Freedom Line Blog

The excellent once and (potentially) future U.S. Rep. David McIntosh explains here how Congress can work to override Barack Obama’s assault on religious liberty. Good stuff.

[Cross-posted at The American Spectator]

At the University of Mobile’s twelve23 site, I again examine the Obama assault on religious liberty.

Key passage:

To be very clear, this is a matter extending far beyond Catholic institutions. A recent letter by 300 leading scholars objecting to the mandate included signatures by Mike O’Neal, the president of Oklahoma Christian University; Thomas Hibbs, Honors College Dean at Baylor University; Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; professors of neurobiology, chemistry, biochemistry and other sciences from numerous colleges; law professors from across the country; Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik, Director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought, Yeshiva University; and Chuck Colson, the beloved founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

The letter called the rule “unacceptable,” “morally obtuse” and “an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience.”

Over at the Daily Caller, Jamie Weinstein has a piece today regarding the grave seriousness with which the Iranian regime approaches the prospect of wiping Israel off the face of the planet. The column opens by citing the widow of one of the recently-assassinated nuclear scientists working on the Iranian bomb, who says that her husband’s “ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel.”

The intellectual balm of choice for foreign policy sophisticates has been to tell themselves that this sort of language out of Tehran is purely for domestic consumption, empty rhetoric aimed at consolidating support for the regime. At last night’s Republican debate in Arizona, Newt Gingrich rejected that line of thought, saying “I’m inclined to believe dictators. It’s dangerous not to.” (lest that quote sound a bit strange, it should be noted that Gingrich was saying it’s important to take threats from dictatorial regimes at face value).

Weinstein riffs on that theme at length and does a fine job of fleshing out Gingrich’s point:

They’re just posturing or joking or have been misinterpreted, we’re told. Israel and the West can live with a nuclear Iran, foreign policy intellectuals in New York, London and Berlin proclaim.

But if you’re the tiny, embattled State of Israel, it is hard to see how you can afford to take the chance that the Iranian leadership is merely joshing with their eliminationist rhetoric. Even if the odds are only 5 percent that the Iranian regime is apocalyptic and would act to bring back the hidden Imam through a nuclear holocaust, a five percent chance of a second holocaust is five percent too much for Israel to tolerate. (And let’s forget entirely for a moment the dire strategic problems of dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran even if the Islamic Republic doesn’t immediately use the bomb once it obtains the capability to strike. Try handling Hezbollah when they have a nuclear shield.)

Quite so. The higher the stakes, the lower our tolerance of ambiguity should be. It’s becoming increasingly clear that — regardless of how Iran uses a bomb — the cost will be prohibitively high for the U.S. and our allies. We still have a limited window in which we can set back and ultimately undo the threat with means short of war. Should we fail, the remaining options will be as unpalatable as they are necessary.

Wherein Valerie Jarrett, perhaps the most consistently insipid of the White House courtiers, declares unemployment a form of stimulus:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which has been taken over by leftist activists, is taking comments through Friday on a proposed report on phthalates, which are used in most plastics. At the American Enterprise Institute, Jon Entine has a superb report on what’s at stake. The key line: “Federal regulators need be careful about demonizing proven safe chemicals, and replacing them with potentially risky substitutes that have not been tested.”

This is all part and parcel of a continuing story of overzealous overregulation by the CPSC. I’ve written (or done the first draft of editorials) on the broader topic several times, including here for CFIF.

The CPSIA, the law on which a lot of this is based, was another of the idiocies the Bush administration either pushed or let get through. But the interpretation thereof, going well beyond the ordinary, logical meaning of the law in order to regulate far more strictly and counterproductively than the law itself would otherwise allow, is entirely the work of the Obamites who now run the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The economy suffers as a result.

Mitt Romney has at least one thing in common with every other member of the Republican presidential field: his worst enemy is Mitt Romney.

At a speech in Shelby Township, Michigan earlier today Romney’s answer to a question about the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commision ended up in this intellectual cul-de-sac:

If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy. So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies.

Romney, of course, is correct about the broader question of tax policy, but his understanding of public spending makes him sound like a logical candidate to succeed Timothy Geithner as President Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury.

