January 2012

Lincoln Remains Opposed to EFCA

by Ivan Osorio on May 11, 2009

in Economy, Labor

The possibility of parts of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), specifically EFCA’s binding arbitration provision, coming back into the political arena has focused public attention on how some centrist members of the Senate might vote on cloture if an EFCA-minus-card-check bill were to be introduced. EFCA’s card check provision, which would allow unions to circumvent secret ballots in organizing elections, was extremely controversial and proved unpopular.

Under EFCA’s binding arbitration provision, if a newly unionized company and the union cannot agree on a contract after 120 days, a federally appointed arbitrator can then step in and impose a contract. This provision is finally getting some public attention — including recently from George McGovern. While it would be ideal to see EFCA defeated in toto, the good news is that right now the centrist Senators who hold the balance of power on this issue are unlikely to support binding arbitration. The Hill‘s Michael O’Brien reports:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) indicated last week she does not favor the so-called “binding arbitration” part of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) as currently written.

Lincoln joins two other centrist Democrats in opposition to the second key component of EFCA favored by organized labor, making it difficult for a final compromise of the bill including the provision to overcome a Senate filibuster. …

Sens. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have expressed their qualms about the arbitration section.

For more on EFCA, see here.

BPA Ban: Minnesota First in a Line of Fools

by Angela Logomasini on May 11, 2009

in Environment

Usually California’s cast of political characters leads the way in the passage of stupid and counterproductive consumer product regulations. Yet last week, legislative clowns in Minnesota became first in a line of fools on one issue. Minnesota is now the first state to ban baby bottles made with the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). CEI has written on this topic, here, here, here, and here, pointing out that the trace levels of BPA have never been shown to pose a human health hazard during four decades of extensive use in a wide-range of products.  It replaced glass baby bottles–which if broken pose real risks.

Such symbolic, yet expensive, bans on baby products have become the modern-day equivalent of candidates kissing babies to get votes. But such bans and regulations are not as innocuous as a cheesy photo-opportunity.

BPA is a very valuable product for making all sorts of products and packaging—providing many public health and other benefits. It makes break-proof containers (such as for baby bottles) and sanitary packaging that keeps our food from becoming exposed to truly dangerous pathogens. For example, it lines many beverage cans and food containers to prevent metals from entering the food and to reduce the potential for bacterial development.

Unfortunately, bans on baby bottles are just the beginning. If regulators phase out BPA, do they know whether the replacements will create new hazards? Surely not—all these lawmakers really know is that it makes politically beneficial press.

Deficit Skyrockets to $1.8 Trillion

by Hans Bader on May 11, 2009 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Labor, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

The White House predicts the budget deficit will top $1.8 trillion, four times 2008′s record. Obama has sought to blame the deficit on Bush.

But Obama is even more culpable. “Congress, under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, held the purse strings that led to the deficit.” And “then-Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget.”

To be sure, Bush’s bailouts have also increased the deficit. But Obama supported them and wanted to make them even more expensive. As the Associated Press notes, “Obama supported the emergency financial bailout package in Bush’s final months – a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.”

Moreover, the deficit was compounded by Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package, which will be spent mostly in 2009 and 2010. The Congressional Budget Office says the so-called stimulus will actually shrink the economy “in the long run,” contrary to Obama’s claims that it was needed to prevent “irreversible decline.”

Even in the short run, the stimulus will create few jobs. The White House now admits that there will be no job growth until 2010. It’s not surprising, since the stimulus package subsidizes sectors where unemployment is low — like education, health care, and state government — and not sectors where it is high — like construction, transportation, and production jobs. (Apparently, only 3.4 percent of the stimulus will go to highway construction, and only 5.9 percent for transportation in general — a small amount compared to the amount of money it showers on state governments, which are using it to continue wasteful spending and lucrative pension and health benefits for state employees.).

The deficit is also increasing because of Obama’s $250 billion mortgage bailout, which reduces the mortgage payments of irresponsible borrowers to a ridiculously low level, even if they have high incomes, and live in $700,000 homes.

Klaus vs. the Eurocrats

by Ivan Osorio on May 11, 2009

in International

In The American Spectator, former CEI Bastiat Scholar Doug Bandow (now at the Cato Institute) describes how “[o]nly the Irish people and Czech President Vaclav Klaus” stand as “formidable obstacles” in the way of Eurocrats’ dream of political consolidation — and how fanciful that dream is to begin with.

