Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Anti-Military Bias in the Media

Monday, May 30th, 2005

Given the recently retracted report in Newsweek claiming that a Koran was deliberately flushed down the toilet to upset Muslim prisoners held a Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the question has arisen as to whether the American media dislikes the military and is all too anxious to believe the worst about them. Newsweek concedes that the report did not reach journalistic standards of credibility and should not have been published. Could an anti-military bias be at work?

For some members of the journalistic generation that grew up during the Vietnam War, there remains a deep and abiding distrust and even animosity towards the military. There is every indication that the younger journalists, especially those that were embedded with the troops actually report with far more empathy for the troops. Reporters traveling with the troops in Iraq shared their danger and two famous journalists even died. David Bloom of NBC died from a blood clot from sitting in a military vehicle for many hours. Michael Kelly of the Atlantic Monthly died when the Humvee he was riding in flipped while avoiding gunfire. Geraldo Rivera is an older reporter who seems to have transcended generations. He has history of support for “progressive” causes, while still largerly sympathetic to individual military soldiers.

For other older journalists, many of them in leadership positions, it may be another matter. Earlier this year, CNN news executive Eason Jordan, suggested at an open discussion that US troops had deliberately targeted journalists. Liberal Democrat Representative Barney Frank was present and was taken a back by the remarks, while Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd was “outraged by the comments.” Jordan tried to explain away his comments as a misinterpretation of his true feelings or the result of accidentally clumsy wording. However, the evidence of Jordan’s real feelings was too strong and he resigned from CNN.

Given Jordan’s fate, one might expect journalists, even those who might secretly agree with him about the US military, to be a little more circumspect in their remarks. However, in the company of like-minded people, it is possible for people let down their guard. This seems to have happened to Linda Foley, President of the Newspaper Guild. On May 13 at National Conference for Media Reform Foley claimed, “Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the US military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq.” The remarks elicited cheers from the crowd, suggesting that at least some present were in agreement with her allegations.

Attempts by Hiawatha Bray, a member of the Newspaper Guild, to have Ms. Foley clarify her remarks have thus far not been successful. According to an article posted at the Newspaper Guild website, Foley claims her remarks were distorted. Perhaps she would be willing to clarify them by stating unequivocally that she does not know of the deliberate targeting of journalists by US troops. Click here to listen to the entire video of her remarks to determine for yourself, if her remarks were taken out of context.

If Ms. Foley has proof of her allegations she should share them so that any problems might be resolved. Without proof she should refrain from making charges lest she tar other journalists with any anti-military bias. So far, Ms. Foley’s allegations about military behavior reveal more about her than they do about the troops.

Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Republican Chumps

Sunday, May 29th, 2005

Despite the fact that Republicans increased their majority in the Senate to a health 55-45 in the 2004 elections, we learned last week that it does not take much for Republicans to lose political battles in the Senate. Democrats over the last four years have engaged in an unprecedented use of the filibuster to stop an up-or-a-down vote on the President’s judicial nominees, who would otherwise win confirmation in the Senate. This last week, we almost reached the point where Republicans would execute the “nuclear” or “constitutional” option, depending on the spin on which one wants to apply, to change the rules to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees.

The systematic practice of the judicial filibuster has caused escalating acrimony in the Senate. Republicans have worked hard to win the Presidency and a clear majority in the Senate in the hopes of selecting future judges less disposed to create law and more inclined to adhere to an “original understanding” of the Constitution. Hence, they are frustrated by the use of the filibuster by Democratic Senators to exercise political control that they could not win at the ballot box.

However, if Republican used their voting power to restore precedent and traditional with respect to judicial nominees, Democrats promised to slow the progress of legislation. Moderates, on both sides of the aisle, in a stated effort to restore comity, bipartisanship, and fraternity conjured up a last-minute deal. The President gets an up-or-a-down vote on three of his judicial nominees that had been filibustered. Democrats promise not to use the filibuster for judicial nominees except under “extraordinary” circumstances. Republicans agree to not vote to Senate changes the rules in the meantime.

The supposed comity and fellowship the deal engendered lasted about 48 hours. Democrats raced to filibuster the nomination of John Bolton to be US Ambassador to the United Nations. The brokered filibuster deal technically included only judicial nominees, not nominees to other posts, but the Democratic filibuster following so closely after the deal certainly marked an abrupt end to any alleviation of tensions in the Senate and amounted to a deliberate poke in the eye to the “moderate” Republicans who had brokered the deal. The terms “chump” or “schmuck” come to mind.

With respect to judicial nominees, Democrats had argued that extended deliberation and supermajorities ought to be required for judicial nominees because these judges would serve lifetime terms. The action against the Bolton nomination, not a life-time appointment, demonstrates that the term of the appointment was never really a concern of the Democrats.

