AYN RAND

Now you got me thinking about Ayn Rand. We studied Ayn Rand in Economics. We did not read her books but rather studied two concepts regarding Ayn Rand: her views in relation to the Rational Consumer and her views on Marxism.

Note: pretty much said to myself 30 some years ago that Rand was right. Never really bothered going back and studying Rand as I was already sold.

Here is what I took away from Ayn Rand 30 some years ago:

Ayn Rand can surely be a lightning rod. However, Ayn Rand did not come up with, nor is the founder of, the ideas of Freedom, self interest and self direction. Rand merely took the concepts of Freedom, self interest and self direction and placed those ideas into the context of the “individual”.

The concept of Freedom is based upon, and for the benefit of, the Individual. It would be hard to discuss the concept of freedom without discussing the individual.

Self interest and self direction are the result of freedom. You might even say one is endowed with self interest and self direction once the individual achieves freedom. You might even say once freedom is achieved by the individual and now the individual is endowed with self interest and self direction, then one becomes the Sheppard of those endowments. Does one Sheppard the ideas objectively or rationally? On average, yes.

Taking the idea of Freedom, which then spawns self interest and self direction, and trying to describe these ideas in a conceptional context, might leave one to use the terms egotism or greed. Egotism or greed are “action” terms of an Individual. If you remove “action” you might go back and describe Freedom, self interest, and self direction as The Natural State of Being. Its merely a starting point that leads to action.

Once you arbitrarily label the concept of Freedom, self interest and self direction, the next step is to describe the concept in use (the action). Describe the use or mechanics. Once again you can pick from a variety of terms and arbitrarily assign. Rand used Objectivism. It could be argued Objectivism comes from the concept in Economics of the “Rational Consumer”. In other words, since you have the freedom to choose, then on the average, having been endowed with self direction and self interest, you then choose “rationally” given the tools of individual self interest and self direction. Or you could say you choose Objectively rather than Rationally.

Tons of research has been done on rational choices or objective choices. One can argue the summation of these choices then creates the Aggregate Rational Choice. That the Aggregate Rational Choice is strongly related to Aggregate Rational Utility. That Aggregate Rational Choice has to be related to Aggregate Rational Utility as it’s a collection of all individual self direction and all individual self interest made while in a state of Freedom.

What we learned about Ayn Rand and Marxism applied today:

Here, watch me apply what we learned from Rand 30 years ago.

Marxists such a as Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the left wing of current Democrat Party are making the common thread error of Marist Economics: they do not see that the mere existence of Government is dependent on Transfer Payments from the Private Sector.

In the Federalist Papers many of the arguments for a Central Government included the argument that any Central Government needed funded by Transfer Payments. The arguments in the Federalist Papers was to provide limited Transfer Payments to provide a very narrow size and scope of a Central Government that would provide for the Common Defense of the several and many States and regulation of commerce between the several and many States. In other words, one of the arguments in the Federalist Papers was that Central Government could only exist if funded by Transfer Payments from the many and several states.

Its well known in Comparative Economic Analysis that the Marxist Political Class always makes a moral argument to the Producer Class that Transfer Payments are necessary to the Recipient Class. However, the Marxist Political Class, in order to retain power and control ,want the Transfer Payments funneled through “Government”. Without Government as the transfer mechanism then the Marxist Political Class can not derive power. The core problem with Marxism is then exposed: the moral argument is merely a veiled power argument.

One can clearly state that over time it has became apparent to the Marxist Political Class that the “Transfer Payment” is the conduit to their power.

The Marxist Political Class is all about Theater and Power. They see Transfer Payments as a conduit to power yet are so unsophisticated as to have any true understanding of the dynamics of Transfer Payment let alone the source of the Transfer Payment.

One could go on to say that the Marxist Political Class is so unsophisticated in economics, yet so sophisticated in Theater and Power, that they have concentrated all their attention on the Transfer Payment to derive power that they become completely clueless to the Transfer Payments economic source as well as the Transfer Payments final economic effects once transferred. The Transfer Payment is paramount to the Marxist Political Class and all else surrounding the Transfer Payment is merely background noise.

The idea that the Transfer Payment is paramount to Power makes sense as the Transfer Payment itself is the Power. The dynamics surrounding Transfer Payments doesn’t generate Power hence the concept is cast aside with the exception of the creation of the Welfare State. That is, Marxists know that the power derived from the Transfer Payment is perpetuated by the creation of the Recipient Class Welfare State. The Recipient Class Welfare State is dependent on the Transfer Payment and hence dependent upon the Marxist.

However, the Marxist being all about Theater and Power, seeing the Transfer Payment in a very narrow Power context, make a simple mistake that simpletons generally make: kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

This is the point where Marxism, and in this particular case Marxists such as Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the current left wing of the Democrat Party, activate the fatal flaw of Karl Marx Economics: The Marxist has to have a Bad Guy as it makes for good Theater and legitimizes the Transfer Payment.

The Fall Guys for the Marxist is the Private Sector and those who have created Wealth. The Private Sector is demonized and needs controlled. Those that have created Wealth need taxed and the Wealth needs redistributed. The Transfer Payments need to be legitimized, hence the Class Warfare Argument (Recipient Class vs. Private Sector and those have created Wealth).

The now demonic and over regulated Private Sector begins to produce less and less revenue for Transfer Payments. Wealth is no longer generated and past Wealth is redistributed and this source of revenue for Transfer Payments dries up quickly. As the revenue sources for Transfer Payments fall, Marxists must then raise taxes as the Transfers Payments must continue or the Power Conduit dries up.

As taxes rise the demonized Private Sector produces even less revenue for Transfer Payments. Therefore continuous rounds of tax increases occur until the Golden Goose is dead.

The bottom line in Comparative Economic Analysis is that Marxism always fails as the Producer Class becomes the Recipient Class. With no Producers left to fund the Transfer Payments to the Recipient Class the whole scheme fails. Ever wonder what was the basis for Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote “Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money”? Her quote is based on the results of Comparative Economic Analysis of Marxism.

A final point, when you hear the phrase Private Sector you likely think of Businesses , Companies, or Corporations. That is part of the story. The Private Sector is made up of Business and Households. Households means you. Which is larger in terms of Capital Goods owned and Economic Production: Businesses or Households? Households. Which segment owns the most Wealth? Households. Hence Marxism is a circular argument accusing you of being you.

? ? ? W.E. Heasley

Jerry,

Thanks for your response. Maybe characterizing it as personal was overreaching on my part. It’s the prejudice that comes from some Christians that believe their belief is the only moral path that puts me on the defensive. Trust me, if you grow up in the Midwest or South as I did rejecting religion is not the easiest path. It is only taken after much study and searching for truth and morality. When you dismiss Don’s and my morals, seemingly with no attempt or care at how we arrived at them, it does peak the emotions.

As for deism, I had never heard before that anyone believed Adam Smith’s invisible hand was Gods hand. I was shocked to hear you take that position and went back to Wealth of Nations and other texts I could find and still believe you are entirely mistaken here. Deism by definition means that God does not have his hand on the everyday workings of the universe so it naturally follows that those founders that were deists did not think the personal God of fundamentalists was a moral necessity.

Maybe I do worship reason. I think that is a little bit strong. I certainly do not worship Rand or anyone else but I do have admiration for a broad spectrum of thinkers. I certainly understand where Hitchens and the so called new atheists are coming from although my search for truth and reality does not lead me to think less of Christians. That is because I know that well of 90% of them accept the faith because it helps them cope with life and they are looking for a moral compass too. I think they are misguided but certainly agree with their aspirations. Although I am not one of you I always say that Christians (of today for the most part) make good neighbors. I cannot say the same for the Christian zealots in our history or the contemporaries of Islam today. I am very thankful that our founding fathers understood this because in different times I might have been burned as a heretic.

I think that if you look at the tape of the appearance in question you will realize that you owe Don an apology. He was very respectful of your belief and finally became overwrought at your attacks on the morality of anyone who does not agree philosophically with you. I did not know he was an atheist. Very few people know I am because I do not choose to proselyte and I live in a time and an area where too many do automatically question you morality if that is known. My own values prevent me from lying so when asked directly I always say what I believe. Thankfully, that question is generally not asked, expect by Jehovah Witnesses and Southern Baptists, before the person knows me well enough to know I’m not an immoral person.

I’m just trying to live a good life and find the truth. Trust me I have explored and been exposed to your way. It’s just distressing to be told I am immoral because I do not believe the incredible stories you accept.

Hope you had a Merry Christmas. My wife and I did with our kids, their spouses, and grandkids, who are about 90% Christian. But they love me anyway.

Thanks,

Tom Foreman

Begin forwarded message:
From: Jerry Bowyer
Date: December 25, 2009 5:26:47 PM MST
To: Tom Foreman
Subject: RE: Cnbc and Rand

Tom, I don't know why in the world you should feel personally attacked by the existence of positions other than your own. And I have no idea why you think that Jefferson's deism is a problem for my position. Deism is a form of theism, which I defended on the show. Why is it that the guys who reject God in order to worship reason, end up so driven by emotion?

Jerry

You were right on as usual. Seems like an awful lot of people mischaracterize Ayn Rand's work. I'm disappointed in Jerry and Larry who just seem to miss the point.

Very brave of you to reveal your religious view on national TV...

PS: I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist, weighted heavily towards atheist. I believe in science and that the scientific approach is the best we can do.

Alan Kachelmyer

Wow what a segment! First off I'm a fan of yours and any death threats need to stop now. I also happen to be a 20 year Christian with an econ degree from a private Christian school. That school emphasized free markets and highlighted people like Smith, Hayek and Friedman. I have read and admire Rand. Having said that, there were several misstatements and mischaracterizations in this "debate".

1. Bowyer never said Christianity specifically was necessary for capitalism, he just pointed out that our founders believed rights came from a higher power than the government. They put that in our founding document. I didn't hear you acknowledge that. Exempting you of course, those that reject God as a concept are more likely to reject the document, since the document appeals to a higher authority.

2. Bowyer was wrong to imply that Smith meant the invisible hand was God's. It refers to the fact that things get done in a decentralized, bottom up way rather than a top down, command fashion.

3. Rand insisted that people pursue their number one value. If helping others is your number one value, then charity is Randian is it not? Christ asked that people make him their number one value. I see no conflict between the two.

4. It is typical for smart people to think their generation is smarter or more morally advanced than previous generations. Rand suffered from that as well. Rand rejects first hand testimony as evidence. She is wrong. Every court accepts eye witness testimony as evidence. She thinks that the great cloud of witnesses of the first century were all dupes, fooled by an illusionist. She is wrong. John 20:30-31

5. As others have pointed out there is a great confusion as to what greed and selfishness are. We live in a society where people freely trade with others. The more people you can trade with, the more you can amass. If you possess something rare, you can charge a higher price. Since leftists don't understand what wealth is or how its created, they assume that great wealth is a sign of wrongdoing. Say I attend a party with 20 others and a plate of cookies are set out. If I eat half myself, and stick some in my coat pockets I'm obviously greedy. If, on the other hand, I employ those 20 people and keep half the profit I certainly am not. We entered into a voluntary relationship wherein both sides understood the compensation. Matthew 20:1-16 is very instructive in this issue. If you agree to do work for a certain price, why are you murmuring?

6. There is a dangerous movement within Christianity to outsource "dogooding" to the government. These people basically want government to help the needy through tax redistribution schemes so they won't have to help anyone themselves. This isn't biblical. Furthermore, it is the religious left that is behind universal health care and cap and trade. If you listen to them, they are making MORAL arguments for these.

Whereas the religious right tends to believe in individual rights and responsibilities, the religious left is pushing collective rights and responsibilities. The latter is far more dangerous. They'll inevitably end up using force. Robert McAdams

I want to thank and congratulate you for your appearance last night on the Kudlow Report. You made the best argument I've heard, outside ARI staff members, for the crucial difference between the altruistic vs the individualistic idea of Freedom and how it is unalterably connected to laissez faire capitalism. Your opponent's assertion that "freedom is not selfish" and that Randians have never made a good case that it IS was patently ridiculous. To say that he just doesn't get it would be a gross understatement. And, to the suggestion that Americans will never accept that "kind of capitalism" - I just have to say "Speak for yourself, sir."

An even more relevant quote from Smith is the following:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages." -- The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter II

Of course, Mr. Bowyer would have denied that this is the "proper" reading of Smith, but then he would only be confessing his ignorance.

Thank you again, and I'm thanking Mr. Kudlow for devoting so much time to the issue of Miss Rand's current popularity.

Stephen and Marina Coffee

I think your debate with Bowyer over whether "selfishness" is good is a 'potato' 'potato' argument. I think the English language can be limited at times and this is an example. Technically, it is "selfish" for me to demand to be paid as much as I can get or a business charge as much as it can. But that's balanced by my employer paying me as little as I'll accept and me paying a business for their service or item as little as I can. When we all operate like that things run smoother and markets operate efficiently. It's snowing where I'm live now so while its "selfish" for a store to sell snow shovels it also suits my interest for them to be "selfish" in that regard. Concerning markets, I think the two of you are saying the same basic thing in a different way.

On where freedom comes from I do have to disagree with you as much as it pains me. Jerry is correct that if our right to freedom does come from a higher power otherwise we don't have a right to it. Now that right is to every person whether they are an atheist, Christian, Muslim or Jew. We have been given the freedom to choose to believe what we want. To me that's the beauty of God and Christianity. God has given us the freedom to believe in Him or not to believe in Him. Whether you do or don't doesn't determine whether you have a right to freedom. If our right to freedom does not come from a higher power than it is not a true right but a preference because then it is completely subjective and not objective. Something cannot be a right and be subjective. If freedom does not come from a higher power than it can be determined by man that we do not have the right to freedom.

Anyways, that's my two cents on it. I love your blog. It's one of the first things I look at every morning so keep up the great work. Merry Christmas!

Michal Emory

I love you and Larry and Jerry and have read all of Ayn Rand's books, some twice, but Jerry and Larry were off base tonight.

They are confusing selfishness with Rand's "rational self interest." Her atheism is a product of her upbringing in the Soviet Union and is not directly related to her theories on Freedom and Capitalism.

I am a practicing Christian. One of the reasons for this is based on the rational self interest that it "makes me feel better."

I know Larry feels that he has recovered from his alcoholism and drug abuse through his faith in a higher power, unfortunately this totally over shadowed his feelings on selfishness and atheism.

I don't know what Jerry's problem was tonight but he was totally off the wall.

YOU are NOT immoral or NOT entitled to freedom because of your faith choices.

Sorry to have watched that train wreck,

Paul Ringstrom

Thanks for your articulate and reasoned defense of Rand, Adam Smith's "invisible hand", and your courageous broaching of "non-belief".

Jerry really made a fool of himself, esp regarding "greed" (not a word Rand advocated), "selfishness" (or rational self-interest as Rand properly poses the issue), and her "atheism" (she preferred to consider herself a "passive" atheist since the term had no place in her philsophy since reason if applied would rule it out. If Boyer is so well-read on Madison, Jefferson, et al fouders, he should realize that because of them, we do have separation of church & state, founding documents without mention of god or religion or christianity, and therefore freedom of religion as well as freedom from it. What a country!

Ken Hankinson

I watched and enjoyed your Ayn Rand segment with Jerry Bowyer on the Kudlow show.

During the last, 9-minute-long part, I took a tally of every time the screen was interrupted with a field of stars or red-white-and-blue boxing gloves along with a rumbling sound effect. I counted 15 such sound effects, averaging one every 36 seconds. (I imagine some pimply geek in the control room adding the sound effect at random intervals.) The sound effect is a pretty meaningless feature.

I wonder why anybody ever thought it would enhance the show.

Mark Spahn

Dear Don,

I saw the “showdown” with Jerry Bowyer on Kudlow tonight and I just wanted to let you know that I couldn’t agree with you more about Ayn Rand and her sentiments.

Bowyer has perhaps the largest head made of shit in the entire universe. I wish Kudlow would dump his monkey ass as a commentator – he sucks.

I wish you all the best.

Matt Hummel

Luskin's an ATHEIST!!!!!

Stay in California

DO NOT COME TO TEXAS. WE GOT GUNS AND GOD

SGOLDSTRAW

Sending copy of what I sent Jerry Bowyer here.

Jerry

I am generally a big fan but felt you were attacking me personally today. Rand had her personal character problems but to attribute any failings to her atheism is specious.

The creator referred to by Jefferson was small "g" deist god. He, Franklin, Madison, thankfully gave us a government that protects us from zealots. I was distressed to hear you say these founders, Don Luskin and I are immoral by your definition.

Thanks for your market and trade positions, but not for your moral ones.

Tom Foreman

I've enjoyed watching you over the years on Larry Kudlow's various shows; and as a Hayek, Friedman free-market economists and an atheist I applaud your overall support of freedom and your arguments in regards to Ayn Rand on tonights Kudlow Report. I also don't understand why the religious right, including Kudlow and Boyer who I almost always agree with, can't separate morality, freedom and economics from religion.

Anyway, I just wanted to say good job tonight and I continually enjoy your commentary.

Take care,

Russell Rhine

Larry and Don,

I am versed as well as anyone in the philosophy of Objectivism. I want to make just a few short points about your conversation today. Objectivism is a philosophy of life. It among other things identified the nature of man as a living entity that by his nature must make choices.

From this came Ayn's advocacy of freedom. Man must be free to choose. With that comes all of the innovations we have today. Yes, Ayn was an atheist because of her rejection of mysticism. She refused to accept anything without proof. She rejected theism because it was an act of blind faith. To argue this is a separate subject than her advocacy of capitalism. But let me say, Ayn was a very spiritual person. She was just not a believer in a God in heaven.

Selfishness is a different subject still again. There is no word in the English language for self interest. Ayn uses the terms as synonymous. She rejects greed or any other irrational act as selfless. She believes in rational self interest. She has said herself that she may choose to throw herself in front of a bullet aimed at her husband. And if she chose to do so it would not be an act of self sacrifice but the most selfish thing she would ever do.

Selfishness, according to Rand, is pursuing and protecting your highest values. Each tenant of Objectivism rest on the previous premise: Existence exists. Man's role is to correctly identify the facts of reality. He needs to choose his course. He needs freedom to do so. And capitalism is the expression of that freedom. The result: a fountainhead of inventions, innovation, and prosperity.

That is why Ayn Rand is so popular.

Thanks for your time,

Paul Nathan

Absolutely LOVED you on the Kudlow Ayn Rand segment. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for your lucid arguments. I sent the following email to Mr. Kudlow IMMEDIATELY after the segment. Best holiday wishes to you and your family.

Mr. Kudlow,

I’m a big fan and watch you often, although I was sufficiently upset over the Ayn Rand segment today to be provoked to write. Your characterization of her idea of selfishness is extremely flawed and regrettably was really a disservice to the segment.

I’ve studied Rand’s work for 30 years, and I’ve yet to find anywhere that Any Rand ever advocated the general idea of not helping others. Her idea of selfishness (see the book: The Virtue of Selfishness) is based on the idea that a responsible and rational human being has the obligation, and the absolute right, to ascertain for themselves their hierarchy of values. To be selfish is to reject and resist surrendering those values, meaning one never exchanges or sacrifices any part of their life or values for less than what they’re worth. A corollary to this is that no person or entity has the right to decide for someone else what are their values and their worth, meaning forced or coerced charity is highly immoral; hence her utter contempt for altruism.

Her definition of selfishness has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of helping others or not, other than any such actions must be according to one’s own choices and consistent with one’s values.

If you insist on linking the idea of helping others or not with the definition of selfishness, and you’re correct in your statement that millions have read her work and found something of benefit, then by your own definition, she must be one of the most unselfish people that ever lived.

Regards,

Dan McCollum

Oh boy Jerry Bowyer! He knows about half of any subject he ever discusses. That would be the Jerry Bowyer half of any particular subject.

“What Invisible Hand?! What Invisible Hand!” Gezzz! You need to mail Bowyer an “invisible hand”. It would be a very inexpensive gift!

You surely know better than I, but it sure seems to me that Ayn Rand’s ideas are very close to Milton Friedman’s concept of freedom to choose.

Also, self direction and self determination is Ayn Rand as well as Milton Friedman.

The bottom line being, the lack of freedom to choose, the lack of self direction, the lack of self determination are usually lacking due to Statism. When the State gets involved it always seems to curb “self” and ”choice” and replace the concepts with “collective” and “predetermined”.

To me, religion is a separate distinct issue from Economics. Period. However, religion in the USA, going back in history, and those that came to the “New World” did so for “Freedom to Choose” religion. Hence religion in the USA is firmly based in self direction, self determination, and freedom to choose.

PS: Do you think Michael Pinto is Jerry Bowyer's love child?

W.E. Heasley

Two cheers for San Francisco. At least one agency in the city by the bay has been trying to require non-profits that receive public funds to show concrete results in return for the money...

A recent article tells the story about what happened when the city’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) tried to institute performance management back in 2007. It wasn’t pretty. Here’s a bit about what happened:

...Grant seekers were told that in the next funding cycle, they would be required — for the first time — to provide quantifiable proof their programs were accomplishing something.

The room exploded with outrage. This wasn't fair. "What if we can bring in a family we've helped?" one nonprofit asked. Another offered: "We can tell you stories about the good work we do!" Not every organization is capable of demonstrating results, a nonprofit CEO complained. He suggested the city's funding process should actually penalize nonprofits able to measure results, so as to put everyone on an even footing. Heads nodded: This was a popular idea.

For non-profits, intentions often substitute for results. But with California’s well-documented state budget woes, government can’t just spend money on good intentions.

Did you ever wonder (if you can, adopt an Andy Rooney type voice) from where exactly — besides Washington, D.C. -- bad ideas originate? It is Oregon?

Let’s ask “Southern Oregon’s News Source,” the Mail Tribune, if Oregon’s new Senator, Mr. Jeff Merkley, has some new ideas to share with the country. Something controversial to toss into the Senate healthcare bill at the last minute, perhaps?

The [Senate healthcare] bill mandates companies with 50 or more employees to provide insurance. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley's amendment requires construction contractors with five or more employees to provide insurance, he said.

...Merkley, D-Ore., in an e-mail response, stated he wanted the provision because 90 percent of construction firms employ fewer than 20 workers, leaving most of the employees in the trade without insurance.

Companies that do provide insurance would be at a competitive disadvantage to many businesses that don't provide the coverage, Merkley said. The provision he added would level the playing field, he said.

In addition, taxpayers would be forced to subsidize the health care cost of these employees if this amendment wasn't included, he stated.

Merkley said 64 percent of the organizations representing the construction industry supported the amendment, such as the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, the Mechanical Contractors Association of America and the National Electrical Contractors Association.

Wow, sounds like you’ve got it all figured out! So you say “64% of the organizations” support...screwing the other 36%?

Did you hear from anyone opposed?

John Killin, a spokesman for the Independent Electrical Contractors of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors Inc., criticized a last-minute amendment inserted into the health bill that he said will harm small construction businesses.

..."It was literally amended in at the last minute," he said. "We vehemently said, 'No please don't do that to us.' "

Where did you, Mr. Merkley, get this clever idea?

One possibility is a person named Lake, who is quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

Lake Coulson, executive director of government affairs for the National Electrical Contractors Association, which has 4,500 members, said his organization supported the change. "We felt the exemption was too wide," he said. "It's an unfair competitive advantage for the companies that don't provide it that we compete against."

The trouble starts when the Senate healthcare draws a line at 50 employees — on or above that line, the employer must provide insurance. Below 50 employees, only the individual mandate applies. Senator Merkley seems to think the solution is to replace the number “50” with “5” but only for the construction industry. Screw the small business people who risk everything! (Did the union lobbyists point out that the guys you’ve attacked have automatic hammers?)

What comes of all this? In Washington, every interest has its own lobby. Expect the national organizations of the small construction firms, especially the home builders, to shower enough attention, aggravation and campaign money on enough House Democrats that they will amend or kill the Merkley Amendment.

See? It all works out. A leftist, newbie Democratic Senator starts a fight which can only be resolved by other Democrats! One party rule works for them!

All we need now is for Joe Biden to show up and tell us how many jobs proposing and then killing the Merkley Amendment created or saved!

And to all...a good night!

Paul Krugman has, at the apparent request of New York Times 'management,' clarified a column to make clear that he did not wish any physical harm to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

Krugman wrote on December 18th [link] that progressives should be angry about the way the Senate health care bill was compromised, but they should not try to kill the legislation.

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you're disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

Someone must have interpreted this statement as a threat against Lieberman, because Krugman stuck this statement into his latest piece:

Management wants me to make it clear that in my last column I wasn't endorsing inappropriate threats against Mr. Lieberman.

The Wall Street Journal editorial writers do their usual excellent job spraying truth on the weeds here in Washington. Especially deserving of some “round-up” is the AMA, of course, an organization which lost its way decades ago:

Other deceptions include a new entitlement for long-term care that starts collecting premiums tomorrow but doesn't start paying benefits until late in the decade. But the worst is not accounting for a formula that automatically slashes Medicare payments to doctors by 21.5% next year and deeper after that. Everyone knows the payment cuts won't happen but they remain in the bill to make the cost look lower. The American Medical Association's priority was eliminating this "sustainable growth rate" but all they got in return for their year of ObamaCare cheerleading was a two-month patch snuck into the defense bill that passed over the weekend

. The AMA just got tricked, pricked and licked. No wonder they are losing members.

What about the Senators who signed off on all this madness? In particular, given his importance as “Mr. 60,” let’s take a closer look at the now famous Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson. Or, should we call you “bent,” Mr. Nelson?”

In British slang, “bent” means corrupt, among other things.

The plucky and conservative Washington Examiner seems to think he’s bent, running quotes from Fox News and a few Republican Senators, all saying he was bought: “Bent” and “bought” both imply a compliant Mr. Nelson, succumbing to influence.

I’d speculate that it was Mr. Nelson who was in control of this particular movie, “wrastlin’ the boxer,” Mr. Reid, to accept his conditions or else get nothing, as the other non-Republican Senators hung around the set, pointlessly, as if they were merely 58 extras.

Here’s the New York Times describing Ben as he executes a full-nelson inside the Senate, while outside, a blizzard interrupts Global Warming Week (Pictures added):

As the Senate convened in a blizzard, Democratic leaders hailed a breakthrough that came when Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, agreed to back the bill after 13 hours of negotiations on Friday, making him the pivotal 60th vote for a measure that President Obama has called his top domestic priority. ‘Change is never easy, but change is what’s necessary in America,’ Mr. Nelson said at a morning news conference. ‘And that’s why I intend to vote,’ he said, ‘for health care reform’.

The blue-dog catchers over at the American Spectator catch the real motivation behind Ben:

But Nelson collected his three pieces of silver. Nebraska will receive a permanent federal subsidy to cover the costs of increased Medicaid eligibility under the bill while all other states will have to start picking up the tab for their share in 2017.

Maybe this deal is only a half-Nelson, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi still has to get the votes for a revised (but not too much) version in the House while steering around opposition from Stupak & Co., send it back to the Senate which then needs to pass Nancy’s revised version before it goes to President “Will Sign Anything 4-U.”

Note that Ben warns that if his special deal is altered, he’s won’t stay bent. How much does Nancy dare to change the Senate bill?

To accept the Senate deal, Nancy has to drop her own devotion to the public plan. Moreover, she has to sell the House liberals on Nelson’s payday part of the deal, convincing her colleagues to fully fund Medicaid expansion in one and only one low-population state. Meanwhile, the abortion controversy is untamed.

Here are some smart libertarians saying that the last defenders of fiscal sanity and free markets might be at battle stations for an entirely different (ahem) reason:

My heart says something else, however. It seems to me that people exercising religious cussedness have done more to roll back the state's power to suppress individual freedom than any other group you can name. For many people religious conscience sows the first seeds of doubt about the goodness of the state.

Stay tuned and Happy New Nancy!

Last week on 30 Rock, Alec Baldwin's character asked an actress on the show's show-within-a-show for advice on getting another actress to come out of her shell. "Lie to her, coddle her, protect her from the real world," she advised. "I get it!" he said. "I'll treat her like the New York Times treats its readers!"

The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B.

And the outlines of a credible plan B are clear. First and foremost, we must do what mankind has always done, and adapt to whatever changes in temperature may in future arise. This enables us to pocket the benefits of any warming (and there are many), while reducing the costs. And since none of the projected costs are new phenomena, but the possible exacerbation of the problems our climate already throws at us, addressing these problems directly is many times more cost-effective than anything discussed at Copenhagen. Nor does adaptation require a global agreement, although we may well need to help the very poorest countries (not China) to adapt.

...Despite the overwhelming evidence of the Copenhagen debacle, it is not going to be easy to get our leaders to move to Plan B. There is no doubt that calling a halt to the high-profile climate-change traveling circus risks causing a severe conference-deprivation trauma among the participants. If there has to be a small public investment in counseling, it would be money well spent.