14 October 2009

14 October 2009

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Blueberries and Honey [The Club for Growth]

Tuesday Links [Cato at Liberty] OCT 13, 2009 05:09P.M.

OCT 13, 2009 06:02P.M.

• How to measure the effectiveness of Obama’s stimulus plan.

Over the weekend, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger created a state blueberry commission and new labeling requirements for honey. He’s also allowing cows to keep their tails. I’m not making any of this up.

• Forbes: The CBO estimate of the number of people who would stop being uninsured under the Senate Finance Committee proposal is exaggerated by at least 7 million to 10 million.

It’s all true...unfortunately. • Smoke and mirrors within the Senate Finance Committee? • How to save democracy in Honduras. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS • Video: Economist Daniel J. Mitchell discusses economic reform on

Anti-VAT Caucus Update [Americans for Tax Reform]

CNBC.

OCT 13, 2009 05:27P.M. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS American’s for Tax Reform’s anti-VAT caucus has grown by two senators and nine congressmen in the last couple of weeks, as the Obama

Enough is Enough: More Tax Hikes on the Table for WI [Americans for Tax Reform]

administration continues to float the VAT as a way to p...

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

OCT 13, 2009 05:06P.M.

Olympia Snowe’s Voting Record [The Club for Growth]

Just when Wisconsinites thought the onslaught of taxes had ended, some state legislators want to belly up to the bar again on tax hikes. This time around they are considering taxes that would rai...

OCT 13, 2009 05:19P.M. After Snowe’s defection on the Baucus health care bill, I thought I’d share with you her ratings on the Club for Growth scorecard. Not surprisingly, they are extremely weak: Year Score Rank 2008 12% 63 2007 12% 66 2006 9% 62 2005 18% 56

1

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

14 October 2009

silly. That seems to be the case in Newark, Delaware, where the Christina School District just suspended a 6-year-old boy for 45 days because he brought a dreaded knife-fork-spoon combo tool to school. District officials, in their defense, say they had no choice — the state’s “zero tolerance” law demanded the punishment.

Federal Employees’ Health Care To Be Taxed Under Obaucus [Americans for Tax Reform]

Now, the first thing I’ll say is that I was very fortunate there were no zero-tolerance laws — at least that I knew of — when I was a kid. Like most boys, I took a pocket knife to school from time to time, and like most boys I never hurt a soul with it. (I’m pretty sure, though, that I was stabbed by a pencil at least once.) I also played a lot of games involving tackling, delivered and received countless “dead arm” punches in the shoulder, and brought in Star Wars figures armed with…brace yourself!…laser guns! I can only imagine how many suspension days I’d have received had current disciplinary regimes been in place back then.

OCT 13, 2009 04:59P.M. The Obama administration’s allies in Congress have a plan to tax “Cadillac plans”—one that is becoming more and more problematic. The reason is simple: while the &ldqu...

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS Before completely trashing little ol’ Delaware and all the other places without tolerance, however, there is a flip side to this story: Some kids really are immediate threats to their teachers and fellow students. And as the recent stomach-wrenching violence in Chicago has vividly illustrated, there are some schools where no one is safe. In other words, there are cases and situations where zero tolerance is warranted.

Candidate Wants to Raise Your Taxes [Americans for Tax Reform] OCT 13, 2009 04:59P.M.

So how do you balance these things? How do you have zero-tolerance for those who need it, while letting discretion and reason reign for everyone else? And how do you do that when there is no clear line dividing what is too dangerous to tolerate and what is not?

We are all used to hearing political candidates make campaign trail promises. Usually the promises are benign enough, big on rhetoric and lacking on details. Candidates announce public polic...

The answer is educational freedom, as it is with all of the things that diverse people are forced to fight over because they all have to support a single system of government schools! Let parents who are not especially concerned about danger, or who value freedom even if it engenders a little more risk, choose schools with discipline policies that give them what they want. Likewise, let parents who want their kids in a zerotolerance institution do the same.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Zero Tolerance for Difference [Cato at Liberty] OCT 13, 2009 04:33P.M.