Given the ruthlessness with which Democrats have employed their minority status to thwart the efforts of Republicans, one wonders why Democrats seem so reluctant to apply the same skills, determination, unity, and moral certitude to dealing with America’s foreign enemies. On the other hand, Republicans who are so hard-nosed about America’s enemies seem to rollover to Democrats like whipped dogs. Democrats just want to get along with others countries, while they are willing to use every device and subterfuge at their disposal against Republicans. The Chairman of the Democratic Party is more likely to be found making harsh remarks against Republicans than Al Qaeda.

These contrasting behaviors can be explained by the contrasting self-images and world views of Republicans and Democrats. Democrats, at least domestically, are convinced they are morally superior to Republicans. They are at least encouraged in that view by the media which creates a news narrative of Democrats as compassionate politicians looking out for the “little guy.” After all, Democrats created Social Security and want to fashion a government-run health care system. Democrats believe they are inherently a majority party, irrespective of what they expect is a transient Republican majority. Part of this arrogant certitude is an outgrowth of the Vietnam War and Watergate era, when current Democratic leaders came of political age.

While Democrats are convinced of their moral superiority of as a political party, many appear embarrassed of their country. They believe that America is a clumsy giant, meddling in the world. The United States is essentially a mediocre world leader, and only has moral legitimacy when it is acting in accordance with the United Nations and with fawning approval our European allies. After all, Europeans have moved much closer to socially-conscious society in the mold of the highest aspirations of Democrats. How can Americana have any moral authority in the world, if we are not civilized enough to have national health care and socially-leveling rates of taxation. In foreign policy, Democrats just want to get along.

Republicans, especially older Republicans like the ones serving in the Senate, are so accustomed to being in the minority that they have internalized that minority status. In their hearts, they are not quite sure of their legitimacy as a majority party and are consequently reluctant to exercise majority power in politics. They continually seek approval from their fellow legislators and the chattering classes. Moderate Republicans like John McCain seem to depend upon reassurance of praise from the editorial pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times. On the other hand, Republicans are more likely to believe in “American Exceptionalism,” that America represents a “shinny city on a hill” to other countries. Republicans stride confidently righteously in the world, less inhibited by the opinions of others or the constraints of comity.

How much better would the world be if we only persuade Republicans to act like Democrats in politics and teach Democrats to act like Republicans in the world?

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

End the Filibuster of Judicial Nominees

Sunday, May 15th, 2005

The controversy over the filibuster of judges is far more difficult for Conservatives than it is for modern Liberals. After four years of whining, complaints, grumbling, and protests about the Constitutionally-mandated Electoral College, the present Democratic feigned devotion to the judicial filibuster and the rights of political minorities is too transparently disingenuous to even be hypocritical. It is a totally insincere and manufactured self-righteousness marshaled in the service of patent political pragmatism.

Conservatives are congenitally suspicious of transient majorities and favor slower and more deliberative processes. Conservatives believe that large changes are best accompanied by clear rather than narrow majorities. When we have narrow majorities little happens and this is generally good. This disposition is what animates the reluctance to challenge the filibuster from Conservatives like George F. Will.

Honest people or those whose minds are not sealed shut with the cement of political partisanship acknowledge that the use of the filibuster to block judges, that would otherwise win a majority vote on the floor of the Senate, is unprecedented. However, the filibuster can play a salutary legislative role. Since Democrats in the Senate have raised the stakes by using the filibuster, some Conservatives are fearful that if Republicans use their majority to change filibuster rules with regard to judicial nominees, it will serve as precedent for future Democratic majorities to eliminate the legislative filibuster.

The entire political fight between the Republicans and the Democrats reflects the present disposition of Republicans to regard themselves as a minority party in temporary control and the Democrats to believe that they are really the majority party that has fallen into a transient minority position. Republicans, especially older ones have the soul of a minority party. As a consequence, they are inherently reticent about circumscribing the rights of legislative minorities. Democrats by contrast are pushing for minority rights now, but will little compunction about eliminating them when they return to a legislative majority.

We already know this will be Democratic behavior. Democrats, sometimes with Republican help, are the party that chiseled away at filibuster rules in the past, from the point where one Senator could stop the Senate, to requiring a 33% minority, and eventually a 40% minority. It is not hard to see that if Democrats are stymied in the future by a persistent legislative minority, they will trim the power of the filibuster even further.

At this point, the Democrats have, in effect, altered tradition by insisting upon a supermajority of 60% for judicial appointments. Republicans have a choice: they can accept this new requirement or fight it. When Democrats come to power, they will not have to face these same limitations for two reasons. First, Republicans have never used the filibuster to stop the nomination of someone who would be confirmed by the full Senate. Even if Republicans follow the new precedent established by their Democratic colleagues, Democrats will have few qualms about using their majority position to change the rules back again. If over 200 years of tradition and precedent could not compel a more collegial approach to judicial nominations, it is doubtful that even a dedicated and disciplined Republican minority could stand in their way.

