Economic Journal Article #2

The following was my second economic journal article. It was written for ECO 202 - Macroeconomics at Dutchess Community College for Professor Noreen Van Valkenburgh. It has been published here with her permission now that the summer term is over.

Article: 2011 White House Salaries are Released

Source: St. Petersburg (FL) Times

Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011

Link: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/2011-white-house-salaries-are-released-8212-guess-who-makes-what/1178401

Summary:

The 2011 White House Salary figures were released today. There are 454 employees, as opposed to 467 last year, and they make $37.1 million as opposed to $38.8 million last year. The article also listed specific numbers for certain employees.

My opinion:

This is good. Let's hope other government departments on a local, state, and federal level make significant, or greater, spending cuts. There is a lot of wasteful government spending on useless departments at all levels. However, I hope that when making cuts, the government will cut these useless areas and not cost teachers or emergency workers their jobs. However, this seems unlikely since most of the useless workers and departments got where they are because of special interests (aka campaign donations and/or endorsements) to the government. So, when the government is called upon to make cuts, they will cut more important areas like education or police, thus saving less money and hurting society more than they would have if they had cut useless employees and departments. I like what the White House is doing. Without seeing a complete list of employees, I cannot identify any more positions (if any) that they should have cut. However, I hope that other areas of government will follow suit and make significant cuts as well. That is, more significant than this, because with our government debt around $14 trillion, we need to make a lot more cuts than this. Of course, however, this could vary by department, so I can't say for sure that the White House didn't do all they could to cut their own employees.

Economic Journal Article #1

As I previously promised, here is the first of 15 economic journal articles from Professor Noreen Van Valkenburgh's Macroeconomics course at Dutchess Community College. I wrote this entry on June 28, based on a story from June 21.

Gregory Koch

Article Title: "Man Robs Bank … For Healthcare?"

Source: San Francisco Chronicle (link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/06/21/benzinga1188971.DTL)

Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Summary: 59-year old James Verone of North Carolina is accused of robbing an RBC Bank of $1. Verone, who has no criminal history, had an unusual motive for his crime - he couldn't afford healthcare but knew he would get it for free in prison. Verone had intended to be charged and convicted of armed robbery so he could be sent to prison until he was old enough to be eligible for Social Security. However, he was only charged with petty larceny and likely won't be sent to prison for long enough. Verone apparently had developed a life-threatening growth on his chest and ruptured two tendons in his back in addition to problems in his left foot. However, having been laid off from his job, he could no longer afford healthcare. He had hoped that by being sent to prison, the state would pay for his healthcare.

My commentary: As a libertarian, I feel that the government should not pay for anyone's healthcare. Prisoners are an interesting case because, just as a child is in the legal custody of his or her parents (who, in theory, should be the ones to pay for the child's healthcare), a prisoner is in the custody of the state. So, even some fiscal conservatives might still conclude that the government is responsible for the healthcare of prisoners even if they are against public healthcare in general.

Cases like this though, show what is wrong with the system. People like me, who have a conservative fiscal viewpoint, would say this is absolutely why we should NOT have government-sponsored healthcare. It only leads people to cheat the system to get the government to pay for their problems. However, some liberals could argue that this is why we DO need public healthcare - the fact that someone would need to rob a bank to get the government to pay for their medical needs shows what is wrong with society. While both sides would likely agree with that statement, I must differ with the liberals on the conclusion.

That being said, it is no coincidence that crime rates go up in winter. The book Freakonomics discussed this a little bit. While conventionally this is attributed to more hours of darkness, the authors concluded that this was not the case. They found, by analyzing the difference in temperature instead of the difference in daytime hours, that it was really due to the colder temperatures - presumably, the poor people knew that the only way they could get a roof over their heads, good healthcare, and three meals a day was to go to prison, so they did precisely that. Granted, the cities that have warmer winter temperatures are often located further south, and as such have longer daylight hours in the winter (and shorter in the summer). However, the authors specifically looked at cities where this wasn't the case. For instance, Seattle is warmer in the winter than Washington, DC, but DC is further south (thus longer daylight compared to Seattle). However, DC saw the higher crime increase.

The article also attempts to make a case for public healthcare, saying that it is no different from private healthcare because

"How do socialist systems pay for health care? Taxes are collected from businesses and citizens, and a portion of those taxes go to cover the health care costs of everyone in the plan - in other words, everyone in the country.