Ultimately, let parents and schools make their own decisions, and no child will be subjected to disciplinary codes with which his parents disagree; strictness will be much better correlated with the needs of individual children; and perhaps most importantly, discipline policies will make a lot more sense for everyone involved.

When both the New York Times and Fox News poke fun at a school district it’s a good guess that district has done something pretty

2

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

14 October 2009

It’s easy to overstate the FJC’s findings. (The data tell us nothing about the quality of summary judgment decisions before or after Celotex, and shed no light on disposition rates at a micro-level, i.e. in product liability actions, as opposed to other tort actions, or Title VII actions, as opposed to other civil rights actions, for example.) The study nonetheless lends some plausibility to the view that Celotex was less a catalyst for change than a ratification of preexisting lower court practice that had evolved largely in spite of the Supreme Court and which the Court was, and is, largely powerless to control.

Twombly and Iqbal: Reality Check [Cato at Liberty] OCT 13, 2009 04:07P.M. In Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), the Supreme Court gave trial courts more latitude to dismiss a lawsuit at a very early stage, before the parties have had a chance to engage in discovery (the often lengthy and expensive fact-finding stage of civil litigation), if judges think the suit is not founded on “plausible” allegations of wrongdoing.

It’s easy to think of reasons why trial courts’ summary judgment practice might evolve independently of the Supreme Court. A surprisingly large number of trial court decisions, including grants of partial summary judgment, are not immediately appealable—and the pervasiveness of settlement means many of these decisions are never appealed. Intermediate appellate courts, moreover, affirm trial court decisions at an incredibly high rate. And the Supreme Court, which takes only about 80 appeals a year, has dramatically limited capacity to police the innumerable summary judgment dispositions made daily throughout the federal court system. The upshot is that trial courts, as a practical matter, have long had wide discretion to decide even pivotal motions, like summary judgment, with relatively light appellate oversight.

There’s a rich, angry debate about the effect the decisions will have on dismissal rates of meritorious suits in lower courts. But the consensus among academics seems to be that both decisions will trigger a seachange in lower court practice—one deeply unfavorable to plaintiffs. We won’t know the real effect of these decisions for many years to come. But a 2007 study by the Federal Judicial Center on the effect of a trio of similarly controversial 1986 Supreme Court decisions (known as the “Celotex trilogy”) raises questions about dire claims that Twombly or Iqbal will dramatically change lower court practice.

Are Twombly and Iqbal a replay of the Celotex trilogy? Only time will tell. But what we know, to date, about the Celotex trilogy suggests that, whatever you think about Twombly or Iqbal, strong claims about the influence of either decision may well overstate the Supreme Court’s

The debate over the Celotex trilogy in the 1980s is eerily similar to today’s debate over Twombly and Iqbal. Responding to concerns that juries award arbitrarily large judgments against corporate defendants, the Celotex trilogy gave lower courts more latitude to grant summary judgment—that is, to toss lawsuits at the end of discovery, before a case gets to a jury, when the judge thinks there is insufficient evidence to justify a jury trial. Many academics complained that the cases would result in a radical sea change in lower court practice—one that benefited corporate defendants at the expense of plaintiffs.

power and influence over trial court practice.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Snowe Votes with the Democrats [The Club for Growth]

The FJC’s 2007 study is the most comprehensive study of the effect of the decisions to date. Based on data drawn from 15,000 docket sheets in randomly sampled terminated cases in six district courts, the FJC found (as expected) that, before and after the trilogy, summary judgment filing and disposition rates vary significantly from circuit to circuit and between types of cases. After controlling for differences in filing rates across circuits and for changes over time in the types of cases filed, the authors found that “the likelihood that a case contained one or more motions for summary judgment increased before the Supreme Court trilogy, from approximately 12% in 1975 to 17% in 1986, and has remained fairly steady, at approximately 19% since that time.” Moreover, between 1975 and 2000, “no statistically significant changes over time were found in the outcome of defendants’ or plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions, after controlling for differences across courts and types of cases.” Indeed, despite anecdotal claims that Celotex prompted a significant increase in summary judgment in civil rights cases, the authors found “no evidence that the likelihood of a summary judgment motion or termination by summary judgment has increased” in civil rights cases since 1986.

