Ayn Rand's Utopia

We all know that libertarians believe in drug legalization, the free market, free speech and freedom of religion.

But what everyone forgets is that libertarianism effectively prohibits pollution of any kind (air, water, noise, etc.). It doesn't just tax it or discourage it. It makes it virtually impossible.

Philosophers from Thomas Paine and William Godwin to Robert Nozick and Frederick Hayek have written much about libertarianism. But I'm going to quote Ayn Rand, as she is the modern face of libertarianism (and the woman for which Ron Paul named his son):

"The basic right of man is to live his life without being harmed by others. This implies the requirement to refrain from harming others as well, since all men share this most fundamental right."

Ayn Rand

This isn't just Rand's philosophy. This is the core tenet of libertarianism and laissez-faire capitalism. This is why libertarians are against taxing people to provide social programs. By using force to take someone's money, you are harming them and violating the "basic right of man".

However, modern Objectivists rarely point out that burning coal or pouring chemicals into a river causes harm to others in the same way that taxation does. And like taxation, pollution uses force to cause harm. According to the World Health Organization, air pollution from burning coal kills more than 1 million people every year, and causes physical harm and monetary harm (aka "theft") to many many more. In Rand's philosophy, pollution is the moral equivalent of robbery or rape.

So, what is the role of government when one individual (the owner of a coal plant) is causing harm to others against their will?

Modern "right-wing" politicians (aka "the Republican party") advocate that we should ignore these harms. The coal plant is providing electricity and creating jobs, and one could argue that this benefit outweighs the harm (to the society as a whole, if not to each individual). Despite what Paul Ryan and the Koch Brothers would like you to believe, this is not "free market capitalism". This is tyranny. This is what Ayn Rand calls "collectivism" -- the government using force to decide that the "needs" of the entire society are more important that the rights of any one individual.

Modern "left-wing" politicians (aka "the Democratic party") advocate that we should "regulate" these harms. This means using government force to reduce "excessive" pollution, and to tax the rest. If the scientists at the EPA decide that burning coal causes $100 worth of damage to every American, then left-wing politicians will levy a tax on coal burning equal to $100 per American. They could then turn around and give this money to each person that was harmed. However, more often, that money is used to pay for government programs that attempt to ameliorate that harm (e.g. health care) or reduce future harm (e.g. investment in "alternative" energy).

As with the Republican solution, the Democrat's solution is also "collectivism". It is the government using force to put the collective good ahead of individual rights.

Libertarianism holds that both the Republicans and Democrats are allowing (and even encouraging) a moral wrong. No one has a right to harm any other person without using the free market to reach an agreement beforehand. I can't just burn down your house because I feel like it, and then pay you $100 the next day because I feel that this is the "fair value" of your home. If you want to sell me your house, you are free to do so. But we must come to an agreement *before* I burn down your house.

In the case of pollution, this means that every single person harmed by pollution must agree to it beforehand. As one individual, I could decide that I'm willing to let a coal plant pollute my air if they pay me $100 each year. Every single person could reach this same agreement with the coal company. This is the free market at work: individuals determining how much something (such as clean air) is worth *before* they sell it.

It's even possible that everyone would come together and legally delegate a representative to negotiate on their behalf. This is what unions do, and it allows the workers to continue to do their jobs and live their lives while a fair market price is determined.

However, unions are voluntary organizations. If you don't want to work for GM, you don't have to. But breathing isn't voluntary. If you pollute my air, you are using force to harm me, and it is the legitimate role of any libertarian government to stop that harm (by using the courts and police force to physically prevent this harm from taking place).

As it is virtually impossible that 7 billion humans will all agree to have their air polluted, libertarianism and pollution are incompatible in the real world (unless the polluter finds a way to contain the pollution in a bubble built on private land, or to stop the pollution at the source -- but then it isn't really "pollution", is it?)

At this point, libertarians might choose to compromise their principles in exchange for efficiency. For example, I would like to be able to drive a gasoline-powered vehicle so that I can visit my family on Thanksgiving. Therefore, I elect a government that enforces my "right" to pollute, even though I am violating the rights of others. This is democracy. But it isn't libertarianism.

Mitt Romney's America

With the inauguration of Barack Obama to his 2nd term, it's worth taking a moment to consider what the United States would be like today if Mitt Romney were taking the oath of office on the Capitol steps.

It is, of course, difficult to know. Romney invented Obamacare before denouncing it. He said that government can't create jobs, but that his administration would create 12 million jobs. He is "staunchly pro-life" and "defends a woman's right to choose".

So, we have no idea what his policies would be. But we do one thing about the way he thinks everyone should live.

"If a Democrat were here, he'd look around and say no one should live like this. Republicans come here and say everyone should live like this." - Mitt Romney, during a fundraiser at "Papa" John Schnatter's 24,000 square foot limestone castle, complete with 22-car garage and private golf course.


Unlike the "47%" comment, I actually think Mitt is proud of this statement. With hard work, low taxes and generous government subsidies for the rich, we can all live like Papa John.

Wow.

I'm going to ignore the fact that Mr. Schatter's carbon footprint is bigger than Godzilla's, and just think about the actual logistics of everyone living like this.

In "Mitt Romney's America":

1. Everyone has a 22-car garage. We each get about 10 cars plus some empty spaces for visitors.

2. Everyone has 11 bathrooms. Because everyone like this, you can't hire someone to clean your bathrooms for you. They are too busy cleaning their own bathrooms. And do you really expect someone with their own private golf course to spend their days cleaning toilets?

3. Everyone repairs air conditioners. Again, you can't hire an HVAC specialist for a reasonable rate, because they are all busy keeping their own homes running. Perhaps some sort of barter economy would develop where your neighbor would clean and maintain your cooling and heating systems in return for you cleaning and maintaining her four swimming pools. Or maybe you'd rather spend 120 hours each week washing dishes or vacuuming walk-in closets.

4. There are no schools. Everyone is too busy mowing lawns for anyone to go to college and become a teacher. Also, kids have to start work as soon as they can operate a pair of pruning shears.

5. There are no cities. Everyone lives on 16 acres. The sprawl created by everyone moving out of New York City would cover 400,000 square miles, stretching from Canada to Florida (and completely covering Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia).

6. After filling every square inch of the United States (including Alaska) we would invade and colonize: Canada, Mexico, India, China, Brazil, South Africa, Kenya, Greenland, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Argentina, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Japan, Vietnam, Egypt, North Korea, South Korea, Bangladesh ... and all of Europe. This kills or displaces more than two thirds of the world's population.

Alternatively, we could occupy every acre on the Moon and still have enough Americans to fill all of Siberia.

7. There are no universities, no telephones and no internet. We have giant unlit houses with no roads and no electricity running to them. There are no hospitals or research laboratories. America would become the least innovative country on the planet (behind Burundi and Mozambique).

8. On the bright side, we would have the world's lowest wealth inequality (better than Sweden and South Korea).

Oops. I just noticed that Mitt didn't say "every American". He said "everyone".

So, new plan. First, pave over every ocean and lake so that the Earth has enough land for all the people in China, India and Brazil. The United States gets all of the moon, and most of Mercury (the new "Sunbelt"). Russia gets Mars (they like cold weather). Everyone else fits on Venus. And Neil deGrasse Tyson can go live on Pluto.

The Poor Get Screwed ... Again

This post should be short, as the graph speaks for itself.

Congress just passed, and Obama just signed, the "American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012" (aka "ATRA").

Since Obama won the election, we know that ATRA shifted the federal tax burden from working people towards the top 2%. Right?

Wrong.

The percentage increase, by household income group, of federal tax burden, from last year to this year:

As expected, everyone's taxes went up. But the poor got hit with a 120.9% tax hike.

Before the comment section fills up, I do realize that those earning $500,000 pay more taxes in terms of absolute value than someone earning $20,000. (In fact, I used to be a Republican).

For example, a family earning $20,000 that had a $2,000 federal tax bill could see their taxes go up to $4,418 -- an increase of $2,418.

Meanwhile, a young stock trader making $500,000 on Wall Street might see his federal taxes go from $75,000 to $77,850 -- an increase of $2,850.

$2,850 is bigger than $2,418. Therefore, Congress is soaking the rich! Your logic is impeccable. Now go fuck yourself.

Seriously, which family can better absorb a big tax hike?

As the poor already pay much more in taxes as a share of their income, this is horrible news for those families hit hardest by the recession.

Mitt Romney famously said: "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

It appears that Obama and Congress feel the same way.

