At the suggestion of a couple of readers, I tried to move up the Amazon widget on the sidebar. Memo to non-techy bloggers: don’t mess with your main index template without saving the previous one! Now I am having all kinds of problems with the appearance of the right margin. I’m trying to get help from an old friend. In the meantime, I want to make sure the Amazon widget is available to you. Here it is. You can search for items through this box, and any purchases you make at Amazon from the same browser tab will benefit my site, at no cost to you.

Sorry about the recent comments issue. We’ll try to get it resolved.

It was recently reported that New Jersey is going after those damned price gouging gas station owners:

New Jersey authorities filed civil suits Friday accusing seven gas stations and one hotel of price gouging in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

“New Jersey has a tough price gouging law to ensure that profiteers will not take unfair advantage of people at their most vulnerable — those who have been displaced from their homes, have limited resources, and are seeking fuel, shelter and the basic necessities of life,” said Governor Chris Christie. “Businesses operating in New Jersey will obey our laws — or face significant penalties.”

Thanks, Gov. Christie! What could possibly go wrong?!

Oh — coincidentally, there were significant gas shortages in New Jersey during Sandy.

Any guesses as to why? (Yes, there are a variety of factors, but one of them is economic in nature.)

I sat down to write a tribute to price gouging, which is simply a pejorative name for the raising of prices when depressed supply meets increased demand. But then I found that one had already been written.

By Ron Paul. It’s called In Praise of Price Gouging.

As the northeastern United States continues to recover from Hurricane Sandy, we hear the usual outcry against individuals and companies who dare to charge market prices for goods such as gasoline. The normal market response of rising prices in the wake of a natural disaster and resulting supply disruptions is redefined as “price gouging.” The government claims that price gouging is the charging of ruinous or exploitative prices for goods in short supply in the wake of a disaster and is a heinous crime. But does this reflect economic reality, or merely political posturing to capitalize on raw emotions?

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the supply of gasoline was greatly disrupted. Many gas stations were unable to pump gas due to a lack of electricity, thus greatly reducing the supply. At the same time demand for gasoline spiked due to the widespread use of generators. Because gas stations were forbidden from raising their prices to meet the increased demand, miles-long lines developed and stations were forced to start limiting the amount of gasoline that individuals could purchase. New Jersey gas stations began to look like Soviet grocery stores.

Had gas stations been allowed to raise their prices to reflect the increased demand for gasoline, only those most in need of gasoline would have purchased gas, while everyone would have economized on their existing supply. But because prices remained lower than they should have been, no one sought to conserve gas. Low prices signaled that gas was in abundant supply, while reality was exactly the opposite, and only those fortunate enough to be at the front of gas lines were able to purchase gas before it sold out. Not surprisingly, a thriving black market developed, with gas offered for up to $20 per gallon.

With price controls in effect, supply shortages were exacerbated. If prices had been allowed to increase to market levels, the profit opportunity would have brought in new supplies from outside the region. As supplies increased, prices gradually would have decreased as supply and demand returned to equilibrium. But with price controls in effect, what company would want to deal with the hassle of shipping gas to a disaster-stricken area with downed power lines and flooded highways when the same profit could be made elsewhere? So instead of gas shipments flooding into the disaster zones, what little gas supply is left is rapidly sold and consumed.

Exactly 100% right.

This is simple, basic economics. It’s supply and demand. It’s about allocating scarce resources, and providing incentives to meet increased demand.

Bashing the price gougers feels good, I guess. But it’s the wrong thing to do in a crisis. And anyone with any basic economic sense knows it.

I am less impressed with Chris Christie all the time.

James Rainey at the L.A. Times on the upcoming budget battle:

An impasse has been created by Obama’s insistence on including tax increases for the wealthy in his alternative, while Republicans in the House, in particular, have demanded achieving the budget goals only through cutting programs. Exit polls after last week’s election showed that 60% of voters favored tax increases for those who earn the most.

More than 60% of Americans believe that a failure to compromise would hurt the U.S. economy and about that number feel their personal finances would take a hit. If the two sides can’t compromise, 90% of Americans will see their taxes go up — with the biggest jumps for top income earners.

Economists said that broad loss of disposable income, combined with cuts to defense and other programs, could throw the economy back into recession.

