conservative

Tea Party Movement: Is it Enough? A Pessimistic Take

by Alex Schibuola on November 2, 2010 · 2 comments

in Odds & Ends, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

I am not a member of the Tea Party movement, but am a curious observer, and I am sympathetic to the original objective of reigning in government spending. However, I am pessimistic that the movement will achieve this for three reasons.*

#1 Hijacking of the Tea Party

I cringe at the idea of Sarah Palin being the self-anointed voice of the Tea Party. I see (saw) the Tea Party movement as a revival of classical liberal ideas, or at least of limited government. But now I hear anti-immigration and standard social conservative rhetoric. Consequently, they’re crowing out the original objective of controlling government spending — by taking our eye off the ball.

#2 Many Don’t Want to Really Control Government Spending

Politicians in states involved in defense manufacturing won’t want to cut defense spending. States with many retirees won’t want to cut Social Security or Medicare. States with high poverty rates won’t want to cut unemployment benefits and Medicaid. Everyone has their own pet project that and they won’t agree to cut a bit for one reason: they won’t be re-elected. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Lesson learned: don’t create programs that promise people they can consume more than they can produce.

#3 Politicians’ Incentives are Not Aligned with the Nations Interests

This is a systematic problem. Two-year and six-year terms and a lack of term limits means that what matters is the number of days before the nearest election, not the next two to six decades. Each problem (such as Social Security and Medicare) doesn’t have to be worried about until it’s a problem, i.e. until it reaches a boiling point and we are left with two bad options: monetize the debt or default on it. Our fiscal ship is heading full steam for the iceberg.

The ultimate issue is that the status quo is really hard to break. It’s difficult until forces outside our control break it. The improperly aligned incentives mentioned above make perilous procrastination inevitable. I hope that the Tea Party movement will succeed, but realistically I just don’t see it happening. I think we can only bet on technology and innovation from the business sector to overcome politicians’ mismanagement during the past 80 years. I fear that it may not be enough.

*I’m sure this article will make provoke some ire. I more than welcome comments that will convince me I’m wrong — indeed I really hope so.

LibertyWeek 100: The Venerable Fred L. Smith, Jr.

by Richard Morrison on July 7, 2010

in CEI Projects, Features, Podcast, Zeitgeist

Richard Morrison and Jeremy Lott welcome CEI founder and President Fred L. Smith, Jr. to Episode 100 of the LibertyWeek podcast. Fred gives us a special look back into his intellectual development and the founding of CEI and then a look forward to the greatest emerging threats to freedom. An amazing 20 minutes with a legendary freedom fighter!

Illegal Immigration: Make it Legal

by Ryan Young on November 23, 2009 · 2 comments

in Culture, Economy, Features, International, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Zeitgeist

The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby wrote a wonderful column yesterday that highlights the inconsistent stance of many conservatives when it comes to immigration:

If Republicans really believe, as Baker says, that “it doesn’t make any sense’’ to allow illegal immigrants to enjoy the same benefits as other state residents, why stop with in-state tuition? Why not bar them from driving on state highways? From camping in state parks? From using libraries?

Of course illegal immigration is a problem. But it can only be solved by overhauling our dysfunctional immigration laws, not by demonizing or scapegoating illegal immigrants. Those immigrants didn’t come here in order to be lawbreakers; they broke a law in order to come here. That’s a distinction with a crucial difference – one that sensible and principled conservatives should be able to understand.

A point of my own to add: many conservatives say they have no problem with immigration itself. Just illegal immigration. Often, this isn’t actually true. Here’s a thought experiment: suppose the definition of legality were changed overnight. Suppose the twelve million men, women, and children currently here illegally are now, suddenly, legal.

People who really are only against illegal immigration will now welcome these new citizens to America with open arms. After all, they’re legal now.

But many conservative immigration opponents don’t think that way, even though they use that reasonable-sounding legality argument. They oppose legalization. They tar it as “amnesty.”

That means some factor other than legality plays into their opinion. They shouldn’t be using it as an argument. Maybe they believe that the U.S. is overpopulated (it isn’t). Maybe they believe that immigrants consume more public services than they pay for in taxes (in the long run, they don’t). Whatever. Let the intellectual battle over immigration move to those fronts, then. The legality argument is just a smokescreen. It is the triumph of semantics over substance.

Immigration is either good or bad for America. This is true whether or not the laws in the books reflect that. That is the substance of the matter. I happen to think immigration is an almost unmitigated blessing. And I will defend that view with logic and data. Not an appeal to a dysfunctional legal code rooted in obsolete Progressive-era thought.

R.I.P. Bob Novak: 1931-2009

by Gary Howard on August 18, 2009

in Odds & Ends

We have recently learned about the passing of esteemed columnist Robert Novak.  Kenneth Tomlinson has a column paying tribute to Novak today at Human Events online that may sum up how many feel about him.

Throughout my life, I followed Bob Novak journalism like I followed the careers of my favorite sports figures. Later, as editor-in-chief of Reader’s Digest, I would become one of Novak’s nominal bosses, though the fact was that every time I worked with him or was associated with him in any way, it was I who felt privileged. Few journalists have ever affected this country like Bob Novak.

Tim Carney, a former CEI Warren Brookes Journalism Fellow and former Novak reporter, also has a column about Novak today Human Events.  He had  this to say about his former boss:

For many of us, though, Novak’s resistance to the calls for conformity, his constant openness to new ideas and facts, and his willingness to change his mind set a crucial example.

Novak was a friend to CEI’s founder and president Fred Smith, a mentor to a few of CEI’s current and former employees and allies, as well as a journalist well-respected by both sides of the political divide.  Condolences go out to his family.  He will be missed.

Land Grab Bill: Senators Check Principles at the Door

by Myron Ebell on January 17, 2009 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, Politics as Usual

I have heard several Republican congressional leaders say that the party has learned its lesson from their disastrous losses in the past two elections. From now on, it’s back to being the party of limited government, fiscal discipline, lower taxes, and against pork barrel spending.

Sounds good, but Senate Republicans have blown their first opportunity to demonstrate that they mean what they say. The first bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brought to a vote in the 111th Congress is the omnibus land grab bill that was blocked in the waning days of the last Congress by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). It was re-introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as S. 22. It contains around 160 titles. Lots of new National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails, and National Heritage Areas. Plus making official a whole new designation of public land lockups for the Bureau of Land Management called Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. And withdrawing 1.2 million acres from the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming from future oil and gas production–an area with high gas potential.

The Senate voted on Thursday 73 to 21 to pass this monstrosity. Twenty-one Republicans voted against it, but nineteen Republicans (and all 54 Democrats who voted) voted for it. This first vote suggests that it’s going to be business as usual for many Republican Senators in the 111th Congress. Talk about shrinking government and reducing federal spending. Talk about increasing domestic energy production. Talk about stopping pork barrel spending. And then vote the other way.

The twenty-one Senators who voted against S. 22 were:
Brownback (Ks.), Burr (NC), Chambliss (Ga.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn (Tex.), DeMint (SC), Ensign (Nev.), Graham (NC), Grassley (Ia.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe (Okla.), Isakson (Ga.), Johanns (Neb.), Kyl (Az.), McCain (Az.), McConnell (Ky.), Roberts (Ks.), Sessions (Ala.), Shelby (Ala.), Thune (SD), and Vitter (La.). They should be congratulated.

If you hear any of the nineteen Republicans who voted for the land grab bill talk about getting back to the basic conservative principles of less government, lower spending, and protecting property rights, have a good laugh.

S. 22 now moves to the House of Representatives.

Liberal Politician’s Lawsuit Against God Dismissed

by Hans Bader on October 17, 2008 · 1 comment

in Legal

Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers’ lawsuit against God has been thrown out of court because God couldn’t be served papers informing him of Chambers’ suit.   The court threw out the suit by Nebraska’s most famous liberal lawmaker because of his failure to serve God with a summons. 

But law professor Ilya Somin believes a better reason for dismissing the suit would be that any lawsuit against God, who is Almighty, would be “unredressable” by earthly officials, who could not force God to do anything.  (“Redressability” is one of the elements for showing standing to sue under the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife). 

Last year, I predicted the dismissal of Chambers’ lawsuit here.  Like Somin, I argued that “Chambers’s suit fails the constitutional requirement for standing, that a harm be judicially redressible before it can be challenged in a lawsuit. It would be an exercise in futility for an earthly court to order God to do anything.”  Chambers’ lawsuit also should have failed because it was simply a “generalized grievance,” and been barred based on principles of sovereign immunity.

Chambers’ bizarre lawsuit, strange antics, and vitriolic speeches, have not kept him from being courted by liberal presidential candidates or receiving accolades from journalists, such as being called a “national treasure” by Mother Jones magazine, and being praised by reporters and liberal politicians for his “conscience,” “heart,” and “empathy.”