Ask yourself why Democrats, as a minority in the Senate, would risk the legislative filibuster by the unprecedented extension of the filibuster to judicial nominees. They see little down side. If Republicans allow the judicial filibuster, they can block Bush’s choices without calling a single vote on the Senate floor. They, in effect, negate the prerogatives of the President and the choice of the people in the last election. When they become a majority party they will simply change the rules again on their own behalf.

Though many Republicans do not realize it, there is now really little risk for Republicans in voting down the judicial filibuster. Whether Republicans restrain themselves or limit the judicial filibuster, Democrats can be depended upon to not exercise restraint in the future. Republicans should act like a majority party now, while they have the opportunity. The Democrats certainly will.

Posted in Law, Politics | No Comments »

Elimination of the Inheritance Tax

Sunday, May 8th, 2005

“Grant me thirty years of equal division of inheritance and a free press, and I will provide you with a republic.” — Alexis de Tocqueville.

When Alexis de Tocqueville penned Democracy in America after his travels through the United States from 1831-1832, he noted the salutary consequence of the fact that the young republic had no law of primogeniture, passing estates intact solely to the first born. Since the first born cannot count upon inheriting his father’s estate, it is harder for landed estates to perpetuate through generations. Sons of the wealthy might realize some advantage from their affluent start in life, but one important consequence of the division of inheritance is that most heirs would have to make their own way in the world and could not rely on inherited wealth. This recognition encourages the individual industry and ambition that helped girder rapid American economic growth. The American economy is the beneficiary of this rigid meritocracy.

Some current Americans of a redistributionist bent are wont to cite de Tocqueville, usually an authority reserved for Conservatives, in defense of draconian inheritances taxes. Their argument is that inherited wealth robs heirs of their ambition and the country of the exertions of these heirs. The confiscation of estates is necessary for a robust economy.

Such an argument might be persuasive if wealth tended to propagate in families generation to generation. This is empirically not the case in the US. The current division of inheritance among children mitigates against accumulations of great wealth over many generations. In the US, there is large wealth mobility with the rapid and frequent migration of individuals from the lower to higher percentiles in wealth, while others descend this ladder. For example, according to Kerwin Kofi Charles and Erik Hurst [1], 20 percent of parents in the lowest quintile of the parent’s wealth distribution had children rise to the top two quintiles. They further found that, “Age-adjusted parental wealth, by itself, explains less than 10 percent of the variation in age-adjusted child wealth.” According to economist Bruce Bartlett [2], 80% of US millionaires acquired their wealth without benefit of a financial inheritance. Most wealth in the US is accumulated from privately-owned businesses and personal savings. The argument that we need more economic mobility is not a sufficient excuse for more severe inheritance taxes.

The economic impact of inheritance taxes is more limited than Conservatives believe or Liberals wish. The very wealthy can usually manage to create trusts and devise other mechanisms to avoid taxes on the generational transfer of wealth. Unfortunately, inheritance taxes hit most severely on the modestly affluent, especially the owners of small businesses who don’t realize that they have really accumulated substantial wealth. The inheritance tax is less a tax on wealth, and more a tax on the neglect to properly estate plan.

Inheritance taxes should be limited or repealed less because of any economic impact and more because of what they do to the cohesiveness of families. If we sever one generation from another by large inheritance taxes, we accelerate the process of atomizing individuals, unfettering people from civilizing familial bonds. If we can expect little help from our parents or children, we grow in dependence on collective provision. If we need help, we become more and more dependent upon government. This is the underlying principle of redistributionist policies.

There are many forces in modern culture that split apart generations and attenuate familial bonds. Although we can communicate over long distances easily, it is no longer the case that parents, children, and grandparents live close together. Modern media and the Internet exercise increasing, and many times negative, influences on children. The increasing probability that children grow up with multiple sets of parents weakens and even destroys family relationships. Inheritance taxes are just one more means of splitting generations, one way more of creating a society composed only of individuals and the state without the benefit of mediating institutions like families.

Part of growing older is the wish to perpetuate our influence down to our children and grandchildren. We certainly do this most effectively in intangible ways, in what we have taught by our words and actions. Yet the ability to grant an inheritance, to control the distribution of our wealth remains important. Indeed, it is a desire to extend our influence to the following generations that motivates some people to build and preserve wealth beyond what they personally can consume. This is the intuitive reason for the growing unpopularity of inheritances taxes.

References

  1. Charles, Kerwin Kofi and Erik Hurst, “The Correlation of Wealth across Generations,” Journal of Political Economy, 111 1155–1182, 2003.
  2. Bartlett, Bruce, “Death, Wealth, and Taxes,” The Public Interest , Fall 2000.