Wait, what? James Rainey is arguing that we need to keep the Bush tax cuts? James Rainey is recognizing that the Bush tax cuts were broad-based and extended to 90% of Americans? Sure, we can tell the truth now . . . if we’re planning to blame Republicans for their going away — and especially if we’re planning to blame a future recession on Republicans.

But hit the rewind button for one second. What was that about exit polls saying “60% of voters favored tax increases for those who earn the most”? I went searching for a story about exit polls and here’s what I found, from the Wall Street Journal:

One exit poll question on Tuesday asked “Should taxes be raised to help cut the budget deficit?” The answer was no by nearly 2 to 1. A second question asked if tax rates should “increase for all” (13%); “increase only on income over $250,000″ (47%); or “not increase for anyone” (35%). Three quarters of the latter 35% voted for Mitt Romney, which means they are represented more or less by Mr. Boehner, whose House majority also won re-election. On taxes as with so much else, the country is still divided.

Now. I suppose that if you add 47% (the “tax the rich!” crowd)* and 13% (the “tax everybody!” crowd), you can find 60% support for taxing the rich, since the rich are a subset of everyone.

HOWEVER. If the very same poll says that Americans oppose raising taxes to cut the deficit — and oppose it by a 2-1 margin — then an honest pundit might want to tell the folks that.**

So either Mr. Rainey is looking at a different exit poll with scary different results, or he’s not telling you the truth about this exit poll.

Guess which I think is happening here? (There is a typographical hint in the preceding paragraph.)

By the way, since you asked . . . what should we do?

THE PATTERICO PROPOSAL: I think the Republicans should propose $10 trillion in tax hikes over the next ten years, and demand only $5 trillion in spending cuts.

Under my proposal, the tax hike for the first 5 years will be $1 billion per year for a total of $5 billion over 5 years; beginning in the sixth year, tax hikes will be several hundred billion dollars per year, increasing to over a trillion per year by 2020. Unless, of course, Congress changes its mind in the interim, which, hey, you can’t tie future lawmakers’ hands.

Meanwhile, the spending cuts will start with $2 trillion next year, taper off to $1 trillion the following year, and go down from there. This may (read: will) necessitate a massive entitlement overhaul, but sssshhh!

If by now you have recognized this proposal as a parody of the “let’s cut $1.5 trillion over ten years starting with $21 billion next year!” model of “spending cuts,” then you earn a pat on the head and are allowed to graduate to the next blog post.

______________________________________

*Weird how it’s 47%, huh?

**Yes, these numbers don’t add up. If 66% of the people oppose taxes in question #1, and 60% of the people support taxes in question #2, this means a sizable percentage of people both believe we should not raise taxes and that we should raise taxes. This suggests an infirmity in the polling question, or that a sizable percentage of the voters are morons, or both.

Why did Republicans lose? Republicans can debate that all they like, but the L.A. Times news editors have decided the only theory worth mentioning is that it’s the fault of the Tea Party:

As a subdued John A. Boehner started to lay the groundwork for compromise with President Obama to avert a year-end tax and spending crisis, the House speaker also began a delicate dance around the deep divisions in the Republican Party.

As Congress returns Tuesday, the Ohio Republican must contend with the tea party wing, which helped the GOP retain the House majority as many conservatives won reelection, but which also contributed to its losses in the Senate.

Republican leaders are reevaluating their relationship with the tea party, a political marriage that has fueled gridlock and, some believe, played a role in the GOP’s dismal outcome at the polls.

Some others believe that Romney was not a strong enough candidate and didn’t articulate a Tea Party message strongly enough. But that message does not appear in the story. “Some” might be right and “some others” might be wrong. But it is not for news editors to decide — any more than it is their place to conclude that voters want a deal that is the opposite of what the Tea Party wants:

“The president and his team have made clear they believe his reelection is a mandate for his tax plan,” Boehner told rank-and-file Republicans on a conference call after the election. “Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is not the case.”

On the call, Boehner characterized his House majority as “the line of defense” against the Obama administration, according to a GOP source who was not authorized to discuss internal party matters publicly.

“For the next two years, that will continue to be our role,” Boehner said.