OCT 13, 2009 03:22P.M. Breaking...Sen. Olympia Snowe will vote for the Democrats’ health care bill.

3

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

14 October 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

The 50 Most Powerful People in D.C. [The Club for Growth]

Felony Franks [Cato at Liberty]

OCT 13, 2009 03:05P.M.

The Wall Street Journal has an article today about a small businessman in Chicago, James Andrews. Mr. Andrews started a hot-dog stand and hired ex-convicts as employees. The name “Felony Franks,” came to him and he thought it was catchy. Since it was his business, Mr. Andrews didn’t think twice about the name. Enter Chicago Alderman Robert Fioretti. The alderman doesn’t like the name and will not “permit” Mr. Andrews to set up signs to attract more customers. (Btw, How many people like the name Robert Fioretti anyway? Maybe it should be changed to … eh, never mind) Neighborhood “activists” are also setting up meetings to discuss the hot-dog business and the “exploitation” of the workers. Kevin Jones, 42, an employee at Felony Franks, tells the reporter he does not feel exploited, “Working here allows me to provide for myself and my family.”

OCT 13, 2009 01:50P.M.

GQ.com has the list. It’s good for entertainment purposes, because it’s otherwise quite absurd. A hockey player is actually ranked ahead of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. UPDATE: Dost my eyes deceive me? When I originally looked at the list, I swear Roberts was listed last at #50, but a gentlemen from GQ just called to let me know that John Roberts was actually ranked #10...far ahead of the hockey player, which I confirmed. Duly noted.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Federal Reserve as Cash Cow [Cato at Liberty]

What a farcical situation. First, the politicians manufacture scores of felons. Next, the pols have their own ideas on how to “help” the ex-cons return to civil society. Those ideas entail spending taxpayer money.

OCT 13, 2009 02:37P.M. Scheduled for consideration before the House Financial Services Committee this week is a draft bill creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

What’s Wrong With Being A Renter? [Cato at Liberty]

While there is a lot wrong with the bill — after all it is based on the premise that somehow consumers were tricked into not making a downpayment or re-financing thousands out of their homes, and then walking away — perhaps the most important provision, and the least discussed, is funding the agency by a transfer of cash from the Federal Reserve. Section 119 of the bill requires the Federal Reserve to transfer an amount equal to 10 percent of its expenses to the new agency’s Director.

OCT 13, 2009 01:11P.M. A recent New York Times piece focusing on the financial health of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), offered a couple of examples of borrowers who would not have gotten mortgages, but for FHA’s low downpayment and underwriting requirements.

This I believe is the first time in history that Congress is using the Federal Reserve to simply fund another agency. Why stop there, how about have the Fed just prints trillions of dollars to pay for the rest of the government? If Congress believes this agency will benefit the public, then the agency should be funded by the public, by a direct appropriations raised by taxes.

Take for instance a Ms. Shimon, mentioned in the piece. If she had to come up with a larger than 3.5 percent downpayment, she “would still be a renter,” in the words of the New York Times. Yes, my reaction was probably the same as yours; no, not that, not a renter, anything but being a renter. I am trying to remember at what point in our history did being a renter become a social stigma, or some sort of disease to be cured? Of course, the article does not explain why it would be bad if Ms. Shimon had stayed a renter, because apparently the New York Times assumes all decent, upstanding people own their own homes.

