providers, but instead use the threat of payment cuts to extract political contributions from doctors and hospitals.
While Congress debates what American citizens may and may not do in their private lives (I like the quote likening Internet poker to "crack cocaine"), elsewhere, the Nanny State marches on:
Clintonville city administrator Lisa Kotter said they can create ordinances as they see fit.
"We don't have to have a reason. Cities do have the right to regulate licensing and zoning," Kotter said. "Sometimes we change the rules."
The federal budget deficit projection for 2006 shrank to $296 billion (story here). White House insiders are reporting that this is a good thing.
Compared to what? Well, compared to last year’s deficit, of course. Or compared to where the deficit was expected to go. But being proud of an accomplishment like that is a bit like congratulating yourself for successfully not driving your car into a brick wall.
Before anyone accuses me of being Eeyore incarnate, I’d like to note that the economy has been growing faster than many people expected, and surprises like that are always welcome. That’s the main reason the federal government has collected so much revenue – and it's unlikely that the Bush tax cuts didn’t have something to do with that.
Yet it’s hard to find much solace in data that also show the federal budget has grown by a staggering 45 percent during the Bush presidency so far. (The national economy as measured by GDP has only grown by 30 percent.) And you just might realize the good news is also the bad news. On the one hand, the government collected more tax money. On the other hand, the government collected more tax money.
Government spending is still chewing on close to 21 percent of GDP. That’s still bigger than the 18 percent it consumed when Bush took office. In fact, that’s the biggest the budget has been in over 10 years -- which is, conveniently, a point in history right before the Republican Revolution.
If the federal budget had grown from the day George W. Bush was inaugurated at the same annual rate it had for the six years before he came to office, the federal budget would swallow only 17 percent of GDP today. Balanced or not, seems to me a budget of that size would be much better than what we've got now. Maybe we should stop the bidding there next year.
In the meantime, the unfunded liabilities of federal entitlements have rocketed to over $85 trillion. That’s obviously a much bigger number than the current year deficit. And obviously a much bigger problem. Yet you don't seem to hear too much about that from policymakers anymore.
Okay, enough of the gloom. You may now return to your regularly-scheduled happiness.
The news wires are saying there has been a major policy development concerning Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration is now changing its stance with regard to the Geneva Convention, reports say.
The White House says today's announcement does not reflect a change in policy. That is probably right. That is, the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan established some new law with respect to the application of Geneva to detainees and the Pentagon is now simply tinkering with some policies to comply with that ruling.
Because Clintonian word games still pervade the capital, however, one must scrutinize these policy announcements very closely. For example, whatever the Pentagon is saying about Guantanamo today may be limited to the Pentagon and to the men held at Guantanamo Bay. I say that because in 2002, President Bush issued a directive that pledged humane treatment to all prisoners in U.S. custody. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales later admitted in 2005 that that directive did not apply to officers of the CIA and other nonmilitary personnel.
A few Members of Congress will reportedly draft legislation to create the United States Public Service Academy, which would be modeled after the four existing military academies.
Proponents of this idea note on their website that, “the federal government offers only one set of undergraduate institutions for high school seniors with the patriotic desire to serve their country: the military service academies.”
That may be true, but there are plenty of educational options for those who wish to pursue such a career. Why should taxpayers be responsible for an additional $205 million a year for a new public service academy when hundreds and hundreds of colleges and universities already offer public service programs?