Charles Krauthammer suggests (more a command, really) calling President Barack Obama’s bluff about a “long-term deal or nothing” on a debt default deal: a short-term deal that extends the negotiating clock instead.
The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger.
Why not? Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan to give the president authority to raise the debt ceiling on his own just stokes an already imperial presidency. What’s more, McConnell’s reservation of oversight to Congress by a 2/3 vote to block the president from raising the debt ceiling is constitutionally suspect because it sounds suspiciously like an impermissible legislative veto. Since the Supreme Court has said that Congress can’t overrule Executive decisions once Congress delegates its authority, don’t be surprised if McConnell’s clever power switch gives unilateral discretion to a big-spending liberal president without any means of checking him.
Far better to go with Krauthammer’s suggestion since it keeps the focus on spending and the economy and relieves the pressure of a debt default while the parties get serious about specifics.
Heather MacDonald of City Journal highlights yet another example of California residents migrating to Texas for greener cash pastures. (In this case, UC San Diego lost three top cancer researchers to Rice University after the latter offered a 40% increase in compensation.) Facing a $650 million cut in state funding, the University of California system campuses are shedding faculty and programs, but not, unfortunately, the blizzard of “diversity czars” and their sizable staffs.
UC San Diego is adding diversity fat even as it snuffs out substantive academic programs. In March, the Academic Senate decided that the school would no longer offer a master’s degree in electrical and computer engineering; it also eliminated a master’s program in comparative literature and courses in French, German, Spanish, and English literature. At the same time, the body mandated a new campus-wide diversity requirement for graduation. The cultivation of “a student’s understanding of her or his identity,” as the diversity requirement proposal put it, would focus on “African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Chicanos, Latinos, Native Americans, or other groups” through the “framework” of “race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, language, ability/disability, class or age.” Training computer scientists to compete with the growing technical prowess of China and India, apparently, can wait. More pressing is guaranteeing that students graduate from UCSD having fully explored their “identity.” Why study Cervantes, Voltaire, or Goethe when you can contemplate yourself? “Diversity,” it turns out, is simply a code word for narcissism.
MacDonald also highlights how the multi-million dollar diversity industry has embedded itself into plumb positions at UC Berkeley and UCLA. If UC students are upset about the coming hike in tuition, they should aim their picket lines at the faculty senates and diversity czars whose very existence makes such increases even higher than need be.
This week, CFIF joined dozens of employers, entrepreneurs and groups spanning the political spectrum on Capitol Hill to ask Congress to help put a stop to online theft by rogue websites that steal jobs and cost American businesses $135 billion annually. In this era it is rare to find an issue that achieves almost complete consensus among ideologies and interest groups, but this is one.
Rogue websites steal intellectual property (IP) through counterfeiting, knockoff goods, piracy and misappropriation of movies, music, books and software. Such thieves don’t pay taxes, they don’t follow American laws, they cut into American exports at a time of enormous trade deficits and they cut into our jobs and earnings. Astoundingly, such sites constitute approximately 25% of all Internet traffic (53 billion visits per year), deceive honest customers, spread malware and even threaten lives and health with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.
Simply put, there is no justification or defense whatsoever for rogue websites. So what to do?
Well, on May 12, 2011 Senators Orrin Hatch (R – Utah), Chuck Grassley (R – Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D – Vermont) along with nine other original co-sponsors introduced S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act. That legislation would at long last halt rogue site access to the American market and help secure the fundamental rule of law. Because many rogue sites operate outside our borders, the Act would allow the Department of Justice or private individuals to obtain court orders halting search engine connections to sites proven through due process to be “dedicated to infringing activity.” The Act would also require payment processors and online advertising networks to discontinue payments to rogue sites.
Chances are that you or others close to you are impacted by rogue websites causing inestimable damage to U.S. jobs and prosperity. We can help put a stop to that travesty by supporting the PROTECT IP Act and asking our Senators and Representatives to do the same.
In an interview with CFIF, John Ransom, finance editor for Townhall.com, discusses the debt ceiling debate, how tax increases will negatively impact jobs, and the latest “tax” imposed by teachers’ unions to help re-elect President Obama.
In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the administration’s move to trump the will of the American people and Congress through de facto imposition of the so-called DREAM Act by executive fiat.
In a commentary published earlier this week, I chastised Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for his “escape hatch” debt ceiling plan, which would allow President Obama to unilaterally raise the nation’s credit limit while giving Republicans the political cover of being allowed to vote against him. It would be a perfectly reasonable strategy if the imperative issue of the moment was GOP political tactics. It’s not, however. Rather, the issue of paramount significance is the nation’s economic future. By that measure, the McConnell plan — which allows more of the same limitless spending — is an utter failure.
In that same column, I praised Speaker of the House John Boehner’s resoluteness, as indicated by his holding the line against the president’s proposed tax increases. Yet only a few days later, the speaker already seems to be going wobbly. According to Politico:
Speaker John Boehner on Thursday left the door open to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s last-ditch plan to raise the debt limit.
“I think it’s worth keeping on the table,” Boehner said.
McConnell’s plan would give President Barack Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling three times through 2012, unless Congress stops it with a two-thirds majority vote. Under that plan, Republicans could vote against raising the debt ceiling without risking default.
Shame on Boehner. Republicans have every right to look out for their political needs, but they must also work tirelessly to protect what’s left of the American economy. Obama’s “grand bargain” (flush with tax increases) meets neither standard. McConnell’s punt only satisfies the first.
Instead, Republicans should pass a debt ceiling increase relying solely on spending cuts. It would serve our economic needs by cutting the size of government and staving off fears of a default. And it would serve the GOP’s political needs by ensuring that a crisis could only come courtesy of Obama’s veto pen.
“Onerous regulations on business” that are driving jobs out of the state and the California legislature’s attempts to balance the budget by “stealing” tax revenue from local governments are two reason why Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone said he is pushing for secession.
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to hold a meeting in late September of representatives from every city and county in California to decide if their grievances can be solved without secession.
If not, the group will hammer out the details of creating a new state.
“Obviously I touched a nerve that is felt not only among Californians but among people around the country who feel their voices are not being heard,” Stone said. “I’m hoping that the nerve that I touch with a lot of citizens will resonate and we will see dramatic changes in the way we do business in the state and the way we do business in this country.”
Only time will tell if Supervisor Stone’s nerve touching will result in the second coming of the Bear Flag Republic. If so, one hopes representatives of the newly created state will incorporate at least some of that short-lived government’s founding document. (A taste: “…believes that a Government to be prosperous and happyfying in its tendency must originate with its people who are friendly to its existence. That its Citizens are its Guardians, its officers are its Servants, and its Glory their reward.”)
In a letter sent yesterday to every member of the House Judiciary Committee, the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) joined with other free market organizations collectively representing millions of American taxpayers to urge support of the Wireless Tax Fairness Act (H.R. 1002 / S.543).
The Wireless Tax Fairness Act would put a five-year freeze on attempts by state and local governments to raise taxes on wireless services. The legislation is being marked up today by the House Judiciary Committee.
Across the country, state and local governments are putting a substantial burden on consumers by raising discriminatory taxes on wireless services to fund special interest projects and cover up overspending addictions. Today, the average consumer pays upwards of 16 percent in taxes on their wireless bill every month. In some localities, wireless taxes have skyrocketed to well over 25 percent.
A federal solution to curbing wireless taxation has become imperative. The mandatory freeze on wireless taxes under H.R. 1002/S. 543 is a pro-consumer, pro-business, anti-tax, and bipartisan solution to this growing problem.”
Eric Singer, portfolio manager of Congressional Effect Fund, identifies the single biggest problem with government regulators in his op-ed for Investor’s Business Daily:
JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon recently asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke if he considered the cumulative impact of each regulation. Bernanke admitted he had not. The ongoing surprisingly bad unemployment numbers confirm that no one in charge is thinking about the cumulative impact of each tiny strangulation of capital and operating capability.
As Singer correctly concludes, “We need to go back to basics, cut these Lilliputian ropes and unleash the potential giant economy that is still on its back.”
Michael Barone says that thanks to a sputtering economy, a growing Mexican middle class, and measures like Arizona’s e-Verify system that puts the onus of enforcement on employers, President Barack Obama’s push for immigration reform is behind the curve. It would be far better if the federal government reacted to facts on the ground.
That means we can shift our immigration quotas to more highly skilled immigrants, as recommended by a panel convened by the Brookings Institution and Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics and as done currently by Canada and Australia.
Such a change would be in line with the new situation. Mexican immigrants have tended to be less educated and lower-skilled than immigrants from other Latin or Asian countries. Lower Mexican immigration means lower low-skill immigration. Employers of such immigrants may have to adjust their business models.
Probably they are already doing so. But government adjusts more slowly.
City Journal’s Nicole Gelinas describes the Bush-era “TARP” bailout as a massive case of moral hazard. With the financial sector able to fob off its bad debts to the American taxpayer while suffering almost no consequences, it’s no wonder the jobless rate is not recovering.
The politicians we elect have three choices—the same choices they had four years ago. They can admit that this debt isn’t worth much and allow the financial sector to bear the consequences. They can hope that the Fed tries to use inflation to raise the price of everything else, making the debt seem a lighter burden in comparison. Or they can maintain their silence, letting the financial sector take another half-decade or more to make enough money on new ventures so that it can finally admit what it should have admitted back in the fall of 2007: bad debt is never good. At least the Fed acknowledges this strategy: it says that it’s using “time” to manage toxic securities and “minimize disruption to the financial markets.” But prolonging government control of financial markets just prolongs investors’ uncertainty.
If Congress and President Obama, as well as the candidates who would like to succeed the president in 2013, maintain their silence, people should at least understand that the lousy jobs numbers are no mystery. They are the result of a policy that Washington has willfully chosen. As the Fed notes, the cost of this policy isn’t measured in dollars but in something more precious: time. Washington’s refusal to confront the debt problem is costing millions the most productive years of their lives.
The incomparable Veronique de Rugy (Reason columnist and economist at the Mercatus Center) was recently a guest on Bloomberg TV, where she was tasked with rebutting the faulty economics behind the gigantic economic stimulus program that’s still holding back the American economy. As the video below shows, it was child’s play for this intellectually rigorous defender of free markets:
The Houston Chronicle (scroll to the bottom) has a helpful side-by-side chart comparing the positions of declared and presumptive GOP presidential candidates, all of whom lean in one way or another toward the Tea Party. The line-up includes Texas Governor Rick Perry, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, and businessman Herman Cain.
Some highlights:
AZ Immigration Law: Bachmann and Cain support it; Paul has “some reservations,” and Perry thinks it “would not be the right direction for Texas”
Middle East Foreign Policy: Bachmann and Perry support Israel; Paul wants troop withdrawals from the Middle East; Cain is unequivocal: “You mess with Israel, you’re messing with the U.S.A.”
Economy: Bachmann, Perry and Cain all support tax cuts; Paul wants to go even farther: abolish the Federal Reserve and reestablish the gold standard
Here’s hoping for a substantive debate featuring all these candidates and their ideas. America needs it.
Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CST to 6:00 p.m. CST (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn.” Today’s guest lineup includes:
– 4:00 p.m. CST/5:00 p.m. EST: Adam Hasner – Candidate for U.S. Senate (Florida);
– 4:30 p.m. CST/5:30 p.m. EST: John Ransom – Finance Editor for townhall.com;
– 5:00 p.m. CST/6:00 p.m. EST: Paul Lockhart – Author of “The Whites of Their Eyes: Bunker Hill The First American Army and the Emergence of George Washington”; and
Responding to this morning’s terrible unemployment report, President Obama mused, “We still have a long way to go and a lot of work to do.”
No, Mr. President. That’s precisely what the nation fears. We’ve already allowed you to go too far and do too much, but you’re apparently not getting the clue.
For the month of June, unemployment unexpectedly rose to 9.2% and added a negligible 18,000 jobs, far below the 150,000 that economists had expected. That means the unemployment rate has risen from 7.8% when Obama signed his massive government spending “stimulus” to 9.2% over two years later. Keep in mind that his administration promised at the time that the “stimulus” would cap unemployment at 8% in the fall of 2009, and be down to around 6.5% by now. Instead, it rose all the way to 10.2% and has remained above 8% for a post-war record 29 consecutive months.
Ignoring that, Obama and liberal pundits like Ezra Klein appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” claimed that what we need is even more of the same. At what point do they finally get the signal?
CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. Applauding the decision, which struck down as unconstitutional Arizona’s matching political funds scheme, Giachino says that no one should be coerced to support political candidates with whom he or she disagree.
CFIF Freedom Line Blog RSS Feed
CFIF on X
CFIF on YouTube