After winning some theoretical concessions, essentially promises to make future changes, on issues of interest to Irish voters, the government in Dublin announced plans to hold a revote later this year. Current polls have the “ayes” ahead and the EU is spending more than $2 million to lobby the Irish public. But the apparent upsurge in support may be temporary, reflecting economic fears, and groups like Declan Ganley’s Libertas, which played a key role in defeating the treaty in the first Irish vote, plan to keep fighting.

If the Lisbon Treaty passes, then what? European policies will be further internationalized. European nations’ sovereignty will be further eroded. European traditions will be further submerged. European peoples will be less free.

Which explains Vaclav Klaus’ sharp critique. “Are you really convinced that every time you take a vote, you are deciding something that must be decided here in this hall and not closer to the citizens, i.e. inside the individual European states,” he asked the European Parliament. Unfortunately, most of them are: His talk elicited “boos and catcalls and a walk-out by some members,” explained New Europe.

Yet even if the Eurocrats win, they aren’t likely to create a new nation state capable of challenging Washington for global influence. Rather, the EU will just create a slightly more pretentious political hollow shell.

In his valedictory address as European President, Nicolas Sarkozy said: “the world needs a strong Europe and that Europe cannot be strong if it is not united.” But the Lisbon Treaty does not unite Europe. The wealthier West has rejected a plea by the East for a financial bailout. In a January poll barely one quarter of Europeans knew that parliamentary elections were even scheduled this year. The percentage likely to vote is down from the last election. And the governing establishment is afraid to let the people vote on the Lisbon Treaty. If the only way to strengthen the EU structure is to limit popular participation, then Europe must not be united. Would anyone, other than Belgians (and maybe not even them), today die for Brussels? Passing Lisbon won’t create a continental identity now absent.

In addition to opposing statist schemes like those from the EU, President Klaus is also a consistent opponent of environmental hysteria. His book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, is published in the U.S. by CEI. To purchase a copy of the book, see here.

Declan Ganley, who played a key role in the Irish opposition to the Lisbon Treaty, spoke recently in Washington at The Heritage Foundation. For video of his talk, see here.

Taxing Away American Jobs

by Hans Bader on May 11, 2009 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Employment, International, Labor, Odds & Ends, Stimulus to Nowhere

Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the foreign operations of U.S. businesses may destroy management and professional jobs in the U.S., will put American business at a competitive disadvantage versus its foreign competitors, and may result in profitable overseas operations of U.S. companies being sold to their foreign competitors. So concludes the Washington Post‘s Robert Samuelson in his column today. It’s yet another example of Obama sacrificing substance for grandstanding. As Samuelson notes, U.S. corporate taxes are already among the highest in the world.

It’s doubtful that this tax increase will raise $21 billion a year, as Obama claims. By killing jobs, it may actually cut tax revenue. But even if it did, it wouldn’t make a dent in the sea of red ink created by Obama. “The estimated $210 billion revenue gain over 10 years — money already included in Obama’s budget — represents only six-tenths of 1 percent of the decade’s tax revenue of $32 trillion, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office. Worse, the CBO reckons that Obama’s endless deficits over the decade will total a gut-wrenching $9.3 trillion.”

The White House predicts the budget deficit will top $1.8 trillion, four times 2008′s record. That deficit is the product of a 2009 budget that Obama voted for as a Senator, plus an $800 billion stimulus package that the Congressional Budget Office says will actually shrink the economy “in the long run,” contrary to Obama’s claims that it was needed to prevent “irreversible decline.” (Even in the short run, the stimulus will create few jobs. The White House now admits that there will be no job growth until 2010. It’s not surprising, since the stimulus package funds mostly sectors where unemployment is low — like education, health care, and state government — and not sectors where it is high — like construction, transportation, and production jobs).

Purpose of Hate-Crimes Bill Is To Promote Double Jeopardy and Shred Civil Liberties

by Hans Bader on May 9, 2009 · 1 comment

in Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

On April 29, the House voted 249-to-175 to pass the federal hate crimes bill, which the bill’s supporters explicitly want to use to prosecute people already found innocent in state court all over again in federal court. Such reprosecutions are, sadly, allowed under a Constitutional loophole known as the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, which says that state and federal governments are different sovereigns, and that double jeopardy only applies when you are prosecuted twice by the same sovereign. (This loophole was established in the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 Bartkus decision, over a stinging dissent by Justice Black).