Federal spending doesn’t generate economic growth — all it does is repurpose money from the private sector. In some cases where government is performing essential functions, such as law enforcement or national defense, that’s a necessary sacrifice. In virtually all others — from green energy boondoggles to stimulus giveaways — it’s a net drain on the economy. And, as Milton Friedman would remind Romney, the rate of spending is the effective rate of taxation.

Over the past few weeks, a wide variety of conservative pundits have counseled Romney to more aggressively address his “authenticity” problem, showing the public a little more of his true personality. But as today’s little slip-up reveals, the only candidate less palatable to conservatives than the phony Romney is his authentic counterpart.

On Monday, a U.K. court took the wind out of The Pirate Bay’s sails via a ruling that may sink the popular file sharing website in England’s online seas.  Like other courts in other countries, that court ruled that The Pirate Bay is a copyright infringer because it actively encourages its 30 million worldwide users to engage in widespread theft.

The operators of The Pirate Bay — alongside many other illegal file sharing websites — don’t just passively violate laws.  Rather, they’re downright brazen in using online consumers as pawns for making millions of dollars from illicit activities – up to $3 million per month, according to expert testimony in this case.  The Pirate Bay again illustrates the toxic presence of bad actors out there on the Web who couldn’t care any less about whose property is stolen, whose jobs are threatened or even whose hard drives are being infected by online piracy.  The need to combat digital theft is therefore still very prevalent, and last month’s hysterical website blackout to protest proposed Congressional rogue sites legislation did absolutely nothing to address that issue.

The court will rule this summer on whether or not to block The Pirate Bay from U.K. Internet search results, but this decision comes on the heels of last summer’s blocking of a British content aggregator, Newzbin2, which also facilitated theft of copyrighted content en mass.  Which serves to show that site blocking is already underway in other advanced democratic nations, yet the Internet continues to thrive despite the false predictions of opponents of rogue website legislation.

It all goes to show that it’s time that we here in America also face the music.  Namely, that the U.S. remains behind in enforcing property rights, especially as relating to the online realm.  To be sure, the Internet should remain free within the bounds of law.  But it is not, should not, and cannot be lawless.  Outright theft does not become sacred simply because it occurs on the Internet, and the consequences are compounded when foreign criminal networks (e.g., MegaUpload) are turning illegal clicks into pocket-lining treasures.

From John Stossel’s blog:

What would happen if you planned your family’s budget the way the politicians plan theirs? I showed people this chart:

Everyone agreed that this would be a ridiculous household budget.

But that’s the federal budget, if you just add 8 zeroes!

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

David Catron has a superb column today on the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. He notes that it has set the stage for making the case for free-market reforms within Medicare. Its costs are about 40 percent below earlier estimates. Both the premiums paid by individuals and the cost to the taxpayers have been well below the original projections. Plus, the bill in question actually provided for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) throughout the health-care system, not just in Medicare — a big win for conservatives, and, for that matter, especially for Rick Santorum, who had led the fight for HSAs for 11 years.

I know more than the usual about all this. For just over a year, I worked as a PR person helping run the effort (project manager) to fight off a Democratic bill to have government “negotiate” insurance prices for Part D rather than letting the market work. It was THE free-market fight of 2007. Thank goodness, we won. The reason we won was because the statistics were all in our favor. When Part D was passed, the Dems wanted to set the monthly premium at $35 (with subsequent hikes for inflation) because they feared the market would drive prices much, much higher than that. Good thing conservatives didn’t let them. When the smoke cleared, the average premium, even after two years, was about $24 — $11, or about 30%, LESS than the Dems would have insisted upon. Five years later, the average premiums are still well below Democratic projections; the reason for the lower prices is speficially because government “negotiators” were kept OUT of the system.

So Catron is right on all those counts.

Now, does that mean I would have voted for Part D in 2003? No. I opposed it with every fiber of my being. It was an unfunded expansion of an entitlement, and its free-market reforms were applicable only to Part D, not throughout the whole of Medicare. I argued then, and still believe today, that in return for expanding the entitlement so drastically, Congress should have included it as part of a systemic reform of all of Medicare, in order to avoid the bankruptcy of the system and all the other ills that stem from an out-of-control, bureaucrat-centric entitlement.