How do health insurance systems pay for health care? Premiums are collected from businesses and employees, and a portion of those premiums go to cover the health care costs of everyone in the plan."'

However, there are two fundamental flaws in this argument. First of all, it does not allow for choice. If I don't need top-notch private healthcare, I don't have to pay for it. I can't be forced to put money into a system I gain nothing from.

Second of all, one of the critical factors in this case is that Mr. Verone did not have a job, and therefore did not have a healthcare plan. However, one of the reasons there are problems with the economy is that the government is forcibly taking our money (aka "taxing us") to pay for social welfare for the unemployed. French economist Frederic Bastait introduced the concept of "the seen vs. the unseen" in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas. While on the surface level, the poor appear to benefit from welfare programs, in fact it does not help them significantly and hurts the economy as a whole. Bastait points out a smaller-scale scenario: suppose you live in a town with 100 other residents. The other 100 residents all have jobs paying $35,000 a year and you have no job and consequently earn nothing. The government can opt for the social welfare option and take $350 from everyone through taxes, and give it to you as a "welfare program". This is similar to what governments do now - it is the "seen". You now have $35,000, which is significantly better than you were before, and everyone else only loses 1% of their income, which isn't much. However, this doesn't take into account the "unseen" -what would happen if not for the taxes. Everyone's $350 would go back into the economy, and in the long run, instead of the $35,000 going to you to do absolutely nothing, it will create a new job market and you will be able to get a job and be paid $35,000 to contribute to the economy. This in turn will allow the economy to grow, which will create more jobs, and so on. So, in an America without social welfare programs, then assuming the government didn't use the tax revenue for some other form of wasteful spending and instead gave the taxes back to the people, the economy would be better off, and, aside from deliberate bums, in the long run nobody would be worse off. -

So clearly our system is broken. We should not be rewarding people who cheat the system. We should certainly not be rewarding people who commit a crime to cheat the system (that is, another crime in addition to fraud for the said system cheating). Increasing public healthcare will only lead to more cheating of the system. We already see it with other public welfare programs such as foodstamps. Most people receiving food stamps should not be eligible, but they fudge or fake data so it seems like they are. And often, they will turn down marginally-paying jobs that will take them just above the threshold to ensure that their eligibility continues. Privatizing welfare programs would lead to less system cheating   and stop wasting our tax dollars. Mr. Verone's situation is very sad, but the system involved is even sadder.

Gary Johnson for President 2012 (and why I'm not Completely Sold on Ron Paul but Still Support Him)

Note: This post was originally titled "Gary Johnson for President 2012 (and why I don't like Ron Paul)". However, the purpose of this post was never to criticize Paul, but rather to say that I don't particularly agree with him on certain issues. I think Paul would make a good president. But I think Johnson would make a great president.


I have mentioned before that I consider myself to be a libertarian. Sometimes I support the Libertarian Party while other times I don't. Many libertarians feel that Ron Paul is the answer to all our problems. However, I am not entirely sold on him.

There is no doubt in my mind that "Dr. No" will cut federal spending significantly. This is a major accomplishment, especially in light of current events. However, in terms of government power overall, I fear he will simply give authority to the states. Authority that should not be given to any government, whether local or national. For instance, Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which would prevent the federal government from establishing a definition of marriage and allow states to make their own laws regarding what is and isn't marriage, however discriminatory they may be. Additionally, Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which removed DOMA challenges from the jurisdiction of the federal court.

As I have said before, I support marriage privatization - let the government recognize any union by two consenting adults, but don't call it marriage. But that being said, same-sex couples should be allowed all the same rights as married couples. It shouldn't be left up to the government to decide what is or isn't marriage, regardless of which government that is. That is only one example of where Paul would give authority to the states - the War on Drugs being another along with laws concerning abortion and medical research.

I appreciate Paul's efforts to improve our civil liberties in some areas, for instance opposing the PATRIOT Act. However, I feel that there is a libertarian-leaning Republican who will protect our liberties, cut spending significantly, and (unlike Paul) reduce government authority instead of transferring it. That candidate is Gary Johnson. When he was governor of New Mexico for two terms, he was called "the most fiscally conservative governor in America". Indeed, he earned this honor, using his line-item veto to ensure the state had a balanced budget the whole time he was in office.