In the past, the possibility of reprosecutions was viewed as a vice, not a virtue, and civil-rights advocates and lawmakers alike have sometimes cited this risk in opposing bills broadening the reach of federal criminal laws. But civil-rights groups now view double jeopardy as a virtue when it comes to people accused of hate crimes. They consider hate crimes so terrible that not even innocence should be a defense.

The latest example of this comes from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (a coalition of hundreds of liberal civil-rights groups including the ACLU), and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in a May 5 blog commentary entitled, “Pennsylvania Teenagers Acquitted of Hate Crime; Federal Law Needed.” It approvingly quotes the General Counsel of MALDEF arguing that the federal hate-crimes bill is needed based on the acquittal in state court of teenagers accused of a hate crime against an illegal alien from Mexico: “Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, which will . . . give federal government jurisdiction over prosecuting hate crimes in states where the current law is inadequate. ‘[T] his verdict underscores the importance of the passage of this Act,’ said Henry Solano, MALDEF interim president and general counsel. ‘It is time for the Department of Justice to step in and bring justice to the Ramirez family and send a strong message that violence targeting immigrants will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.’ The Justice Department is currently investigating whether to prosecute the two teenagers under federal civil rights statutes.”

By contrast, four Independent and Republican members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission opposed the federal hate-crimes bill in an April 29 letter, calling it a “menace to civil liberties,” since its “most important effect” will be to circumvent double-jeopardy guarantees.

MALDEF and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights are not alone in seeking to reprosecute people found innocent in state court. Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded, and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

Civil libertarians like Wendy Kaminer and law professors like Gail Heriot have criticized the federal hate-crimes bill for taking advantage of a loophole in constitutional double-jeopardy protections.

The hate-crimes bill also violates constitutional federalism safeguards, such as the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison (2000).

Supporters of the hate-crimes bill have all sorts of lame rationalizations for disregarding not-guilty verdicts. Hate-crimes activist Brian Levin, who testified before Congress, claims reprosecutions are needed because local jury pools are biased. NOW Legal Defense Fund told Congress that reprosecutions are appropriate if local prosecutors had “inadequate resources” or were of “questionable effectiveness.” (These rationalizations make no sense and have no principled limits: there is no evidence that state juries are more biased than the federal juries that would hear federal hate-crimes cases, or that they are typically biased; and even well-funded prosecutors have complained of having inadequate resources).

Given the politically-charged nature of many hate-crimes trials, Kimberly Potter of New York University was probably right when she told Congress back in 1998 that if the federal hate crimes bill is enacted, “the acquittal of [hate-crimes] defendants in state court will frequently trigger demands for federal prosecution.”

The bill’s sponsors seldom talk about that controversial aspect of the bill, however, when addressing the general public. Instead, they trumpet the fact that the hate-crimes bill would include gays, lesbians, and transgendered people among the classes of people it covers (the existing federal hate-crimes law only covers race, but not gender, sexual orientation, or disability, and it does not reach most hate-crimes, but rather only those that involve federally-protected activities).

The bill’s supporters, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU, claim the law is needed because of the case of Angie Zapata. Zapata is a transgender woman whose lover killed her when he found out she was biologically a man. But this argument makes little sense, given that Zapata’s killer was swiftly convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole by a Colorado state court, which found the killer guilty of both murder and hate crimes. (The federal hate crimes bill does not provide for the death penalty, and its maximum penalty is the same one that Zapata’s killer got: life without parole).

But precisely for that reason, a federal hate-crimes law is duplicative and unnecessary. Moreover, even the few states that don’t have hate-crimes laws, like Wyoming, still punish hate criminals under their laws against murder and assault. The killers of Matthew Shepard were given life sentences, which is the maximum penalty available under the federal hate-crimes bill. (Ironically, the Wyoming prosecutor wanted them to get the death penalty, while liberal groups like Lambda Legal, which supports the federal hate-crimes bill, oppose the death penalty in all cases). There is no evidence that any state gives people who commit hate crimes lesser sentences on average than people who commit similarly violent crimes not motivated by bias.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose the federal hate crimes bill, which is known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. But since it was used as a political wedge issue in the 2008 election by both the Democratic Party and President Obama, who support it, there is little doubt that it will pass Congress and be signed into law by the President.

The ACLU long opposed the loophole in Constitutional double-jeopardy protections that the bill is designed to exploit. But it switched its longstanding position in order to back the federal hate crimes bill, apparently believing that civil-liberties must be sacrificed in order to fight hate.

The ACLU’s support for the federal hate-crimes bill is hypocritical for another reason: the bill seeks to circumvent double-jeopardy protections recognized by a treaty called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the U.S. ratified (albeit with a long series of reservations, understandings, and declarations — including one dealing with double jeopardy) in 1992. The ACLU has also long argued that the United States should not only comply with that treaty but give it a very expansive interpretation, and not seek to hide behind any reservations made by the U.S. in ratifying the treaty.

Article 14 of the treaty specifically prohibits double jeopardy, without any exception for the loophole relied on by supporters of the federal hate crimes bill, mandating that “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted.”

But the ACLU conveniently ignores the treaty when it comes to the federal hate-crimes bill, even though the ACLU has sought to stretch the treaty’s language to achieve a host of liberal political goals, such as mandating “affirmative action” in the U.S. The ACLU also has argued for an expansive interpretation of the treaty to require benefits for illegal aliens. For example, the ACLU criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Hoffman Plastics case, which refused to award illegal aliens backpay against employers who fired them. The ACLU’s bizarre interpretations of the treaty conflict not only with its language, but also with the longstanding practices of most ICCPR signatory countries.

Citizen Showing Gadsden flag ‘Stopped and Detained’ by Louisiana Police

by Christine Hall on May 8, 2009 · 2 comments

in Bureaucrash, CEI Projects, Features, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Louisiana police stopped and detained an American citizen for displaying the historic Gadsden “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on his car, World Net Daily reports. The flag has a treasured history in America – named after an American general and statesman, Christopher Gadsden, and was once used by The United States Marine Corps as a motto flag. In any case, political talk show icon G. Gordon Liddy was incensed by the reported incident and is now encouraging patriotic and First Amendment loyalists to go buy a Gadsden flag sticker and put it you-know-where — on your bumper sticker. Just so happens, the Bureaucrash activist group is offering the sticker — along with other politically incorrect, First Amendment-loving t-shirts, stickers, pins and other “contraband.” Visit Bureaucrash.com and click on “contraband” to get your Gadsden flag on.

Edit: Link to the G Gordon Liddy Show podcast, hour 1.

“Gangster government gave Chrysler to the UAW”

by Hans Bader on May 8, 2009 · 11 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Mobility, Politics as Usual

So reads the Washington Examiner’s editorial today about how Obama effectively gave ownership of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers Union (which spent millions electing Obama), rather than taxpayers (who have spent billions to bail out Chrysler) or the institutions that lent money to Chrysler based on the legal right and expectation that they would receive its assets before the UAW union would. Veteran political commentator Michael Barone also calls it “gangster government.” The UAW will also retain “lucrative” pension and health benefits, courtesy of the taxpayer.

The liberal USA Today put it more gently, but it, too, criticized the Obama Administration. Obama demonized the institutional creditors, like hedge funds, that helped Chrysler when it needed funds, and then were given the shaft in his sweetheart deal benefiting the UAW. He branded them as “speculators” when they objected to it, and then arranged a collusive sale of the company in all but name (giving up all its valuable assets) to circumvent their legal rights (a sale rubberstamped by a liberal bankruptcy judge). As a result of Obama’s attacks, these creditors have received death threats. Administration officials also threatened to smear the creditors in the press (which might violate the First Amendment).

But as USA Today notes, “those creditors have every right to balk. By doing so they are not only defending their own interests, they are standing up for the principles vital to functioning credit markets. Secured lenders get first dibs at recovering their losses if a company cannot meet its obligations. They will be less willing to lend if they fear they’ll be forced to surrender their position.”

While Chrysler’s lenders have lost almost all of their assets, the union has given up little. Indeed, USA Today notes, the UAW has “continued to press for retiree health benefits more generous than those available to taxpayers funding the bailout.” (Moderate Democrat Mickey Kaus describes UAW pension and health benefits under the deal as continuing to be “lucrative“).

As reporter and columnist Tim Carney notes, car czar (and Democratic fundraiser) Steven

“Rattner and Obama have decided that the United Auto Workers union should get 55 percent of Chrysler. At the same time, they’ve attacked many of Chrysler’s secured creditors — who, in a regular, nonpoliticized bankruptcy, would be repaid in full — for resisting this deal. In a federal complaint, these administration targets alleged: ‘The government exerted extreme pressure to coerce all of [Chrysler’s] constituencies into accepting a deal which is being done largely for the benefit of unsecured creditors at the expense of senior creditors.’

For the foreseeable future, Chrysler will be on the federal dole, both directly and indirectly. The Obama-Rattner plan puts UAW in charge of Chrysler, which is good news for the Democratic Party.

UAW’s political action committee spent $13.1 million last election cycle, a slow year for the union’s political arm. Of the PAC’s $2.3 million in direct contributions to candidates and candidate PACs, more than 99 percent went to Democrats. Of 42 Senate candidates to get UAW money, only one was Republican, and that was Arlen Specter.

The union’s PAC also reported $4.5 million in independent expenditures supporting Obama, plus an additional $423,000 opposing John McCain.

So, here’s the arrangement: You pay your taxes, the Obama administration funnels some of the money to Chrysler, whose profits enrich the UAW, which in turn funds Obama’s re-election.

Predictability, precedent and the rule of law have been replaced with the fiat of politicians. Chrysler could become a pass-through entity from taxpayers to the Democratic Party. And in charge of it all is a Democratic fundraiser. Boss Tweed would be proud.”

John McCain, by the way, opposed the auto bailout. I earlier explained why the auto bailout was illegal and economically destructive.

Obama Breaks Yet Another Promise

by Hans Bader on May 8, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Energy, Global Warming, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

Obama promised to end the military’s ban on gays, but his Administration has not done so. In fact, it recently kicked out a West Point graduate “who is fluent in Arabic and just returned from Iraq,” just because he’s gay. Never mind that there is a severe shortage of Arabic speakers and translators in the U.S. military. (Liberal gay groups seem to have given him a pass on this issue, perhaps because he has promised to push another bill they support — the federal hate-crimes bill — which would erode civil liberties).

This is just one in a long line of broken campaign promises by Obama, like his pledge to enact a “net spending cut,” his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, and his promise not to sign bills without first giving the public five days of notice.

The Congressional Budget Office says that Obama’s proposed budgets will explode the national debt through massive spending increases, increasing the already large deficits left behind by the Bush Administration from $4.4 trillion to $9.3 trillion. His record-setting budgets flagrantly violate his promise to propose a “net spending cut.”

Obama broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year by signing a regressive SCHIP excise tax increase, and by proposing a cap-and-trade energy tax that could charge up to $2 trillion, a massive cost that Obama himself has said will be passed “on to consumers,” as well as homeowners and motorists. (In 2008, Obama privately admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that if he was elected, electricity bills would “skyrocket” under his Administration, but it didn’t report that).

Over and over again, Obama has broken his campaign promise to give the public five days of notice before signing bills into law, including his very first law, the trial-lawyer backed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama also repeatedly made false claims about the Supreme Court decision that the Ledbetter law overruled, misstating the facts of that case and how long it gives employees to sue over pay discrimination.

Obama broke seven campaign promises dealing with transparency and clean government in signing the $800 billion stimulus package, much of whose contents were secret until shortly before Congress voted on it, and whose 1400 pages went unread by most Congressmen who voted on it.

Obama’s broken promises are part of a larger pattern of dishonesty. Obama claimed his $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office concluded before and after its passage that the stimulus package will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run. Obama’s budgets don’t add up, either, piling up $9.3 trillion in red ink, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a staggering $2.3 trillion more than Obama claimed.

The Road to Serfdom

by Iain Murray on May 8, 2009 · 1 comment

in International, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Zeitgeist

On Hayek’s brithday, the following brief speech from internet megastar Daniel Hannan MEP should remind us that there are all too many paths leading to serfdom, some beginning in the European Parliament itself:

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →