Archive

Archive for January, 2010
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Where Do Brown and Romney Go From Here?

While some may have seen former Massachusetts governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaking at Senator-elect Scott Brown’s victory rally on Tuesday night, it may not have been apparent how deeply Romney was involved in getting Brown past the post.  Once again, Romney displayed a stunningly effective campaign machine that was slick, nimble, and full of money.  Unfortunately, Brown’s signature campaign issue was running against ObamaCare, which is achingly similar to RomneyCare – the one term governor’s biggest legislative legacy.

In less than four years, Massachusetts voters are so displeased with their state’s version of universal health care that they sent a Republican to Washington to be the vote that stops ObamaCare.  But Brown has a problem too.  He voted for RomneyCare while a state senator.  Since being elected, he’s said he supports expanding coverage as long as costs are reduced.  Good luck.  Though Brown will vote for a do-over on health care reform he is clearly signaling that he won’t just be a no; rather, a yes-but.  As in, yes, I agree we need to expand health care coverage – maybe even individually mandated universal health care coverage – but I don’t like some of the elements of the Democrats’ current plan.  If that’s the case, then Brown may be less a Tea Party go-er and more of a tinkerer.

The same is true for Romney.  He likes details and policy and loves to get into the weeds of government to make it run more like a business.  Since that’s his background as a highly successful turnaround artist, it makes sense.  But that may not be the path to the Republican nomination in 2012 when so many voters want leaders who will say no to tinkering, and yes to rolling back federal programs, bureaucracies, and spending.  Now that Romney has helped elect Brown, maybe it’s time for Brown to show Romney whether a Massachusetts Republican can gain a national following being a yes-but politician.

January 22nd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Are Conservative Judges Hypocritical When They Overturn Liberal Activism?

That’s the point argued by UC Irvine law school dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday restoring political free speech. He says:

But if judicial activism has any meaning, it surely refers to decisions that overturn laws and overrule precedents. In contrast, judicial restraint occurs when courts defer to the other branches of government and follow precedents.

While Chemerinsky makes a neat distinction, his argument hides the fact that liberals have stacked the deck in their favor. If it’s true that judicial activism is always characterized by deferring to other branches of government and following precedents, then once an activist decision departs from the norm it immediately becomes sacrosanct because it is now a precedent. And if conservatives want to avoid hypocrisy, then they must swallow hard and accept path-breaking precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis. That is, until their liberal colleagues decide that more heresy-turned-orthodoxy is warranted.

Liberals applaud themselves for eschewing precedent when they see fit, but then accuse conservatives of hypocrisy when the latter seeks to return the law to its understanding prior to the liberals’ departure. Only then do progressives make a pretense of respecting legal tradition under the guise of “super duper” precedents that serve their policy agendas.

Conservatives aren’t guilty of activism when they restore the law to what it was before. As George Will notes, announcing that the First Amendment protects political speech about the government is only radical because of the unconstitutional legislation and opinions about it over the last forty years. Chemerinsky is too smart not to know that; it’s just a whole lot easier to argue for selective adherence to stare decisis while reversing your opponent’s criticisms.

January 22nd, 2010 at 11:42 am
This Week’s Liberty Update

This week’s edition of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out.  For those readers who don’t receive it in their e-mail inboxes or if you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, below is a summary of its contents:

CFIF Staff:  Massachusetts Special U.S. Senate Election Exit Poll
Senik:  Brown Victory in Massachusetts Kills ObamaCare Either Way
Lee:  Can We Please Stop Labeling Liberals “Elite?”
Batkins:  Early Release: The State of the Union

Freedom Minute Video:  One Year of Obama’s Sweet Nothings
Podcast:  Congressman Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-MI) Discusses Health Care, National Security and More
Jester’s Courtroom:  Not Something to Smile About

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, sign up here.

January 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 am
Ramirez Cartoon: Good Riddance ObamaCare?

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

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

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 22nd, 2010 at 2:56 am
What a Difference a Week Makes
Posted by Print

One only has to go back to the first of the year to find conservatives distraught by the leftward lurch of Washington (if not the country).

What a difference the last week has made. A relatively conservative Republican won the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy, the health care bill seems to be dying, the Supreme Court struck a stirring blow for free speech by eviscerating much of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, and now comes word that Ben Bernanke may not have the votes to be confirmed for another term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Conservatives shouldn’t expect this good luck streak to continue unabated. The next year will be filled with contentious battles. Even a big Republican win in this year’s midterm elections won’t inexorably alter political reality. As the sudden reversal of fortune for Democrats show, big wins can be squandered quickly. Republicans will have to develop a positive alternative to the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress if they plan to consolidate their gains and be competitive in the 2012 presidential election.

There’s still much work to be done. But this week has been a good start.

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 12:06 pm
Water Boarding vs. Water Torture

It’s not often that a member of the MSM like CNN’s Christiane Amanpour gets told on her own show that she lied to her viewers.  During an appearance by former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, Amanpour was confronted with remarks she made comparing water torture techniques used by the Khmer Rouge to the CIA’s use of water boarding.  Thiessen – like the Bush Administration, CIA, and legal scholars like John Yoo – distinguished the two on the following criteria.

First, of all the people submitted to water torture (submerged into a bucket of water while handcuffed to the sides) in S-21 by the Khmer Rouge, only seven people survived, while 14,000 died.  No one died as a result of CIA water boarding (simulated drowning).  Second, the point of water torture is to eventually kill the victim.  By contrast, the point of water boarding is to create a psychological state so panic-ridden that people will think they are about to die.  But at no time are subjects actually at risk of death.  That doesn’t mean it’s a comfortable experience.  It does, however, mean that equating tactics designed to kill with those intended to break a person’s will is a dangerously misleading formula.

Along with John Yoo’s gentle smackdown of Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, the Thiessen interview is another indication that the MSM can’t be bothered to get informed about the distinctions that save lives and reputations.

H/T: Human Events

January 21st, 2010 at 11:20 am
JFK, Public Employee Unions, and Obama

Today’s Wall Street Journal features an op-ed by Daniel Henninger that traces the rising stranglehold of public employee unions on the Democratic Party. Prior to 1962, federal workers were not unionized. That changed with a JFK executive order. Many states soon followed suit.

Looking back, the change in policy continued the Democrats’ long association with unions, but for the first time there were substantial numbers of union members that worked in jobs uncoupled from business realities like profit and loss. Instead, their budgets were the product of taxing and spending.

The results, as we all know, have been catastrophic for government budget writers at all levels. Public sector unions claim members from the ranks of teachers, cops, fire fighters, DMV personnel, and a myriad of other support workers. As membership increases, so do demands for higher wages, bigger pensions, and greater emphasis on seniority rather than performance. Since governments themselves aren’t measured on the taxpayers’ return on investment, it’s been easy for Democrats to champion public employee unions, trading money for votes, and vice versa.

That may be coming to an end. Henninger notes that Republicans have a unique – and short – window to align themselves as the party of spending restraint by vowing to take on the public employee unions and their entitlements. It won’t be easy because taking on these groups can actually be worse than attacking another politician. Organized labor is the Democratic Party’s grassroots, so challenging them is a request to have millions raised in opposition while thousands of government employees work phone banks, neighborhoods, and break rooms lobbying for support. As California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger learned in 2005, all it takes to create a union’s war chest is a few dollars increase in each member’s dues.

But it’s worth it, especially in a campaign year when most of the people out of work are from the private sector. Because of the stimulus money, most state and local governments were able to “create or save” jobs. Of course, the federal government has been on a hiring spree to keep pace with President Obama’s rapid expansion of the public sector. If this is truly the year when fiscal conservatives taste victory in coastal bastions of liberalism, it will be because GOP nominees take the time to educate and persuade voters that public employee unions are some of the greatest threats to our economic recovery.

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 6:31 pm
Stimulus Jobs

Are you wondering how all that stimulus money is being spent to create jobs in this country? 

No, not those “stimulus jobs” in nonexistent congressional districts.  Real wage-paying jobs.

CNSNews.com reports:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) spent $30 million in stimulus money in 2009 to hire 585 new bureaucrats who will be responsible for certifying whether people are eligible for disability so they can be paid by the taxpayers not to work.

A report from the SSA’s Office of the Inspector General says that the SSA’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) hired 35 new administrative law judges and 550 staffers to determine whether people are eligible to receive federal disability payments for not working.

That, my friends, is your hard-earned taxpayer dollars at work.

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 9:35 pm
Brown Wins!

The Associated Press just called it

Republican Scott Brown has defeated Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in the race for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.  

UPDATE:

With 100% of the precincts reporting

Scott Brown (R):  52% – 1,168,107 votes

Martha Coakley (D):  47% – 1,058,682 votes

Joseph Kennedy (Lib.):  1% – 22,237 votes

For a vote breakdown by town, click here.

January 19th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Who Are These Guys?

In the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Butch keeps asking about their relentless pursuers, “Who are those guys?”  With President Barack Obama’s approval ratings plummeting, a supposedly “safe” Senate seat in danger, and health care “reform” on the ropes, the same question could be asked about the so-called White House strategists.  In the wake of a national and state-specific repudiation of President Obama and his policies, his advisors are promising defiance, not conciliation.

According to Politico, the real lesson to learn from Scott Brown’s surging popularity is voter frustration with the lack of progress Democrats have made on Obama’s agenda.  Huh?  Let them explain.

But the president’s advisers plan to spin it as a validation of the underdog arguments that fueled Obama’s insurgent candidacy.

“The painstaking campaign for change over two years in 2007 and 2008 has become a painstaking effort in the White House, too,” the official said. “The old habits of Washington aren’t going away easy.”

More likely is that the old hacks practicing The Chicago Way are doing the only thing they know how to do – fight like hell regardless of the reality.  Butch and Sundance made a similar decision at the end of their lives (and the movie).  How did that work out for them?

January 19th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Scott Brown’s Lesson to Would-Be Candidates

In an environment that did not (and in many ways, does not) favor Republicans, Scott Brown tossed his hat into the ring to replace liberal icon Ted Kennedy. At the time, the conventional wisdom held that whoever won the Democratic Primary was a shoe-in to win the special election Senate race. Maybe that’s why Martha Coakley took a vacation after securing the Democratic nomination. Scott Brown went to work.

But the important lesson about Brown isn’t that he worked hard, shook hands outside Fenway Park, or reminded Beltway mandarins like David Gergen that the seat up for grabs belongs to the people of Massachusetts. It’s that he was in a position to do those things in the first place. He ran when the only people supporting his candidacy were his family and friends. He campaigned when the eyes of the nation were fixated on the Senate health care debate, the undie-bomber, and NBC’s late night implosion. And because he labored in obscurity when bigger names took a pass, he was in a position to speak truth to people; simple, common sense truths like “we can do better” on health care reform.

Scott Brown has no business being this close to becoming Massachusetts’ first elected Republican U.S. Senator since 1972. If he loses, he ran the race of a lifetime. If he wins, he gets to claim a special piece of campaign history. Either way, he’s been more inspirational than most political celebrities pining for just the right time. Take a look at Scott Brown – he just created his.