Posted in Economics, Politics | No Comments »

Clumsy Coverage by the Washington Post

Sunday, May 1st, 2005

That there is bias in media coverage is almost a axiomatic, regardless of one’s political perspective. By definition, writing or broadcasting the news means making value judgments as to what issues are important and relevant enough to claim scarce coverage resources. These decisions rely on value judgments, informed by political perspective. This sort of bias is sometimes referred to as “bias by agenda.” The potential for bias by agenda is the reason that news rooms ought to have real diversity, a diversity of viewpoint.

Bias by agenda is hard to guard against, but incompetent or slanted coverage of any story, once chosen is inexcusable and one of the reasons there has been a flight from conventional news sources, the major papers and networks, toward the Internet and various alternative cable news networks.

Although the Washington Post has, and would probably concede in a moment of candor, a bias of agenda that leans to the Left, they are typically carefully balanced and fair within a story. Unfortunately, they have been guilty of such conspicuous coverage errors recently, that it is difficult to blame it on inadvertence or incompetence.

The first example concerns the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton has been harshly, sarcastically, and even undiplomatically critical of the UN. Indeed, Bolton has been so critical that many Democrats would like to prevent President George Bush’s nominee from becoming the UN ambassador. Given the general unpopularity of the UN and the recent UN scandal involving billions of dollars in the UN-managed Oil-for-Food Program, many Americans might just believe that the UN ought to be sharply criticized. This makes it politically inconvenient for Democrats to attack Bolton on the merits of his positions, so instead there is a frantic effort to seek out character issues that might disqualify Bolton.

The Democrats found an issue in one Melody Townsel who had a decade-old dispute with Bolton about a project in Kyrgyzstan. For the Washington Post to report the charge on April 20, 2005 was entirely appropriate. However, they neglected to mention that Ms. Townsel is an anti-Bush partisan who founded the Dallas-chapter of “Mothers Against Bush.” This does not make her charges necessarily false, but Washington Post readers were entitled to know Townsel’s background as part of their overall assessment of the credibility of her story. This was not a small oversight, it was a key neglected fact. It was not until Howard Kurtz cited a National Review passage about Townsel that the Post’s dedicated readers were made aware of Townsel’s partisanship. The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times also failed to mention Townsel’s partisan affiliation, but one had come to expect more from the Washington Post.

Perhaps a more damaging recent failure of the Washington Post is its reporting on a Washington Post-ABC poll. At present, there is a dispute on the use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats to block Bush judicial nominees. The use of the filibuster for this purpose is not traditional and the issue is a cause of a political confrontation between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are considering using their majority status to change the Senate rules to prevent the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees. Democrats argue that they are defending the rights of the minority party and Republicans argue that any president deserves an up-or-a-down vote on his nominees. The state of public opinion on this issue is important politically. Polling and coverage by the Post on this is necessary and proper.

On April 26, 2005, the Washington Post ran the page-one headline “Filibuster Rule Change Opposed: 66% in Poll Reject Senate GOP Plans to Ease Confirmation of Bush’s Judicial Nominees.” The headline and the article definitely gave the impression that Republicans are in political trouble over the issue. wp_post_2005-04-20.jpg

However, consider the exact wording of the poll question: “Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees?” The question does not mention the word filibuster and definitely paints the picture of special rules changes on Bush’s behalf without reference to the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees. It would not have been a fair question, but one could imagine different results for the poll if the question were: “Would you support or oppose a minority of Senators preventing an up-or-down vote on Presidential judicial nominees.” The Washington Post poll was a classic example of a poll designed to obtain a specific result.

Nonetheless, publishing the results of the poll, without a misleading headline would have been good journalistic practice, if the poll was put in the context of other polls yielding different results. For example, a plurality by a 2-1 ratio in a Rasmussen poll suggested that people believe the presidential nominees ought to receive an up-or-a-down vote on the Senate floor. Giving readers a broad perspective is good journalism and in this case the Post did not meet their obligation to their readers.

The most revealing fact is that in the week after the poll, Republicans moved more directly to changing the Senate rules and Democrats backed off trying to seek a compromise. This would not have been the case, if internal private polls commissioned by both parties did not contradict the Washington Post headline. Readers of the Washington Post were thus misinformed.

As a general rule, it is best never to assume maliciousness when incompetence is a sufficient explanation. Arguing the case for incompetence in the Washington Post’s coverage is becoming more and more difficult.

Posted in Law, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

History and the Filibuster

Sunday, April 17th, 2005

“[The] Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which can not act when its majority is ready for action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.” — President Woodrow Wilson.

It was only five years ago when Democrats were doubled over in acute political pain as George W. Bush’s victory the 2000 election punched Democrats in the gut. Bush won with a narrow margin in the Electoral College and just as narrow a loss in the popular vote. Although the Constitution is clear about how a president is elected, we heard a never-ending torrent of complaint that the Electoral College was antiquated and should be reformed. The will of the people as reflected in a direct majority, as opposed to assent filtered through the structures of a republican government, should be supreme.

Democrats today are not so sanguine about majorities. Now they sing of the virtues of the legislative filibuster, the tool of a persistent minority. Democrats condescendingly explain that the Senate should be a “cooling saucer,” preventing the government from being swept along by a fervent majority. Nonetheless, the current debate over the legislative filibuster has the virtue of forcing us to re-examine the underpinnings and assumptions of both Constitutional provisions and legislative rules.

The current controversy is centered around the duty of the Senate to “advise and consent” on Presidential appointments of federal judges. President George W. Bush has nominated a number of judges to the Federal bench that Democrats are holding up. If brought to the floor, most if not all, of these nominees would win confirmation with a majority. However, Democrats in the minority can exploit the filibuster rule that, in effect, requires a 3/5 majority (60 Senators) to close debate and bring the nomination to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Hence, with only 41 Senators, a minority is able to reject a presidential nomination.

There is no doubt that Senate rules allow for this outcome. However, there is procedure by which a simple majority can change the filibuster rules to prevent them from being applied to judicial nominations. This is either the “nuclear option” or the “Constitutional option” depending on the spin one wishes to apply. Democrats are crying foul, embracing a claim to defend the rights of minority.

The real history of the filibuster is a complicated and interesting one. Gold and Gupta provide a comprehensive review in a scholarly article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy [1]. In identical wording, the Constitution provides that both the Senate and the House can make their own rules. In the very first Senate, there were no filibuster provisions. Following the common practice of the time, including the Continental Congress and the British House of Commons, and the present rules of House of Representatives, a simple majority can end debate and bring anything to the floor for a vote.

In the 1806 codification of the Senate rules by then Vice-President Aaron Burr, there was acknowledged oversight which allowed for unlimited debate. Rather than filibusters in the Senate being a Constitutional provision, filibusters were introduced by accident. The use of unlimited debate to prevent bringing a bill to the floor was first employed in disputes over the Bank of the United States in the 1830s. Though the filibuster was infrequently used, for 111 years (1806 to 1917), a single Senator could prevent a vote on a bill by simply continuing talk. This is the ultimate in minority rights. A single Senator could stop the Senate from action.

In 1917, isolationist Republicans used the filibuster to make it more difficult to President Woodrow Wilson to prepare for war. Using the threat of eliminating the filibuster rules altogether, a compromise change in rules was agreed to. Two-thirds of the members of the Senate could vote “cloture” to end the filibuster.

During the rest of the 20th century, the filibuster was used most effectively by Southern Democrats to bottle up civil rights legislation. Again in response to the threat of a drastic limitation of the filibuster, rules were slightly modified in 1959 to allow for cloture with 2/3 present as opposed to 2/3 of the entire Senate. Further limits were agreed to in 1975 when cloture could be evoked by 3/5 of the Senate (60 senators). Further reforms were pushed through by Senator Robert Byrd (who now worships the filibuster as a member of the minority) to provide alternative means to limit debate.

In short, the Senate rules about filibuster, instituted by accident, are just rules than can and have changed from time to time. The filibuster is not unconstitutional nor is it any way required by the Constitution. It is not a gift from our Founding Fathers, but an accident.

The recent use of filibuster to prevent the President’s judicial nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote in the full Senate is, if not unprecedented, at least very rare and a recent phenomenon. Save for the large number now being filibustered by Senate Democrats, the only previous use was during the confirmation of Abe Fortas for promotion from a Supreme Court justice to chief justice. In 1968, Republicans were concerned about the ascension of a liberal justice following the expansive rulings of the previous Warren Court. However, the Abe Fortas case was atypical since it was revealed in hearings that Fortas kept President Lyndon Johnson informed of the secret deliberations of the Court and had accepted what seemed to be excessive and inappropriate private payments for teaching a summer course at American University. This is hardly the precedent, Democrats should base their current opposition to nominees for whom the only objection is one of political philosophy.

The current debate about filibusters can have an important impact on future Senate actions. However, the current tussle is one of political wills, not of constitutional dimensions.

If the situations were reversed, we know that Republicans and Democrats would have different arguments. We know this because situations were once similarly reversed. During the Clinton administration, Republicans kept some of President Bill Clinton’s nominees from coming to a vote on the Senate floor. Rather than needing a filibuster, Republicans were able to bottle up some nominations by the more conventional process of not reporting the nominees out of committee by a majority of the committee.

At that time Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had different position with respect to judicial nominees when she said, “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” Similarly Diane Feinstein (D-CA) averred, “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” The dean of Senate Democratic Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) indignantly argued, “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”

It must be the mark of a truly agile politician to be able to argue both sides of an issue with equal measures of sincerity. The question is now whether Republicans will call the Democrats bluff and end the filibuster of judicial nominees.

References

  1. Gold, M. B. and D. Gupta, “The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Filibuster,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 28, 68 pages, 2004.