Source: Tax Policy Center

Middle-Aged White Man Denounces GOP

Dear Republican Party,

Allow me to introduce myself:

1) I am a white male. I am over 40 years of age. My family is white. My wife is so white that she has solar urticaria. She is literally allergic to sunlight.

2) I love America, the best country on earth. I am extremely patriotic and I strongly support our men and women in uniforms. My parents met in the Air Force -- I literally wouldn't be here without our armed forces. My company gives away all of our products, for free, to active members of the military.

3) I revere the Constitution. Our founding document is so brilliant that it hints at divine inspiration.

4) I can trace my family line in the New World back to 1630. My great great great great great great grandfather was a Revolutionary war hero.

5) I am pissed off at the current immigration situation. I work hard and pay my taxes while illegal immigrants and their employers get off scot-free.

6) I believe that the Federal government is way too big and that government bureaucracy is one of the greatest threats to our economy and to our freedom.

7) I am a business owner and job creator. Because our product is internationally popular, more than 60% of our revenue over the last two years came from overseas. In other words, I am doing my part to fix the trade imbalance and create American jobs.

8) I voted for George W. Bush and John McCain.

9) I am a workaholic. I haven't taken a real vacation since 1998. At the age of 14, I spent the summer literally "breaking rocks in the hot sun" for $4.00 an hour.

10) I believe in self-sufficiency and abhor debt. When I was laid off, I didn't collect unemployment insurance, because we didn't need it. Even though I have a disability that prevents me from working most jobs, I have never applied for benefits. My wife and I have no debt and we paid off a 30-year mortgage in less than 8 years.

Based on the above, you know that I voted for Mitt Romney yesterday. Right?

Wrong.

Here's why:

1. Fiscal Irresponsibility
I grew up learning that the GOP excelled at fiscal responsibility and economic growth. Roosevelt cranked up the national debt (from below 25% of GDP, to more than 100%) in order to pay for Social Security and World War II. Then Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and he brought the debt from 60% of GDP down to 45% over the next 8 years.

Lyndon Johnson didn't significantly increase the debt, but he did create two huge government programs (Medicaid and Medicare) and escalate the War in Vietnam. By the time President Nixon left office, the debt had reached its lowest point since the Great Depression (just 23.9% of GDP).

Alas, the Republican Party since Richard Nixon has looked more like the Bizarro Republican Party. And these failures by the GOP over the last 40 years cannot be blamed on external events or on Democrats in congress. They are a direct result of Republican policy.

Between the Bush Tax Cuts (a huge handout to the rich), Medicare Part D (a huge handout to pharmaceutical companies) and the War in Iraq (a huge handout to private defense contractors), George W. Bush added more than $7 trillion to the national debt.

By comparison, the Democrats have looked like Scrooge McDuck, pinching pennies and lowering the deficit. Clinton ended welfare as we knew it and turned Reagan's huge budget deficit into an actual budget surplus. Even Obama the "socialist" has reduced the deficit by over 3% of GDP in the last three years. This is more than in any 3-year period since the early 1950s.

2. Your Hatred Of The Free Market
Our government is giving more than $78 billion to oil companies over the next 10 years. That's more than $8,000 out of my family's pocket. Obama tried to end these subsidies, but he was voted down by 51 senators. Forty-seven of these senators were Republicans.

In 2005, Dick Cheney and Republicans in congress exempted Halliburton and other natural gas drillers from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. If I compost broccoli stems in my backyard, I have to comply with the SDWA -- but Halliburton doesn't.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. This isn't the free market. This is the antithesis of the free market. This is the government taking tax dollars from my pocket and giving them to rich people.

3. "Job Creators"
John Boehner is either an idiot or a liar. He describes those benefiting from the Bush tax cuts as "job creators" and claims that raising their taxes will cripple our economy. This is not only specious, it is the opposite of the truth. Increasing top marginal tax rates increases the incentive for business owners to hire more people and reinvest in their company, because such investments are entirely tax-deductible.

All evidence from the last 70 years shows that the economy does much better when we at least try (with high marginal tax rates) to get the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. This is because the rich do not create jobs. Small businesses do. According to ADP, small businesses (with fewer than 50 employees) created 5.5 million new jobs between 2001 and 2007. Large businesses (with 500 or more employees) actually eliminated more than 600,000 jobs during the same time period.

Virtually all small business owners earn less than $250,000 per year. Unlike Sam Walton and the Koch brothers, small businesses can't use political power to get giant handouts from the government. Instead, I pay more than my fair share of taxes while creating American jobs. If every American earning more than $250,000 had the same trade surplus that I do, we would have a national trade surplus of more than $1.3 trillion (instead of our current trade deficit of about $550 billion).

The next time you see a small business succeed, remember: I built that! John Boehner and Paul Ryan didn't build it. And the Republican party certainly didn't build it.

4. National Defense
The Iraq War wasted trillions of dollars, killed 4,487 American soldiers and injured almost 32,000 more. It also made us less safe: "Al Qaeda In Iraq" didn't exist before we invaded.

Barack Obama issued the order to kill Osama Bin Laden. Mitt Romney said it wasn't worth the effort to "catch one person".

5. Integrity
My breakup with the GOP started that day in 2003 when President Bush lied to me about WMDs in Iraq.

President Clinton lied about oral sex. President Bush lied to get us into an unnecessary war that killed more than 4,400 American soldiers and over 100,000 civilians. Both of those lies were wrong. One of those lies was evil.

6. Wealth Redistribution
I paid over $200,000 in taxes last year. And yet my wife volunteers at food pantries so that American children won't go hungry. We have had to give money to friends to keep them from becoming homeless. Meanwhile, the Koch brothers are busy trying to steal more than $10.6 billion each year from middle class taxpayers.

The GOP complains that wealth is being "redistributed" from the rich class to the poor. The truth is that the Federal government primarily redistributes wealth from the middle class (actual job creators) to the rich. Democrats like Obama and Biden realize this, and are making an honest effort to reverse this ruinous trend. If we continue transferring wealth from the middle class to the super-rich, we will have the same income inequality as Brazil in just 6 years.

If you don't know why having the same Gini coefficicent as Brazil would be a bad thing, you need to spend more time reading international news and less time reading Ayn Rand.

-------

Take note that I didn't mention Obamacare, abortion, climate change, racism, gender discrimination, gay marriage or other "social issues". I haven't abandoned the GOP because the GOP hates gays. I have abandoned the GOP because you no longer stand for the things that you say that you stand for.

National politics in my lifetime can be easily summarized. The GOP espouses a set of beliefs that are important to the American people such as: integrity; self-reliance; fiscal responsibility; economic opportunity; rewarding hard work; protecting families; securing our borders; and maintaining a strong defense. Then, when we elect Republicans to advance these ideals, you fail on every count and we have to wait for a Democrat like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to actually govern according to these principles.

I can no longer call myself a "Republican" when that label has come to mean "rich white guy pillaging the middle class for personal gain".

Stopping America's Killers

I have great sympathy and compassion for everyone in Colorado who lost someone on Friday. Twelve families had their lives turned upside-down, in the middle of the night, when they found out that a loved one had been shot and killed in, of all places, a movie theater. The victims ranged in age from 6 to 51. As a parent, I can't imagine how horrible it would be to lose a child.

But the movie theater shooting wasn't the only thing that happened on Friday. On the same day:

---

• 21 Americans were killed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (primarily aspirin and ibuprofen).
  
  Source: Annals of Internal Medicine.
  

  ---

• 38 Americans were killed by juvenile diabetes.
  
  Source: Journal of the American Medical Association (vol 286: pp. 1195-1200).
  

  ---

• 84 Americans died by suicide.
  
  
  Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  

  ---

• 90 Americans were killed in car accidents (not including alcohol-related accidents).
  
  Source: Journal of the American Medical Association (vol 291: pp. 1238-1245).
  

  ---

• 124 Americans were killed by alcohol-related injuries (such as drunk driving).
• 179 Americans were killed by alcohol poisoning or alcohol-related diseases (such as alcoholic hepatitis or cirrhosis of the liver).
  
  Source: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
  

  ---

• 226 Americans were killed by Alzheimer's Disease.
  
  Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  

  ---

• 1,180 Americans were killed by tobacco. (That's almost 100 times the number of people that died from the  Aurora movie theater shooting).
  
  Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  

  ---

• 1,512 Americans were killed by cancer.http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf
  
  Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  

  ---

So... instead of (or in addition to) speaking up with your views about gun control (or lack thereof), please take 60 seconds and give $5.00 to one of the following causes:

1. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
2. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
3. American Lung Association Of The Upper Midwest
4. Fisher Center For Alzheimer's Research Foundation
5. Action on Smoking and Health
6. Center for Science in the Public Interest

All of the above charities received 4 stars (out of 4) from Charity Navigator, indicating that they maximize the amount of money spent directly on the prevention of suffering, disease and death. If you can't decide, just roll a die (seriously).

While you're at it, please make an appointment to give blood. More than 12,000 Americans will require a blood transfusion today.

I have several friends who died long before reaching old age. None of them were shot by a stranger in a movie theater. The Aurora shootings are horrific and headline-grabbing. But arguing about how James Holmes bought his guns and ammunition has little effect on the lives of everyday Americans.

I really do feel for the families in Colorado. But there are many more people that are suffering, and they need your help.

Thank you!

Clay

The Final Republican Nominee

Photo by sfgamchick on flickr

There's a poll over on the Sports Mogul Forums, asking which Republican should be the next president.

The results:

Candidate	Vote Percent
Ron Paul	30%
Rick Santorum	13%
Mitt Romney	9%
Newt Gingrich	4%
"A potato"	44%

If the Republican Party could nominate a potato, I'm sure they would. I think that was the logic behind Rick Perry entering the fray.

In all seriousness, it's hard to write negative ads about a potato.

I'm Not Concerned About The Very Poor

Photos by Gage Skidmore and Robert Couse-Baker

Sources: Congressional Budget Office, New York Times

Click graphic for larger version (http://bit.ly/xKp1K6).

Obama's New Budget Doesn't Add Up

I don't understand the math for the Department of Education in Obama's new budget.

First, we have a new $8 billion program to get community colleges to actually train people for jobs that are going unfilled.

Second, we have a reduction of college loan interest rates from 6.8% to 3.4%. According to House Education and Workforce Committee Ranking Member George Mille (D-CA) and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), this will give more than $2,800 per year to about 7 million undergraduates.

Seven million times $2.800 is about $17.6 billion.

Finally, there's the $2,500 "partly refundable" tax credit for college education. There are about 21 million students currently enrolled in college programs that would qualify for this credit. This tax credit is aimed at "low income families", which the government defines as families earning less than $160,000. Wow. That's almost 4 times the median household income, and includes some families in the top 5% of household income. That's what happens when you let millionaires write the laws: they decide that someone earning $80 an hour is "low income".

Anyway, let's be conservative and assume that only 80% of those 21 million qualify for the credit. That's another $42 billion.

Forty-two billion plus $17.6 billion plus $8 billion is $67.6 billion.

But the article says that the Dept. Of Education budget is only going up by 2.4% (to $69.8 billion).

So there are $67.6 billion in new programs squeezed into a $1.6 billion budget increase?

Which means these proposed expenditures are hiding somewhere else in the budget...

The Truth About Gingrich And Romney

Graph by Clay Dreslough

We Are The 53%!

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) pointed out yesterday that 47% of Americans pay no taxes. In her defense, I think she meant to say that 47% of U.S. households don't pay federal income taxes. Nevertheless, income taxes are the biggest part of my yearly tax bill, so it seems that she has a point. As someone in the 53% that actually does pay income taxes, I'd like to know how our income tax system lets 47% of us get by paying nothing.

Here are the income tax rates, by income category, provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

Representative Bachmann is right. There are about 140 million Americans on the left side of the graph that aren't paying any taxes. But income taxes aren't the only federal taxes. Almost $900 billion in annual revenue is collected through payroll taxes on each and every paycheck. Another $75 billion is collected in excise taxes, such as those on gasoline. When we add these things in, things become a bit more equal.

However, it's clear that federal taxes still fall disproportionately on the top 20%.

Unfortunately, those aren't the only taxes we pay. More than 40% of our yearly tax bill goes to state and local governments, mostly in the form of sales and property taxes.

When we add together all taxes, we see that "the poor" (the bottom 20%) are the ones paying the highest tax rate.

Wow. This is hard to believe. But the more you think about it, the more it makes sense. The working poor spend the highest share of their income on basic necessities like housing and transportation. This is where property and sales taxes hit the hardest.

When I started researching this, I honestly thought that I would find out that the richest Americans were paying the highest tax rates. After all, we are constantly told that our tax system is progressive, meaning that tax rates rise as income levels rise.