As governor, Johnson created 20,000 new jobs in the state. However, Johnson says he did not actually actually create them. Instead, as he pointed out recently,

"I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor. We kept government in check, the budget balanced, and the path to growth clear of unnecessary regulatory obstacles. My priority was to get government out of the way, keep it out of the way, and allow hard-working New Mexicans, entrepreneurs and businesses to fulfill their potential. That’s how government can encourage job growth, and that’s what government needs to do today."

In other words, Johnson didn't actually create new jobs with taxpayer money like the Financial Stimulus did. Instead, he reduced government spending, giving more money to the people and companies of New Mexico, which in turn created jobs. 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat talked about "the seen and the unseen". Well, the unseen effect of high government spending certainly revealed itself in New Mexico. Spending money to promote job growth actually hurts job growth, and Johnson knows that.

However, Ron Paul is fiscally conservative too. What distinguishes Johnson is his focus on all civil liberties, returning them all to the people instead of letting the states run free like Congress does now. Johnson (like me) supports full marriage privatization, giving civil unions to all couples, male and female, and letting churches and individuals decide who is and isn't married. He also is fully pro-choice, though he does believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, calling it "judicial legislation". And frankly, though I too support a woman's right to choose, he's probably right. That being said, I agree with Johnson that after the case is overturned, legitimate, Congressional legislation should be passed asserting that abortion is legal. (Paul disagrees, saying it should be left up to the states).

Johnson has not been getting that much attention, primarily due to Paul's influence in the primaries. So, since virtually anyone who might consider voting for Gary will instead vote for the well-known candidate in Dr. Paul, I highly doubt Johnson has any hope of winning. I am still debating whether or not I want to switch to the GOP, since I don't particularly like the party as a whole. If I were to register in Connecticut where I go to school, I could register as an Independent and still vote in the GOP primary, but given issues that occurred in last year's general election with students, I'm not sure I want to do that either. In any case, if I do switch my registration, I must decide by mid-October, since New York doesn't switch party registrations until after the following general election, and all requests must be received 21 days before.  So I've got time to decide.

However, if I do vote for Johnson in the primary, I am confident that my vote will not be wasted. Even if he is totally a fringe candidate, I am still voting for a candidate who I genuinely support, just as I was doing when I supported LP candidate Warren Redlich for governor in 2010. If Paul were to eventually win the nomination, perhaps I'd vote for him over the LP candidate. Then again, perhaps I wouldn't. I really don't know yet. I'll figure that out later. For now, though, I am supporting Gary Johnson for President in 2012. I encourage anyone who cares about this country to do the same.

Note: This article previously indicated that Ron Paul co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act. Although he is a supporter of DOMA, Paul was not in Congress when it was passed. However, Paul did co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Act. 

15 Economic Journal Articles Will Be Posted Soon

Over the past few weeks, I have been taking a Macroeconomics course at Dutchess Community College. As part of the course, I have to write several "Economic Journal" articles a week, commenting on the state of the current economy. I have discussed reposting them to this blog, and we agreed that, after the course ends on August 11th, I will be permitted to post all the journal entries from the entire class (I cannot post any before then for academic integrity reasons). So, from August 12-August 26, expect me to publish one journal entry a day, probably in reverse chronological order to ensure that more recent events are covered first. So, stay tuned for that. It's something to look forward to!

Letter to the Editor Poughkeepsie Journal 7/16/11: "Drastic" Cuts Should Include Defense

Today, I had a letter to the editor published in the Poughkeepsie Journal. today. You can find it here or below*

'Drastic' cuts should include defense

There is a very simple solution to the impending debt ceiling crisis, but one that neither the Democrats nor Republicans wish to propose. This solution is to truly make significant government cuts. Currently, the Republicans are proposing $45 billion worth of cuts. That's a good start, but we're still running a $1.5 trillion deficit in this past year alone, so that won't help much. Really, these "drastic" cuts are essentially meaningless.
If, however, the Republicans were to agree to massive cuts to our $1 trillion defense budget (currently almost as large as the rest of the world's combined) we could make a dent in the debt. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, currently seeking the Republican nomination for president, estimates that the defense budget could be cut by as much as 90 percent without having significant effects on security. This alone would be twentyfold the Republicans' cuts. Furthermore, if we were to combine this cut with reducing, eliminating or privatizing other government agencies, we could easily turn the deficit into a surplus, and over a few years, reduce the debt without even raising taxes.
In fact, with enough cuts, we could lower taxes and reduce the debt, which would have the added benefit of boosting the economy. If we truly want to reduce the debt, we need to make far more significant cuts than Congress is even considering. And if we don't, this country will soon reach the point of financial disaster.
Gregory Koch
Poughkeepsie

*- I am  a bit upset that they implied in the title that this letter was just about defense. I was going to say cut defense and a lot of other stuff but I went over the 250-word limit. But that's fine. 

