Freedom Line Blog

Charles C. Johnson of the Daily Caller unearthed a scathing review of U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s book that was published before Harvard Law School hired her in 1995:

In 1991, Rutgers Professor Phillip Schuchman reviewed Warren’s co-authored 1989 book “As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America” in the pages of the Rutgers Law Review, a publication Warren once edited. Schuchman found “serious errors” which result in “grossly mistaken functions and comparisons.

Warren and her co-authors had drawn improper conclusions from “even their flawed findings,” and “made their raw data unavailable” to check, he wrote. “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.”

The work “contains so much exaggeration, so many questionable ploys, and so many incorrect statements that it would be well to check the accuracy of their raw data, as old as it is,” Schuchman added.

Further reporting by Johnson indicates the reason for HLS’ willful oversight – an affirmative action policy that placed a premium on hiring female and minority faculty members.

For months now Warren’s Senate candidacy has been plagued by her use of alleged Cherokee ancestry to get academic jobs she might otherwise have failed to get.

Just last week, Warren told the Democratic National Convention, “We celebrate success.  We just don’t want the game to be rigged.”

At least not after she’s won.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) told Roll Call what the biggest challenge is while preparing Vice President Joe Biden to debate Paul Ryan:

“I sit next to Paul Ryan in the Budget Committee day in and day out,” he said on his preparation for the role.”So, I know how he presents the Republican case.

“He presents a plan that’s bad for the country with a smile, so I think the challenge is dealing with presentation of the plan, explaining why the plan is bad for the country,” he added.

With all due respect to Rep. Van Hollen, his biggest challenge is helping Joe Biden explain how ripping out more than $700 million from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare is a better policy than Ryan’s idea to convert future Medicare benefits into a fiscally sustainable premium support voucher.

It would take all of Bill Clinton’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand to pull off that feat.  Instead, Van Hollen is working with the gaffe-prone Biden.

Good luck overcoming that handicap, Congressman.  You’ll need it.

Jonah Goldberg on the difference between conservatives and liberals as stewards of the economy:

At least Reagan argued that the economy would prosper if he were allowed to liberate it from the scheming of self-styled experts. Clinton ran out in front of a parade of free-market successes and, like Ferris Bueller, acted as if he was leading the parade.

In his manifest hubris, Obama believed it was just that easy. He, too, could simply will a vibrant economy into being through sheer intellectual force. But, unlike Bill Clinton, he wouldn’t sully himself by playing “small ball.” Obama would be “transformative.”

This reminded me of Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech last week when he said, “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise… is to help you and your family.”

Free markets and strong families.  Sounds like a good combination to me.

Tomorrow the latest jobs report will be announced by the Labor Department.  Tonight President Barack Obama will accept his party’s (re)nomination for President of the United States.  The Wall Street Journal says that sometime before he delivers his acceptance speech he will know what the numbers say.

This could prompt a side-game for political junkies:

Assuming the president gets a briefing on Thursday before his speech, what might he do with it? He isn’t exactly getting on stage, for one of the most important speeches of his career, to recite Labor Department data. But he conceivably could tweak his adjectives in describing the economy if the employment report is a surprise in either direction. Good luck trying to figure that out while you’re watching.

But don’t let that stop you from trying!

Steven Greenhut in City Journal has an update on California’s nascent pension reform deal:

Despite its relatively modest contents, AB 340 has been bitterly denounced by public-employee unions. “The pension proposals outlined today represent a retreat from collective bargaining and basic principles of retirement security,” said one firefighter-union official in a press statement. Union officials obviously don’t want the state capping pensions. The unions would prefer to work out “reforms” at the collective-bargaining table, where they exert the most power and often control both sides of the negotiation (union officials and city staffers sometimes belong to the same union, and many city council members get elected with union support).

But just because the plan is angrily opposed by unions doesn’t make it a good one. “Let’s be clear,” said assembly Republican leader Connie Conway, “the Democrat proposal is no substitute for serious reforms to get our public employee pension crisis under control. This is no time for the liberal majority to pat themselves on the back and say the job is done.” Indeed, AB 340, designed mainly as a fig leaf for a big tax increase, won’t fix the state’s massive pension problem. It’s a minor reform at best—and sadly par for the course with this governor and legislature.

All true.  But I submit there is still a silver lining.

Last week I posted some thoughts on this issue.  In those remarks I said that any real reform is welcome, if only to set the table for larger, more substantive changes in the future.

While more can and should be done to address California’s $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, this kind of “fig leaf” is welcome, if inadequate.

Even though the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty negotiations broke down in July, gun control advocates are already promoting a new vehicle to infringe on civilian ownership of firearms.

The new document being discussed at U.N. headquarters is called a “Programme of Action to Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” (or PoA for short).

As Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation reports, so far the PoA isn’t doing much better than the ATT:

The normal approach is to try to walk before you run. At the U.N., though, the response to the PoA’s inability to walk is to recommend running. IANSA wants the PoA to expand to cover ammunition. Parker wants a PoA that would provide a broader framework for the ATT. And McLay believes it should consider further “normative development”—i.e., in future years it should discuss “the issues of civilian possession.” Indeed, on Tuesday at the review conference, IANSA acknowledged that the PoA has served as the basis for “gun control” in many nations and encouraged others to follow along.

IANSA stands for The International Action Network on Small Arms, and as Bromund notes, it is “the leading small-arms-control NGO…”

For some reason, the United States is still involved in negotiations with groups like IANSA.

It’s not often that regulators are so transparent about their ultimate goals.  With the IANSA on record as using the PoA as a basis for gun control, it’s past time for conservatives in Congress to demand that the U.S. pull out of negotiations immediately.  Safeguarding the Second Amendment requires nothing less.

Jonathan Allen of Politico sums up the highly successful line of attack Republicans aimed at President Barack Obama during their nominating convention:

If Republicans landed a punch on Obama, it was the kind of strategic body blow that a skillful pugilist deploys to gain better position for the rest of the fight.

No roundhouse, no jaw-splitter, no knockout. It was the kind of shot aimed at subtly shifting momentum and softening up the opponent in a way that may not be evident to the casual observer.

Allen is right and Obama’s camp knows it.  That’s why they’ve been running a character assassination campaign against Mitt Romney – felon, murderer – instead of talking about any of the President’s accomplishments.

The simple fact is there aren’t any successes directly attributable to Obama worth talking about.  The more the Romney team can make this election a “good man, bad president” referendum on the incumbent, the more likely it is that Obama will be a one-term wonder.

Here’s one reason to be cautiously optimistic about a pension reform deal announced between California Governor Jerry Brown and state Democratic lawmakers:

California’s public pensions are currently governed by a patchwork of contractual agreements and retirement-system rules. The deal, likely to win approval in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, would bring most of those systems under the same pension standards.

Yes, as critics correctly point out, Brown’s deal with his fellow Democrats is “insufficient to cut billions of dollars in unfunded obligations on governments’ books.”

But the value in Brown’s pension reform deal is that for the first time most of the state’s public employees will be under the same set of pension rules.

This is important for at least two reasons.

First, it makes the pension liability problem more understandable for everyday Californians.  Sure, we all know the state’s unfunded liabilities are huge – around $500 billion according a Stanford study – but what good does knowing that number do if reform opponents can sidetrack reasonable debate by citing a dizzying array of competing pension rules?  By consolidating most public employees under the same standards, citizens can begin to see the pension crisis in a simpler, more straightforward way.

The other potential improvement is related to the first.  Brown’s deal sets the table for a future reformer to make the changes Brown’s critics want now.  No one expects Brown to be that guy, so why not welcome a plan that at least moves the ball in the right direction?