As it turns out, the U.S. tax system isn't progressive. Of all the groups above, the top 1% actually have the 2nd lowest tax rate. The poorest Americans have a tax rate that is 38% higher than the rate paid by the richest Americans.

Wow.

So, the next time someone tells you that 47% of Americans don't pay any taxes, show them this graph:

Sources:
Historical Effective Tax Rates: 1979-2006. Congressional Budget Office.
Additional Data on Sources of Income and High-Income Households. Congressional Budget Office.

"Meteorologist" Fails At Math

Further proof that our political discourse is no longer about facts. It's just about using data to express your opinion:

IPCC Claims 17cm of Sea Level Rise Made the Tsunami Worse

Mr. Watts is clearly an intelligent and apparently well-educated person. But he makes a giant logic error because it fits with his view that climate change is harmless.

Dr. Pachauri at the IPCC notes:

“In the 20th century, sea-level rise was recorded at an average of 17 centimetres. If the sea-level was significantly lower, clearly the same tsunami would have had a less devastating effect.“

Mr. Watts states:

"clearly Dr. Pachauri can’t mentally manage the concept of scale."

He then uses this lovely graphic to show that the size of the tsunami (17m) is much bigger than the sea-level rise (14cm):

And then draws the conclusion that the sea-level raise did not make the tsunami worse at all.

But the logical failure is that something being big and something being small doesn't automatically mean that the small thing doesn't exist.

The sea level rise made the tsunami 1.2% higher. That's not a lot. But it's not "nothing". Using these numbers, we could assume that the sea level rise increased the "devastation" by 1.2%. But that would be understating the effect of the sea level rises.

If a 14-meter tsunami killed 18,000 people, does that mean that a 7-meter tsunami would have killed 9,000 people? It's unlikely. We know that the area was fairly well prepared for a tsunami of about 5 meters -- primarily through a 5.7 meter sea wall built to handle such an event.

So a 3.5-meter tsunami would have caused very little damage. A 7-meter tsunami would have caused more damage, but much of it would have been allayed by defenses in place. The following table seems plausible. It is certainly more plausible than assuming a linear relationship (or, as Mr. Watts would prefer, no relationship):

Height	"Devastation Units"
3.5 meters	0
7 meters	10
10.5 meters	40
14 meters	90

This is the same effect we see in baseball, where runs scored has an exponential effect on wins. Scoring twice as many runs as an average team will lead to a win-loss ratio that is four times higher.

So, let's assume that a 17 cm (1.2%) increase in the size of the tsunami caused about 3% more "devastation":

The tsunami caused $300 billion in damage. Three percent of that is $9 billion. Nine billion dollars.

The tsunami killed more than 18,000 people. The sea level rise is responsible for more than 500 of these deaths.

I understand that most of the damage was caused by the earthquake. But some of it was attributable to the sea-level rise, including the deaths of more than 500 people. This is in a country with about 500 homicide per year. If Japan managed to completely eliminate all homicides, that would be front page news. But Mr. Watts would like to write off these deaths from sea-level rise as if they never happened.

Coke Is It! Three In A Row

We can now be fairly confident that the United States has elected three consecutive presidents that have used cocaine.

Maybe this isn't a big deal. In theory, personal experience with illegal drugs should aid in understanding and fixing the drug problem in America (although it is worth noting that Clinton and Bush 34 did little to change the status quo).

The interesting thing is that the U.N. says 7.6% of American adults have tried cocaine. This means that if you picked 3 adults at random from the U.S. population, the chance of all three having tried cocaine is about 1 in 2300. Three presidents is a small sample size, but those odds are long enough that's it's fair to acknowledge the positive correlation between cocaine use and presidency.
The odds of electing 10 male presidents in a row, if presidents were picked at random from the population, is about 1 in 1000. Of course, we all know that there is a causal connection between gender and political success, so that doesn't surprise us. But the cocaine use is surprising. We certainly have enough evidence to think there is a connection between cocaine use and being elected as leader of the "free world". I have a couple ideas:

1) Politics is tough work, and participants feel they need strong stimulants to survive the physical and emotional toll.

2) Presidential races attract "alpha" personalities. People who are cocky and overconfident -- enough to think that they can use cocaine without getting addicted. Cocaine also has a "brand identity" that matches people with these kinds of personalities.

I prefer theory #2. However, I'm not sure how to test it.