National

Charges against John Edwards for campaign finance law violations have survived motions to dismiss:

There have been doubts about the strength of the government’s case against former presidential candidate John Edwards.

But as an initial matter, the charges withstood five motions to dismiss filed by Edwards’ attorneys. The AP has the storyhere.

U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles in Greensboro denied the motions Thursday, paving the way for Edwards to stand trial in January for allegedly using campaign funds to cover up an affair he had during his unsuccessful bid for the White House and then submitting false campaign-finance reports to cover his tracks. He has pleaded not guilty.

An interesting case, and we’ll continue to keep an eye on it. Some good information in Political Diary today and yesterday:

Barack Obama may have dreamed of being the liberal Ronald Reagan, a transformative president who could build a consensus for larger government just as Reagan did for smaller government. And after enacting ObamaCare and driving deficit spending to levels not seen since World War II, Mr. Obama might seem to be well on his way. But the president’s western campaign swing this week demonstrated the enduring influence of the politics of Reagan.

Speaking to students at the University of Colorado’s Denver campus, Mr. Obama claimed that “the reason I’ve been hitting the road so much is because the folks I’m talking to in cities and small towns and communities all across America, they’re — let’s face it, they’re making a little more sense than the folks back in Washington.” It’s unclear how many of the youngsters in the audience grasped the absurdity of this statement, coming from an incumbent president who has pursued the most aggressive agenda in half a century to shift power to the “folks back in Washington” and away from the folks in other cities and towns. Adding to the farcical nature of the event, Mr. Obama was there to announce yet another expansion of a federal program — an increase in taxpayer subsidies of student loans.

Why does a politician who clearly doesn’t believe in a more limited role for Washington feel the need to sound as if he does? Because Ronald Reagan persuaded Americans that government is most often the cause of America’s problems, not the solution, and that the nonsense of bureaucratic Washington can’t compete with the common sense of free people operating in free markets. Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest that despite the leftist policy triumphs of his first two years in office, the Reagan political consensus endures.

* * *

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry must be onto something with his flat tax. Liberals wasted no time on Tuesday shooting arrows at the Texas governor’s proposal, labeling it a giant-sized tax cut for millionaires and billionaires that’s paid for with higher taxes on the middle class.

Obama administration spokesman Ben LaBolt said the flat tax “would shift a greater share of taxes away from large corporations and the wealthiest onto the backs of the middle class.” Mr. Obama’s team just can’t get away from the class warfare theme.

The Democratic National Committee was also on the warpath. It sent out an email claiming to “fact check” the Perry flat tax, which would offer taxpayers the choice of filing under the current system or paying a 20% rate. The DNC cites former Obama administration economist Jared Bernstein, who says “not only would [the plan] shift the tax burden from the rich to middle-class and poorer taxpayers, but it would also shift the burden of tax preparation away from the rich.” Apparently, tax fairness means everyone has to share equally in the burden of tax complexity. Now, there’s an argument that only a tax accountant could love.

The Perry campaign has spent much of the past few days swatting down these “fairness” attacks. A Perry spokesman tells me that “nearly every income category comes out ahead financially under the flat tax. We were very careful to construct this in a way that protects the middle class from higher taxes.” Because the system is optional, no American has to pay a higher tax if they don’t want to. And like Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, Mr. Perry’s proposal eliminates the corporate welfare in the code that allows companies like GE to pay no tax.

Now the pressure is on Mr. Romney to devise a bold tax plan of his own. He’s put out a detailed economic proposal with 57 planks and has called for tax rate cuts and other reforms, but he hasn’t put forward a comprehensive plan to overhaul a tax system that now extracts more than $300 billion a year in compliance and enforcement costs. Conservatives are challenging Mr. Romney to adopt a sweeping tax rewrite. He may have to do that if he wants to win the nomination, because right now the Republicans are a flat tax party.

Former Reagan Economist William Niskanen passed away earlier this week:

All of us at the Cato Institute are saddened to announce that William A. Niskanen, distinguished senior economist and chairman emeritus of the Cato Institute, passed away today in Washington at 78.

Niskanen served 23 years as chairman of Cato’s board of directors, stepping down in 2008. Prior to joining Cato, he served as a member and acting chairman of President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“Bill Niskanen was a world-renowned economist and a passionate leader of the growing classical liberal movement around the globe,” said Cato founder and president Edward H. Crane. “More importantly, he was a man of unshakeable integrity. His influence on and importance to the Cato Institute cannot be overstated. His passing is a terrible loss to the Institute and to the nation.”

Niskanen had a long and prominent career as an economist, including tenures as director of economics at the Ford Motor Company, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and Los Angeles, assistant director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, a defense analyst at the Rand Corporation, the director of special studies in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the director of the Program Analysis division at the Institute of Defense Analysis.

Born March 13, 1933 in Bend, Ore., Niskanen graduated from Bend High School,and received his B.A. and Ph.D in economics from Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively.

Many of Niskanen’s articles and essays are collected in two books, Policy Analysis and Public Choice and Reflections of a Political Economist: Selected Articles on Government Policies and Political Processes.

More from Cato here and here, from Reason here.

According to the Atlantic Wire, The Super Committee Is Doomed:

With less than a month to go before the deadline to produce a debt deal, it appears that the Congressional deficit-reduction committee is nowhere close to a deal. Even worse, neither side can even get their rank-and-file members to back the current proposals.