Of course after watching Ben Bernanke turn the Fed’s balance sheet into a slush fund for Wall Street, it was only going to be a matter of time before someone in Congress decided to use that slush fund for their own

Now yes, there are dozens of academic studies that show owning your own home is associated with being a better citizen, better educational and health outcomes for your children, and greater savings on the part of owners. But it is important to remember that none of these studies show that homeownership causes these outcomes, just that on average, homeownership is associated with these outcomes. More importantly, the marginal homeowner, who would not have bought a home without some sort of subsidy, is likely to be quite different than the average

purposes. So much for transparency in government.

4

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

14 October 2009

homeowner. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS Some, like my home-building friends, might justify ever-expanding homeownership because it creates construction jobs. But so does building apartments. If we had a shortage of apartments, they maybe encouraging people to buy homes would relieve pressure on the rental market. But the glut of apartments is almost as big as the glut in homes. Rental vacancy rates are near historic highs in much of the country. Even with declining home prices, in many places it still makes more financial sense to rent.

Tonight on The Kudlow Report [Larry Kudlow’s Money Politic$] OCT 13, 2009 11:48A.M.

The federal government’s obsession with homeownership was one of the contributing factors to the financial crisis. It is time we recognized renting as a viable option for many households, and starting treating renters as if they were as equal citizens as anyone else.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

This evening at 7pm ET:

Three Irrefutable Facts About the Baucus Bill [Cato at Liberty]

HEALTHCARE ON THE HILL CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood reports from Washington.

OCT 13, 2009 11:57A.M.

AN INTERVIEW WITH SEN. JOHN THUNE A Look at Healthcare, the Dollar & TARP

The Senate Finance Committee votes today on Senator Max Baucus’ version of the health care bill. Cato health care experts have analyzed the bill thoroughly, and point out three vital components to the cost and reach of the legislation:

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) will be aboard. INTEL AFTER THE BELL CNBC’s Jim Goldman will speak with Intel’s CFO.

1) The real cost of the bill is in excess of $2 trillion. Chairman Max Baucus hoodwinked the CBO with a number of clever budgetary gimmicks, most notably by keeping about half of the cost off the federal books. The bill also assumes Congress will make cuts to Medicare payments, which has never once happened before.

EARNINGS CENTRAL CNBC’s Matt Nesto reports. IS THE DOLLAR AN OBSTACLE TO THE STOCK MARKET? Currency vigilantes instead of bond vigilantes?

2) The bill contains an enormous middle-class tax hike.

*Brian Wesbury, First Trust Advisors Chief Economist *Niall Ferguson, Harvard University professor, “Colossus” Author *Jim LaCamp, Macroportfolio Advisors Sr. VP, Portfolio Manager

The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums. As inflation pushes insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families will find themselves caught up in the tax — providing the government with more revenue.

NO OVERSEAS TAXATION Michael Klayko, Brocade Communications Systems CEO will join us. Plus...a look at Bernie Madoff’s prison brawl and Disney’s retail makeover with Steve Jobs.

3) The bill creates a national ID program.

Please join us. The Kudlow Report. 7pm ET. CNBC.

The bill contains a paragraph explicitly addressing “eligibility verification.” You must prove who you are to federal entitlement agencies in order to qualify for the bill’s “state exchanges” and tax credits. No ID, no benefits.

5

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

14 October 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Oh, Canada?! [Americans for Tax Reform]

New at Cato Unbound: Will Wilkinson Discusses Inequality and Justice [Cato at Liberty]

OCT 13, 2009 11:36A.M. The Mackinac Center recently sent a reporter to Canada, to film interviews with ordinary canadians about life under socialised medicine.

OCT 13, 2009 10:13A.M.

The first series of clips was released earlier today: ...

American income inequality is rising, we are told. By some measures, this is true — but what should we do about it? In this month’s Cato Unbound, Will Wilkinson discusses the politics of inequality. He asks a question that in my (perhaps biased) opinion deserves more attention: If income inequality is bad, and if it’s rising, why is income redistribution the answer? Shouldn’t we correct the underlying problem, rather than just one of its symptoms?

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Tuesday’s Daily News [The Club for Growth]

This underlying problem could be anything from high imprisonment rates, to inadequate schools, to corrupt CEOs — or a combination of these and other factors. It may be harder to fix these things than it would be to tax the rich more heavily. But correcting income inequality with redistribution may only mask an underlying injustice, or several of them, each with other bad effects on our society.

OCT 13, 2009 11:21A.M. Obama has decided to shelve a $200 billion tax hike. If this is good news, why don’t I feel happy? Special interests are at the heart of the health care debate. Don’t be fooled otherwise.

All through this week, we will have response essays by thoughtful commentators — sociologist Lane Kenworthy, economist John V. C. Nye, and philosopher Elizabeth Anderson. Be sure to stop by and see what they have to say about inequality in America, why it matters, and what

Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein offer some tax-free “tips” for Washington.

we should do about it. Redistribution health...the public is catching on. Lindsey Graham is no free trader. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS States tax the rich at their peril.

Illinois Candidate Makes Commitment to Taxpayers [Americans for Tax Reform]

Vernon Smith, the winner of the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics, gives praise to Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Nobel Prize winner. Canadians speak out against socialized medicine - Part I, Part II, Part III.

OCT 13, 2009 09:57A.M. In an economic system of individuals, there are no trade deficits. A candidate in Illinois’ 2010 gubernatorial race recently signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Bob Schillerstrom, a Republican, signed the

Charlie Rangel faces a primary challenger.

Pledge last week. Schillerstrom is curren... Eminent Domain Alert: A showdown in Brooklyn over the New Jersey Nets. VIDEO: The VAT Man Cometh?

6

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

14 October 2009

jittery without the bipartisan cover she provides. As for the Maine senator, she may find herself with a less influential voice moving forward as Democrats begin to question whether she’s really serious about passing reform. The headlines may be the biggest problem for Dems as they’ll slow the ‘mo and cast doubts on what should be a very big day for Baucus and reform.

How Cap and Tax will Hurt Tennessee [Americans for Tax Reform] OCT 13, 2009 09:48A.M.

OCT 13, 2009 09:48A.M.

—WHAT SHOULD SHE DO? Two schools of thought: a) If she votes against, she preserves her leverage as it goes to the floor. Otherwise, Reid takes her for granted and moves on to Susan Collins. b) White House argues: “She gets her greatest leverage by voting for it in committee, because then she’s a part of the discussions to merge the bill, because once you have her in committee, you have to keep her for the floor. Because now you’ve committed yourself to a 60-vote track. If she wants to be for something in the end, the worst thing she could do is vote against it in committee, and then allow there to be a sense that it’s headed to reconciliation, and the progressives are going to push incredibly hard for a bunch of things she’s uncomfortable with, like a full public plan.”

Today, the Senate Finance Committee is going to vote on Chairman Max Baucus’s nationalized health care bill. It’s understood that the vote will be along party lines, with a couple of exceptions. Democrat Blanch Lincoln, who’s up for re-election and vulnerable, may side with the Republicans. “Republican” Olympia Snowe, who’s extremely liberal, may side with the Democrats. Snowe’s vote is the most important, but it will give Democrats the illusion of “bipartisanship” that they want to sell to the media and to the public. The following is what the Politico sees as the implications to Snowe’s vote.

—CAVEATS - Snowe has left herself enough room that no matter how she votes today she’ll be able to change it later. A no today can become a yes tomorrow as Snowe continues using her leverage to shape the bill. Conversely, a yes today can switch overnight if she feels leadership stepped all over her concerns while shaping the legislation. As Democrats’ last best hope at winning a GOP vote, Snowe will continue to hold a good deal of sway. If she votes no, some observers may start ringing the reconciliation bell - a rookie mistake, according to

In our continuing, daily, state by state, look at the financial impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Tax Bill, we will show you the projected losses in Gross State Product, Personal Income, and N...

