Congress is Pissed

Or so says CIP. This is vis-a-vis Mueller vs Trump. I said:

In Merrie Englande, "pissed" means drunk. Having said that...

I think Mueller is belatedly realised he kinda fucked up and now wants a second go. But what to make of "Mueller explained that his decision was based on longstanding justice department policy, rather than lack of evidence. “A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” he said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view – that too is prohibited.”" (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/mueller-says-trump-was-not-exonerated-by-his-investigation). That sounds like bollox to me. Plenty of people (waves hands vaguely) were fully expecting and hoping that Mueller would indeed charge The Mango; only *now* claiming there is a clear policy not to do so sounds like excuse making.

Congress has I think got using to buying cheap popularity with pork and ducking hard decisions, which is why so much power has bled away to the presidency. This is not what your founders intended.

Talking about "The Green New Deal And A Universal Basic Income" with Thomas Fuller

TF posts The Green New Deal And A Universal Basic Income; I commented the below. Let's see how the discussion goes.

wmconnolleysays:

May 15, 2019 at 8:28 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

This is doomed in so many ways (I say that as someone definitely interested in an UBI, and perhaps even a supporter of it).

> but few would argue we are doing enough

I think you’re wrong. I think many people would (in the sense of proportion of those-that-bother-to-even-think-about-it). Also, I’d guess your averages hide a lot.

> a permanent net loss of positions

A bit like when farming was mechanised. Or when spinning was. Oh, but this time is different… And who knows, maybe it is. But I’m dubious.

> primary premises of The Green New Deal is “Guaranteeing a job with…

I think this is a bad idea and it’s one of the reasons that I oppose the GND. But then I’m a small-govt person.

> endorsement by us for

You speak in the plural. Who is “us”?

> sovereign wealth fund

You don’t have a SWF because you don’t have a budget surplus, you have a (massive, by world standards) deficit. If you could raise extra income through magic free taxes, there would be pressure to (a) pay down the deficit; but also (see recent politics) to give out freebies and/or cut other taxes.

> it wouldn’t take long …. By 2030 we could have a nice nest egg built up

Sorry, but this is where you get delusional. Can you genuinely imagine a large nest egg building up, and your rapacious pols not raiding it for their own pet pork projects?

CIP tilts against Public Choice, again

People don't like Public Choice. The name, incidentally, is a touch weird, but never mind. It's just a name. When you know what it's a label for, you know what it is. It is associated in my mind with James M. Buchanan; and it came to my attention during the Democracy in Chains nonsense. In a way, it is just the bleedin' obvious; in much the same way that natural selection is. But the implications - towards smaller government - are strongly resisted by all those who don't want smaller government.

Which brings us to CIP's take on Public Choice (arch, which doesn't include the comments), which is is reaction to my The left has no theory of the behaviour of the government?

I assert that Plato is the archetypical believer in the virtues of govt, and ignorer of public choice. CIP asserts

Plato and Confucius were very familiar with governments behaving badly, and had elaborate theories for how to prevent or limit the damage. You may need to reread your Republic [Hint: prevent or limit conflicts of interest].

I reply:

If Plato is aware of the PC / P-A problem in the Republic, then please quote chapter and verse. I assert that he is unaware of it. Prove me wrong by direct quotation.

I await his response.

Roy Spencer and the List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

Over at Dr Roy's, I asked:

Off topic, but I have a question for you. 

You're listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming under "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes". Someone who thinks they are defending you has recently complained about that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming#Umm,_isn't_it_long,_long_past_time,_to_replace_this_incredibly_outdated,_29_YEARS_old,_%22Climate_Change_Attribution%22_chart?). 

If you're happy being so listed, then all is well. The listing is on the basis of your 2008 testimony "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor". 

If you're not happy being so listed, then pointing to something you're written that explicitly or implicitly revises those words would be useful.