Both Democrats and Republican leaked details of their current proposals and nobody seems very happy. Speaker of the House John Boehner called the Democrats plan a “non-starter” because it hinges on tax increases, which he still refuses to accept. The GOP plan promises $600 million in new tax revenue, that it assumes will come from awesomely obvious economic growth, an idea the Dems scoff at.

Democrats aren’t thrilled with their party’s offer either. Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey says it has “absolutely no chance of being the law of the land” and he sees no path to a deal before the November 23 deadline.

Politico also outlines the procedural hurdles that must be overcome before then. The House only has eight work days scheduled in November, plus the Congressional Budget Office would have to score any final bargain before it can be voted on and signed by the President. That’s a lot of work to do before Thanksgiving.

The only remaining hope is that the automatic triggers — $1.2 trillion in cuts, mostly to defense, that kick in immediately if no deal is reached — are still so distasteful that both sides will bite their tongues and agree to something. Boehner says it’s “time to get serious” and swears he’s committed to a deal, but we’ve heard all that before. A near total unwillingness to compromise (and a certain indifference to artificial deadlines) is the reason we got the super committee in the first place.

Meanwhile in campaign-land, Timothy Carney notes that Obama’s supposed ban on contributions from lobbyists isn’t so much in effect:

President Obama doesn’t take campaign contributions from lobbyists — unless you count the owners and CEOs of lobbying firms, corporate vice presidents for government relations, or managing directors for public policy.

“We don’t accept any money from special-interest groups or Washington lobbyists,” the Obama campaign bragged in a recent email touting the $70 million raised last quarter by the campaign and the Democratic National Committee. But if you comb through the actual filings with the Federal Elections Commission, you see how misleading this claim is.

Wealthy revolving-door banker Peter Orszag epitomizes everything Obama ran against. Orszag was Obama’s budget director until the 2010 elections at which point he cashed out to bailed-out megabank Citigroup. A Citi executive touted Orszag’s “key … government experience” and “his expertise in economic policy.” In other words, Orzag has monetized his public service and sold it to Citi, which, like all big banks, counts on favorable government policy for its profits.

Apparently feeling fairly plush after nine months at a Wall Street salary, Orszag cut a $35,800 checklast month to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that divides its funds between the official Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee. To sum up: Orszag gained inside knowledge and connections on the taxpayer dime, put them to work for a big bank, then used his salary from this bailed-out bank to give the maximum contribution to the man who hired him in the White House.

Read the full column here.

Today’s video is a bit long, but quite entertaining. Peter Schiff, a member of the 1%, sought a conversation recently with the Occupy Wall Street folks (click here to view in YouTube):

New Mexico

You should definitely check out Dan Foley’s latest contribution to NMPolitics.net arguing that The Occupy Wall Street Folks Need to Focus:

Let me start out by saying I agree with the Occupy Wall Street folks if they are against government bailouts. I also believe it is not the government’s role to pick winners and losers in businesses, so once again we are on common ground. But as I drive by the folks on the streets in Albuquerque and look at the signs the people are holding up around the country I am shocked to see their anger is pointed only at Wall Street and the business folks.

Why is it they are not equally as angry at the folks in Washington who got us to this point? Why aren’t they asking President Barack Obama to give back the money he received from the very industry that led us to this point? Why aren’t they angry that entities like Fannie and Freddie where giving big dollars to Democrats who were fighting the tough regulations being championed by President Bush and other Republicans?

How come they are not angry at people like Representative Barney Frank, who, while involved in a relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive, was fighting any increase in regulation of a GSE (government-sponsored enterprise)? The simple fact that President Bush tried, at least 17 times, to get Congress to strengthen the regulations governing these entities was answered by party-line votes from Democrats in Washington, but this seems to go unnoticed.

I will say the Republicans got this wrong as well. These entities didn’t need tougher regulations, they needed to be shut down, and the government should have left the mortgage business totally. The fact is the government was in the very business it would not allow the private sector to enter into. The bank regulators would never have allowed banks to loan money for the very types of loans the government felt the need to guarantee.

Also worth checking out Haussamen’s latest update on Judge Murphy, including an apology.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

EVENT NOTICE: Registration closes TONIGHT for the Born to Run 5K / 1 mile race sponsored by Right to Life of New Mexico. For more information, visit this page.

National

Interesting column by David Brooks from Monday noting that Obama Rejects Obamaism:

I liked Obama’s payroll tax cut ideas and urged Republicans to play along. But of course I’m a sap. When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill.

It recycles ideas that couldn’t get passed even when Democrats controlled Congress. In his remarks Monday the president didn’t try to win Republicans to even some parts of his measures. He repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives.

He claimed we can afford future Medicare costs if we raise taxes on the rich. He repeated the old half-truth about millionaires not paying as much in taxes as their secretaries. (In reality, the top 10 percent of earners pay nearly 70 percent of all income taxes, according to the I.R.S. People in the richest 1 percent pay 31 percent of their income to the federal government while the average worker pays less than 14 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

This wasn’t a speech to get something done. This was the sort of speech that sounded better when Ted Kennedy was delivering it. The result is that we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, and I’m a sap for thinking it was possible.

