January 2012

Teddy Roosevelt’s Legacy

by Ryan Young on December 13, 2011

in Politics as Usual

Gene Healy on presidential candidate’s bipartisan love for Teddy Roosevelt:

Modeling your re-election strategy on an obnoxious authoritarian’s failed third-party run for the presidency a hundred years ago is an interesting choice, but not necessarily a wise one. It’s a move of desperation, unlikely to work.

GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich calls himself “a Theodore Roosevelt Republican.” Despite (or because of?) T.R.’s many flaws, politicians from both parties have long found something irresistible about our pulpit-pounding 26th president.

But T.R.’s enduring appeal is an enduring mystery. What’s so attractive about Roosevelt’s political philosophy? A loudmouthed cult of manliness? A warped belief that war is a good tonic for whatever ails the national spirit? A contemptuous attitude toward limits on presidential power?

John McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee, also suffers from a Teddy Roosevelt complex, as Matt Welch details in his book, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick. If there’s any lesson to be learned from presidential candidates’ shared T.R. fetish, it’s that only those truly in love with power can endure the the hell of the campaign trail to acquire it.

In a Nation of Immigrants, Being Anti-Immigration is a Loser

by David Bier on December 13, 2011 · 3 comments

in Economy, International, Labor, Mobility

Post image for In a Nation of Immigrants, Being Anti-Immigration is a Loser

As most of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination try to outdo each other in blasting undocumented immigrants, they should take a break to look at new survey data from Vanderbilt University that show that anti-immigration rhetoric costs Republicans votes among Hispanics, the nation’s fastest growing ethnic minority — including third- and fourth-generation ones.

As Vanderbilt Political Science Professor Efren Perez explains, the data show that, “[W]hen politicians make very aggressive references to illegal immigrants, they are in essence turning off many Latinos, a growing segment of the American electorate…. There are many third and fourth generation Latinos who have very little connection to Latin America anymore. These folks are very integrated into American society. They are business owners and might be more responsive to Republican ideas and principles.”

But Republicans aren’t taking advantage of this fact. President Obama’s approval rating among Latinos is at an all-time low, and for good reason. He is on pace to deport more undocumented immigrants in one term — over 1.5 million — than President Bush did in two. Meanwhile, Republicans are offering more of the same, and it is costing them politically. According to a Latino Decisions poll, 72 percent of Latinos feel that Republicans either don’t care or are hostile toward the Hispanic community.

Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio has urged his colleagues to try a different strategy. “The Republican Party should not be labeled as the anti-immigration party,” he said recently. “Republicans need to be the pro-legal immigration party.” It’d be a winning move. When George W. Bush made substantial overtures to Hispanics, including an attempted immigration reform, he won 44 percent of the Latino vote and thus reelection. Most notably, he won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, all states won by Obama in 2008.

[click to continue…]

Newt’s Moon Mines

by Rand Simberg on December 12, 2011 · 1 comment

in Space

Over at National Review Online today, I have some thoughts on the little dust up between Newt and Mitt Saturday night on space policy:

Asked how his policy positions differed from those of Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney surprisingly offered as his first example something space-related: “We could start with his idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon. I’m not in favor of spending that kind of money to do that.”

As I note over there, Romney’s statement implies that this “lunar colony” would be a government-funded project. It also implies that he knows just what “kind of money” it would entail. But as I explain, Gingrich doesn’t (at least explicitly) propose any such thing and has in fact been quite critical of NASA, dismissing it as too “bureaucratic.”

There are government policies that could be put into place to encourage the private sector (and at least as importantly, reduce the amount of discouragement) to settle and mine the moon without requiring massive expenditure of taxpayer funds. In fact, CEI will be publishing an Issue Analysis soon on legislation that would create real property rights in space, an issue that has been in limbo since the passage of the Outer Space Treaty in 1967, which outlawed off-planet claims of national sovereignty. The 1979 Moon Treaty explicitly outlaws private property in space, but no space-faring nation is a signatory. Absent such property rights, it is difficult if not impossible to raise the funds for extraterrestrial business ventures.

[click to continue…]

Print Out Your Durbin Dollars

by Mytheos Holt on December 12, 2011

in Politics as Usual, Regulation

Senator Dick Durbin has a truly backwards view of how capitalism is supposed to work. Thanks to price controls produced by his amendment to the infamous Dodd-Frank legislation, now consumers have to pay for the privilege of having access to their own money.

Why? Because America’s retail stores would rather squeal to Big Government’s authority figures like schoolchildren than negotiate the cost of doing business with banks and credit unions themselves. The Durbin Amendment is the fruit of their cowardice. And card-issuers, stuck with the bill, have to pay for it using money from the only group that doesn’t have an army of paid lobbyists in Washington: ordinary American consumers. Is your checking account no longer “free”? Is your bank introducing monthly debit card fees? Have you seen your card’s reward program benefits dry up? Thank the Durbin Amendment.

In a 2009 study, CEI’s John Berlau and Ryan Radia warned policy makers that capping payment card interchange fees would “only cause other fees and interest rates to increase while forcing consumers to shoulder a greater burden.”

Senator Durbin needs to see how much money he’s taking out of your paycheck to pay off his friends in the retail industry. That’s why we hope you’ll send his office CEI’s special $5 “Durbin Dollar” bill. We’d like to think that maybe, if Senator Durbin’s office has to cope with an endless stream of worthless paper, he’ll recognize that his amendment is made out of precisely the same thing — worthless paper.

The Durbin Dollars have been distributed by e-mail and are available for download. People can send these notes to “bill” Sen. Durbin and in support of a new bipartisan effort to repeal the Durbin price controls – a repeal bill sponsored by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Bill Owens (D-N.Y), “The Consumer Debit Card Protection Act” HR 3156.

Print and send your Durbin Dollars to Senator Durbin today!

After 959 Days, Still No Federal Budget Passed by Senate

by Hans Bader on December 12, 2011

in Economy, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere, Zeitgeist

Freshman Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) said “there’s no excuse” for Senate Democrats’ failure to pass a budget in nearly three years (959 days). On MSNBC, Manchin, who used to be the governor of West Virginia, explained that he “would have been impeached” for refusing to put together a budget for his state. Senate Democrats don’t want to pass a budget containing all the spending they’ve authorized through individual spending bills, since doing so would further expose their complicity in the Obama administration’s record deficit spending. During the Obama administration, the federal government has run up the largest budget deficits in history; the Obama administration ran up more red ink in just one month (February 2010) than the Bush administration ran up in an entire year (all of 2007).

In the 2008 campaign, Obama promised a “net spending cut,” but as soon as he was elected, he proposed massive spending increases. In 2011 budget proposals, Obama pretended to cut spending while actually increasing spending by tens of billions more than previously planned (his proposals would have further increased both discretionary and entitlement spending by many billions of dollars). Even journalists who voted for him called these proposals dishonest and potentially “disastrous” had they been adopted. Obama made a similarly deceptive sales pitch for his $800 billion stimulus package, citing Congressional Budget Office claims that it would save jobs in the short run, while ignoring the CBO’s own finding that the stimulus will actually shrink the economy over the long run, by exploding the national debt and crowding out private investment. The stimulus ended up destroying jobs even in the short run by wiping out jobs in the export sector, and subsidizing foreign green jobs at the expense of American jobs.

Phoenix Government Unions Look for More Money for Nothing

by Trey Kovacs on December 12, 2011 · 2 comments

in Labor

Recently, the Goldwater Institute filed suit against the city of Phoenix for inappropriately subsidizing government unions. The complaint alleges that collective bargaining agreements between the city and unions requiring “release time” for union officials are illegal. Release time allows union officials to exclusively conduct union business while being paid by the city — or more accurately, the city’s taxpayers.

The lawsuit coincides with Goldwater Institute reporter Ken Flatten’s investigation, “Money for Nothing: Phoenix taxpayers foot the bill for union work.” The report reveals that Phoenix government unions receive 73,000 hours of release time, costing the taxpayers $3.7 million a year.

The report and lawsuit allege that Phoenix City Council has violated the Arizona Constitution and their fiduciary duty to taxpayers. Arizona’s Gift Clause does not allow the government to award subsidies to private associations, unless there are equal tangible benefits in return. Release time never produces any benefits to the taxpayer, tangible or otherwise. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution has no such clause. Federal government unions logged 2.9 million hours of release time, costing taxpayers $129 million in FY 2009.

[click to continue…]

The GOP Response to TSA Strip-Searches

by Ryan Young on December 12, 2011 · 2 comments

in Mobility, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

The TSA has allegedly strip-searched an elderly woman for wearing a back brace. They suspected it was a money belt; turns out it was a back brace, just as the woman said. Two points to make here:

One, how degrading for the poor woman. Life is hard enough with a bad back.

Two, this strip-search was security-unrelated. Suppose the woman was wearing a money belt. Even the crispest of $100 bills can’t bring down a plane. Currency does not pose a safety threat of any kind.

The TSA is also explicitly disallowed from searching for criminal evidence unrelated to passenger safety. And there isn’t even anything criminal about carrying hidden cash. If anything, it’s probably safer to carry it that way.

Fortunately, the GOP is stepping in with a strong response that cuts to the heart of the problem: a new bill that would remove badges from official TSA uniforms. Agents might also lose the stripe on the side of their pants.

Dept. of Labor to Send Ag-Youths A’packin’

by Jackie Moreau on December 12, 2011 · 2 comments

in Agriculture, Features, Labor, Regulation

Post image for Dept. of Labor to Send Ag-Youths A’packin’

Regulatory war has been waged against another job-creating sector of the American economy. The U.S. Department of Labor has set forth new proposals restricting children under the age of 16 that are not children of the farmers from working in the agriculture industry. Should the DOL really be confident enough with the reduced unemployment rate from 9 percent to 8.6 percent to comfortably cut job opportunities for the prospective future farmers of America?

Current labor laws allow children under 16 to work when they aren’t in school.  Children of farmers may be employed by their parents at any age at any time in any occupation on a farm owned or operated by their parents. But many children work on farms that are either owned by a grandparent, uncle or aunt. Also, if parents do not have full ownership of the property on which they farm, the exemption would not apply. Many agricultural producers also lease land to graze cattle or to harvest more acres. This being a common practice for family farms, it would be unreasonable and inefficient for children to be able to work on certain acres that are owned by the family and not be able to work on others that are leased by the family.

Jobs are being yanked out of young Americans’ hands that are ready and willing to work. These new proposals hinder a child under the age of 16 from participating in most agricultural activities that are essential in modern agriculture. They are restricted from working in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits, and storage bins, or working on ladders that are over six feet high. They are prohibited from handling “power-driven equipment” and operating tractors. Youths would be banned from being hired to brand, vaccinate, castrate, or treat animals, as well as herd animals on horseback. Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, states:

Hiring a neighbor, nephew, or niece to help with branding is a common practice on ranches and provides valuable experience to learn animal behavior and understand at a young age how to safely deal with livestock.  Additionally, any youth wanting to see veterinary medicine in practice would be prevented from doing so under this proposal, including a veterinarian’s own children accompanying him or her to a farm or ranch.  As with other sections in this proposal, this would discourage young people from taking an interest in ranching and veterinary medicine, and would be detrimental to the future to those industries.

[click to continue…]

Christmas Liquor Bans: Is Your State on the List?

by Michelle Minton on December 12, 2011 · 1 comment

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Post image for Christmas Liquor Bans: Is Your State on the List?

If you were planning to go-a-Wassailing along this Christmas, you may want to read this post carefully so that you can plan your booze-buying accordingly this holiday season. The “blue laws,” that still exist in many states, were originally intended to enforce religious worship. While most states have done away with the anachronistic rules, many still maintain bans on sales of liquor on Sundays, election days, and certain holidays. Since this Christmas falls on a Sunday this year, about 27 states in the union have some kind of blue law or another that will severely limit its residents’ ability to get booze, regardless of whether or not they are religious or celebrate Christmas. Most of the states listed below have limitations on off-premise sales of alcohol (that is liquor shops) but some also limit or prohibit all liquor sales, including serving in bars and restaurants on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Most of the states on the list below have state-wide prohibitions, but for some states the laws governing liquor are county-by-county. Even if your state doesn’t make the list, individual stores may elect to close on Christmas Day so you should prepare head of time so you won’t be forced to take drastic measures.

Alabama only allows off-premise sales of liquor through state-run stores, all of which will be closed from 4pm on Christmas Eve until the following Tuesday.

Arkansas not only prohibits sales of take-away liquor, but also prohibits

Colorado lifted the Sunday sales ban in 2008, however, off-premise alcohol sales are banned on Christmas Day. If you’re really in need you’ll be happy to know that you’ll be able to buy 3.2 percent ABV beer at grocery stores (if they’re open) on Xmas.

Connecticut bans Sunday liquor sales *except “for alcoholic liquor that is served where food is also available…or by casino permittees at casinos.” In addition, if Christmas falls on a Sunday, off-premise sales are also prohibited on the following Monday.

The District of Columbia, oddly, bans Sunday sales of liquor unless Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday — then stores are allowed to open on December 24. Of course, since Christmas Day is on Sunday people in the district will have to get whatever alcohol they want from grocery/convenience stores (or neighboring states).

Georgia: All alcohol sales are generally prohibited on Christmas Day. However, cities with more than 400,000 residents may allow alcohol sales after 12:30pm on Christmas.

Indiana liquor stores are forced to close while restaurants and bars are banned from Christmas Day alcohol sales, but may serve alcohol by the glass on Christmas Eve.

Kansas While some counties may permit Sunday sales as of 2005, liquor stores are prohibited from selling on Christmas.

Maryland: Oh, Maryland. The state that I currently call home has a labyrinthine system of liquor laws, which means that rules vary widely from county to county. Particularly confusing is the fact that while the state itself is not a “control state” meaning that the state doesn’t own or operate liquor stores, Montgomery County is a “control county” that shuts down its liquor stores on Christmas Day (according to the Chief Operator of the Montgomery Dept. of Liquor Control). Other counties in Maryland, such as Prince George’s, will have sales on Christmas.

Massachusetts like Connecticut prohibits off-premise sales on Christmas day as well as the following Monday if Christmas falls on a Sunday.

Michigan: Last year, Michigan undid the state ban on Christmas day alcohol sales but many municipalities, such as Flint, chose to maintain the ban.

[click to continue…]

Food Stamp Fraud Costs America Billions

by Hans Bader on December 12, 2011 · 2 comments

in Legal, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

Food stamp fraud is costing the taxpayers billions, notes the Heritage Foundation. Fraud levels were 39 percent in the District, 25 percent in Maryland, and 16 percent in Virginia, for cases investigated in 2011, according to data obtained by The Washington Examiner. Almost none of the people who committed fraud in Maryland or the District were ever prosecuted.

As the Heritage Foundation notes:

While the number of food stamp recipients has significantly increased (now up to a total of 45 million Americans) the percentage of cases investigated for fraud has not increased or even remained constant. The result is that fraudsters are duping taxpayers of millions, even billions, of dollars. According to fiscal year 2010 data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Maryland and Virginia distributed about $130 million in food stamps to individuals who were not eligible. For every $100 in benefits, those two states doled out $6.11 and $5.04, respectively, to those not eligible. The national average for that time was $3.05. Inefficiency in the food stamp program spending is costing taxpayers billions. Of the $64.7 billion spent on the program last year (a record high that is only slated to increase), an overall $2.5 billion was spent on improper food stamp payments. Another recent audit by the Department of Agriculture on the state of Kansas showed three major sources of inefficiency in the distribution of food stamp funds. While many recipients had invalid Social Security numbers and were double-dipping between federal and state programs, many of the recipients also happened to be dead. This has become a pervasive problem in the realm of government benefits. (The Social Security Administration also sends millions of dollars to recipients who are dead.)

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →