One of the bigger whoppers is that Sen. Hatch was a co-sponsor of the bill in order to “get a seat at the table”, not to necessarily endorse its content. That, however, doesn’t quite jive with his enthusiastic support of the bill when it was initially introduced in May of 2011. Technology companies and prominent technologists immediately expressed concern with the bill and continue to do so, but Sen. Hatch’s “seat at the table” resulted in zero proposed amendments to the bill before he abruptly reversed course. This raises a few concerns.

One, why would you need to sponsor a bill you don’t particularly like in order to amend or improve it? Sponsorship is endorsement, and you, for all intents and purposes, own that bill. Two, you don’t need to sponsor a bill in order to propose changes to it. Almost anyone can propose amendments. And three, what good is that “seat at the table” if it goes unused? Failing to amend a bill that tech companies agree with break some very fundamental protocols of the Internet (including the federally-mandated DNSSEC) is irresponsible at best.

We also have to consider Orrin Hatch’s actions on intellectual property and copyright. This is the Senator who asked, in earnest, if there was a way to blow up a suspected copyright infringer’s PC. The absolute absurdity of such a proposal (not to mention its complete lack of due process) is reason enough to believe that the latest bill to be hawked is just more of the same. This dovetails with the half million dollars Hatch has accepted from the entertainment industry and numerous times he has sought to push similar legislation, including the deeply-flawed ACTA treaty, something that makes PIPA look reasonable. Hatch has also worked to greatly extend the term of copyrights far beyond what most experts consider to be economically beneficial, instead creating a system of government-granted monopoly.

Make no mistake: Hatch’s retreat on PIPA is temporary, and he will waste no time trying to pass similar or worse legislation in this space if given the chance. Let’s not let him have it.

BONUS: Watch Sen. Hatch doubletalk all over himself when it’s just him and a live audience. I’m sure this gave his handlers a headache.

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

On the surface, this seems to be an accurate portrayal of a “lesser of two evils” scenario, but I think that perhaps Glenn hasn’t accurately portrayed the reality of a Paul presidency. Yes, Paul would absolutely slash federal programs with aplomb, maybe even many of which you heartily approve. Ask yourself, however, if this really does mean the end of the programs. It is highly likely that many, if not all, states would continue entitlement programs as a replacement of the eliminated federal ones. With the elimination of those federal programs and many federal laws, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have as much sway in our political discourse, much of it, again, being left up to the states. If Greenwald’s argument is accurate, it’s not a simple “pick which half is most important to you” argument.

And even if it is, which half matters most in a President? While you can most assuredly tackle the issues with entitlements and abortion and civil rights, etc. at the state level, can you do anything about targeted assassination of American citizens? What about warrantless wiretapping? Or a war with Iran to replace the “winding down” (if you can call it that) of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those are all issues which you either fix at the federal level or not at all. But social issues and entitlement spending? Even blood red Utah is likely to keep some of them around. If we were keeping score, Paul would fulfill a lot more of your requirements for the office of the presidency.

If you crunch the numbers and still believe that Obama is a better choice for you, that’s perfectly fine. All I’m asking is that you exercise some honesty and soul-searching, ditch the tribalism of unwavering support for a Democratic president no matter how neo-conservative he may be, and choose who actually best fits your views.

• It was hilarious to watch people say that Iowa only matters if the “right” person wins. Most of them were actively talking about Ron Paul as the “wrong” person. The logical contortions required to take this position, that the result dictates the relevancy of the result, are astounding at best.
• Speaking of Ron Paul, he didn’t exactly “lose”. He scored as many delegates as Romney and Santorum and got more supporters elected to party positions than the other folks. He has a lot of caucus state ground game, and that matters when the “real” delegates get selected.
• Rick Santorum is the new Mike Huckabee. He pandered to evangelicals, has no money or ground game outside of Iowa, and will likely fade out after a few more states. I give him no longer than Super Tuesday before he drops out after many dismal showings. The idea that a good showing in a single early state can create momentum is laughable at best. There’s 49 other states, dude, and you’ve done nothing in any of them.
• Romney is calling this a “win”, but let’s consider a few facts. He’s been more-or-less campaigning constantly since at least 2007, spent a crapton of money, and won by just 8 votes over a guy who can’t come up with a campaign message beyond “I hate gay sex and abortions”. To have such a dismal showing in a state where ground game matters should be considered an unmitigated disaster. Consider that Romney has been stuck at a 25%-ish ceiling for most of the race and is counting on a crowded field to split up the Not Romney vote. Bachmann has just dropped out and Perry isn’t far behind. If Gingrinch continues to tank and Santorum falters, that can put a quarter or more of the vote back on the table, or roughly the entirety of Romney’s support. This should be scaring the crap out his campaign and supporters, but they seem to take for granted that Mitt can just coast to victory.

No so for corporate income taxes. As much as we’d love to believe the myth that cigar-chomping mustachioed men in smoke-filled rooms are having to dip into their Scrooge McDuck vault to pony up their tax bill, it just isn’t so. Businesses always build their costs into their products and services, and most of them aren’t really going to let on as to how much of their retail cost goes to specific purposes. Quick: how much of Ford’s taxes did you pay when you purchased that new pickup? You have no idea, and that’s the problem. It’s not just that you’re paying a hidden tax either. Companies spend as much (or, in the case of  GE more than) finding ways to not pay taxes as they do in checks to Uncle Sam.

And this gets down to a very simple truth: companies do not pay taxes, people do. The consumers of the product are the ones shouldering it, but they don’t even get the benefit of knowing how much it is. Ending the corporate income tax doesn’t raise taxes on people, it just makes those previously unknown costs known while eliminating the loopholes that corporate collectivists are so fond of using. Doesn’t that sound like a refreshing idea?

What are many of them doing? For the most part, they’re busy insulting the protesters. The endless barrage of jokes about worthless liberal arts degrees, living in mom’s basement, and not showering are a sophomoric and demeaning way to reply to anyone who is suffering. In contrast, the left is out there standing in solidarity selling the illogical idea that the government that caused and perpetuates the problem can somehow fix it. If you were one of those people, who would you be listening to?

This is a missed opportunity to push for the destruction of crony capitalism and the decentralization of public and private power that creates and reinforces it. People are angry for the right reasons. Banks got trillions of dollars for destroying the economy so that they can now foreclose on the people to whom they fraudulently sold bad mortgages. Colleges are calling loans on degrees they’ve been hyping, overselling, and over-pricing for decades, a collusion across an entire industry. Congress is continually passing laws with no relevance to the problems of the common man despite having been significantly turned over in the last several elections. It’s the perfect storm to finally dismantle the systems that are killing the country.

By blowing this opportunity and engaging in tone-deaf messaging, you can almost bet that the solutions will be more of the same. More regulation that will be manipulated to create winners and losers. More ruinous over-spending on programs that promote dependency instead of independence. More members of Congress who say they feel our pain but simply create it. I suppose I shouldn’t expect any better from the guys who have been promoting the low-information tea party.

The current field of Republican candidates for president largely leaves a lot to be desired. The field is crowded with a lot of candidates with little public recognition or differentiation from their competition. Heck, we even have a few political has-beens that got run out of their previous elected positions trying to make a go for it. I think most of them will get shaken out, but it may create a situation where it comes down to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

First off, there’s Rick Perry. This guy has seriously miscalculated his odds, and it shows. After the initial novelty of a new candidate jumping into the race, he’s come across as unpolished and unprepared. He’s also carrying around the “Texas swagger” of a certain ex-president that isn’t exactly going to resonate with the newly awakened sense of fiscal conservatism sweeping the party. I don’t think anyone expects him to last much longer than a handful of primaries at best.

Newt Gingrinch is a guy who understands the game of politics and how it gets played, and I think he’s a good ideas guy, but I don’t think he has what it takes to be a president. He washed out of the House after failing to push his policy, and his positions are barely distinguishable from Bachmann, Cain, or Santorum. They all might as well be the same candidate, and they are failing to distinguish themselves from the well-polished and well-rehearsed Romney. He can hope that he outlasts the others and picks up a few primaries, but I think he knows full well that the reality of the situation is that he’s going to withdraw before primaries start. The others will drop out after they lose a few.

I feel kind of bad for Gary Johnson. He’s got a solid record as governor of New Mexico and plays well to the now-dominant fiscal conservative wing, but he’s been failing to get any level of traction. Despite being included in the most recent debate, I get the feeling he’s not going to get invited back. It’s an almost self-fulfilling declaration of unviability.

So what about Huntsman? I have plenty of areas of policy disagreement with him, but I also know he’s a skilled executive and seasoned politico. As angry as I was at him for not promoting vouchers several years ago when it came up for a vote, I think he read the wind of public opinion and chose to sideline it to keep some political capital in the wings. We could certainly do a lot worse. That said, he’s running a campaign of trying to appeal to moderates, and they seem to be too apathetic to even show up to the party. Like many others, I agree that he’s setting the stage for the next election, not the upcoming one.

Now why do I think Paul will succeed where the others have failed? Because I think everyone but Romney is going to drop out. Some of them have other elected positions to fall back on (Bachmann, Perry), most of them don’t have the donors to continue the fight. Paul has already announced his intention to not seek election to any other office save the presidency, so there’s no fall-back position. He’s also very adept at raising large amounts of money from small donors, allowing him to go back to the well many times. Romney primarily depends on fewer large donors that hit political contribution limits much faster. With a lot of money and no distractions, he’s in it for the long haul.

Paul also has a very dedicated set of supporters, far more enthusiastic than any other candidate. (And yes, I fully acknowledge that we can sometimes get a bit obnoxious about it. I’m sorry. That said, are we any worse than the Obamatons of 2008?) This level of enthusiasm translates into lots and lots of campaign volunteers. They’re the most likely to show up at primary elections, caucuses, and conventions. He also attracts a number of people on trans-partisan issues such as truly ending corporate welfare, strengthening civil liberties, and dismantling the warfare state. All of these are issues where he differentiates both from most the Republican field and the current president.

Most importantly, Romney’s polish is only going so far with the potential delegates. Despite significant name recognition, lots of behind-the-scenes campaigning, and significant financing, he hasn’t been able to average better than 25% in the polls. For an “obvious” front-runner, that’s pretty low, and it leaves the field wide open for whoever has the stamina to stick it out. I think Romney’s trust levels are also low because of his multiple reversals on various issues. Voters in general have hit a breaking point on pandering.

More importantly, I don’ t think it’s just going to be a case of Paul offering token opposition; I think in all of this, he has a chance to cinch the nomination. Supporters of most of the flake-out candidates are primarily interested in economic issues, and Paul has been the most consistent in that realm. Romney still carries the very heavy baggage of the insurance mandate he pushed in Massachusetts (you know, because he was for it before he was against it) and doesn’t have the most sterling record of business management once you examine it a lot more closely and see the pattern of corporate raider. That cozy relationship with big business, the ones who regularly seek favoritism from the presidency, isn’t doing him any favors. As they drop out, they’ll likely end up lining behind the candidate who, despite decades of public service, still has the impeccable record of an outsider.

It’s also worth noting that there is no merit whatsoever to the claims that Paul would not be viable in a general election. Multiple polls show him within the margin of error of beating President Obama, and these differ by only a few points from other candidates. The bulk of the support is there as a referendum on the president and his handling of the economy, a situation that is highly unlikely to substantively improve before the election. The Republican Party could almost run Larry Craig and still take the Oval Office.

So is it possible that another candidate could jump in and steal that thunder? Unlikely. The first primaries are about four months away which leaves almost no time for adequate fundraising and campaigning. The only names that keep getting floated around are Chris Christie and Sarah Palin, the former of which has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of running this year, the latter of which likely has just as little interest.

As unlikely as it would have seemed months ago, Ron Paul may end up being the next President of the United States. And I’d be okay with that.

So how did it all start? Way back in mid-2008, Ron Paul’s campaign for president was winding down and the newly energized campaign volunteers were still all kinds of riled up. They were sick of the constant centralization of both government and economic power, and sickened by the power structure of the parties that only allows “annointed” candidates to advance to elections. A coalition of libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and reformers were ready to challenge any and all party structures that did business as usual. So what happened?

Well, those in power in the parties didn’t get there by being stupid. They saw the wave coming and knew they had to nip that sucker in the bud, and what better way than pulling a reverse infiltration? Almost immediately, the same people who had been a part of the problem started loudly singing the praises of the Tea Party, carefully steering it into an attack dog of the Republican Party, not a near-partyless populist mob demanding more from everyone. In Utah, the problem was particularly bad as the organizers chose to invite elected officials to come speak to crowds, hardly the kind of thing a reform movement should want. It only took weeks or months to quell the uprising and get the media to label the newly-formed beast as a group of angry zealots  whose rage was fueled by racism, misogyny, xenophobia, or whatever ugly thing could be attached to it.

What got botched was a trans-partisan populist movement to fight against centralization of power, public and private, that has lead to rampant crony capitalism, impenetrable political party power structures that exclude any kind of insurgent candidates from the process, and the reigning in of an out-of-control pattern of federal spending perpetuated by both parties. All of these are laudable and arguably popular goals. Unfortunately, they’ve been buried under a mountain of far-right social neo-conservatism with a very narrow appeal, obviously explaining the precipitous drop in popularity among the general populace.

Is there any hope for these much needed reforms to happen anytime in the near future? Maybe. It depends on if the lightning in a bottle during the first few weeks can be recreated, or if the original reformers have stuck around now that the real work begins.. Otherwise, I expect the same old story.

Let us consider what a responsibly budgeted household looks like. Ideally, we would be spending less than we make, especially during the good times. We often hear the advice to save up a full year’s worth of expenses just in case and to save up for large purchases rather than use credit. I’ve also heard the sound advice to never buy anything on credit if the debt will outlast the purchase. When the lean years come, there’s no debt to pay off and plenty of savings to help us get through it. Now compare this to how the state of Utah does its budgeting. In good years, the state will finance lots of programs and tax cuts. In lean years, budgets are slashed and taxes rarely go back up. Why all of the volatility? There’s two reasons behind this.

The first is that the state, by law, can only establish a reserve fund equal to 6% of general fund and education fund expenditures. If the state were a family earning $50,000 per year, that would equate to putting away a scant $3,000, less than a month’s worth. Because the reserve is so small and dips in a single year will often entirely exceed this amount, it doesn’t do much to smooth over rough patches in the economy. We instead get a roller coaster budget and lots of fiscal uncertainty.

The second problem is that state and local governments, instead of saving up for large planned construction projects, will issue bonds for the projects. Over the lifetime of the bonds, this can double or triple the actual cost of what was originally being paid for. So why do it? Because it kicks the can for increased taxes down the road. Saving up for these projects requires a higher tax rate now even though it costs a lot less down the road. Combined with various restrictions on government expenditures from the state level and a general distrust at any temporary taxes going back down (which is often well-founded), we end up acting in an irrational and emotional manner that’s quite expensive.

Another proposal I’ve seen on the table is to restrict budget growth to the rate of inflation and population growth. This sounds like a good idea, but there’s still a lot of problems with it. Transportation, for instance, would take a huge hit under such a model. Vehicle miles driven outpace the rate of population growth significantly and nobody has the guts to raise the gas tax, which has stayed flat for 14 years, to compensate for it. Eduction also poses a challenge as we get an increasing influx of students for whom English is a second language. These students are often much more expensive to education and, again, it has no bearing on either inflation or population growth. These are just two examples of how these restrictions don’t line up with realities.

In the end, I don’t think any law on how budgets are made is likely to enforce the same kind of fiscal discipline we expect from individual households. If anything, they are likely to make us worse off, especially as creative politicians figure out how to game them. Do you want fiscal responsibility? Then let’s start changing our “business as usual” ways.

Lee almost immediately cites concerns from “those who follow the tech industry” that Google “could be acting to harm competition”. We should all be asking immediately who these concerned individuals are. Odds are good that those “concerned” are those who simply cannot build a better mousetrap and are trying to use the power of the federal government to give their own inferior products a leg up. (Yeah, Bing, I went there.) Without knowing the source of the complaints, we are left to assume the worst, that we’re in a Mandy Rice-Davies situation.

Lee then continues to express concern about Google’s dominance in the search sector. This, however, seems completely ignorant of tech history and how many other search giants have come crashing down. Remember when Yahoo was on top of the search game? It’s but a distant memory. I doubt many of you will even remember AltaVista or Webcrawler, but they too fell to better products. We’re already seeing a slow migration of some users to Blekko or Wolfram Alpha, frustrated that Google is having so much trouble keeping out the content farms and black hat SEOs. Even Bing has picked up a small following with a few innovative features designed around organizing like data.

Once a search engine no longer does search well, people will bolt and there is nothing to keep them from doing so. The kind of stickiness that Microsoft enjoys on the desktop does not exist on the Internet. If it did, Facebook and it’s unportable data ways would be a much better example of it, but even that may be solved if Diaspora ends up taking off. Google has its own list of very notable failures including Wave, Knol, Coupons, and many others.

Most of these services are currently being provided by other companies that figured out how to do it right. Foursquare beats Latitude handily. Twitter trounces Buzz. Orkut couldn’t even beat Friendster or MySpace, much less Facebook. Google TV just can’t best Apple TV, Roku, or Boxee. Google is not the unstoppable behemoth that its competition makes it out to be. As big and creative as they are, they, much like Microsoft, have spent billions on abject failures.

This brings up a greater point: the Internet is very good at fixing itself most of the time. Censorship is treated as damage and routed around. Closed systems that try to hold your data hostage (like AOL) collapse against the power and flexibility of open standards and communication. Google does a reasonably good job of letting you pick up your toys and going home if you so choose. In the face of all of this, I’ve got to wonder why a US Senator is going to resort to concern trolling, especially when it runs counter to his central campaign message that he would take a scorched earth policy with the federal government.

Let’s also get some perspective on their tracking activities. Answer this question honestly: how often does Google display ads that have absolutely no relevance to you, even when you’re logged in with your Google account? For me, it’s more often than not. If they can know exactly who I am, have access to all of my e-mail from the last six years, and still can’t show ads that mean sometime to me, they are nowhere near as dangerous to my privacy as many of us would like to think.

Senator Lee’s dangerously ignorant anti-Google screed shows that he and his staff lack adequate education on technologies issues. It also raises very serious questions as to who has pushed the Senator to take such low-information positions. In my book, this moves Lee from somewhat innocuous poser to a dangerous force in Washington. Sorry, Mike, but you’ve sealed your fate with this techie.

PS: As an extra gem, Senator Lee tweeted just moments later “No other business should come before the Senate that doesn’t focus on spending or debt until we have funded the government.” Except for his Google witch hunt, right?