General Motors and the United Auto Workers union reached an agreement and Shikha Dalmia has a great post-agreement column on big labor:

The Detroit Free Press’ Sunday front page was a rich display of irony. It featured two stories, one celebrating the quadrennial contract deal that GM and the United Auto Workers had reached, declaring that the “Deal Is a Victory for All.” And the other reported: “Right-to-Work Debate Fires Up in State.” That about sums up the state of the labor movement nationwide: Still a player, but no longer sacrosanct.

* * *

Grand Valley State University economist Hari Singh found that if Michigan had been a right-to-work state, the auto industry would have seen a 25 percent gain in jobs since 1965. Instead, it lost 56.6 percent just between 2002 and 2009, shrinking its work force by 165,777. In a functioning market, high unemployment would lead to lower wages. But in Michigan’s auto industry, Singh found, wages actually rose 18.1 percent during that time.

Unions congratulate themselves for protecting workers’ wages, but they have imposed a heavy price on everyone else. Not a single foreign automaker has ever taken advantage of Michigan’s legions of out-of-work but highly trained employees, preferring to train novices in right-to-work states.

The upshot is that the economies of these states grew on average 18.1 percent between 2001 and 2006, according to Paul Kersey of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan’s? It grew too — a grand total of 3.4 percent over the same five years.

Read more here. Speaking of our economy, check out David Harsanyi’s latest column, Let’s Eat the Rich:

Some wiseguys at the Economic Freedom Network just released a survey alleging that the United States has fallen from the sixth-freest economy in the world to the 10th-freest. The survey is based on four foundations of a healthy capitalist society: “personal choice, voluntary exchange coordinated by markets, freedom to enter and compete in markets, and protection of persons and their property from aggression by others.”

Or what progressives might call greed, racism, unfairness, and immorality.

Certainly, this decline is no surprise. After imagined outbreaks of “unfettered” capitalism, these tenets have been on the outs around these parts. Technocrats want to coordinate markets and choices. And “having” is now the same as “taking.” Hey, and the government has been monumentally irresponsible with that “budgeting” deal for a few decades, so it’s time to hold someone responsible. Why not the rich?

When President Barack Obama unveiled his new un-passable “deficit reduction plan,” many accused him of playing class envy. The plan ostensibly calls for $1 in budget cuts (cuts that would never happen) for every $1 in tax increases ($1.5 trillion). And if we’re not willing to ask more from the rich, says the president, “then the logic—the math—says everybody else has to do a whole lot more; we’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor.”

Here’s a disturbing story:

The city of San Juan Capistrano, California is laying heavy fines on a local couple for hosting semi-regular bible readings in their home. From the Los Angeles CBS affiliate:

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called “a regular gathering of more than three people”.

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple’s legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further “religious gatherings” in their home, according to PJI…

After city officials rejected the Fromms’ appeal, PJI, which represents other Bible study participants, will appeal the decision to the California Superior Court in Orange County…

Neighbors have written letters to the city in support of the Fromms, whom they said have not caused any disturbances with the meetings, according to PJI.

The city attorney says the meetings have attracted “up to 50 people.” He claims the meetings are held Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons, which would mean gross revenue of $1,000 a week for a city where the utilities agencies alone run at a deficit more than a third the size of their total budget, and whose finances are being subject to lengthy and expensive audits.

One of the big stories yesterday was the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia, who was convicted of killing a police officer in 1991 primarily on the basis of eyewitness testimony, and despite subsequent recanting by a number of those witnesses. The WSJ Law Blog has a useful recap:

The level of interest that the case generated was striking — political figures, celebrities, and anti-death penalty opponents worldwide rallied to Davis’s defense, pleading in recent days for Georgia to spare his life.

* * *

Davis was convicted for killing police officer Mark Allen MacPhail in 1989. The conviction rested largely on eyewitness testimony, and many of the witnesses later recanted or altered their testimony.

Davis vigorously maintained his innocence up until the time he was executed.

The jury in Davis’s murder trial was aware that some of the eyewitness accounts of the murder were shaky, as noted in this detailed AP account of the case. And many, many judges reviewed the case but declined to overturn the conviction.

The level of interest in the case seems to owe in part to the skill of Davis’s advocates in galvanizing broad based support.  Change.org, which bills itself as a platform for social change, released a statement yesterday noting that it had helped launch petition drives that had gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures from Davis supporters.

From WSJ’s Political Diary today, a few 2012 candidate updates:

For a man who says he’s not running for president, Chris Christie isn’t keeping a low profile. The New Jersey governor will give presidential tea-leaf readers another chance to speculate about his intentions when he delivers a speech next Tuesday at the Reagan Presidential library in Simi Valley, Calif.

Word is that Mr. Christie plans an expansive address on themes bigger than his battle to reform New Jersey’s budget and pensions. Trentonologists will be looking to see if he takes on the U.S. economic predicament or America’s role in the world. Mr. Christie knows he lacks foreign policy experience, but in recent months he’s sought meetings with various national security sages. One of those who attended such a dinner with the governor says he showed keen interest in filling his knowledge gap.

When I reported on Fox News Sunday that Mr. Christie was still considering a presidential run, the blogosphere erupted with familiar will-he-or-won’t-he analysis. One issue is whether Mr. Christie can enter so late and still win or at least do well in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire after other candidates have locked up endorsements and volunteers. I believe he could. Many Republicans are still looking for a candidate who combines conviction with the ability to beat President Obama. Mitt Romney looks electable but no one knows what he believes. Rick Perry projects conviction and leadership but has looked shaky in debates defending his views.