Besides, a pension reform deal like Brown’s that puts most of California’s public employees under the same standards means that a future governor will have that many less obstacles to achieve the cost savings the state needs to get back its golden sheen.

H/T: Governing.com

Adam Schaeffer of the Cato Institute argues a provocative thesis about the effect of public charter schools:

How can charter schools spend less money on average than regular public schools and yet cost taxpayers more overall at the state level? How can charter schools increase educational options and diversity in the public school system and yet decrease options and diversity in education overall? And how can some charter schools outperform regular public schools on average and yet decrease achievement overall?

I call these outcomes the Charter School Paradox, but it is only a paradox if we take a very narrow view of the effects of charter schools. When we expand our perspective to include their effects on private education, we find that these seeming contradictions are really the unintended consequences of inadequate, public-sector-only reform. On average, charter schools may marginally improve the public education system, but in the process they are wreaking havoc on private education. Charter schools take a significant portion of their students from private schools, causing a drop in private enrollment, driving some schools entirely out of business, and thereby raising public costs while potentially diminishing competition and diversity in our education system overall.

Schaeffer’s commentary is based on a larger study published by Cato colleague Richard Buddin.

Some of the key findings of Buddin’s study are that public charters in urban areas draw one-fourth to one-third of their student bodies from private schools.  The direct cost of these private-to-public migrants is estimated to be $1.8 billion a year (as of 2008) in new spending.

According to Schaeffer and Buddin, unless education reformers enact “good private school choice reform, such as education tax credits,” expanding the number of public charter schools could “cannibalize the private sector, increase public costs, and decrease options and competition.”

Conservative governors like Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and others have been rightly praised for reforming their public education system by increasing the school choice options for parents.  Going forward, they and others would do well to continue pursuing policies that protect private education while improving its public counterpart.

Last week Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach filed a lawsuit on behalf of 10 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents challenging President Barack Obama’s “deferred action” program.

In a recent column I explained how the President’s decision to instruct federal law enforcement not to enforce relevant immigration law is giving some state governments an excuse to further legitimize illegal immigration.

Now the Heritage Foundation is out with an issue brief analyzing the prospects of the ICE agents’ lawsuit.  It doesn’t look good:

The plaintiffs will have a tough row to hoe, regardless of how abusive this new initiative may be in terms of violating the spirit—if not the letter—of the Constitution’s separation of powers, as well as the executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Although the challenge is by no means frivolous, a court may be reluctant to conclude that the plaintiffs have standing.

Even if they are able to establish an “injury in fact,” a court may be tempted to cite prudential standing rules in order to avoid reaching the merits, and to avoid encouraging federal officials to defy orders of their supervisors as a prelude to challenging the legality of those orders in court. As the Supreme Court stated in Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood (1979), “a plaintiff may still lack standing under the prudential principles by which the judiciary seeks to avoid deciding questions of broad social import where no individual rights would be vindicated and to limit access to the federal courts to those litigants best suited to assert a particular claim.”

Key Takeaway: This is a political issue that requires a well thought out policy solution.  Paul Ryan dedicated his career thus far to making the conservative case for budget and entitlement reform.  It’s time for another enterprising Member of Congress to do the same with immigration reform.

A Pew Research poll shows more Americans interested in the Republican Party’s convention platform than in presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech.

But an interview Romney gave to Politico indicates those who watch Mitt’s speech Thursday night might be in for something good:

His language, his approach, his mannerisms convey: I am not asking you to trust me to see into your soul, or to feel your pain, or bring you hope and fuzzy change. I will bring you concrete, measurable, profitable change — the kind you can authentically take stock of, and even measure in your family’s bank account.

Romney, who this week watched Obama’s 2008 convention speech again, said the lofty, theatrical address loaded with promises never kept provides the perfect device for juxtaposing his leadership style with the president’s.

…

Romney’s point: You had love, you had hero worship, you had emotion. How did that work out?

They aren’t lotto numbers; they are the number of times Paul Ryan’s name and budget ideas have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard & National Review, and on Fox News, respectively, since the presidential election of 2008.

According to Politico, the unequaled access to conservative opinion leaders came as a direct result of Ryan’s deliberate strategy to cultivate conservative pundits and think tank-types so that they in turn would promote Ryan’s ideas to the American public, and ultimately, back onto Ryan’s colleagues in Congress.

To say the strategy worked is an understatement.  To read how Ryan did it would be time well spent.

Just days after the California DMV announced it might use the Obama Administration’s “deferred action” program to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, a group of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are suing to kill it.

From Huffington Post:

Arizona immigration law author and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is representing 10 immigration agents in a lawsuit filed Thursday against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, for policies they say prevent them from doing their job of defending the Constitution.

“They’re being ordered by their federal-appointee superiors to break federal law, or if they don’t break federal law, according to their orders they will be disciplined,” Kobach said Thursday on a call with reporters. “This is an absolutely breath-taking assertion of authority and an abuse of authority.”

The complaint’s six causes of action give you a flavor of what Kobach means:

1. The Directive Expressly Violates Federal Statutes Requiring the Initiation of Removals
2. The Directive Violates Federal Law By Conferring a Non-Statutory Form of Benefit, Deferred Action, to More than 1.7 Million Aliens, Rather Than a Form of Relief or Benefit that Federal Law Permits on Such a Large Scale
3. The Directive Violates Federal Law by Conferring the Legal Benefit of Employment Authorization Without Any Statutory Basis and Under the False Pretense of “Prosecutorial Discretion”
4. The Directive Violates the Constitutional Allocation of Legislative Power to Congress
5. The Directive Violates the Article II, Section 3, Constitutional Obligation of the Executive to Take Care That the Laws Are Faithfully Executed
6. The Directive Violates the Administrative Procedure Act Through Conferral of a Benefit Without Regulatory Implementation

Over at National Review, John O’Sullivan argues that the Romney-Ryan ticket should take a realist tone when it sells its vision of entitlement reform, referencing a familiar example:

Despite all the guff written about him, Reagan was not an optimist. He was a realist who believed in the virtue of hope (which is quite another thing — see below). Realism is a combination of prudence and hope. Realists believe that they can solve problems and win battles, but only by evaluating the dangers accurately and proposing adequate responses to them. Reagan expressed great faith in the future of the American people, but he also warned that their grandchildren might lose that future if the present generation did not defend the U.S. Constitution and traditional liberties. He warned eloquently against the Soviet threat, but instead of looking on the bright side and leaving matters to chance, he drove through — against strong political and media opposition — tough policies on foreign policy and defense.

Hope and prudence are what Ryan has shown with his persistence in speaking the fiscal truth to seniors in his Wisconsin congressional district.  It was hope in the power of fact-based arguments that compelled him to spend hours in town hall meetings detailing the chronic deficits afflicting Medicare and Medicaid.  And it was from a deep well of prudence that he sought to explain how the continued failure to reform their structure will result in either taxes we can’t afford or cuts in coverage some people can’t endure.

This election will likely turn on whether Ryan’s realistic appraisal of entitlement reform will be interpreted by the public as a blend of hope and prudence or instead an accountant’s excuse to throw granny off a cliff.

If you were Todd Akin (R-MO), would you quit running for U.S. Senate?

After botching his response to a question about the legitimacy of abortion in cases of rape, Akin has been vilified by the Left, and told to drop out of the race by Mitt Romney, several Republican Senators, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Crossroads GPS (the last two representing the two biggest spenders any GOP candidate could ask for).

Many people would have dropped out.  With the 6pm deadline to withdraw now passed, Akin is still in.

Of course his comments will narrow the 11 point advantage he was enjoying over incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill.  It will hurt fundraising.  And, if the NRSC and Crossroads GPS continue their new boycott of his campaign, Akin will have to figure out a way to get out his message in Missouri’s media markets without the help of his natural allies.

To be sure, his exit from the race makes obvious sense to anyone associated with him because of a shared party label.  If I were Mitt Romney or Massachusetts’ Scott Brown, I wouldn’t want to be dragged into conversations about what someone half a continent away said about an issue I’m not emphasizing in my race.

Still, I understand why Akin didn’t heed the calls to drop out.  There’s nothing in it for him.  If he leaves now his political career is over.  By winning the Senate primary he gave away his U.S. House seat.  Judging by the public comments from the party elite, no one is promising him a second act in a year or two with an uncontested run for state office.  Also, Akin seems to lack the connections to make a lucrative transition to the private sector.

Let’s say Akin had announced that for the good of Missouri and the party he was dropping out today.  What happens tomorrow?  For a guy who has spent the last 20+ years in elected office, campaigning and governing are what he does.

No, for Todd Akin, it’s either resurrect an imploding campaign or at least go down in defeat trying.

Who knows; maybe it’s all downhill from here…

William Kristol sums up the grassroots enthusiasm over the Paul Ryan pick:

Until last week, the Romney campaign was a few hundred operatives working hard in Boston trying to win a presidential election. Now Romney-Ryan is a groundswell of citizens spontaneously writing, volunteering, and proselytizing on behalf of a cause. The first was going to be a grueling uphill climb. The second could be more like running downhill with the wind at your back. Even in the second instance, of course, the candidate still has to jump the hurdles and avoid the obstacles. But it’s a lot easier to prevail when you stand for a cause citizens are eager to join than when you’re engaged in a campaign voters may diffidently support.

And it’s not just politically involved citizens who are energized by Ryan’s elevation to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate.

As Fred Barnes notes, the 87 House Republicans who won office in 2010 have helped heighten Ryan’s profile by supporting his budget reforms.  At least 70 of these are considered likely to be reelected this year, thus solidifying their importance in the caucus.  By putting their party on record as supporting Ryan’s vision, these House GOPers make Romney’s embrace of Ryan a clear legitimization of conservative, market-based reform.

Ryan is the linchpin.  Without him providing the bridge between the reform-minded conservatives in the House and the Romney campaign, it’s very likely that a Romney Administration would be reluctant to move on a policy package the candidate did not run on.  Now, Romney owns it.

Let the proselytizing continue.

The Huffington Post summarizes a new Moody’s Investor Service report that could significantly alter municipal California’s fiscal future:

Moody’s reports that some cities are turning bankruptcy as a new strategy to take on budget deficits and avoid obligations to bondholders, an emerging dynamic that could have ripple effects throughout the investment community.

The municipal bond market has long been characterized by low default rates and relatively stable finances, Moody’s said, but that outlook is beginning to change as bankruptcy becomes a tool for cash-strapped cities.

Already three California cities – Stockton, San Bernardino, and Mammoth Lakes – have filed for bankruptcy.  HuffPo quotes Moody’s as saying that of California’s 482 cities, more than 10 percent have declared a fiscal crisis.

Historically, municipal bonds have been some of the safest investments on the market because cities are presumed by analysts to want to pay back their debt in order to maintain access to public bonds.  (Bonds pay for things like school buildings, roads, sewage systems, etc.)

Since California is responsible for 20 percent of the nationwide muni bonds in circulation, a downgrade by a ratings agency like Moody’s would have a significant negative effect on the value of heretofore safe investments.  If investors see California as an unsafe bet – and why wouldn’t they – expect to see the muni bond market dry up and even more cities opting for bankruptcy.

In other words, this is very bad.

Politico reports that Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) will play the part of Paul Ryan as Vice President Joe Biden prepares for his one and only debate with the Wisconsin Republican.

While Van Hollen – the politically savvy ranking Democrat on Ryan’s House Budget Committee – will no doubt do a fine job, I’m more than a bit surprised to learn that Biden even prepares for such things like a debate.  The good ole’ Joe we’ve come to know – “They’ll put ya’ll back in chains!” – just doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who thinks much before he speaks.