Posted in Law, Politics | No Comments »

Going After Wal-Mart

Tuesday, April 12th, 2005

At over $55,000 per year, the state of Maryland enjoys one of the very highest household median incomes in the country. It is reasonably well insulated from business cycles by its geographical proximity to that well spring of spending: the federal government. Yet despite this, Maryland is running a budget deficit. Its government is so poorly run that Nathan Chapman Jr. a money manager was found guilty of defrauding the state retirement system last year. With this background of achievement, it is no wonder that the legislators of the state feel competent to tell Wal-Mart how to run its business.

This week the Maryland state legislature passed a bill directed against Wal-Mart. The bill specifically states that any private company in Maryland employing more than 10,000 people must spend at least 8% of its payroll on health care. Although there are a couple of companies as large, Wal-Mart is the only one for which the bill has any relevance.

Wal-Mart provides benefits for most its full-time employees. Wal-Mart’s strategy is to hire relatively few full-time employees with full-benefits supplemented by part-time employees including those elderly greeters at the front door who are, in many cases, covered by Medicare. This formula of efficiency and low prices has worked for Wal-Mart which has seen spectacular growth.

Many states will make foolish specific concessions to companies like Wal-Mart to entice them to enter. Maryland must be pretty well off if it not only eschews these advantages, but latches on to the anti-corporate Left-wing zeitgeist and directly penalizes Wal-Mart.

One might have been sympathetic if Wal-Mart were intruding into a small area and driving out Mom and Pop operations, while assuming monopoly control with their relentless efficiency. In the case of Maryland, however, the largest anti-Wal-Mart whiner is Giant Food Corporation that had grown fat in a grocery market oligarchy it dominated until Wal-Mart moved in. So the Maryland legislators get to have it both ways: They hobble the competitor of a politically-powerful Dutch-owned company, Ahod, the parent company of Giant, while at the same time congratulating themselves for championing the working class.

One indication of how little thought went into the legislation is the fact that it is rather poorly crafted. Should the measure of health care be the cost? Though health care has certainly improved over the last decade, costs grew faster. What if Wal-Mart was able to provide a medical plan superior in coverage to a more expensive plan at the cost of 6% rather than 8% of payroll? Maryland’s legislature again revealed the Liberal tendency to measure effectiveness as money spent rather than product or service out.

Wal-Mart’s present status with respect to provision of health care is complicated. The Maryland’s Citizen’s Health Initiative claims Wal-Mart spends 3.5% of its payroll on health care. While Wal-Mart claims that 56% of its workers are covered through its medical plan, while 86% are covered through medical plans of some sort: medical coverage through a spouse or some other alternative.

Wal-Mart with its 15,000 employees in Maryland now has several non-exclusive choices in complying with the Maryland law. They could just pass on additional costs to consumers, hurting customers that tend to be working class people for whom price is critical. Wal-Mart could partially balance increased health care costs by laying-off workers to meet the legislatively mandated 8% number. Or, they could meet the 8% legislative mandate by increasing the generosity of health care benefits for higher-paid full-time workers and still ignore part-time workers.

Most likely they will employ some combination of the above. The immediate loser may be the less-affluent Somerset County, Maryland. Wal-Mart had planned on building a distribution center in the county that would employ 1,000 people. Wal-Mart is now reconsidering these plans. Fortunately, for the Maryland legislature, those potential employees probably do not realize that they lost prospective employment. Maryland legislators can still sip wine at the cocktail parties while they congratulate themselves on their moral sensitivity in using someone else’s money to stand up for the working class. They should be so proud of themselves.

Posted in Economics, Politics | 1 Comment »

Signs in 1976

Sunday, March 13th, 2005

The 2002 movie Signs is about a minister, Graham Hess, played by Mel Gibson, who looses his faith when his wife dies in an automobile accident for apparently no reason. The story is about how this minister comes to see a greater, transcendent purpose in the loss of his wife. In the course of the movie the character Hess lays out two views of the world, when lights from UFOs, presaging an invasion, appear over Mexico City:

“People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign … evidence that there is someone up there watching out for them.

Group number two sees it just as pure lucky, happy turn of chance. I’m sure that the people in group number two are looking at those 14 lights in a very suspicious way. For them, this situation is a 50/50. It could be bad. It could be good. But deep down they feel that whatever happens … they’re on their own. That fills them with fear. Yeah. There are those people.”

But there’s a whole lot of people in group number one and they see those 14 lights and they’re looking at a miracle. And deep down they feel that whatever’s going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope. And what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs or sees miracles? Or do you believe people just get lucky? Or look at the question this way. Is it possible that there are no coincidences?”

For Reagan Conservatives (Is there another variety?), Craig Shirley’s new book Reagan’s Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started it All, offers powerful evidence for people in group number one — people who believe “that there are no coincidences.”

