Freedom Line Blog

While the mainstream media appears more concerned with Clint Eastwood’s improv skit or Mitt Romney’s income tax returns, gasoline prices reached an all-time Labor Day high this week.  Back in 2008, of course, Barack Obama thundered that high gas prices demonstrated, “Washington’s failure to lead on energy,” with the consequence of, “turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans.”   Today, in contrast, Obama accuses critics of his energy policy of “playing politics.”  Funny how four years of failed energy policy and Solyndra boondoggles changed his tune.

If Barack Obama insists on blaming Republicans in Congress for today’s economic malaise or deficits, then shouldn’t Democrats in Congress be held even more responsible?

Republicans today control just one-half of Congress, whereas Democrats won overwhelming control of both houses of Congress in November 2006.  That was fully two years before the financial crisis and recession (Obama’s all-purpose “mess we inherited” alibi), and our deficit stood at a miniscule $161 billion.

This is notable.

Last week, we noted the unrestrained praise of Paul Ryan by prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Erskine Bowles and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. Conversely, today brings criticism from Democratic Senator James Webb (Virginia) of the Obama Administration response to two years of Chinese aggression:

Over the past two years Japan and China have openly clashed in the Senkaku Islands, east of Taiwan and west of Okinawa, whose administration is internationally recognized to be under Japanese control. Russia and South Korea have reasserted sovereignty claims against Japan in northern waters. China and Vietnam both claim sovereignty over the Paracel Islands. China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia all claim sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, the site of continuing confrontations between China and the Philippines…

For all practical purposes China has unilaterally decided to annex an area that extends eastward from the East Asian mainland as far as the Philippines, and nearly as far south as the Strait of Malacca. China’s new ‘prefecture’ is nearly twice as large as the combined land masses of Vietnam, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. Its ‘legislators’ will directly report to the central government.”

Senator Webb then criticizes our “muted” response in the face of Chinese expansionism:

In truth, American vacillations have for years emboldened China. U.S. policy with respect to sovereignty issues in Asian-Pacific waters has been that we take no sides, that such matters must be settled peacefully among the parties involved. Smaller, weaker countries have repeatedly called for greater international involvement.  China, meanwhile, has insisted that all such issues be resolved bilaterally, which means either never or only under its own terms. Due to China’s growing power in the region, by taking no position Washington has by default become an enabler of China’s ever more aggressive acts.”

The Obama Administration’s behavior comes as no surprise to conservatives, given Obama’s lifelong inclination to vote “present” in the face of tough choices.  The fact that Democrats so openly criticize him, however, must come as troubling news to the spin machine in Chicago.

In the words of the Pew Research Center, “No issue relating to business is more politically divisive than the impact of government regulation.”

According to a new Pew survey, 76% of Republicans believe that government regulation of business tends to do more harm than good, but only 41% of Democrats agree.  That’s an enormous 35% difference, but the poll reveals something even more interesting.  Namely, 58% of independents side with Republicans on that question, not Democrats.  Another interesting point from the survey, according to Pew:

Fully 72% of Americans agree that ‘the strength of this country today is based on the success of American business.’ This opinion has endured, largely unchanged, for the past quarter century.”

That’s bad news for Barack “You Didn’t Build That!” Obama and his class warfare campaign theme.

With a new Gallup poll showing Obama’s unpopularity higher among business owners than any other occupational group, this week we dismantle his desperate “You didn’t build that – somebody else made that happen!” alibis.  Peggy Noonan, in this weekend’s column, believes they’re now his most famous words:

President Obama’s comment – ‘You didn’t build that’ – is the political gift that keeps on giving.  They are now the most famous words he has said in his presidency. And oh, how he wishes they weren’t.”

Now, with this morning’s sour unemployment report, prepare to hear, “I didn’t cause that – somebody else made that happen!” from the White House.  The nation’s unemployment rate rose yet again, to 8.3% from last month’s 8.2%.  That means we’ve now suffered a record 42 consecutive months of unemployment in excess of 8%, a level Obama promised we’d never reach in the first place under his economic plan.  The White House will also attempt to emphasize the 163,000 new jobs created, but keep three things in mind.  First, our economy must add 200,000 jobs each month just to keep up with population growth and substantively reduce the unemployment rate.  Second, nearly as many Americans – 155,000 – dropped out of the labor market altogether, according to this morning’s report.  Third, according to the Labor Department, employment growth has averaged just 151,000 per month in 2012, which is below 2011’s average of 153,000 per month.  Some “recovery.”

Fortunately, there is an alternative.  The early-1980s recession witnessed even worse numbers – higher unemployment, higher inflation and higher interest rates.  But President Reagan’s policy of lower taxes and less regulation slashed unemployment from 10.4% to 6.7% in the three years following the effective date of his tax cuts in January 1983.  In contrast, Obama’s policies of higher spending, higher deficits, higher taxes and more regulation have caused the worst recovery since the Great Depression.

Obama just hopes that enough people fail to notice that he really is making that happen.

Reasonable people agree that the U.S. tax code is too bloated and complex.  We also agree that our businesses and economy cannot withstand the January 1, 2013 tax cliff catastrophe that Barack Obama and his Congressional accomplices are willing to allow in the name of class warfare.

Fortunately, there’s something you can do about it.

The House will vote soon on H.R. 8 and H.R. 6169, the “Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act” and the “Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012,” respectively.   In conjunction, stated simply, the two bills would:  block the scheduled January 1 tax increases by extending current income tax rates for one year;  maintain marriage penalty relief;  continue the $1,000 child credit;  continue the critical 15% top rate on dividends and capital gains;  maintain the estate tax at its 2011 and 2012 parameters (indexed for inflation);  provide for higher Section 179 small business expensing limits;  preserve education-related benefits;  provide a two-year AMT patch for 2012 and 2013;  and provide a clear pathway to comprehensive tax reform in 2013 by implementing expedited procedures to enable lawmakers in both the House and Senate to overcome technical hurdles that cause bills to languish during the legislative process.

For this to occur, however, members must hear from you.  Please call your representative immediately and demand their support for this critical legislation (members and contact information accessible via CFIF’s “Take Action” link here).

Well, never let it be said that Obama hasn’t achieved anything other than a record number of golf outings and fundraisers.  He has dismantled LBJ’s “Great Society,” as poverty approaches levels not seen since 1965:

The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965.”

We recall Obama promising to cut the deficit in half by the end of his “first term,” to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, to adhere to public campaign finance limits, to not raise taxes on anyone earning under $250,000 “by one dime” and that unemployment would never reach 8% under his “stimulus,” but never this.

Today, Barack Obama courts veterans with a speech in Reno, Nevada to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.  According to one report, Obama seems to think that he can improve on the 44% support he received in 2008 against celebrated veteran John McCain:

The new initiative is the latest effort by Mr. Obama to focus on veterans, a group he addresses frequently in both official White House events and on the campaign trail. In 2008, exit polls showed that 15% of all voters had served in the military, and Mr. Obama won 44% of their votes, an improvement from Democrat John Kerry’s performance in 2004. This year, the Obama campaign believes he may have a better chance with this group, in part because he is running against former Gov. Mitt Romney, who like Mr. Obama never served in the military, unlike his 2008 opponent, Sen. John McCain, a war hero.”

According to a new survey, however, this appears to be yet another electoral dud for Obama.  Rasmussen reports that among military veterans, Obama trails Romney 59% to 35%.  Perhaps at some point Obama will recognize the inverse relationship between his support among veterans and the fact that they’re “a group he addresses frequently.”

Regardless, if it’s this bad for Obama now, imagine what might happen when Romney actually starts matching Obama’s campaign spending burn rate.

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) 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 (CDT)/5:00 pm (EDT):  Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner:  State Voter Rolls;

4:15 (CDT)5:15 (EDT): Jessica Zuckerman, Research Associate at The Heritage Foundation:  Security at the 2012 Olympic Games;

4:30 (CDT)/5:30 pm (EDT): Marc Scribner, Land-Use and Transportation Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute:  TSA and Full-Body Scanners;

5:00 (CDT)/6:00 pm (EDT):  Ted Bromund, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation:  UN Arms Trade Treaty and the Second Amendment; and

5:30 (CDT)/6:30 pm (EDT):  Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President at the National Taxpayers Union:  Post Office on Brink of Fiscal Disaster.

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

When one tries too hard to be popular, the result is usually less popularity.  That appears no less true when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Last week, we highlighted how public approval of the Supreme Court instantly plummeted following last month’s ObamaCare decision.  One week prior to the Court’s decision, twice as many people – 36% to 17% – believed that the Court was doing a “good” or “excellent” job as opposed to a “poor” job.  In the immediate aftermath of that decision, almost as many said that the Court was doing a “poor” job as a “good” or “excellent” job.  Additionally, over twice as many Americans – 56% to 27% – now believe that the justices pursue political agendas as opposed to maintaining impartiality.

As reported by The Hill, a poll this week confirms that backlash:

Negative opinions of the Supreme Court jumped in the wake of its ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released on Thursday that shows the percentage who have an unfavorable opinion of the Court is higher than at any point since Pew began tracking it in 1985.”

And that’s not just among Republicans.  According to the poll, disapproval among independents increased while approval remained unchanged.  That’s not good news for Barack Obama, and it certainly doesn’t reflect well on Chief Justice John Roberts’s apparent attempt to sacrifice judicial prudence at the altar of popularity.

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) 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 (CDT)/5:00 pm (EDT):  Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Professor University of Tennessee:  “The Higher Education Bubble;”

4:30 (CDT)/5:30 pm (EDT):  Jim Phillips, Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at Heritage Foundation:  Foreign Policy;

5:00 (CDT)/6:00 pm (EDT):  Timothy Lee, Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs at CFIF:  Supreme Court October 2011 Term Roundup;  and

5:30 (CDT)/6:30 pm (EDT):  Peter Ferrara, Carleson Center for Public Policy Fellow:  Obamacare Repeal and Replacement.

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

On the heels of Homer’s nod to Quin below, George Will chimes in on yesterday’s Supreme Court ObamaCare decision with a nod to my broader point.  Namely, that the Court’s commerce clause ruling constitutes a significant new precedent in constitutional jurisprudence.  Entitled “Conservatives’ Long-Term Victory,” Will laments that ObamaCare’s individual mandate managed to survive, but asserts that conservatives won a “substantial victory”:

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president’s signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul.  This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers.  By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise:  Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, ‘the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.'”

Ultimately, Will notes, ObamaCare’s fate “rests on public opinion.”  Nevertheless, we are in agreement that yesterday’s lasting achievements should not be overlooked or minimized by understandably disappointed conservatives and libertarians.

“Homer Nods” is the heading under which James Taranto, one of the commentators whom I most admire, acknowledges an error in a preceding “Best of the Web Today.”

In that spirit, my commentary regarding the ObamaCare decision yesterday included the following paragraph:

It is beyond significant dispute that Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress could have passed ObamaCare and its individual mandate as a “tax.”  The text of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly provides that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”  Thus, the federal government can tax and spend on behalf of almost anything it considers to advance the nation’s general welfare, even if its power to more crudely compel or prohibit actual behavior beyond that spending carrot is more limited.”

Below, Quin correctly notes an error in the first sentence.  Namely, his point that “taxing authority has never stretched so far.”

My initial sentence should have omitted the words “and its individual mandate,” and simply read, “It is beyond significant dispute that Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress could have passed ObamaCare as a ‘tax.'”  Although some libertarians and conservatives such as Walter Williams claim that Article I, Section 8’s authority to tax and spend for the general welfare are limited by the powers subsequently enumerated in that Section, that argument does not possess textual support.

Nevertheless, Quin is correct that taxing mere existence and inactivity as ObamaCare’s individual mandate does is unprecedented and unjust.  While Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress could have simply attempted to raise taxes more generally as a means to fund their monstrosity, yesterday’s decision pioneered new and unfortunate ground in allowing their particular individual mandate mechanism to survive.  I maintain that yesterday’s ruling with regard to the commerce clause limitation, not to mention the “Necessary and Proper Clause” and Medicaid rulings, make it a net win as a Constitutional matter.  Those were critical, groundbreaking limitations on federal power.   Quin’s observation, however, is quite correct.

With an overabundance of subtle and contradictory points of evidence rendering a cold, rational prediction nearly impossible, mine is entirely intuitive.  Unfortunately, I have been disappointed too many times already in my lifetime to expect a good result.  Twenty years ago, for example, I was a college student disgusted by the Court’s refusal to overturn Roe v. Wade (regardless of one’s view of abortion specifically, Roe is a judicial monstrosity) while it had the perfect opportunity and basis for doing so.  In subsequent years, I’ve endured such indefensible decisions as Kelo, with the seemingly more rare positive decision like Heller, the monumentally important Second Amendment case.

To me, anything less than an unequivocal, categorical rejection of ObamaCare’s individual mandate on the basis of the Constitution’s commerce clause is a loss.  To allow the federal government to coerce activity, in order to in turn rationalize regulating behavior not only eviscerates the concept of limited federal powers, renders the text of the Constitution meaningless.  From that point forward, it’s simply a matter of arguing degree, not kind.  We become a nation of men, not of laws.  Of judges arbitrarily deciding from that point forward which governmental intrusions get a pass and which don’t.  Honestly, I will be satisfied so long as the Court rules the individual mandate unconstitutional, even if the remainder of the law stands.  As economists say, what cannot continue will not continue.  And without the individual mandate, ObamaCare cannot and will not continue, at great (and justified) political cost to Obama himself and those who support the law.

At any rate, my bottom line is that I intuitively do not trust enough justices to make the correct decision.  I predict that a majority will concoct some way to allow the individual mandate to survive on the absurd “logic” that healthcare is a “special” category of commerce.  And even if they overturn the individual mandate, I suspect that they’ll do so on an “as applied” basis, meaning that the seal is broken.

Somewhat lost amid today’s Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070, the Court reinforced First Amendment free speech rights as affirmed in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  In fact, the Court did so without the need for full review, oral argument and exhaustive written briefing.  Demonstrating in this instance that brevity is the soul of sound jurisprudence, the Court in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock overturned a Montana Supreme Court decision favoring a ban on political speech that flatly contradicted Citizens United.  The single-page majority opinion is notable for its cogency:

A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.”  Mont. Code Ann. §13–35–227(1) (2011).  The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment.  2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1.  In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.”  558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted).  The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law.  There can be no serious doubt that it does.  See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.

The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.

It is so ordered.”

The First Amendment, the Constitution itself and free speech have been vindicated.

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) 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 (CDT)/5:00 pm (EDT):  Sally Pipes, President and CEO of Pacific Research Institute:  Obamacare and SCOTUS;

4:30 (CDT)/5:30 pm (EDT):  Quin Hillyer, fellow at CFIF:  Florida Voter Fraud and the Department of Justice;

5:00 (CDT)/6:00 pm (EDT):  Joel Arends, Chairman of Veterans for a Strong America:  Obama Shamelessly Politicized the Bin Laden Killing;  and

5:30 (CDT)/6:30 pm (EDT):  Slade O’Brien, state director for Florida Chapter of Americans for Prosperity:  Five for Florida – Real Solutions for a Better Florida.

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

Most Americans are unfamiliar with the environmental activist group ForestEthics.  But its recent activities reaffirm that something you don’t know can hurt you.

More specifically, ForestEthics has commenced a sabotage campaign against something called the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).  SFI, which was established back in 1994, essentially certifies that forest products are environmentally sustainable.  ForestEthics, however, alleges that SFI is some sort of corporate ruse, and has undertaken a sustained effort to pressure private companies not to use SFI’s green certification program or apply its labels on products.   As detailed by a letter from eight members of Congress, such efforts can result in punishing American industry.  Specifically, products from such countries as Brazil, China and Russia would be certified, but enormous amounts of U.S. areas certified by SFI would be eliminated.  Moreover, it can have such perverse effects as harvesting 600-year-old Russian trees.

While we don’t necessarily take sides in this sort of intra-environmentalist debate, ForestEthics illustrates once again the recurring and inherent contradictions of environmental activism.  In this case, the price paid in terms of American jobs and old-growth forests in the name of ForestEthics dogma.

Somehow, with each passing day, Barack Obama appears less presidential while Mitt Romney appears more so.

Today provided perhaps the most stark illustration yet, as Obama publicly lost his temper and descended into argument with a reporter.  While announcing his unilateral decision to effectively impose “Dream Act” immunity to illegal immigrants via executive order, a reporter pressed Obama on whether he was favoring foreign citizens over American citizens when it came to jobs.  Scowling and angrily pointing his finger, Obama engaged in a back-and-forth hostile argument, interrupting himself multiple times to stutter, “Not while I’m speaking,” and “I didn’t ask for an argument, I’m answering your question.”

The spectacle can be seen here.

Perhaps Obama should simply stop speaking to the press on Fridays – recall last week’s “the private sector is doing fine” gaffe.

Under the headline “New Course in College Costs,” today’s Wall Street Journal meditates on something that should be obvious:  “As Student Debt Grows, Possible Link Seen Between Federal Aid and Rising Tuition.”

A “Possible Link?”

Apparently, it’s news to academia that federal subsidies lead to higher prices:

Rising student debt levels and fresh academic research have brought greater scrutiny to the question of whether the federal government’s expanding student-aid programs are driving up college tuition.”

But don’t try telling that to the Obama Administration, famously callous toward anything that includes the concept of “profit” or “private”:

A spokesman for Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the administration believes there is a link between federal aid and tuition increases at for-profit schools, but that it sees no such tie with public and nonprofit schools. “

The real-world data contained in the report, however, contravenes the Obama Administration’s party line:

Tuition and fees at four-year public schools have risen 150% since 1990, to an average of $8,244 per student this past academic year, according to the College Board, an advocacy group made up of universities.  Over the same period, federal grants and tax benefits rose 242%, to an average of $4,292 per student, said educations consultants Kathy Payea and Sandy Baum, who conduct the College Board’s annual research on college prices.  Federal loans per student tripled.”

Unsurprisingly, George Will cogently captures the phenomenon in his latest column entitled “Subprime College Educations”:

This bubble exists for the same reasons the housing bubble did.  The government decided that too few people owned homes/went to college, so government money was poured into subsidized and sometimes subprime mortgages/student loans, with the predictable result that housing prices/college tuitions soared and many borrowers went bust.  Tuitions and fees have risen more than 440 percent in 30 years as schools happily raised prices – and lowered standards – to siphon up federal money.”

It’s just unfortunate that George Will remains too scarce on the syllabi of government and academia.

Remember when Obama  solemnly and repeatedly promised that “if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them?”

If not, don’t beat yourself up.  He has broken so many promises that no reasonable person can keep tally.

But score another casualty to ObamaCare specifically.  According to The Wall Street Journal, college students should expect their plans to become more expensive or disappear altogether:

“Some colleges are dropping student-health plans for the coming academic year and others are telling students to expect sharp premium increases because of a provision in the federal health law requiring plans to beef up coverage.  The demise of low-cost, low-benefit health plans for students is a consequence of the 2010 health care overhaul.  The law is intended to expand coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, but it is also eliminating some insurance options.”

Moreover, that consequence will likely be widespread:

“The new rules are likely to affect a broad swath of American colleges.  Some 60% of schools’ plans had coverage of $50,000 or less for specific conditions, and almost all of the rest have some sort of payout caps that they will have to do away with by 2014, the GAO study found.”

And the Obama Administration’s response?  They apparently couldn’t care a whole lot less.  “The Obama Administration,” the report notes, “argues that the most limited benefit plans colleges previously offered hardly counted as coverage at all.”

Yeah, that should motivate the youth vote for Obama just like those vapid, naive days of 2008.