I also objected, vociferously, to the utterly corrupt method by which Tom DeLay and company, with the help of the Bush White House, pushed the bill through the House after holding the vote “open” for three hours, beginning at 2 a.m., while twisting arms and even using tactics and alleged tactics that really threatened the line of legality. It was one of the most corrupt congressional actions of my lifetime. It was sickening.

All of which leads us….. where? Well, it means that Catron is right that those in the SENATE (which didn’t use the same corrupt tactics) did at least have some decent reasons for supporting the bill — especially Santorum, whose HSAs were the culmination of 11 years of good, conservative work. Nonetheless, it still probably was a net minus for the cause of good government. And those in the House who voted for it are all guilty of aiding and abetting not just fiscal irresponsibility, but also corruption (at least procedural, and maybe otherwise) of the sort that ended up stinking so badly that it contributed mightily to the GOP losing the House AND (indirectly) to Obama becoming president.

(If I had been in the House and in FAVOR of the bill, I would have switched my vote AGAINST, and urged others to do so, in order to protect the integrity of the House.)

In sum, conservatives looking back at it should understand that Part D did some good, that the Senate vote wasn’t as bad as the House vote, and that the political pressures in favor of it were substantial. It STILL was a bad bill. But, on the Senate side at least, support for it is hardly disqualifying for national leadership.

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CST to 6:00 p.m. CST (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.”  Today’s guest lineup includes:

4:00 (CST)/5:00 pm (EST):  Kathleen Porter-Magee, Senior Director at Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Education: The State of State Standards;

4:30 (CST)/5:30 pm (EST):  Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President at National Taxpayers Union, Will Obama’s Budget Leave America in Permanent Fiscal Crisis?;

5:00 (CST)/6:00 pm (EST):  Phil Kerpen, Vice President for Policy at Americans for Prosperity, “Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America — and How to Stop Him”;  and

5:30 (CST)/6:30 pm (EST):  John Berlau, Director, Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at Competitive Enterprise Institute, Where the Jobs Are

Listen live on the Internet here.   Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

An editorial by Investor’s Business Daily highlights why the Obama campaign’s crowing about a nascent economic recovery is hiding the real pain American workers are feeling:

Even worse for an administration straining to make the case that it deserves to be around for another four years is the real unemployment rate. It’s not 8.3%, but closer to 15%, a figure that reflects those who “would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part time but would prefer full-time work,” says the CBO.

Another White House problem comes from this in the CBO report: “The share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months — referred to as the long-term unemployed — topped 40% in December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since.”

Voters aren’t stupid.  If the eventual Republican nominee can make a compelling argument linking Obama’s policies to the decline in jobs, he’ll win.  If not, we’ll have nearly an entire decade of lost opportunities.

Back in December I wrote a column defending a Medicare reform proposal outlined by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).  Unlike Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” budget resolution that passed the House in 2011, Ryan-Wyden retains traditional Medicare.  However, like Ryan’s original reform, Ryan-Wyden introduces private sector competition by allowing seniors to use vouchers to select the plan – public or private – that they want, with any savings from a less expensive plan landing in the seniors’ pocket.

At the time, Ryan-Wyden was reported as an idea by two policy wonks with no discernable political support on Capitol Hill.  That changed this week when Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) introduced a bill that substantially mirrors Ryan-Wyden’s Medicare-plus-competition proposal.  Although both pairings are so far quiet on the similarities between their plans, this is a good first step toward getting a common conceptual framework around an idea that increases competition.

Not that you’d know any this from reading Think Progress’ headline announcing the Coburn-Burr plan as “Two Republican Senators Try to Walk Back Paul Ryan’s Medicare Privatization Plan.”  Indeed, one has to read halfway into the article to discover that Coburn-Burr “is very similar to the bipartisan framework outlined by Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) last year and adds little to the Medicare reform debate.”

To Think Progress’ way of thinking there is little news value when two conservative Republican Senators introduce an almost identical reform plan to one announced by a liberal Democratic colleague and the most influential Republican Congressman.  Almost everyone else knows better.  With support growing for Ryan’s Medicare 2.0 reform, expect to see more movement Ryan’s way as the year rolls on.

Consider Andrew Malcolm’s take on what casino magnate and Gingrich Super PAC funder Sheldon Adelson is really up to with his new $10 million bet on Newt:

…Gingrich and Santorum are splitting the same crowd. And this benefits Romney, who has his own money and national operation carefully-constructed over years.