For most Reagan supporters, 1976 was a devastating year. Gerald Ford had squeaked by Ronald Reagan in the most contested Republican nomination process in contemporary memory to win the Republican nomination. Ford did not formally secure the nomination during the roll call of states at the convention until the West Virginia delegation, the second-to-last state in alphabetical order, cast their vote. Even worse, the conventional wisdom foresaw the marginalization of the Republican Party. Eric Sevareid, in an editorial piece on CBS News, argued that Republican Conservatives were killing the election prospects of Republicans. Others predicted that Republicans would soon go the way of the Whig Party from which they arose just prior to the American Civil War. The New York Times happily concluded that, “Mr. Reagan presumably grows too old to run again…” Jimmy Carter, who camouflaged himself in Conservative vocabulary to hide the soul of a Liberal, had just been elected president. It just doesn’t get any worse for Reagan Republicans.

Adding to this frustration was a certainty that but for a few small turns of chance, Reagan would have won the Republican nomination. If Reagan had won the New Hampshire primary, it would have changed the dynamics of the nomination process. Given the eventual extremely tight outcome, it is highly likely that a New Hampshire primary win would have given Reagan the nomination.

Shirley reminds us of just how close the New Hampshire primary was in 1976. Ford won unexpectedly by a little more than 1,000 votes. Reagan’s campaign made the tactical mistake of leaving New Hampshire a day early certainly costing Reagan votes. Moreover, 2,000 ballots were disallowed because the voters had selected all 24 Reagan delegates even though they were allowed to select only 21. The Reagan campaign had tried to limit the number of Reagan delegates on the ballot, but too many true believers were eager to be formal Reagan delegates and refused to pull themselves from the ballot.

There were a number of similar moments in 1976 that could have easily tipped the Republican nomination to Reagan. However, if Reagan had won the nomination there never would have been the speech when a victorious Ford prompted a Reagan to come to the podium and make extemporaneous remarks. There might never have been the moment when Reagan could speak directly to a Republican convention and seal both himself and Conservatism in their hearts. In a speech that was uncalculated, unprepared, and sprang free from Reagan’s heart, Reagan spoke of the challenge of our generation to stand up to forces of totalitarianism and for freedom. But for his nomination loss in 1976, Reagan might never have had the chance to explain that containment and coexistence with the Soviets was not enough; that “there is no substitute for victory.”

Had Reagan won the won the nomination in 1976, he probably would have lost the presidential election in the shadow of the Watergate scandal. There likely would not have been a Reagan presidency. The Republican Party may have remained mired forever in the limbo between Conservative and Liberal wings. Without a Reagan presidency, the liberation of the Russians and Soviet captive states might have required an additional generation, if it occurred at all. Without a Reagan presidency there might never have been the tax cuts that unleashed an economic boom that reduced inflation, slashed unemployment, and restored hope. But for a few small events, there would never have been a Reagan Revolution.

In 1976, Reagan sought to win a political nomination. He was denied, but as a consequence he later won a presidency that changed the world. Perhaps there are no coincidences.

Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Decision on Juvenile Death Penalty

Sunday, March 6th, 2005

The Constitution has become so revered that it is now burdened by the popular perception that everything that is good must be mandated somewhere in the Constitution and that the Constitution must prohibit all that is bad.  Though the Constitution protects important individual liberties and privileges, it is primarily a framework and context in which we Americans must decide how to rule ourselves.  We collectively cannot dodge the duty to decide what is wise and prudent and leave decisions up to Courts.  The critical distinction between what is preferred and what is required by the Constitution was lost by the Court in Roper v. Simmons.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is wise to apply the death penalty to those who commit a capital offense before their reaching their eighteenth birthday.  Some Libertarians and Conservatives are against the death penalty altogether because that is too much power to grant the state.  Nonetheless and despite the Court’s recent ruling, that is a decision that should be largely left to the people and their representatives. In a decision separated by single vote, 5-4, the Court ruled that after over 200 hundred years the Eight Amendment’s injunction against “cruel and unusual punishment” now prohibits the execution of criminals who committed crimes as minors.  The disappointing part of the decision is the weakness of the arguments used by the Court and the increasing tendency of the Court to float on a sea of social issues unmoored by law and precedent.  The Court basically made four arguments to support its decision:

  1. The people are against the execution of minors.
  2. Jurors are incapable of assessing the maturity of young defendants.
  3. The Court’s members are against the execution of minors.
  4. The world is against the execution of minors.

National Consensus

The words “cruel and unusual” are value-laden and likely to change with time.  The Court now suggests that the country has reached a national consensus that execution for crimes committed as a minor is “cruel and unusual” and that juveniles are fully responsible for their decisions.  However, if such a consensus had been reached then we could see the consensus in decisions of those most attuned to the opinion of the people, elected officials.  Eighteen states permit the execution of minors so empirically there is no broad national consensus as suggested by the Court.  If every jurisdiction, save a handful of small ones prohibited executions for offenses committed as minors, the Court could argue that the country having reached a consensus.  However, at this point the Court is reaching far beyond what can be supported by the evidence.