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

What Will Olympia Snowe Do? [The Club for Growth]

some insiders. —SNOWE VOTES “YES”: Clearly the outcome Baucus is rooting for, as he made a lot of concessions to bring her onboard. The bipartisan nod Snowe brings to the bill strengthens Baucus’ hand as he, Reid and Dodd merge the Health and Finance committee bills. Snowe’s buy-in makes it easier for Baucus and Reid to sell reform to moderate Democrats - think Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Bayh - who are arguably more conservative than Snowe. And it positions Snowe to grab a bigger seat at the decision-making table as Reid crafts a bill to send to the Senate floor. Not to mention, the headlines all laud Baucus for landing a Republican vote and give Democrats the big mo. Look for Republicans to push back hard against any narrative that suggests one GOP vote makes the bill bi-partisan.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

A Cure for What Ails Harrisburg [Americans for Tax Reform] OCT 13, 2009 09:42A.M. Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer ran the following Op-Ed by ATR state affairs manager Patrick Gleason on the Pennsylvania budget and the need for greater transparency in the legislative process: h...

—SNOWE VOTES “NO” - This will be written as a SETBACK for Democrats. For Baucus, this one stings because he put so much time and effort into wooing Snowe for naught. He doesn’t get the hero’s welcome or a carrot to entice moderate Dems. And the failure to win Snowe’s support in Finance will raise questions about whether Baucus and Reid can win her support on the floor. Remember, Sen. Ben Nelson has said he won’t vote for an all-Democratic bill and other mods could be

7

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

14 October 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Are Industrialized Countries Responsible for Reducing the Well Being of Developing Countries? [Cato at Liberty]

What Does the State Department Not Want Us to Know about Honduras? [Cato at Liberty]

OCT 13, 2009 08:45A.M.

OCT 13, 2009 08:42A.M.

A basic contention of developing countries (DCs) and various UN bureaucracies and multilateral groups during the course of International negotiations on climate change is that industrialized countries (ICs) have a historical responsibility for global warming. This contention underlies much of the justification for insisting not only that industrialized countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions even as developing countries are given a bye on emission reductions, but that they also subsidize clean energy development and adaptation in developing countries. [It is also part of the rationale that industrialized countries should pay reparations for presumed damages from climate change.]

Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina recently traveled to Honduras and found—no surprise—a peaceful country and broad support for the ouster of President Zelaya among members of civil society, the supreme court, political parties and others. In an op-ed in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, DeMint describes his trip in light of Washington’s continuing support of Zelaya and its condemnation of what it calls a “coup.” U.S. policy is mystifying since the ousted president’s removal from office was a rare example in Latin America of an institutional defense of democracy as envisioned by the constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court that ruled that the president be removed. (For independent opinions on the case, see here and here.)

Based on the above contention, the Kyoto Protocol imposes no direct costs on developing countries and holds out the prospect of large amounts of transfer payments from industrialized to developing countries via the Clean Development Mechanism or an Adaptation Fund. Not surprisingly, virtually every developing country has ratified the Protocol and is adamant that these features be retained in any son-ofKyoto.

However, the Senator reports a legal analysis at the State Department prepared by its top lawyer that apparently has informed Washington’s policy but that has not been made public nor even released to DeMint despite his repeated requests. In the interest of democracy and transparency, the State Department should immediately release its legal report. Maybe then we (which includes much of the hemisphere) will be less mystified about what is driving Washington policy toward Honduras. Or at least we’ll have a better insight on the administration’s

For their part, UN and other multilateral agencies favor this approach because lacking any taxing authority or other ready mechanism for raising revenues, they see revenues in helping manage, facilitate or distribute the enormous amounts of money that, in theory, should be available from ICs to fund mitigation and adaptation in the DCs.

understanding of democracy.

Continue reading here.

8