A Constitutional Thought for July 4th

It is only about two hours until July 4th. Families will hold barbeques, fireworks, parties, or in my cousin's case, an ironically timed wedding. But are we really keeping and maintaining the Constitutional values that made our country so great when it was adopted on September 17, 1787? On a side note, most Americans don't even know what event happened on July 4th - it was the date the Declaration of Independence was finalized. It is disputed whether or not it was actually signed on this date. But back on subject, the Constitutional values and the Bill of Rights have been frequently trampled on by our government. Let us take a look at these values and violations as we attempt to return to the Spirit of 1776.

Let's look at the Bill of Rights. Most people don't realize that there were actually twelve amendments in the original Bill of Rights.The first deals with the number of Representatives and is unlikely to ever be ratified due to the fact that it would create about a hundred thousand representatives. Article II read

Article the second ... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

This was finally ratified as the 27th Amendment in 1992. However, the next 10 all make up what we know today as the Bill of Rights. Most notably, there is the First Amendment, which reads

Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is this free speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petitioning of the government that was supposed to make our country so great. However, whether it was prosecuting "Communist infidels" for vaguely anti-Government statements in the 1950s or government-sanctioned Islamaphobia today, this has been violated too many times. I could make a long list, but it would take away from the rest of this post, so I won't.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 Too often I see police violating this statute. The blame lies with the citizens almost as much as with the police, however. The video above should help citizens deal with police encounters so as not to forfeit their rights under this amendment or any other amendment regarding police searches. However, as the video notes, there is one place where massive Fourth Amendment violations occur - at airports. Full body scanners and "enhanced patdowns" as well as "random searches" which allegedly are not based on racial profiling are severely restricting what should be Constitutional rights.

And while these are claimed to be in the name of national security, I haven't heard of these measures catching anyone BEFORE they got on the plane. The underwear bomber was caught by other passengers. The shoe bomber was also caught by other passengers. The 9/11 hijackers weren't caught at all. So are these helping? No. All I hear about is TSA agents humiliating 61-year old bladder cancer survivors because of their diaper bags and other horror stories. So clearly responsible citizens are better at catching terrorists and are far less invasive.

Moving on to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments...

Article the seventh .. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article the eighth ... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Once again, these have been violated, mainly in the so-called name of "national security". The PATRIOT Act and indefinite detentions at Gitmo have caused both the actual terrorists and many innocent citizens to involuntarily give up their rights to privacy. And when so-called terrorists actually are caught, they may be held indefinitely. This is not living up to our Constitutional rights.

Finally, let us look at the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

Article the eleventh .... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth ... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I tend to favor the power of the Ninth Amendment (people's rights) over the power of the Tenth (mainly states' rights). For the most part, I support the freedom of the people to live as they choose so long as they do not violate other people's rights to life, liberty, or property. Therefore, I support minimizing government to the point of only instituting services to protect people from force against those rights. As for the Tenth Amendment, when it doesn't violate the people's rights per the 9th Amendment, states may issue licenses, build roads, create police forces and courts and so on. But I believe their government role should be minimized as well. And as I've discussed before, I think secession is a Tenth Amendment right as well.

To summarize, many of our civil rights under the Constitution have been massively violated over the years. It is time to return to the Spirit of the Constitution.

On a lighter note, we should be thankful not to live in an alternate Earth where J. Edgar Hoover was elected President in 1964.

The State, Gay Marriage, and "Equal Rights"

This week, the New York State Legislature is expected to vote on whether to legalize gay marriage within the state. Celebrities have, pardon the pun, come out on various different sides of the issue. Most are extremely supportive. However, some are ardently against it, including former New York Giant and Super Bowl hero David Tyree, who said that gay marriage would "be the beginning of our country sliding toward ... anarchy". (Although some of my fellow UConn students in UConn Students for Liberty would say that's a good thing) If you want my brief opinion on what I would do if I were an NY State Senator, see the end of this post. If you want a more in-depth analysis, read on.

In all this debate, one side of the issue never gets mentioned: why have legally sanctioned marriage at all? Is it really right for the government to dictate who can and can't marry eachother? Here's what I propose (and many libertarians share my opinion)


End government-regulated marriage. Allow any group of two (or more, see below for more commentary on this) consenting adults to enter into a legal partnership (which would have a neutral name and would NOT be called "marriage") by filling out a few papers. This would give them all the rights and responsibilities that marriage currently gives, and frankly, you can give most of those to another person who you're not married to by filling out papers anyway.

Then, allow for private marriage ceremonies. These could be religious (as in at a church or other house of worship) or secular. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to sanction same-sex marriage, don't force them to (as NYS would reportedly attempt to do). Gay couples can go to another church/religious entity, or opt for the secular route (see below).

Of course, interfaith couples, athiest couples, or anyone else who doesn't want to be married by a house of worship can opt for a secular route. This would be similar to getting married by a justice of the peace, except that the person performing the ceremony would not be licensed by the state. If the couple wants a mutual friend to officiate the ceremony, they can do so. The marriage ceremony itself would have no impact in the legal sense (as only the document I discussed above would create the legal partnership), so it wouldn't matter who performed it.

This way, the religious individuals who feel marriage should be between a man and a woman can join a church who feels the same way, get married in said church, and protect the sanctity of their marriage. However, gay couples would still be entitled to the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual couples, and would be able to get a full marriage ceremony, even if that ceremony had no legal impact. And keep in mind the marriage ceremony itself would have no legal consequence for ANY couples, so it doesn't constitute discrimination.

Above, I mentioned the quote "two OR MORE consenting adults". This is because some people believe in polygamy or polyandry. Most notably, many Mormons believe that a man should have multiple wives. In this case, the man in question could obtain a legal partnership (or whatever we're calling it) with all his wives, while taking into account that certain benefits can generally only be applied to one person. For example, complications might arise with regards to who would be given guardianship of children should the husband die. This could easily be resolved however, by the husband stating who would receive these rights when he fills out the necessary paperwork to create the partnership (or when the children are born, depending on circumstances).

This would also allow for more irregular marriages, such as group marriages or line marriages. I know many groups do not condone these unions and may even consider them immoral, but it is not the government's position to declare them universally wrong. Most religious bodies would likely choose not to sanction these marriages, and that of course is their right. But for those who do choose to engage in these partnerships, they may do so with full rights, responsibilities, and ceremonies presently offered by marriage.

People are debating about whether "marriage equality" must involve gay marriage. However, as a recent Libertarian Party release phrased it, "marriage equality [is] only one step towards ending legal discrimination." To quote the release:

"Marriage equality is not enough, .... I've heard some people express concern that allowing gay marriage would send us down a slippery slope. I hope it does. We should settle for nothing less than a society in which the legal code is wiped clean of references to a person's sexual identity or depends on how many sexual partners they have. It is disgraceful that we grant government officials the power to even examine such things, let alone criminalize any peaceful conduct between consenting adults or punish them with unequal marriage, adoption, tax, or immigration laws."

Therefore, we should outlaw any legal definition of marriage and simply allow any consenting adults to enter into a neutrally-named legal partnership.If they wish to have a private marriage ceremony performed for religious, personal, or any other reasons, they may certainly do so. And if people who don't support gay marriage wish to be married by an entity that also doesn't, they may do so and as such feel that their marriage sanctity has not been violated.

Now, for my opinion on how I would vote as an NYS Senator (as promised above): given the circumstances, I wholeheartedly would support the bill. However, I feel it is only an intermediate step towards truly ending discrimination. If you just skipped down here and don't get that reference, go back up and read the whole article.

Forget Weiner - Congress Will Still Screw Us!

Yeah, that got you to look, didn't it?

Well, now the news has broken - New York Representative Anthony Weiner has admitted to sending several sexually explicit photos to young females, yet he will not resign. But the best part is - his wife is Hillary Clinton's aide. Well, at least they'll be able to start a White House support group for women with unfaithful husbands.