This is the complicated courtship the chain-smoking speaker must undertake in the next 50 days as he attempts to satisfy his right wing while meeting Obama across the aisle for the deal that voters — and the stock market — have signaled they want.

Why couldn’t we say that the voters signaled that they wanted to hold the line by re-electing a Republican majority in the House?

Again, people can debate these issues, but having them decided as a matter of Conventional Wisdom and articulated on news pages (as opposed to opinion pages) is wrong. We have to fight against that mentality and point it out when we see it.

Ay yai yai:

The sex scandal that led to CIA Director David Petraeus’ downfall widened Tuesday with word the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is under investigation for thousands of alleged “inappropriate communications” with another woman involved in the case.

Even as the FBI prepared a timeline for Congress about the investigation that brought to light Petraeus’ extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that the Pentagon had begun an internal investigation into emails from Gen. John Allen to a Florida woman involved in the case.

Allen succeeded Petraeus as the top American commander in Afghanistan in July 2011, and his nomination to become the next commander of U.S. European Command and the commander of NATO forces in Europe has now been put on hold, as the scandal seemed certain to ensnare another acclaimed military figure.

I fear we are losing sight of the main issues: what can Petraeus tell us about Benghazi? He traveled there personally after the attack and filed a report. Even Dianne Feinstein seems interested. And what did Obama know about his affair? Seems like the FBI has known this stuff for quite a while. Obama didn’t??

Plus, new questions are emerging all the time: how did Broadwell seem to know the attack related to a secret prison? What did Obama know about that? Was he conducted enhanced interrogation at secret prisons?

Hey, everything will be OK once we have John Kerry at Defense and Susan Rice at State.

P.S. Everyone knows that people with access to our most classified information can’t be involved in these affairs. It makes them subject to blackmail and puts our national security at risk.

Unless, of course, they are a Democrat president, in which case they can also obstruct justice and commit perjury, and come out of it a loved national figure who can help another Democrat win re-election.

The holidays are coming up. If you order anything through Amazon, please consider using the widget on the sidebar to access Amazon. Just type what you’re looking for into the search box in the right margin. It will take you to Amazon, and any items you order after reaching Amazon will result in this site earning a percentage.

This simple act costs you nothing but helps fund the hosting costs here, as well as any costs resulting from the frivolous lawsuit my wife and I are facing. You can stand up for free speech just by making sure your holiday shopping starts with that widget.

By the way: Amazon sells cameras. The best commissions we have gotten here are from camera sales. So if you’re looking for a camera, consider Amazon and using that widget!

Thanks for your support and readership.

Joseph Curl:

The Republican Party — which, by the way lost women to President Obama by 12 points — needs to run away from its archaic stance. Yes, object to abortion. Yes, work to make it rare. But move on: Abortion is here to stay. (And while you’re at it, GOP, it might just be time also to abandon that vaunted “abstinence-only” policy that has been such a dismal failure.)

Second, gay marriage. On this, simply — who cares? America 2012 has enormous problems. Is this really an issue that matters to — anyone? Christians, two men getting married doesn’t affect your marriage in any way. Get over it. The Republicans are on the wrong side of history on this issue, and Mr. Obama swept in millions of young voters by his tolerance. It’s time to walk away.

On both issues, the GOP can make a clean break: As the party of individual freedom, the GOP can simply say it now sees that Americans — especially women — do have the right to choose their own path. In fact, the party espouses the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, always has, so the turnabout won’t even raise an eyebrow.

Such a recalibration would allow the millions of Americans who believe in the core Republican tenets to give the party a real evaluation at election time.

I don’t think so.

As I said in the last post, my talents do not lie in electoral politics. However, it is increasingly obvious that Romney lost at least in part because he failed to turn out his voters. And many people feel very strongly about these issues. So while Curl’s prescription might go over well with independents, it’s not clear to me that it is the right strategy.

I am more comfortable discussing what I believe in than I am discussing how to win elections.

On state recognition of same-sex marriage, I support it, but I understand those who oppose it on moral and/or religious grounds. I don’t much care what a candidate says on this issue, personally. But to suggest that you give away nothing by abandoning it, as a political matter, seems glib.

I feel more strongly that we cannot abandon voters with strong opinions about abortion. Regardless of how you feel about whether life begins at conception, or whether abortions should be allowed in the first trimester, I think most people are uncomfortable with several planks in the pro-choice lobby’s platform. Partial-birth abortion is repugnant and barbaric. We allow the state to insert itself between parents and their daughters far too easily, passing laws that hide young girls’ pregnancies from their parents and make it easy for girls to get abortions without parental consent. Abortion is allowed way too late in this country for reasons that are far too flimsy. Women can literally abort a fetus at any moment before birth if they can find a doctor to say it’s psychologically necessary.

Yet we put up candidates who allow themselves to be maneuvered into ignoring these winning issues. Instead, they allow the debate to center around their suggestions that abortion not be allowed in cases of rape.

Aargh.

In my opinion, the biggest problem we have is this looming debt bubble that WILL burst, and I think we have to keep talking about it, over and over and over and over and over. That’s our solution: that, getting better judges in office, and persuading people that individual freedom and responsibility — not reliance on the government to protect us — are the principles that made this country great. I don’t think throwing social issues overboard and letting babies get stabbed in the head with scissors for political convenience is the proper path.

But maybe that’s just me.

When people talk about the Constitution and returning to the principles of our Founders, what do they mean? And how can we try to do that?

We have strayed from our Founders’ principles in several areas, but I think the primary problem is our oversized government. Our Founders believed in a limited government of enumerated powers. Supreme Court rulings expanding the Commerce Clause have paved the way for an explosion of the state, putting us on a path towards European-style socialism, where citizens depend on the government to bandage every wound and keep every ill at bay. There is no way to reconcile this philosophy with the attitude that made America great: individualism and freedom.

What can we do about it?

On the electoral front, I don’t know. I’m not a politico; I don’t know what makes for good electoral politics, and when I try to opine on that subject people should slap me. As a blogger it’s tempting to try to diagnose what would advance your point of view, but I think it’s best merely to stick to explaining what issues are important to me and why. For me, it’s the burgeoning government debt bubble, and it’s judges.

I feel comfortable opining on what we need on the judicial front — and that front is very, very important. The key is to nominate justices and lower court judges in the mold of Clarence Thomas. We need judges who are willing to adhere to the Constitution when precedents handed down by liberal judges are in conflict with the Constitution. Justice Thomas would bring the understanding of the Commerce Clause closer in line with what the Founders intended. (For all his weakness on the ObamaCare case, so would Justice Roberts, by the way.)

We need judges like Thomas on other issues as well. For example, in the Kelo case, we needed justices who were willing to require a taking to be a public “use” as the Constitution requires, and not a public “benefit.” We had four such justices, but we needed five. In the ObamaCare case, we needed judges who were willing to strike down the legislation as incompatible with the Constitution’s limits on the federal government. We had four such justices, but we needed five.

We don’t lose every battle like this. The left tried to gut the Second Amendment and they failed. They had four justices willing to do it, but they needed five.

Justice Alito is relatively young. Justice Roberts (whom we all revile for the ObamaCare decision but who is still basically a good justice for us) is young. Justice Thomas is still relatively young.

Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy are each 76. Hopefully they can hang on for four more years and we’ll have a different President. This one may get to replace Justice Ginsburg, which is a shame. But it won’t tip the balance.

Right now we have a weak coalition at the Court. Sometimes we find five votes, but too often we have only four.

Once we have no chance of getting five votes, you can hang it up. We’re done.

We’re not at that point yet. But we’re very close.

Tomorrow morning on KABC in Los Angeles, at 6:53 a.m., with Doug McIntyre and John Phillips.

Get up early on a holiday and tune in!

The woman who helped Petraeus cheat on his wife was upset because she thought he was cheating on her.

She will not be ignored!

The collapse of the dazzling career of CIA Director David H. Petraeus was triggered when a woman with whom he was having an affair sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to him, according to three senior law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode.

The recipient of the e-mails was so frightened that she went to the FBI for protection and help tracking down the sender, according to the officials. The FBI investigation traced the threats to Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and a Petraeus biographer, and uncovered explicit e-mails between Broadwell and Petraeus, the officials said…

I still want him to testify. And I still want to know when Obama knew about this affair.