My guess is that won’t change even with all the time and money spent on coaches, policy briefs, and poll-tested responses.  Joe is who he is: an emotive liberal who shoots from the lip.  His advantage, of course, is that everyone has incredibly low expectations for him; especially now that he’s going up against Paul Ryan, the universally acclaimed number one intellectual public official in the Republican Party.

If Ryan hammers Biden or makes him look out of touch, well, we expect that.  But if Biden gets Ryan flustered or slides in a good line (even if it’s a non sequitur), then the media will declare him the upset winner.

My guess is that Ryan plays it straight and banks on Biden making an unforced error before confirming the widespread hunch that Biden is out of his depth.  Biden’s history makes that a safe bet.

Fox News reports that thanks to President Barack Obama’s unilateral – and unconstitutional – implementation of the DREAM Act, nearly 2 million illegal immigrants will be coming out of the shadows and proudly telling government officials about their status:

Young illegal immigrants are lining up by the thousands at consulates across the country to take advantage of the Obama administration program allowing them to apply for a two-year reprieve from deportation.

As many as 1.8 million undocumented immigrants could be eligible for the program, which kicked off Wednesday. Under the new rules, applicants can fill out a six-page form, pay a $465 fee and submit documents proving their identity in order to qualify.

Immigration officials say the documents will be closely scrutinized, given the potential for fraud, but there is no uniform standard. Applicants are supposed to show they arrived in the U.S. before they were 16, and that they’re enrolled in school or vocational training, or have a high school degree.

The lines began forming on Tuesday, as illegal immigrants tried to get a leg up in seeking their passport applications.

…

The crowds Tuesday and Wednesday are the most visible demonstration to date of how many people are interested in applying for the administration’s new reprieve program — which is effectively a version of the DREAM Act, which failed to clear Congress.

You read that right.  The Obama Administration’s reprieve amnesty program is based on legislation that never became law.

I support reform of America’s immigration system, and I’m open to some of the elements of the DREAM Act; especially the way it ties military service to citizenship.

What I object to is the Obama Administration’s brazen and arguably illegal implementation of a law that Congress considered and failed to pass.  Acting as though the DREAM Act is law when it isn’t is, quite simply, lawless.

I’ve written before that the importance of Paul Ryan’s brand of conservative reform is that it puts federal policy on a fundamentally different trend line than its current course under President Barack Obama.

From Ryan’s perspective, the American future post-reform looks like one where there’s more money in everyone’s pocket, less going to the government, and a fiscally sustainable social safety net.

As for President Obama, all you need to know is contained in his campaign’s “Life of Julia” web ad.

If Ryan is true to form, then during his time as Mitt Romney’s running mate he’ll accentuate the choice facing voters this fall of an American future that is either growing thanks to a resurgent capitalism or declining under the weight of a galloping socialism.  Perhaps he’ll do so along the lines described by Harvard economist Robert Barro in the Wall Street Journal:

Drawing correct policy implications is hard because one naturally focuses on the jobs and production that are directly saved or lost when the government bails out GM or when Chinese imports expand. In contrast, it is impossible to detail where U.S. jobs and production would have been created or destroyed if GM had been allowed to fail or if trade with China were curtailed.

What is feasible is to look at the overall impact of a set of policies. For example, a general increase in socialistic policies tends to lower economic growth. And, more specifically, the Obama administration’s weakening of individual incentives to work and produce by its sharp expansion of transfer payments can be reasonably viewed as retarding the U.S. economic recovery since the end of the recession in 2009.

With the addition of conservative thinker and budget expert Rep. Paul Ryan to the Republican presidential ticket, we can hope that the economic dialogue will become more serious. And perhaps this added substance will extend beyond the important issue of long-term fiscal reform to encompass the enduring but still crucial debate about socialism versus capitalism.