But seriously, what point am I trying to make here - after all, there are crooked politicians from all ideologies who lie and cheat (the latter in more ways than one). So am I saying that I feel a libertarian politician would be more honest than a liberal or conservative one? No. I'd hope that a libertarian politician would keep his integrity, but I'd hope the same for any other politician as well. But inevitably, some of us will give in to our moral weaknesses and do things we regret. As Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the Libertarian National Committee said in his weekly email message this past Monday,

That's one of the reasons why government should have as little power as possible. When human beings have the power to control others' lives, our natural fallibility makes us very dangerous.

What's worse, power tends to corrupt us and make us even more dishonest, conniving, and cruel.

We Libertarians understand that humans are fundamentally imperfect, and we will always be imperfect.

Libertarians aren't simply looking for honest politicians. We are looking for politicians who understand this problem, and who will stand on principle to take power away from government, and return it to the individual.

For those who are unfamiliar with libertarianism, Benedict uses "Libertarian" with a capital "L" because he is referring to the party. I use "libertarian" with a lower-case "l" in most cases because I am referring to followers of the philosophy, who may or may not be LP members.

But back on topic, of course there is a chance a libertarian leader in a libertarian government would do something wrong. I won't deny that. But as Benedict says, that leader would have less power and authority. So, that leader would not be as capable of having his actions spill over and effect the American well-being. If Rep. Weiner had no discretion in his personal life, why should we expect him to have discretion in his political affairs?

In fact, as Wayne Allyn Root noted on his blog, Congressman Weiner introduced a bill to loosen immigration requirements for foreign models. Don't get me wrong, I support the loosening of immigration requirements, so in theory, this would be a good law (although it shouldn't just be for models). However, you'd be kidding yourself if you thought Weiner was doing this merely because he supported open borders. He wasn't thinking out of the goodness of his heart, but out of the goodness of his ... err, let's go with "the goodness of his last name".

First of all, Anthony Weiner should definitely resign from Congress immediately. As I said, if he can't control his personal life, why should we expect him to be able to control his politics? In fact, as we saw through the model bill, he has already exhibited signs of indiscretion in that area. Second, we need to create a country with less government so that leaders like Weiner and like Governor Schwarzenegger from California who, like all humans, are prone to exhibiting indiscretion, do not have the power to exhibit that behavior in political affairs.

In fact, I said "like all humans". That is key. No human is perfect. So it would be crazy to expect our leaders to be perfect. I recognize this. That is exactly why we need to place more responsibility on the individual for their own affairs and less responsibility on the government. The logic behind this is twofold. First, the obvious - politicians are prone to indiscretion. So we need to do damage control before they cause damage.

Second, citizens are prone to indiscretions. And the government should not be policing our minor indiscretions and charging 18-year-olds with felonies, thus giving them a criminal record and ruining their entire life, merely because they had seventeen grams of marijuana in their possession which they may or may not have been smoking. The War on Drugs is beyond the scope of this post, but suffice it to say that many young adults are seeing their whole future ruined by a far-too-powerful government merely because of one indiscretion.

And for those who still feel strongly about drug prohibition, there are plenty of other examples. A CNN story from 2009 reported that eighteen-year-old Phillip Alpert was mad at his sixteen-year old girlfriend after a fight. So, in a momentary indiscretion, he sent a nude photo of her to dozens of her friends and family. He had just turned eighteen when this happened, and was charged with distribution of child pornography and placed on a sex-offender list for the rest of his life. The sex-offender list should be for rapists and pedophiles, not an eighteen-year-old boy who made one bad decision. Not to mention the fact that I must question whether someone deserves to essentially be blacklisted for life for one bad decision even if that decision was rape (that, once again, is beyond the scope of this article). Don't get me wrong, many people on the sex offender list deserve to be there, but those like Mr. Alpert certainly do not.

In fact, what Rep. Weiner did was far worse than what Mr. Alpert did, but Weiner is going to remain in Congress while Alpert essentially ruined his whole life. That doesn't seem fair. If someone in any regular profession had done what Weiner did, sending hundreds of explicit photos and messages to multiple young women over three years, then (perhaps inadvertently) posted one of those photos to my twitter feed, I would be fired from my job and you could safely bet that no employer would want to hire me. That's the kind of thing for which you somewhat deserve to be blacklisted. But Weiner, being a politician and using the authority that that position brings him, will remain in power, and will keep making our laws and running our country. That doesn't seem fair. But as I said, even without Weiner, the federal government is ruining this country. And that will continue until the role of government is substantially downsized.