My guess is Mr. Christie would immediately join the front-runners in the polls, he’d be able to raise plenty of money, and his chances would then depend on whether his message meets the moment. Mr. Christie may decide for personal and political reasons not to run. But one of those reasons should not be his electoral prospects. The GOP nomination is eminently winnable, and on current economic trends so is the presidency.

* * *

Expect Rick Perry to bear the brunt of attacks again in tonight’s Republican presidential debate, as Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann have shown no signs on the campaign trail of letting up on Social Security and vaccinations.

The Romney campaign believes Social Security can be a winning issue for the candidate, as it allows him to characterize Mr. Perry as unelectable. To that end, it released a detailed statement yesterday challenging the Texan’s implication that Social Security is unconstitutional, while alleging that the state-run system he seems to favor would be unworkable. “Governor Perry has the opportunity to clarify his proposal while he is in Florida — a state with an extraordinarily high number of retirees and near retirees,” the Romney campaign taunted.

Ms. Bachmann, meanwhile, has stuck to the issue she found success with in the last debate: Mr. Perry’s failed executive order mandating HPV vaccinations. Ms. Bachmann has since drawn blowback for suggesting that vaccinations produce mental retardation, but that hasn’t stopped her from repeating the HPV barb. If anything, she has sharpened her attacks. She now refers to Mr. Perry’s stance as “PerryCare,” a line she will likely reuse in the debate, and has tied Mr. Perry’s alleged “crony capitalism” to the ongoing Solyndra scandal.

Ms. Bachmann needs those attacks to hit home. She has dropped to just 5% in the latest Gallup poll, and while national surveys only mean so much, this one nonetheless reflects a sharp decline in enthusiasm for the Minnesota congresswoman.

Although Mr. Romney and Ms. Bachmann’s strategies seem clear, what remains to be seen is how well Mr. Perry punches back. So far, he has pointed out that Mr. Romney, despite his pledge to save Social Security, doesn’t really have a plan to do so. The Texan has also questioned Mr. Romney’s ideological core. “As he has so many times in the past, Mr. Romney seems to forget he’s a Republican,” the Perry campaign charged. Still, at some point Mr. Perry needs to offer a more specific vision for the entitlement program, and he might take at least a step in that direction in tonight’s debate. In regards to Ms. Bachmann, he needs to find a better counterattack than, “If you think I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended.”

* * *

Going into tonight’s GOP presidential debate, new polling suggests that Texas Gov. Rick Perry needs to do a better job laying out his case for Social Security reform if he hopes to win the White House.

In between Mr. Perry’s first GOP debate — where he affirmed that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme — and his second debate — where he reiterated that view but promised to preserve it for those in or near retirement — Bloomberg and PPP both surveyed the issue. Bloomberg offered the more optimistic take, showing that voters of all parties disagree with Mr. Perry’s characterization by a 50%-46% margin. Republicans approved, 65%-33%.

When asked if they agreed with the Ponzi scheme description (without mentioning Mr. Perry), voters in the PPP poll mostly disagreed, 70%-20%, with independents at a near-identical margin and Republicans disagreeing, 49%-39%. The difference between the two polls suggests that Mr. Perry’s credibility might be making the difference, something that should give his campaign hope.

On the other hand, the pollsters found Mr. Perry slipping considerably in a matchup with President Obama, with Democrats increasingly motivated to defend the president. “We know there are a lot of Democratic voters disenchanted with Obama right now,” the pollsters reasoned, “but if the GOP puts forward someone like Perry who’s willing to go after one of the Holy Grails of the party’s orthodoxy like Social Security it might scare those voters back into the fold.”

If those trends are to be believed, Mr. Perry needs to generate matching enthusiasm among his own troops. According to a Gallup poll conducted after the second debate, that isn’t happening yet. It found that 19% of Republicans were more likely to vote for the governor because of his stance on Social Security, with an equal 19% less likely to support him. Among independents those numbers fall to 12%-32%. It seems the Texan’s clarifications in the last debate didn’t change people’s minds enough. Perhaps he’ll do better in tonight’s debate.

Great video interview with Donald Luskin, author of “I Am John Galt: Today’s Heroic Innovators Building the World and the Villainous Parasites Destroying It” (click here to view in YouTube):

New Mexico

Heath Haussamen declares “Let’s get on with the redistricting court battle”:

Redistricting was destined to end up in court, so maybe the Legislature should adjourn sine die today and stop spending taxpayer money to try to complete this futile exercise

In these uber-partisan times, was there ever much doubt that most or all pieces of the redistricting task currently before the New Mexico Legislature would end up being decided in court?

Those who hoped for compromise between Democrats and Republicans have seen their hopes dashed in the last couple of days as negotiations have failed (some would say they didn’t really exist to begin with) and Democratic bills have passed on largely party-line votes.

* * *

I’m not this pessimistic most of the time. But in the case of redistricting, I’ve seen no reason to be optimistic that enough members of both parties would do the hard work it would take to find compromise. That would require putting other considerations above protecting their own power and their incumbents.

It’s the nature of partisan politics. Elected officials generally seek to preserve their own seats, even when it no longer makes sense. Groups with power seek to protect it. To top it all off, we’re living in one of the more partisan times in American history. This fight was destined to end in a stalemate.

And that’s exactly where we are.

So maybe, since the Legislature doesn’t seem willing to consider much else that the governor put on the call for this session, the House and Senate should adjourn sine die today and stop spending taxpayer money to try to complete this futile exercise.

We’re already going to spend millions in legal fees. Let’s get on with it.

Check out John Barela’s column touting the Hispanic Leadership Network’s conference this week on Rebuilding the American Drean:

In the past weeks, we have heard a lot from both the president and GOP presidential contenders on their views and proposals to put more Americans back to work and strengthen small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth in our country. Here, in New Mexico, we welcome the public debate about the best way to grow the economy and create jobs. Jumpstarting our financial recovery is the responsibility of all of us in public service, regardless of party affiliation.

This week, New Mexicans will have a unique opportunity to join in this national dialogue. Albuquerque will host the second policy conference of the newly formed Hispanic Leadership Network (HLN). The network held its inaugural conference this past January in Miami. The goal of HLN’s “Rebuilding the American Dream” southwest regional conference is to bring together elected officials and Hispanic grassroots leaders from across the country for a meaningful discussion about the policy issues affecting the Hispanic community.

This gathering could not have come at a better time. As the largest minority group both in our state and at the national level, Hispanics play a crucial role in the economic development of our country. As such, they must be part of the conversation that seeks solutions to the challenges we face. A recent poll conducted by HLN, in partnership with Resurgent Republic, reveals that 60 percent of New Mexico’s Hispanics believe our country is on the wrong track. Not surprisingly, their top two issues of concern are the economy and jobs.

The Hispanic unemployment rate is at a dismal 11.5 percent, compared to the national average of 9.1 percent. The situation is even more worrisome for our Hispanic youth. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the unemployment rate for young Hispanics climbed a shocking 9 percent from May to June, reaching a whopping 35 percent.

Read more here.

Finally, a comment from Mike Frese on native son Gary Johnson:

Fans of Big J’s enterprise know that Gary has said that he’ll accept his pink slip in New Hampshire.  In the latest Suffolk University poll there, The Midnight Toker shows up as first choice of zero, zip, nada, none, that’s right, not one of the 400 pollees, and the second choice of two!  Wow, if the loon Ron Paul dropped out, only two of his fifty-six supporters would support Governor J!

But good news, Gary!  You’re going to be in the debate tonight.  Bet they ask you about legalization.  Also bet you’ll use up all the mental bandwidth focused on you explaining your take on that, after which no one will listen to anything else you say.  Also bet no one else on the stage will bother addressing your answer.

Yo, Gary, won’t you please come home.  You are embarrassing your advocates and amusing your detractors.

Also please, just say no to the dope question.  Or forever become one in the eyes of both your friends and your enemies.

Mike Frese
Agent Provocateur

What say you, PubliusNM readers? Is Frese spot on? Or is there perhaps some room for argument on the legalization question given the phenomenal and dismal failure that is this country’s War on Drugs? Weigh in today in the comment section!

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

National

WSJ must read on The Buffett Alternative Tax:

Washington has repeated nearly every economic policy mistake of the 1930s in recent years, so why not repeat one of the bigger blunders of the 1960s too? We refer to President Obama’s proposal yesterday for a new “Buffett Rule” to raise taxes on Americans earning more than $1 million a year. This may sound familiar to readers of a certain age, because it is how the current, and much-hated, Alternative Minimum Tax was born.

Mr. Obama, meet Joe Barr. As LBJ’s last Treasury Secretary—he served only 30 days—Barr became famous for his January 1969 testimony before Congress that 21 millionaires had paid no income tax in 1967. No fewer than 115 tax returns reporting income above $200,000 had also paid no income tax, and Barr predicted a “taxpayer revolt” unless something was done about it.

Washington proceeded to bend tax policy to chase those 21 millionaires, and so we got the Minimum Tax of 1969 that later became the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT now hits some four million taxpayers, and 27% of households that paid it in 2008 had adjusted gross income of $200,000 or less.

Because it hits taxpayers with heavy deductions, the AMT wallops in particular the upper-middle-class suburbs in high-tax states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and California. Congress keeps passing an annual reprieve to prevent the AMT from hitting another 20 million or so taxpayers, most of whom are far from millionaires.

So here we are back at the same old political stand, though even Mr. Obama concedes that today those he routinely calls “millionaires and billionaires” pay at least some tax. The President’s complaint, echoing billionaire Warren Buffett, is that too many billionaires pay alower rate than regular salary earners. So even as he endorsed tax reform in general yesterday, Mr. Obama insisted that one of his reform “principles” is that people who make more than $1 million must pay a higher tax rate than middle-class earners.

There’s one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule premise is false, as the nearby table shows. In 2008, the last year for which such data are available, the IRS reports that those who made more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid an average income tax rate of 23.3%.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a notoriously liberal organization, but it has released a list of names for the “most corrupt members of Congress” and that is an interesting group:

Ten of the members of Congress CREW lists as “most corrupt” are Republicans; just four are Democrats. CREW named Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, and also attacked Reps. Charles Bass and Frank Guinta of New Hampshire, Vern Buchanan and David Rivera of Florida, Stephen Fincher of Tennessee, Michael Grimm of New York, Hal Rogers of Kentucky, Jean Schmidt of Ohio and Joe Walsh of Illinois.

CREW also marked Democratic Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York, Laura Richardson and Maxine Waters of California, and Nick Rahall of West Virginia for criticism.

Read more here.

Campaign finance laws generally infringe free speech rights in ways I find wholly unacceptable. IJ brings us another example:

In 2006, only a few days before a Spring election, Charles Hatchett discovered that a referendum concerning liquor sales was on the ballot in his town.  Afraid the referendum would pass because of lack of publicity he sent out 524 postcards advocating that people vote against it.  It worked—the referendum was defeated.

Unfortunately for Mr. Hatchett, he did not know that under Wisconsin campaign finance law he should have placed a disclaimer on the postcards and reported his spending if it was over $25.  His total came to about $300.

Once the postcards became public, police officers questioned him and his son about whether he had sent them out.  Imagine that—police interrogating an American citizen because he had had the audacity to exercise his freedom of speech.

Read more here.

The Prop 8 trial that took place in 2010 in California may soon be televised, according to SCOTUSblog:

The historic federal trial on the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage — a trial that the Supreme Court would not allow to be broadcast as it happened — may soon be appearing on television and on the Internet.  A federal judge in San Francisco ruled Monday that a videotape recording made of the 13-day Proposition 8 trial early in 2010 must now be released, and thus available for public broadcast.  U.S. District Judge James Ware, however, put his release order on hold for 11 days to allow those challenging the release to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court.

Great piece by Tim Cavanaugh based on an interview with Rep. Jeff Flake:

The Republican Party seems especially schizophrenic these days. Is it the big-government party of George W. Bush, a Tea Party–infused force for smaller government, or something else?

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has represented Arizona’s 6th Congressional District since 2001, is one indicator of how the party might look this decade. A former head of the free market Goldwater Institute, Flake has taken a pro-immigration, pro-trade, anti-spending, limited-government path that contrasts sharply with the GOP mainstream. But Flake has consistently won re-election with double-digit margins and is now within striking distance of the U.S. Senate.

Flake’s campaign against “earmarking,” or larding up bills with giveaways for legislators’ home districts, brought national attention to the issue and inspired some important rule changes. He has been a lonely voice in the House calling for an end to the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba. And in a state where officials are notorious for cracking down on both documented and undocumented immigrants, Flake has consistently argued for reducing obstacles to legal immigration and establishing more-effective guest worker programs.

Today’s video features investment advisor, author, and radio host Peter Schiff who says “the source of our misery is government, and the solution is free markets.” (click here to view in YouTube):

New Mexico

Rick Little proposes “A Commonsense Jobs Agenda for NM“:

To revitalize our economy and recover from recession, New Mexico must turn its full attention to competitiveness. Recruiting new businesses and helping the businesses that are already here expand will grow our economy. To become more competitive, grow our economy and empower job creation, the government needs to provide:

• A stable tax structure that gives certainty to job creators.
• Incentives for businesses to move to New Mexico.
• A business-friendly regulatory climate – free from the bureaucratic red tape that prevents businesses from coming to, or expanding operations in, our state.

The solutions to increase competitiveness are simple, but they require us to show the fortitude to move a jobs agenda through the Legislature now. New Mexico families deserve to have the Legislature address as much as we possibly can. We were elected to do the people’s business, and there is plenty of work to be done if we roll up our sleeves and get to it.

more

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

National

Before I get to the debate, I have to highly recommend you check out the latest from the Fact Checker titled Obama’s whopper of a claim on tax cuts:

The president’s Labor Day speech in Detroit featured an assertion that contained a number of warning signs that it might be an errant fact: “biggest middle-class tax cut in history.”

First of all, anytime a politician claims he or she has done something historic, watch your pockets. That’s usually a dubious claim.

Then, “biggest” can mean all sorts of things. If we are talking about dollars, then are they inflation-adjusted or measured against the overall economy? Raw dollar figures are essentially meaningless without that context.

Finally, the “middle-class” modifier. What’s the definition of “middle-class”? There are many ways one could slice and dice that classification.

Clearly the president wants to demonstrate he’s a tax-cutter. And certainly White House officials have been frustrated that the $116 billion Making Work Pay tax cut was largely unnoticed by Americans.

We decided to put the president’s claim to the test.

Read the full piece for results of the test. On to the debate (which I, admittedly, did not watch — so feel free to correct or update in the comments), which was apparently a fight between Romney and Perry with the moderators occasionally seeking to liven things up with random questions to Ron Paul. As Peter Suderman summarized it:

It wasn’t quite two-men-enter-one-man-leaves, but it sometimes felt like it. As the GOP field’s newest entrant and arguable front-runner, Perry duked it out, going gov-o-a-gov-o with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, his closest competition in the polls.

One key difference? Social Security. Perry doubled down on his assertion that the program was a “Ponzi scheme,” even if Karl Rove says otherwise. Pressed by the moderators, Perry declined to get technical, or philosophical: “I think any of us that want to go back and change 70 years of whats been going on in this country is going to have a tough time,” he said. “Talking about what folks were doing in the 30’s and 40’s is a nice intellectual conversation.” But intellectual conversation apparently wasn’t on Perry’s to-do list.

Romney, who, with his substantially more polished answers and handy data points, frequently appeared to be running for president of people who speak in complete sentences, had a somewhat different opinion about the program: Sure, Social Security has long-term funding difficulties—but none that can’t be solved with a little technocratic gimmickry. “It’s a program that’s working for millions of Americans,” he said, shortly after agreeing that its finances were broken. But the people, they like it: The GOP nominee, Romney insisted, “has to be someone who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving it.” Mitt Romney wants you to know that he is prepared to be that nominee!

The other candidates on stage came prepared to say things as well, if that’s what getting enough votes to win the GOP nomination requires. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s opening bid included the following statements: “I have a plan!” and “I’ve done things!” Both true, I’m sure. Jon Huntsman seemed friendly, and orange. Ex-Godfather’s exec Herman Cain touted his own plan, a 9-9-9 pizza deal to save the economy. Bachmann, who earned executive experience as foster mother to 23, fretted that she was “very concerned about parental rights,” and, in the midst of a long rant about ObamaCare, also found time to say, rather emphatically, that “Kids. Need. Jobs.” Newt Gingrinch namechecked Art Laffer, Ronald Reagan, and himself, then proposed making English America’s official language. He also said he’d fire Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke today if given the opportunity. Huge applause! Almost as big as Perry’s death penalty line. (Let’s hope no one suggests executing Bernanke.)

Sometimes the moderators amused themselves by asking Rep. Ron Paul what this whole libertarianism thing is all about. They asked about drug regulation, and airline safety, and a slew of other lazy libertarian gotchas. Paul did his best to explain in 90 seconds why federal regulation of the drug industry isn’t always so hot, and, by the way, neither is the long-lost drug war. Somewhere in the middle of the night, he stopped to offer a half complaint about President Ronald Reagan—the debate’s namesake and ghost-host (it was held at the Reagan Library). “The message of Reagan was great!” said Paul. “But the consequences,” including huge deficits…well, not so much. The moderators, however, tended to ignore his responses, preferring instead to run Paul through endless variations on the same question: Really? You believe that? Are you actually serious?

Carl Kelm discussed the debate in today’s Political Diary:

NBC News and Politico, the co-hosts of last night’s GOP debate in Simi Valley, Calif., clearly wanted the candidates to tussle. And it was just as clear that the candidates didn’t need much prodding.

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney were placed next to each other at the center of the stage and lavished with the most attention. Mr. Perry, in particular, was continually tested by both the moderators and his opponents. “I kind of feel like a piñata here,” he said at one point.

The debate’s early exchange on job creation — in which Mr. Perry said Mr. Romney created fewer jobs than Michael Dukakis, and Mr. Romney fired back that Mr. Perry created fewer jobs than George W. Bush — was perhaps the night’s most memorable scrap. The most impactful, though, may have been their discussion on Social Security. Mr. Perry reaffirmed the position he laid out in his book “Fed Up!” that Social Security is essentially a Ponzi scheme, to which Mr. Romney retorted, “our nominee has to be someone who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving Social Security.”

By deciding to embrace his previous comments on Social Security, Mr. Perry showed himself willing to gamble on authenticity and boldness. Of course, doubling-down doesn’t always produce a winning hand. Moreover, Mr. Perry refused to remain above the fray, despite his status as the new front-runner. He routinely traded barbs with his rivals regardless of their position in the polls. Sparring with Mr. Romney is one thing, but mixing it up with Ron Paul? Perhaps Mr. Perry sees himself as the GOP’s alpha male, never backing down from a fight.

The Texan also revealed a willingness to alienate the Republican establishment, including Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. With so many GOP leaders and donors still making up their minds, that’s a risky strategy.

Still, it’s worth mentioning that Paul Ryan and Chris Christie have gotten so much attention, in part, because there is a hunger among top Republicans for someone to tell tough truths, especially on entitlement reform. Mr. Perry said that “it’s time to have some provocative language in this country,” and he seems more than willing to show the way.

* * *

While the Republican debate was primarily an occasion for Mitt Romney and the GOP field to probe Rick Perry, it also marked an opportunity for two second-tier candidates, Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman, to re-establish themselves. Neither did enough.

Ms. Bachmann, who at one point looked like conservatives’ choice to square off with Mr. Romney, faded into irrelevance in this debate. It’s true that she got roughly half as many questions as Messrs. Perry and Romney, but it’s also true that she made little of the questions got. Mr. Perry’s rise has eclipsed the Minnesota congresswoman, and the debates probably represent her best chance to reclaim her old spot in the polls.

Mr. Huntsman had a better night and did a decent job of touting his record as a former governor of Utah. “We’ve got to remember that to beat President Obama, we have to have somebody who’s been in the private sector, understands the fragility of the free-market system, has been a successful governor as it relates to job creation, and knows something about this world,” he said. He also delivered winning answers on health care and energy policy, though we’d add that attacking fellow Republicans as anti-science isn’t the best way to win over primary voters.

The bigger trouble for Mr. Huntsman is that a solid performance simply isn’t sufficient. Running to Mr. Romney’s left was a strategic miscalculation that has left him with only a very slight chance of victory.

For more on the debate, check out the WSJ’s coverage here and here. On that whole Social Security issue, Shikha Dalmia explained how it is not actually a Ponzi Scheme….it is much worse for three reasons:

One, a Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay  previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats.

Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.

Three: When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes.

Read the whole article here. And on the Ron Paul front, check out Matt Welch’s look at Ron Paul’s Reagan:

Ron Paul, like many small-l libertarians, was indeed an early and enthusiastic supporter of Ronald Reagan’s presidential ambitions…in 1976. By 1988, when Rick Perry was still a Democrat who supported and endorsed the-then Blue Doggish Al Gore, the initial libertarian enthusiasm for “Reagan’s message of smaller government and lower taxes” had disintegrated into acute alienation over the Great Communicator’s tangible record of growing government, debt, and foreign entanglements.

Rick Perry and his supporters this week are firing back at Paul’s Reagan-repudiating record, quoting from his 1987 resignation letter from the Republican Party and other comments from Paul’s 1988 Libertarian Party run for president. These gotcha attempts actually bolster Paul’s credentials as a limited-government conservative, and highlight an important libertarian critique of Reagan (and by extension, the modern GOP) that has mostly been washed away by decades of Republican nostalgia for The Gipper.

In other news from earlier this week, the Prop 8 case appears likely to continue in California:

Earlier in the day, we previewed (here) Tuesday’s arguments at the California Supreme Court over whether the supporters of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 ruling that the marriage ban is unconstitutional.

As we noted in the earlier post, the standing issue is complicated. But it’s tremendously important to the fate of Proposition 8, the measure passed nearly three years ago that bans same-sex marriage in the Golden State.

On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue — essentially whether the backers of Proposition 8 have enough of a stake in the matter to defend it in court. According to this article from the the LA Times, the court signaled a willingness to rule that the Prop. 8 backers can stay in the case — and therefore that the appeal can continue.

George Will’s latest column is on a somewhat obscure legal issue, but is, as usual, a must-read:

Liberal certitudes continue to dissolve, the most recent solvent being a robust new defense of a 1905 Supreme Court decision that liberals have long reviled — and misrepresented. To understand why the court correctly decided Lochner v. New York and why this is relevant to current arguments, read David E. Bernstein’s “Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform.”

Since the New Deal, courts have stopped defending liberty of contract and other unenumerated rights grounded in America’s natural-rights tradition. These are referred to by the Ninth Amendment, which explicitly protects unenumerated rights “retained by the people,” and by the “privileges or immunities” and “liberty” cited in the 14th Amendment. Progressivism, Bernstein argues, is hostile to America’s premise that individuals possess rights that pre-exist government and are not fully enumerated in the Constitution. This doctrine stands athwart liberalism’s aspiration to erase constitutional limits on government’s regulatory powers.

Want to know exactly how bad the TSA has gotten? If you are groped to the point of a clear sexual assault by a TSA official, and have the temerity to complain about it, you could well find yourself a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the TSA officer:

On March 31st of this year, Amy Alkon — a writer who blogs at the Advice Goddess Blog — was sexually assaulted in front of dozens of witnesses. . . .

Amy — who refused to be scanned — was instead forcibly groped by a TSA employee. Unlike most Americans, she didn’t take it quietly. She expressed her feelings of violation and humiliation, in person at the time and in writing later[.]

* * *

Despite the wide audience she enjoys, Amy’s story could easily have been lost in the din of routine TSA excess. But because Amy didn’t take it quietly — because she called the TSA employee out for her assault, and because she wrote about it — now she’s facing a legal threat.

The TSA agent — one Thedala Magee — has demanded that Amy pay her $500,000 for Magdee’s distress at being called out.

And we wonder why people hate lawyers so much.

To end on a happier note, check out Katherine Mangu-Ward’s post about microlending site Kiva from earlier this week, complete with the video below (click here to view the video in Vimeo):

Microlending site Kiva.org makes it ridiculously easy for (comparatively) rich folk to loan money to (comparatively) poor folk halfway around the world who want to buy a cow or open a business. The loans are paid back on a set schedule—at an astonishingly high rate of almost 99 percent—at which point lenders can take their money and go out to dinner or plow it back into another business.

Here’s a spiffy animation that tracks Kiva loans as they fly back and forth across the globe—starting with just seven tiny fireflies drifting from the Bay Area to East Africa and back again in 2005, then an explosion of light in late 2006 when the site gets national publicity from Frontline. Watch it on full screen if you can.

Intercontinental Ballistic Microfinance from Kiva on Vimeo.

New Mexico

The Land of Enchantment made the pages of the Washington Post yesterday with news that a new ghost town may be headed our way:

New Mexico, home to several of the nation’s premier scientific, nuclear and military institutions, is planning to take part in an unprecedented science project — a 20-square-mile model of a small U.S. city.

A Washington, D.C.-based technology company announced plans Tuesday to build the state’s newest ghost town to test everything from renewable energy innovations to intelligent traffic systems, next-generation wireless networks and smart-grid cyber security systems.

Although no one will live there, the replica city will be modeled after a typical American town of 35,000 people, complete with highways, houses and commercial buildings, old and new.

Pegasus Global Holdings CEO Bob Brumley says the $200 million project, known as The Center, will be a first of its kind in the U.S., creating a place for scientists at the state’s universities, federal labs and military installations to test their innovations for upgrading cities to 21st century green technology and infrastructure in a real world setting.

It will also enable them to rub shoulders with investors, meaning it could ultimately draw enough new businesses to give the state a technology corridor like that in California’s Silicon Valley or Virginia’s Reston, Brumley said.

Read the whole story here.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts