Freedom Line Blog

Desperate to fend off challenges from both his left and right in his campaign to perpetuate a seemingly-endless Senate tenure, Senator Arlen Specter (Fair Weather Party – PA) has introduced legislation amounting to a trial lawyers’ bill of rights.

Last year, the United States Supreme Court issued an important but underreported decision requiring plaintiffs to state a plausible claim in order to proceed with burdensome litigation.  Namely, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority, there must be “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

That doesn’t sound like too much to ask of a litigant, does it?

After all, anyone who has found themselves individually named in a lawsuit after some ambulance-chasing plaintiffs’ attorney has cast the widest imaginable net in naming potential defendants can attest to the oft-abusive nature of our judicial system.  Even when the likelihood of ultimate liability is almost nonexistent, the sheer cost in terms of dollars, time and emotional energy to defend frivolous suits can be steep.

But even that minimal requirement is apparently intolerable to Senator Specter.  Or, more accurately, to the plaintiffs’ lawyers who can help save his hide from the electoral fire through campaign support.  He has therefore introduced the “Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009,” which would require a court to establish absolute metaphysical certainty that a claim won’t prevail before dismissing it.

Specter’s proposed bill is very, very dangerous, particularly at a time when tort reform and restraining unnecessary litigation costs are critical to our economic recovery and national well-being.  But to Senator Specter, that’s apparently a small price to pay to retain Senatorial privileges six more years.

For those following the most recent Iranian hostage crisis involving British sailors, Meir Javedanfar has an interesting analysis in The Guardian.  Aside from Iran seemingly picking a fight with the lesser partner in the Anglo-American alliance, the mullahs who run the country may also be responding to a threat from a source they can’t easily control: a Persian language news station operated by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

BBC’s Persian language radio service dates back to 1940, while its newly inaugurated TV service is now almost one year old. In this short space of time, the TV service has attracted large audiences in Iran, and the reason is simple: it is the most impartial Persian language broadcast available.

This has not been an easy endeavour as it has meant being subject to heavy criticism from both sides. For example, many anti-regime elements, especially monarchists, have at times accused it of being pro-Khamenei, because of its refusal to toe their line of attacking the regime at every opportunity. The fact that the service also looks at the positive aspects of the regime, and portrays the views of both sides has given it much credibility, as well as audience. So when it does broadcast about developments in Iran, especially those that cast the regime in a negative light, many more people are willing to accept its findings, thanks to its credibility and reputation for airing both sides of the story.

A government lashing out at a news outlet because of its fair and balanced reporting?  Only in Iran…

In his book “America Alone”, Mark Steyn discusses the “strong horse, weak horse” theory of foreign affairs. When terrorists like Osama bin Laden see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will necessarily like the strong horse. Traditionally, weakness was shown by the absence of power. Among many modern nations, it is evidenced by the refusal to use power. In either case, weakness is a provocation to those seeking to do harm.

And, as Ivan Krastev describes in today’s Washington Post, President Obama’s weakness on foreign affairs – silence on the killings of Iranian dissidents, making nice with dictators, bowing to the Japanese emperor – is signaling an over matched man in critical times. The Russians are familiar with a leader whose celebrity masks his country’s drop in prestige.

Obama himself is largely viewed in Russia as the American Mikhail Gorbachev, but Russians are less impressed than other Europeans have been with Obama’s brilliance and rock-star popularity. They remember the Gorbi-mania that conquered the globe at the moment the Soviet Union was about to crumble. Russians are tempted to view Obama’s global reformism and his progressive agenda as an expression of American weakness and not as an expression of America’s regained strength and legitimacy.

What does all this mean for the “reset” policy? First, it means that Russians will not be in a hurry to respond to the positive signals coming from Washington, and any perception of Washington weakness will diminish Moscow’s willingness to cooperate even in areas of common interest and common concern. It is not Obama’s deference but his strength that can persuade the Kremlin to cooperate with Washington. Simply put, to persuade Russians to join him, Obama must first demonstrate that he does not need them. He needs a clear victory, whether against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iran’s nuclear ambition or Beijing’s habit of devaluing its currency. Obama must show strength for the “reset” policy to succeed.

Chances are Obama’s decision tonight to send less than the requested amount of troops to Afghanistan will do nothing to achieve either a clear victory in Afghanistan or more esteem for the Russians (or anyone else for that matter).

Taxes, higher premiums and rationing.  That’s what consumers will face if the Senate’s version of health care reform becomes law.

According to a new report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), some self-insured individuals could see a jump in premiums if the Senate bill becomes law.   In some instances, the hike in premiums could be upwards of 13%.  As CBO Director Doug Elmendorf wrote on his blog yesterday, “The average, unsubsidized premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.”

And for those of you who have employer-based “platinum” health insurance?  Expect new taxes on you and your employer.  The CBO projects that 1 in 5 people with employer-based coverage will be subject to the new 40% excise tax on health insurance.

With projected costs of the Senate bill reaching $6 trillion over ten years, it’s no wonder that 53% of the nation opposes this sordid version of “reform.”

The Hill – EPA Pushes for Higher-Ethanol Gasoline
Politico – GOP Establishment Scorns Purity Test
USA Today – Obama Takes on Holiday Agenda
Washington Examiner – Big Government Serves Big Business
Fred Barnes – What Obama Needs to Say at West Point

Brett Joshpe – A Public Option Won’t Benefit U.S.
WSJ Editorial – Sen. Specter Would Make it Easier for Terrorists to Sue
National Review Online – Health Care Bill Will Raise Premiums
Red State – A NY-23 Scenario in Maryland?
The American – The Case Against Net Neutrality

Federal Debt: $12.061 trillion

In the “not a big surprise” news category, the ABA announced that it “supports” Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try some Gitmo detainees in New York federal court.

Carolyn Lamm, President of the ABA (American Bar Association) and occasional lobbyist for Uzbekistan, wrote General Holder arguing that “[t]he transfer of these high-profile cases to federal court affirms this nation’s adherence to due process and the rule of law, and clearly establishes that these men are being tried as criminals, not as soldiers in armed conflict.”

CFIF has opined on these trials here and here, and while the Gitmo detainees are clearly being treated as criminals now, are we not now in an “armed conflict?”  How many Americans have died in Afghanistan because 9/11 conspirators like Khalid Shiekh Mohammed decided to turn passenger jets into missiles?   Would American conspirators in foreign countries be tried in civilian courts for engaging in acts of war?

The ABA seeks “competent assistance of counsel … due process … and [the right] to be treated as innocent until proven guilty” for the Gitmo detainees.  Let’s hope they receive those rights without jeopardizing national security or turning a real trial into a spectacle that puts American foreign policy on the witness stand.

Apparently, consumers still like options and the technology that provides them.  Since late night host Jay Leno moved down the clock to the 10pm hour, NBC’s ratings have taken a substantial nosedive because people are recording his show on DVR while watching other shows when they air.  The problem for NBC doesn’t just stop at drops in air time viewers.  NBC’s advertisers are feeling the pinch because later viewings on DVR recordings make it possible to skip commercials.  The less people watch ads, the less companies will pay to air them, which means the less money networks like NBC will make to produce television shows.

Obviously, something must be done.  Simply put, it’s time for Congress to act because Jay Leno is too big (a chin) to fail.  Network television executives just need a little help from Big Brother in “equalizing” the market in their favor.  Think of it as “net neutrality” for broadcasters and advertisers.  Since the mantra around Washington right now is to do anything that increases consumption, it’s time to ban the DVR as an impediment to economic growth.

Turns out Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) told the truth when he yelled “You lie” after President Obama said illegal immigrants would not be covered under the health care reform bill. A report by the Washington Times shows that both the House and Senate versions of the legislation fail to prohibit illegal immigrants from getting taxpayer-funded health coverage.

The House bill mandates, and the Senate bill strongly encourages, businesses to extend health care coverage to all employees. But the bills do not have exemptions to screen out illegal immigrants, who usually obtain jobs by using false identities and are indistinguishable from legal workers.

A rough estimate by the Center for Immigration Studies suggests that the practical effect of the mandates would be that about 1 million illegal immigrants could obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.

Democrats who wrote the House bill said that employer coverage for illegal immigrants is not intentional, but rather the outcome of people breaking the law.

Well, it may not be intentional, but it certainly logically follows. The failure of Democrats to address this loophole (and others like it) is the reason the health care “reform” will become seemingly uncontrollable. Of course, no social welfare program the government creates is truly uncontrollable, so long as there is diligent enforcement of means testing. But then, what’s the point of having universal health care if everybody (citizen or not) isn’t in the same system?

A few members of Congress took a financial hit this year due to the recession but according to Roll Call, the 50 Richest Members of Congress are still worth approximately $1.3 billion.

It pays to be a professional politician too, as 4 of the 5 richest members have “served” a combined 74 years in Congress. A freshmen politico, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), adds new money to the pile with a minimum net worth of $72 million.

You can click here for the list or click here for the story.

National Review Online – ObamaCare Falls in the Polls
WSJ Editorial – The Nanny Financial State
Dr. Gary Becker – How to Increase Employment
Times Online – Climate Change Data Dumped

The Hill – Unions Pressure on Health Care Reform
Washington Post – No Deficit Cure for Health Care
Politico – Seven Stories Obama Doesn’t Want Told
Michael Barone – No Global Warming Consensus

Federal Debt: $12.056 trillion

In what may be a lesson for budding progressive politicians, the career paths of President Barack Obama and the new European Union foreign minister offer insight into how to position oneself for stardom while ascending in darkness.  It turns out that like Obama, Lady Catherine Ashton has a dodgy past full of close ties to political radicals on the Left.  As a paid organizer for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), then Ms. Ashton rubbed shoulders with a group that Russian Communist leaders found helpful during the Cold War.

Yet the fact remains that the Kremlin found CND and other “peace movements” useful ways of undermining the unity of NATO, weakening the West’s defence posture and stoking anti-Americanism. The ex-dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, an expert in Soviet penetration of the West, says: “the worldwide disarmament campaign in the early 1980s was covertly orchestrated from Moscow. To a substantial extent it was also funded by the Soviet bloc”.

Like Obama’s well-documented connection to ACORN, though, the row over Lady Ashton’s past affiliation with folks proclaiming “better red than dead” probably won’t be enough to force her resignation as the embodiment of European foreign policy.  Who knows; maybe she’ll be able to broker a deal with a resurgent Russia to help combat the rise of an Islamic Republic inside the continent.

Whither evidence-based public policy? In the wake of the metastasizing scandal over falsified global warming data, the Obama Administration is acting as though the only debate over climate change is when to stop it. As Richard Wolffe reports, President Obama’s recent Asia trip was a crucial part of brokering a deal to set new restrictions on carbon emissions at next month’s Copenhagen conference.

Beyond the photo ops and press statements, Obama was pushing President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for the kind of climate deals that eluded him at the G8 summit in Italy in the summer – and have eluded international negotiators for the last decade. China and India have played central roles in blocking past agreements, alongside the US, in a seemingly intractable dispute between fast-developing economies and the older, wealthier polluters.

Now Obama is at the point where he feels on the verge of a breakthrough, based on the kind of talks that don’t get covered by reporters obsessing about state dinners. “He had extensive conversations with President Hu specifically on climate and conversations with the prime minister of India,” said one senior White House aide. “So he has been building momentum for a political agreement to be brokered at Copenhagen.”

This is another example of what Obama meant during the campaign when he said as president he would “turn the page” on the old debates dividing America. Then, as now, the only page turning to be done is when it dismisses the opposition as unserious and uninformed. How tragic if the president succeeds in realizing Al Gore’s dream of a voluntary global energy contraction just as news is surfacing that the very data supporting it is corrupt.

About a year ago, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the White House staff was engaged in a massive bout of what are known as “departure photos”, where staff members bring family members to the White House for an opportunity to meet the President before departing 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When President Bush learned that my parents were small business owners in California, he teasingly replied “so how long have you been thinking about moving to Texas?”

In a post on the American Enterprise Institute’s “The Enterprise Blog”, Ryan Streeter looks at the salient differences between the economic climates in California and Texas, and discovers what has been increasingly obvious in recent years — The Lone Star State is built for performance; The Golden State is built to fail.

For a detailed side-by-side comparison that shows how Texas is pulling ahead, see this recent report from the American Legislative Exchange Council and this editorial from The Economist (if you’re a subscriber). For a thorough dissection of California’s failures, see my piece from the fall issue of National Affairs.

A chronicle of the Pilgrims’ arrival at Plymouth, as recorded by Nathaniel Morton, via the Wall Street Journal.

So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, which had been their resting-place for above eleven years, but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up their eyes to Heaven, their dearest country, where God hath prepared for them a city (Heb. XI, 16), and therein quieted their spirits.

When they came to Delfs-Haven they found the ship and all things ready, and such of their friends as could not come with them followed after them, and sundry came from Amsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night was spent with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment and Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love.

The next day they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to hear what sighs and sobs and prayers did sound amongst them; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithy speeches pierced each other’s heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangers that stood on the Key as spectators could not refrain from tears. But the tide (which stays for no man) calling them away, that were thus loath to depart, their Reverend Pastor, falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks commended them with the most fervent prayers unto the Lord and His blessing; and then with mutual embraces and many tears they took their leaves one of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of them.

Being now passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectations, they had now no friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no houses, or much less towns, to repair unto to seek for succour; and for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the country know them to be sharp and violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search unknown coasts.

Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts and wilde men? and what multitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or content in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all things stand in appearance with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew.

If they looked behind them, there was a mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.

By now, most of you have heard that New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has ruled in favor of New York City’s use of eminent domain.

This opinion strikes a huge blow to the state of property rights across the nation and it’s another sad consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Kelo v. New London.

The land in the New York case wasn’t blighted or vacant.  Instead, certain well-heeled individuals with connections to the city government thought that they could use their power to construct … a basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets.  Seeing as how the Nets haven’t won a game this year, perhaps they ought to take up residence in a local high school gym instead of forcing landowners out of their property.

If you have the stomach for it, the full New York Court of Appeals opinion is available here.

Much has been made about the proposed federal mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance.  Some have called this mandate unconstitutional since the only constitutional justification could be the interstate commerce clause in Article I.

Since standing around and not purchasing health care is hardly an act of interstate commerce, critics make a good point.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) went one step further in its criticism of the mandate in 1994 when it noted that the individual mandate was “an unprecedented form of federal action.  The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

This year, Greg Dattilo and Dave Racer conducted a study of state and federal mandates.  The results aren’t too surprising when you consider that most government action fails to achieve the desired result, or leads to unintended consequences that harm other sectors of the economy.

For example, auto insurance is mandatory in 47 states but the uninsured rate has held steady at 14.6 percent.  In addition, the federal income tax is of course mandatory, but the non-compliance rate is still 14.7 percent.  These individuals are all law breakers, to be sure, but mandating something doesn’t make it so.

I would propose a government mandate on happiness, prosperity and full employment.  That could solve a lot of problems.  Perhaps a government mandate on earning at least $30,000 a year?  The way the FED is printing money, that should be no problem.  Maybe a government mandate for universal chocolate chip cookie access and subsequent ban on diabetes?

Racer and Dattilo conclude:

If the goals of health reform are to reduce the uninsured rate, increase access to health care, and improve quality, forcing more people to sign up for health plans is not the answer.  The CBO makes it very clear; people who are forced to own health insurance will, as a result, use more health services.  That will increase overall health spending, put stress on the supply of health care services (reducing access) and not make a dent in quality.

In spite of the dubious value of his recent trip to Asia, now comes an announcement that President Obama will be traveling to the glorified photo op that is the denuded climate change meeting in Copenhagen on his way to Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize. In both cases Obama’s presence was assured only after any meaningful criteria were removed.
The only meaningful accomplishment possible at Copenhagen is scheduling another meeting next year. And of course, no single person on the planet can claim to live in a greater state of peace after 10 months of Hope and Change. Such is the Obama approach to international relations, which is looking and sounding resolute when there is nothing able to be resolved.

Finally, a group of Republicans are putting the calls to reemphasize GOP core values into action. In a move that was partly motivated to eliminate his primary opposition, gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis invited former Rep. Tom Tancredo and other conservatives to help write a “Contract with Colorado.” Called the “Platform for Prosperity” (pdf), the proposal seeks to give all Republican candidates for state office in the 2010 election cycle something to support. This statement of principles is the kind of party-uniting exercise sorely needed in several states throughout the union, and within the GOP’s ranks in the U.S. Congress.

A discussion of the contract’s genesis and a comparison of it to the 1994 Contract with America can be found here.

H/T: Valerie Richardson at Human Events

The Hill – Jobless Rate Will Stay High Through 2012
Politico – NFL Star to Run Against NJ Democrat
Washington Post – DOJ Investigating WV Democrat
John Stossel – We Pay Politicians to Lie to Us

Chicago Tribune – Stimulus Snow Job
National Review Online – Winner Take All on Health Care
New York Times – Senate’s Women Could Sway Health Bill
Rep. Bob Barr – The Dark Side of “Going Green”

Federal Debt: $12.034 trillion

Just when I begin to think that California government can’t produce a worse example of willful resistance to the rule of law, the city council of West Hollywood vies for attention. Under the terms of California’s “Compassionate Use Act” medical marijuana dispensaries are supposed to be non-profit entities supplied by legal growers for distribution to people with a qualifying medical ailment. This is how the city council of West Hollywood is choosing to implement that law.

Simply, West Hollywood has no clue if its dispensaries are buying pot from gangs, organized crime and illegal grows — or someplace else.

As West Hollywood Councilman John Duran says, “We knew from the beginning that they were operating for a profit. The greater evil was to send AIDS patients back to drug dealers and back alleys.” In fact, the West Hollywood “model” of regulation, praised days ago by city councilmen Rosendahl, Dennis Zine and Paul Koretz, is a rudimentary system of rules that require closing on time, using an unarmed security guard and not attracting loiterers. The city is not even attempting to prevent profits.

But Duran concedes a darker truth, saying, “We know that the collectives are not able to get all their marijuana from California, and some are coming from drug cartels, and the pesticides are highly toxic to AIDS patients. We did advise the dispensary that they should find marijuana that won’t be harmful to patients.” Beyond that, although having only four outlets to worry about, they simply “don’t have the expertise to figure out” where all that high-end $25-per-gram pot is coming from, Duran says.

According to the same LA Weekly article, the Los Angeles city council follows a similar program of non-compliance. Amazing.