Juries are Incapable of Weighing Age as a Mitigating Factor

The Court expressed concern that juries would be so emotionally overwhelmed by brutal violent crimes that they would not be able to fairly weigh youth as a mitigating factor.  The Court does not cite evidence for their assertion or provide a single case where a jury erred in this way.   Indeed, the rate at which capital punishment is applied to minors for the same crimes as committed by adults suggests that juries take seriously their responsibility to weigh mitigating factors.  The Court’s assertion is probably laying the ground work for a future argument that jurors are not capable of exercising sufficiently careful consideration of other mitigating factors such a poverty and emotional immaturity and therefore all capital punishment is “cruel and unusual.”

The Court Has the Necessary Moral Sensibility

The Court rather arrogantly asserts that it is the moral arbiter affirming that “[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eight Amendment.”  Justices are chosen on the basis of their legal abilities not on their moral perceptions and are no more qualified than legislators in deciding moral issues.  We do not choose philosophers, theologians, or ethicists for the Court.  We choose legally-trained minds.  Yet, there appears not limit to the wisdom which members of the Court will ascribe to themselves.  As Justice Antonin Scalia argued in his dissent, “By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience for a nation?”

The World is Against It

Perhaps most disconcerting is Court’s argument that constitutional interpretations are buttressed by international opinion. Justice Kennedy writes that, “The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.”

The experience of other countries is a relevant argument in legislative debates about any issue.  However, the Court’s appeal to international authority is unprincipled since it not an argument that the majority of the Court would apply to other cases.  As Scalia points out, the Court would find inconvenient international opinions in other controversial areas.  Only six countries permit abortion-on-demand up to viability.  Does this international consensus deserve consideration in the Court’s abortion decisions?  Should the Court overturn the exclusionary rule that prohibits the admission in court of evidence illegally obtained by the police because no other countries choose to observe such a restriction?  Should the Court permit the direct funding of religious schools because a consensus of European countries finds that this does not foreshadow a theocracy? No. These international decisions do not support the Court’s current positions.

A majority of the Court has demonstrated in this case a willingness, indeed an eagerness, to twist principle and ignore law in the service of the outcome they politically prefer independent of the Constitution. More appointments to the Court by Bush can not come too soon.

Posted in Law, Politics | No Comments »

Anti-Bush Mythology

Sunday, February 27th, 2005

Mythologies are difficult to debunk because they filter the way people processes information. Information buttressing the mythology is given disproportionate even dispositive weight. Contradictory information is ignored or dismissed. Yet, mythology comforts because it eases the burden of considering alternative ideas or the challenge the uncomfortable facts.

One such mythology holds that President George W. Bush is a religious zealot, who believes he receives directives from God to prosecute a war on terror and specific instructions on how to conduct it. With this mythology, critics can explain Bush’s apparent steadfastness in terms of a blind and uncritical faith by someone not quite in full control of his faculties. As someone facetiously asked, “Does President Bush even tip his hat to reality as he goes breezing by?”

It does not take much scrutiny to undermine the weak foundations upon which anti-Bush partisans build their prevailing mythology. One primary source for this anti-Bush mythology is David Corn who writes in The Nation:

“[Bush] claimed his duty was to defend the United States. This remark — coupled with Bush’s comment that `there is a higher father that I appeal to’ — does make it seem that Bush believes he is on a mission from God. That might scare some, but it would not be so problematic if Bush also believed that God expects him to engage in self-examination and critical and honest discourse…”

Here, Corn takes a single sentence from Bush, “There is a higher father I appeal to.” as evidence to suggest, in Corn’s words, that Bush is on a “mission from God.” Corn provides a patina of fairness and credibility by cautioning that we have to evaluate Bush’s remark in the context of whether Bush is sufficiently introspective.

Yet, we and Corn really do have sufficient context. Corn does not have to look very far to find it. The fuller background of the Bush’s remark comes from Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack. Woodward asked Bush whether he consulted his father, the former president, about Iraq. Bush was a little uncomfortable is answering the question. If he made it sound as if he constantly consulted his father, he would appear as the little Bush — a “shrub” in the words of Liberal columnist Molly Ivins.

Bush answered Woodward’s question in a broader context saying,

“You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.”

With the simple neglect of the preceding sentence, Corn turns the Bush’s perfectly reasonable statement, that he uses his faith as a source of strength, into the subtle suggestion that Bush is on a zealous “mission from God,” Corn pretends to ask for context, then appears to deliberately ignore it.

Lest there be any doubt as to the role of Bush’s faith, Bush explained to Woodward:

“I’m surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness.”

Surely, we can ask no more of anyone than that he seeks to be a “messenger of His will,” is humble enough to pray for “strength,” and recognizes the invariable necessity to request “forgiveness.”

However, that explanation is too reasonable; too modest, too eloquent, too consistent with the understanding of most people of faith, and too incompatible with the prevailing Left-wing mythology to enter the discussion.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »