The Pin Factory Blog

Committed to a meritocratic society, many States in America allow nearly anyone with the filing fee and handful of supporters to run for office. This is, of course how a body-building actor and a professional wrestler filled the governorships of California and Minnesota.

In 2008, comedians have taken over as the joke candidates, as Al Franken becomes increasingly serious in his bid for Senator in Minnesota and Steven Colbert’s short presidential campaign dies in South Carolina. Both men, comedians and commentators adored by the left, began their campaigns mocking the process, but ambiguous about their true intentions. Colbert feigned seriousness until the end, but Franken has begun to act like a real candidate and looks more like a serious candidate and threat to Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. However, as he picks up the traits of a classic candidate, one wonders: has Franken taken his candidacy to this level to further mock the others, or is he now seriously considering himself as running for office and unfortunately slipped into the characteristics he once so mocked?

Nevertheless, people frustrated with government originally loved Colbert and Franken because they mocked the process. Once comedians actually join in the fray, they lose their appeal. As Franken’s candidacy becomes more viable and he slips into the traditional candidate image, what more does he have to offer the people?

Support for those who mock the process show the frustration and dissatisfaction of most people with government administration. Comedians are meant to continually poke leaders with a stick, not become them. An attempt like Franken’s shows the problems inherent to government, that even the most stinging commentators will fall in line with the election and governing machine when placed in the position. In reality, the process needs its commentators, because it's so difficult to check the power of government from inside.

After four months here, the time has come to say goodbye to the ASI and return home to the US. Working here has been quite the experience and of what I remember, I'll never forget. I will certainly miss the guys in the office and the slice of English culture I've gotten to know.

I've had a fantastic time exploring London, but now I'm ready to return to small town life in Walla Walla, Washington and complete my undergraduate work at Whitman College. I'm especially looking forward to Senior year when I will stop paying rent on my house and simply take up residence in the library as I attempt to finish my thesis.

Good luck to the ASI and to everyone here!

The two leading democratic presidential candidates, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, have begun a war sure to last through the primary season and into the nominations. While fighting over policy and personality, many attacks concentrate on their respective plans for universal healthcare. Clinton criticizes Obama, claiming that his plan will fail to cover everyone in the nation. Obama argues in return that her plan will also leave some out. The New York Times thinks neither of the plans goes far enough, approvingly citing an economist who thinks people should be fined for not having insurance.

These policies, and the fights and commentaries that stem from them, indicate an unfortunate trend in politics – a faith in the abilities of the government and the idea that programmes like universal care will mean more freedom, not less. Many falsely view government provisions as a release from economic hardship, rather than an intrusion into individual choice. Obama should be defending his plan because it allows people to opt out, not in spite of it.

The Democrats are fighting over the wrong issue, and pandering to the belief that the success of a government programme rests on the number of people forced to abide. One would think that the voters of a party meant to be the champion of individuality should be wary of any policy which forces all citizens into anything, and candidates from a true party of freedom would argue over the openness offered by their programmes, not the coercion.

In addition to issues like foreign policy and taxation, energy (and its illegitimate cousin, environmental policy) has become a central figure of campaign platforms and stump speeches for US presidential candidates. Classically, Republicans want to increase domestic fuel supply primarily as an aim of foreign policy, while Democrats want to pursue ‘alternative energies’, mandating better fuel efficiency and stricter emissions limits for environmental reasons.

However, candidates from both sides have failed to grasp the economic realities of the situation beyond their own pandering positions. Even as oil prices stretch up to $100/barrel, most Americans still drive personal cars as their primary or only means of transport. And while factions remain that advocate environmental standards or nationalist economic policy, most Americans aren’t ready to drastically change the regular functioning of their lives for far-reaching government agendas – all they really value is lower gas prices.

The National Center for Policy Analysis has found that a major and overlooked culprit of high gas prices is not foreign oil or greedy companies but the lack of refineries, a result of clean air legislation and ethanol quotas which creates a bottle-neck in petrol production. Republicans, usually in favour of the de-regulatory policies that would increase the number of refineries, choose instead to advocate policies in line with their foreign policy, while the Democrats are apparently yet to meet an environmental regulation they don’t like.

Once again, the presidential candidates have passed over sound economics in exchange for manipulative policies that achieve their own foreign and domestic goals, leaving the American voter in the dust.

Across the country Santa's magical sleigh ride has been grounded because of health and safety, but the immediate culprits are not who you think. It seems a number of insurance companies are worried that the combined effort of riding through towns and villages while waving to children will cause the old man to tumble out of the sleigh and hurt himself. In West Midlands, Santa now must harness himself into his seat. In Northumberland, the town of Alnwick has been forced to forgo the sleigh altogether in favour of a bus. Usually, we blame these kind of frustrating and paternalistic policies on the government and Health and Safety. This time, two private insurance companies demanded that the two towns make the changes or face such high premiums that the event couldn’t go on. The companies held their ground, claiming the restrictions "protect him from the speed of his own sleigh," which, incidentally, runs at about 5mph.

This may seem odd, until we remember that it's only because of government regulation that the towns have to have insurance in the first place. The insurance industry is now taking cues from a government that encourages a culture of protectionism. The government operates under an ethos of paternalism, that it is better to keep the children indoors than let them outside to skin their knees. Out of this comes a society required to have insurance against hazard and more likely to sue when things to do go wrong. The growing philosophy of people, beginning in America and working its way over here, is that when something goes wrong there must be someone to blame and some financial compensation owed. Because of this, people expect some government or organization to hold them up when they fall, therefore more people buy insurance, more people make claims on that insurance, and premiums increase. And eventually, the regular enjoyments of life, like Santa and his sleigh, become regulated literally harnessed beyond recognition.

According to the LA Times, welfare officers in San Diego, California have the authority to search through the homes of benefit recipients to root out welfare fraud. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the regional court one level below the Supreme Court) ruled against an American Civil Liberties Union suit in favour of San Diego County. Yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

This issue raises some interesting points. First, the prohibition of government officials from searching private homes without cause is protected by the US Constitution and considered one of the cornerstone civil liberties of the nation. But to what extent do individuals give up some of these rights when they receive public funds? If the government pays your rent, does your home belong to you as a private residence or to the state? Government handouts complicate civil liberties because those liberties are fundamentally based on the rights of autonomous individuals from state intrusion, not individuals living off state funds.

Nevertheless, setting a precedent that eroding the liberties of those receiving state funds is permissible is dangerous, especially given the growing number of people who receive benefits and might now be subject to warrant-less searches.

In the San Diego case, county officials claimed that their searchers did not violate the 4th amendment because they were not searching for evidence of a crime. Police in Boston used a similar argument when trying to convince parents to allow them into homes to search for guns hidden by teenagers. Police argued that they would not charge the teens, just remove the guns in an effort to get them off the street. These are the classic arguments of government, which naturally seeks to expand its own powers.

The libertarian solution would be to end welfare benefits, as they allow the state an avenue through which to constantly expand its power. For now, courts must prioritize the protection of civil liberties, even as they are complicated by the increasing role of the state in people's lives.

The New York Times ran an article a few days ago lamenting the decline of tenure track positions in American universities. While frustratingly indicative of a fall in teacher quality and a high turnover of part time and non-tenure-track university professors, advocates forget that a high number of tenured professors probably will not improve teacher quality.

Teacher’s unions fight for tenure because it supplies the ultimate job protection; after teaching for a given number of years a teacher simply cannot be fired. Visiting professors might only stay for the year but can carry the hope and the incentive to do well, in case they might be offered a tenure-track position. Tenure-track professors will work hard too because they are faced with the incentive of increasing their rank and achieving job security. Tenured professors, on the other hand, have lost all incentive to perform at a high level. University professors are also different from teachers in lower education; many, especially at larger institutions, enter the profession not because of a drive to teach, but often because they had completed advanced study in an area and needed a job. Once offered tenure, these professors might stop teaching all together in favour of their research or publications.

Adam Smith said that teachers must have proper incentives of pay and job security in order to properly instruct students; anyone whose pay is not linked to their work will necessarily under-perform. The ability for improvement and the threat of pay cuts improve any profession, and teaching is no different. Professors must always have opportunities to advance, not a position which completely removes the incentives to do their job well.

The position of most US presidential candidates on illegal immigration seems to be, "We don't want you here, but once you're in we'll help you out." Most of them, except for the far-left Denis Kucinich, voted for the security fence along the southern border, while Edwards, Obama, and McCain have supported bills to let illegal immigrants in-state tuition at state universities. Most candidates have also voted for President Bush's guest worker programme, which would allow current illegal immigrants to come out into the open, work seasonal jobs and then return home. But apart from this guest-worker programme, most of the policies supported by the candidates are the opposite of what America needs.

If we are to treat the labour market like any other market, workers should be able to cross borders just like any other good in a free trade system. Workers come to America to pick up jobs that the nation requires, like fruit picking, but have been priced out of the American labour market by the minimum wage. The construction of a fence or other measures to curtail this practice mean that the symbiotic relationship between American industries and illegal workers has begun to break down, with the possibility of harming the American economy more than most people realize.

However, this economic thinking is far from the mindset of most Americans, who fear the threat of illegal immigrants both in terms of national security and their own jobs. Granted, workers function a bit differently than goods like bananas or car parts, possibly demanding health care, education, and other social services. But the reactionary position of most Americans toward immigrants means our candidates support policies in line with similar thinking, no matter the economic story. In reality, their position should be, "we do want you here to take those jobs that we don't want, but we won't help you out if you choose to come and then can't support yourself." Assuming that the workers cross the border to gain better employment than they could at home, a policy like this would benefit all parties involved.

The Daily Telegraph has reported a story about a Welsh couple prevented from moving to New Zealand because each was considered vastly overweight and therefore a likely strain on health services. Mr Trezise had secured a highly skilled job for Telecom, but had to go on a crash diet in order to enter the country. His wife, unable to lose the extra pounds, has still not joined him.

Now, arguments have arisen that this is discrimination and stigmatization, but aren't these the kind of problems a nation faces when the government decides to provide health care? Private health companies won’t allow you to buy a policy with a serious pre-existing health problem, and when services like health become nationalized it makes sense that unhealthy people would then be banned from the nation providing the service.

Once the government becomes the health insurer, translating health policy into immigration policy isn’t that drastic of a step, neither is drinking policy or smoking policy – both of which we've seen in the UK. Once the government gains one power, it can expand its purview into all manner of life activities, all justified under keeping you healthy and safe. Start to scale back those powers (less socialized healthcare, for example) and the state has fewer justifications for control. Funny how that works.

One of the biggest problems facing the US health system is that care simply costs more in America that almost anywhere else in the world. The high costs have a number of factors, but one of the largest is the amount of regulation and intervention by American governments and insurance companies. The National Center for Policy Analysis has just issued a report highlighting a response to these extremely high prices and a new trend in globalization: medical tourism. For years wealthy individuals from all over the world have been travelling to America for high quality care. Now, many medical tourists from America are travelling to Latin America or Southern Asia to receive nearly the same quality care but at affordable prices.

Obvious concerns arise about this practice, mainly over the quality of care. However, many of these nations are not that far behind the western world and the numbers of patients seeking this care continues to rise, evidence of the care they received. In addition to this new kind of travel, other medical services, like the analysis of lab results, can be done outside of the country to further utilize non-American expertise. We shall have to wait and see what changes like these do to the health industry, but here a free trade in healthcare might be just what’s needed to end the 'crisis'. Individuals can travel to wherever they can afford the care, and the professional health industry will thrive in less advantaged nations, aiding growth. Now, please, just don’t regulate it.