Archive

Author Archive
January 25th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Morning Links
Posted by Print
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Sit Down and Stay a While, Liberal Radio
Posted by Print

This has been a rough week for progressives in the U.S.  First, they lose a Senate seat in liberal Massachusetts, relieving them of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  Then, the Supreme Court strikes down another onerous McCain-Feingold regulation.

Now, Air America, the lone liberal bastion of talk radio, has closed its doors for good.  Though Air America had been through Chapter 11 bankruptcy once before, the recent economic recession forced the company to shut its doors and undergo a complete liquidation.  Fin.

There is some bad news for conservatives and libertarians.  Al Franken, former host, will not be silenced by this bankruptcy.  He’s now in the Senate making outlandish comments and still annoying the world.

Click here for the Air America statement.  It’s sad, in a schadenfreude way.

January 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
The White House v. Free Speech
Posted by Print

If there were any lingering questions about this Administration’s stance on free speech, all doubt was removed last night when the White House issued this response:

“With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Right.  When did censorship become as popular as organic foods in this country?  Mr. President, you also failed to mention that this decision will be a huge boon for unions, major contributors to your campaign and the Democratic Party.  Citizens United is a victory for both the left and the right, a victory for anyone who is opposed to jailing someone over broadcasting a political position.

This Administration claims to be “liberal,” yet it also took the position that banning books that contained one line of advocacy was a felony.  What would have happened if McCain-Feingold were around in the 18th Century when the Federalist Papers were being printed with small business paper?  Locking people up for political speech is as American as burning books or jailing political enemies.  Why stop now, Mr. President?

The end of the world is still far off in the distance.  As former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith mentioned today, 28 states already allow corporate and “special interest” spending.  States like Oregon, Virginia and Utah are hardly known as bastions for corrupt political activity, even though they allow corporations to take a stance when issues are debated in the public circle.

Harsh critics of Free Speech claim that because corporations don’t vote that they shouldn’t be afforded basic First Amendment protections.  So, if the First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations, perhaps they shouldn’t pay taxes?

The Supreme Court has already held that the Constitution, in most parts, applies to corporate entities.  Is the First Amendment inapplicable when the actor grows richer?  What about the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment?  Should corporations and other for-profit entities be denied due process of the law simply because they don’t vote?  I’m sure politicians would approve of that but thankfully they haven’t overturned the Fifth Amendment … yet.

Lacking voting rights is an argument for this decision, not against it.  Corporations and non-profits lack the right to vote and can’t even contribute directly to political parties unless they choose to form expensive political action committees (PAC).  Independent expenditures are one of the few ways businesses can influence legislation that has a direct impact on their existence.

Let’s also remember that 99% of corporations in the U.S. aren’t rich or powerful.  The language in McCain-Feingold was woefully overbroad and applied to every entity from General Electric to your local florist.

Americans should be rejoicing because the Administration and most politicians hate this decision.  That’s wonderful. Anything that upsets career politicians is normally good for the rest of the country.   Then again, Congress should be happy; their enemies are no longer hidden behind the veil of those evil 527 groups.

With the blackballing of Fox News, his appointment of Justice Sotomayor, who voted against free speech, and his response to Citizens United, President Obama has made clear what many suspected years ago.  The President is not a fan of free speech, that is unless he’s breaking campaign promises and drowning out his opponent with over $700 million in union-funded spending.  As much as his speech might have been repulsive to some, President Obama had every right to spend money spreading his views.

Maybe it’s not free speech to which the President is opposed; maybe it’s just a little healthy competition.

January 22nd, 2010 at 9:02 am
Morning Links
Posted by Print
January 21st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Highlights from Citizens United v. FEC
Posted by Print

Rather than trudge through the entire 183-page decision in Citizens United, here are a few choice passages from the opinion. Enjoy.

As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.

In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections. It feared, however, that both the film and the ads would be covered by §441b’s ban on corporate funded independent expenditures, thus subjecting the corporation to civil and criminal penalties under §437g.

There are short timeframes in which speech can have influence. The need or relevance of the speech will often first be apparent at this stage in the campaign. The decision to speak is made in the heat of political campaigns, when speakers react to messages conveyed by others. A speaker’s ability to engage in political speech that could have a chance of persuading voters is stifled if the speaker must first commence a protracted lawsuit.

In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity. Austin “uph[eld] a direct restriction on the independent expenditure of funds for political speech for the first time in [this Court’s] history.” There, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce sought to use general treasury funds to run a newspaper ad supporting a specific candidate. Michigan law, however, prohibited corporate independent expenditures that supported or opposed any candidate for state office.

Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form.

Austin interferes with the “open marketplace”of ideas protected by the First Amendment. Its censorship is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit, both small and large, corporations.

Political speech is so ingrained in this country’s culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws. Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.

The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.

January 21st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Pelosi: We Don’t Have the Votes to Pass Senate Health Care Bill
Posted by Print

Any Democratic pipe dream about quick passage of their health care plan was shot down today.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House simply doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate version of the bill.

This means the bill will not likely be on the President’s desk by his second third fourth fifth sixth deadline, which was supposed to be the State of the Union.  The House will need to make changes and then pass those amendments on to the Senate, with their reduced majority.

The path for health care now follows moderates in the House and Senate.  After hearing the Massachusetts wakeup call loud and clear (presumably), it will be moderates that decide the fate of the bill.  It will be much harder for partisans in leadership to whip members when the political environment is so hostile for Democrats.

The best case scenario (worst case for taxpayers) is that Democrats cobble together enough votes to pass a shell of health care reform: expand Medicare and Medicaid, and ban discrimination against pre-existing conditions.  There doesn’t appear to be enough votes for a government-run public option or an individual mandate.

January 21st, 2010 at 10:15 am
Breaking: Supreme Court Sides with First Amendment
Posted by Print

The long-awaited case of Citizens United v. FEC was decided today and defenders of the First Amendment received a welcome surprise.

The Court sided with Citizens United and gave another blow to McCain-Feingold’s onerous campaign finance restrictions.

Click here for the full opinion. 

The decision was 5-4, with Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts siding with the First Amendment.  The newest justice, Sotomayor, joined with Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg in dissent.

Here is how the Court broke down the opinion:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and ALITO, JJ., joined, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined as to Part IV. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined in part. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part,in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

January 21st, 2010 at 10:00 am
Morning Links
Posted by Print

Chicago TribuneObama’s Decline
Real Clear PoliticsHubris is Ruining the Democrats
Reason MagazineWhy the Democrats are in Trouble
The HillWhite House Signals New Way on Health Care

PoliticoDemocrats Fret over Every State
WSJ EditorialRomneyCare Revisited
WSJObama Retreats on Health Care
Washington PostObama Talks

Federal Debt: $12.303 trillion

January 20th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Lawyers Lobbying Lawyers for Fewer Lawyers?
Posted by Print

There are plenty of jokes about lawyers.  Entire websites are devoted to lampooning one of the most hated professions in America.  For example, when lawyers die, why don’t vultures eat them?  Even a vulture has taste. Ha!

Well, according to one lawyer who resides in the nation’s capital, the legal profession is dying.  Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Mark Greenbaum argues that the current legal environment is over-saturated with new attorneys, leading to the high unemployment rate for incoming bloodsuckers lawyers.

Greenbaum’s solution is to turn an already regulated market over to the federal government to limit the supply of lawyers entering the field.  For Greenbaum, only politicians can stop the bleeding for those poor souls.

Mr. Greenbaum’s treatise on nationalizing the supply of labor is yet another reason why lawyers shouldn’t run the show in Washington, D.C.  If economics teaches anything, it’s that the market determines supply and demand.  Granted, the legal industry is already highly regulated and massive federal subsidies allow for affordable interest free loans.  But, these distortions only enhance the desire for some students to be the next Perry Mason, or the next Jack Abramoff.

Unlike journalists, chefs, florists or most other professions one can imagine, the only barrier to success is the ability to generate capital, usually through the sale of goods or services.  In the U.S., everyone virtually has a constitutional right (though not explicitly) to practice any vocation.  The legal and medical worlds throw in a few hurdles like extra schooling, dues and passing state-approved exams.

If Mr. Greenbaum really wanted to control the supply of lawyers to ensure that unemployment remains low and wages continue to rise, he would advocate for less government involvement.  Let students pay what law school actually costs without massive subsidies from the federal government.  Let markets determine “acceptable” supplies of labor.  Once students realize that a law degree is no longer an easy path to millions, they’ll stop forking over $100,000 for three years of misery inside a law school classroom.  Trust me.

The markets are doing a fine job of determining my access to food, clothing, computers and fantasy baseball.   I wonder if Mr. Greenbaum, an attorney, would approve of state regulation of leather shoes, European cars or arrogance.

Strangely, Mr. Greenbaum probably wouldn’t have written this article five years ago when associate salaries were climbing, the unemployment rate was low and lawyers were still a reviled profession.  In the midst of a recession, however, all of a sudden the supply of lawyers must be controlled by committees on Capitol Hill.

Nonsense.  If it were that easy to right all wrongs in the world, why not have the federal government control the supply of all professions in the United States?  Wait, best to not give them any ideas.

By the way, how can you tell when a lawyer is lying?  His lips are moving.  (Does this joke apply to politicians as well?)

January 20th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Senate Democrat Wants to Pause Health Care
Posted by Print

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has recommended that Democrats hold off on any health care votes until Senator-elect Scott Brown can be seated.

Webb stated, “I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

With a margin of victory of more than 100,000 votes and a concession speech from his opponent, Martha Coakley, Brown should have no trouble arguing that the race is settled.  Now, it’s up to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to honor the will of her fellow Democrats and the voters of Massachusetts.

January 20th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Morning Links
Posted by Print

The HillBrown Snags Massachusetts Senate Seat
PoliticoForces of Change Now Target President Obama
Boston GlobeVoter Anger Caught Fire in Final Days
New York PostMassachusetts Voters Tea Off

WSJ EditorialThe Great D.C. Migration
Red StateBiden v. Biden on the Filibuster
Detroit NewsDon’t Let Net Neutrality Ruin the Internet
Washington TimesMore Government Won’t Work

Federal Debt: $12.298 trillion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011293044432552.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
January 19th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Follow CFIF for Election Night Coverage
Posted by Print

Tonight, CFIF will be tweeting live during Election Night in Massachusetts.  The race is a pure tossup between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley.

When in doubt, though, we trust the markets.  Intrade, the betting market for all things political, currently predicts that Brown has an 84% chance of winning, a huge increase from earlier this month.

You can learn more and follow CFIF on Twitter by clicking here.

Click here to follow us on Facebook.

January 19th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Democrats See Writing on the Wall?
Posted by Print

The current political environment for Democrats appears gloomy.  The President’s approval rating continues to hover around 50%, Democrats can claim few political victories and now there is a strong chance that a Republican will be the next Senator from Massachusetts. The GOP has not captured a Senate seat in the Commonwealth since 1972.

A victory for Republican Scott Brown would make the passage of ObamaCare exceedingly difficult and perhaps kill its legislative prospects altogether, though Democrats will not completely cede the issue to the GOP.

As voters head to the polls in the Bay State, recent predictions are confirming that Brown has a legitimate shot at the seat.  Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight projects a Brown victory based on aggregate polling data since the first week in January.  Silver writes, “Coakley’s odds are substantially worse than they appeared to be 24 hours ago, when there were fewer credible polls to evaluate and there appeared to be some chance that her numbers were bottoming out and perhaps reversing.  However, the ARG and Research 2000 polls both show clear and recent trends against her.”

Charles Franklin at Pollster agrees with Silver.  Franklin noted, “Across all models, Brown leads by between 1.0 and 8.9 points.  Three quarters of the estimates have Brown ahead by 4 points or more.”

And now, Politico reports that some Democrats are working up contingency plans if Scott Brown proves to be the 41st vote against a government takeover of health care.  Their plan: Blame Republicans.  One Democratic staffer noted, “Sure you could say it’s worse because we didn’t pass anything.  But it might be better to get past this as soon as possible, and bring it up for a vote in the Senate, let Republicans kill it – and then blame them for everything.”

Nice strategy.  Voters will surely reward you for delivering on your message of transparency, lower taxes for the middle class and affordable health care.

January 19th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Morning Links
Posted by Print
January 15th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Senator Nelson’s Cornhusker Dilemma
Posted by Print

Senator Ben Nelson’s home state kickbacks are notorious.  The “Cornhusker Kickback” is firmly entrenched in the American political lexicon and now Nelson is starting to hear it from his constituents.

According to this report from Politico, Nelson and his wife were eating at a local pizza joint when one patron recognized the longtime politician and yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!”  Other customers began to boo and Senator Nelson and his party disappeared into the Nebraska cold.

It appears that this local pressure is taking its toll on not only Nelson’s approval rating but also his conscience (if politicians have those).  Roll Call reports that Nelson has asked Harry Reid to drop the infamous Cornhusker Kickback.

As Andy Roth over at Club for Growth wrote, “Nebraskans will still be forced to swallow ObamaCare AND they’ll have to pay more for it.  Sorry, Senator Nelson, you can’t unring that bell.”

January 15th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Taxing Booze Won’t Help Your Competence
Posted by Print

Maryland lawmakers are in trouble.  They’ve spent too much money over the past decade; with the economic recession, they now have a $2 billion deficit.

Cutting spending would seem to be the logical way to reduce the deficit but since Maryland already has the fourth highest state/local tax burden in the nation, state politicians are now proposing another tax hike in an attempt to get to number one.  Someone’s got to stick it to New Jersey.

This time Annapolis is out to get the partygoers in Fells Point and Bethesda with a new 10 cents-per-drink tax on alcohol.  In total, the booze tax is expected to raise $200 million, though this is still just a fraction of the sum needed to fill the state’s budget gap.

Bars and liquor stores have an obvious motivation to oppose the new legislation but ole Joe Sixpack should shudder as well.  The tax would total about 55 cents for a bottle of wine and 75 cents on a handle of liquor.

Perhaps the crowds at Fells Point and Bethesda will finish their drinks and then let Annapolis know that the booze tax is a horrible idea that won’t fill the state’s budget gap.  It will, however, upset a lot of drinkers. That’s never promising.

January 15th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Morning Links
Posted by Print
January 14th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Barney Frank is Still Crazy
Posted by Print

The ostentatious Representative Barney Frank from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts never shies away from reporters or combative political opponents.  He once said to a constituent at a town hall meeting, “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.  I have no interest in doing it.”

Now, amidst rumors that Democrats are planning to delay the swearing-in of Republican Scott Brown if he were to win the special election in Massachusetts, Frank issued yet another linguistic tour de force.

Representative Frank opined, “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve been asked in a long time.  That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source… That is conspiracy theory at its most contemptible.”  BAM!

Barney, you’re wrong.   ‘Conspiracies’ like this happen all the time in Washington’s political meat grinder.

Remember, Massachusetts Democrats changed the rules on filing Senate vacancies twice, once in 2004 when it would have aided Democrats, and again in 2009 to ensure a 60th Democratic Senator.

Remember, Representative Bill Owens (D-NY) was sworn in on a weekend so that Speaker Pelosi could secure his vote for health care reform.

Remember, Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) almost had his swearing-in delayed because Speaker Pelosi wanted to reduce the number of Republicans.  Pelosi ultimately decided to seat Buchanan so that his district would have representation.  After Buchanan’s election, however, one Democrat noted, “No one who’s in a disputed election like this should get too comfortable in the House of Representatives.”

Because Massachusetts can take its time with certification and because the Senate, under Article I §5, “shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,” then there is plenty of legitimate legal ground for Democrats to delay the ceremony.

However, since the public backlash against even the idea of a delay is so strong, it appears that the eventual winner will be sworn in the normal course, but “normal” might not occur until February if the Senator happens to have an “R” after his name.

Barney, you might be entertaining but you’re still crazy.

January 14th, 2010 at 10:33 am
IRS Doesn’t Know Taxes
Posted by Print

The Commissioner of the IRS doesn’t even do his own taxes.   After all, the Tax Code is large, incomprehensible and it takes days to prepare a detailed return.

As IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman told C-SPAN this weekend, “I’ve used one [tax preparer] for years.  I find it convenient.  I find the tax code complex so I use a preparer.”

Thanks for those words of hope Commissioner Shulman.  If you can’t do your own taxes, maybe it’s time to hold off on the thousands of regulations that the IRS issues every year.

Not surprisingly, even members of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee use a “professional” to complete their tax returns.  Nobody in Washington, D.C. appears to know what’s going on with our Tax Code.  That’s not surprising at all.

January 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Morning Links
Posted by Print