So, in this case, the adage about following the money would steer you in the wrong direction. The potential $21 million is really a bank shot for Adelson, going to help Gingrich prevent Santorum from beating Romney.

We’ll see if it works. But pretty clever.

Recall that Adelson was previously reported to have told Romney’s camp that if Mitt won the GOP nomination, Adelson would be even more generous than he was to Newt.  Maybe the $10 million is a down payment on that promise.

This week’s edition of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out. Below is a summary of its contents:

Lee:  Second Amendment: Detroit Chaos Proves Once Again It’s No Anachronism
Senik:  Sticking it to the Littlest Guys: Obama Chooses Teacher Unions Over Inner-City Kids
Ellis:  Obama vs. Ryan Budgets: A Contrast of Visions
Hillyer:  Obama Team Hijacks Schools’ Core Standards

Podcast:  Time to Lower the Corporate Tax Rate – Interview w/RATE Coalition’s James Pinkerton
Jester’s Courtroom:  An Unhappy Valentine’s Day

Editorial Cartoons:  Latest Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Quiz:  Question of the Week
Notable Quotes:  Quotes of the Week

If you are not already signed up to receive CFIF’s Liberty Update by e-mail, sign up here.

In an interview with CFIF, James Pinkerton, co-chair of RATE (Reforming America’s Taxes Equitably), Fox News contributor and former White House domestic policy adviser, discusses the need to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate to enable American companies to compete in the global marketplace and jumpstart U.S. economic and job growth.

Listen to the interview here.

It’s been a bad week for Office of Management and Budget Director Jeff Zients, the man tasked with defending President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget proposal.

In testimony before the House Budget Committee Zients told Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that the penalty for not complying with ObamaCare’s mandate to buy health insurance is not a tax increase.  (Subscription wall.)  In response, Rep. Garrett said, “Okay.  I just want to be clear on that because that’s not the argument the Administration is making before the Supreme Court.”

Before the Senate Budget Committee Zients was even more out-of-touch.  Under questioning from Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Zients claimed that Obama’s 2013 budget contained spending cuts – a distortion Sessions would not tolerate:

Mr. Zients, there are no spending cuts in this budget. This budget increases spending. Surely you know that. It increases taxes. So to say you cut $2.50 in spending for every dollar in tax increase is beyond the pale.

So too is the entire shell game about ‘deficit reduction’ when what liberals like Obama really mean is tax increases to pay for spending increases.  If the President won’t admit it at least his budget director will be made to.

Over at Ricochet, I have a post today on the inspired example being set by the city of San Diego, a rose among thorns in notoriously misgoverned California. Big labor is currently trying to impede an initiative set for the city’s June ballot that would completely overhaul public sector pensions, moving all new hires (sans police officers) into 401(k) style defined-contribution plans instead of the exorbitant defined-benefit systems that have left the city with a $2.1 billion pension deficit.

While that deserves a hearty commendation, it’s not necessarily evidence of a broader reformist bent. Public pensions, after all, have become the issue du jour in financially strapped cities and states throughout the nation.  What really proves the depth of San Diego’s commitment to good government is the lengths to which the city is going to improve the nuts and bolts of day to day public service. Consider this, from Governing Magazine:

The city also has implemented an effort that creates “managed competition” in which some city departments must offer the lowest bid in order to continue their operations, lest they be replaced with a third-party contractor who can do the job cheaper.

So far, employees who sweep the streets, maintain the vehicle fleet and work in the city publishing shop have all won those bids by pitching proposals that reduced expenses for the city. The next competition will involve the city’s landfill operations. “Employees know where the fat is,” [Mayor Jerry] Sanders said.

Meanwhile, under Sanders’ leadership, the city has shed about 1,800 positions, made pay cuts and freezes, and pushed huge reforms to the retiree health care system expected to save the city at least $700 million over 25 years.

Let’s hope San Diego keeps up the good work. Nothing will do more to undercut the case of California’s regnant liberals than an object lesson showing how successful an alternative model can be.

When weeks at a time pass between primary contests, the media — long on time to fill and short on content with which to fill it — has a magnetic attraction to hand-wringing about the civility deficit in American politics. As this brilliant video from Reason shows, however, the caterwauling is ahistorical:

Sorry for the internal links. Go here for details.