29 September 2009

29 September 2009

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

democracies to settle internal and external disputes peacefully and democratically. The fact that China is not a democracy matters greatly as it rises. It makes its rise more disruptive as countries have to divine its intentions and observe the gap between its rhetorical policy of a “Peaceful Rise” and some of its actions that are inconsistent with a peaceful rise.

On What Larger Theory Is Neoconservatism Based? [Cato at Liberty] SEP 28, 2009 05:57P.M.

He closed thusly: There have been some interesting writings coming out of AEI’s new Center for Defense Studies recently. On Friday, Daniel Blumenthal offered some thoughts on China. In the course of making the case that Chinese leaders should realize that we are not trying to contain China, he wrote the following:

Wouldn’t it be nice if China got on board with all the postmodern, feel-good notions about international politics put forth by the Obama Administration? In the 21st century, says the Obama team, all countries have common interests in confronting transnational issues like climate change and proliferation. Sorry guys, those who lead China think 21st century international politics will look more or less like it did in the past. They favor good old fashioned power politics. Unfortunately for Obama, that forces us to do the same. There’s an awful lot of interesting stuff going on here. First, Blumenthal’s claim that “countries do not act in accordance with political science theories” is strangely incoherent. As his second and third quotes above make clear, Blumenthal has a political science theory–two actually. With respect to India, the theory he is expounding is called “liberalism” in IR jargon. This theory places the causes of war at the so-called “second image” level: wars occur because some states are bad and their badness causes them to do bad things. India being a good (democratic) state means we should be friends with it. (There is another variant of liberalism that centers on international institutions, which is mostly but sometimes not bound up with the democracy-focused version.)

If countries acted in accordance with rational actor theories of political science, the Chinese would be pretty well assured that we are not going to contain it. We have made clear across administrations that we welcome China’s rise as a great power and urge it to act as a responsible one.

In the latter paragraph about China, Blumenthal looks like he’s dropped liberalism and glommed onto traditional balance-of-power realism: that is, as a state’s power grows it wants more influence at the international level; positions in the balance of power change in a zero-sum fashion; as China grows richer it will seek a larger security role and we will not want to afford it such a role. “Good old fashioned power politics,” as Blumenthal calls it.

But countries do not act in accordance with political science theories. Later in the piece, he wrote the following:

What’s most curious is Blumenthal’s seeming desire to dismiss the very idea of political science theories. My colleague Ben Friedman has dealt with this concept before, noting

China is not the only country that is rising. So is India. But we do not worry about India’s rise. That is because India is a democracy. Almost everything it does is transparent to us. We share liberal values with India, including the desire to strengthen the post-World War II liberal international order of open trade and investment and the general desire among

efforts to weigh the costs of war inevitably involve theories of how the world works. As my Professor Steve Van Evera likes to point out, foreign policy makers can use good or bad

1

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

theories to guide their actions, but if they attempt the slightest foresight, they cannot have none. In other words, there is no such thing as foreign policy without foreign policy theory.

29 September 2009

miraculously would solve a problem like poverty or secondrate schools. To the contrary, more government funds could well confound finding the policies that would actually help alleviate those problems. However, the larger point is that Bacevich and other conservative critics, like George Will, are standing on unsound ground when they argue that the transformative goal of the Long War is utopian. It might be long and it might be difficult but, if anything, the evidence so far suggests that the establishment of decent democratic regimes is possible in all kinds of regions and in countries with diverse cultural histories. That hardly means that failure in the Long War isn’t possible; but to hear Bacevich and others tell it, is inevitable. (emphasis mine)

That is, without a theory about how the world works, we would be simply paralyzed by the prospect of issuing advice on foreign policy. Today, Gary Schmitt at AEI wrote the following in criticizing Andrew Bacevich: the real, underlying point of not only this particular piece but his views more generally is one connected to his own particular brand of conservative Catholicism. For Bacevich, the U.S. is too secular, too trade happy, too materialist. (”The exploitation of women” referred in his article is not, as presumably the Post editors thought, about “equal pay for equal work” but more likely about the sexual objectification of women.) You see, America is really a nation of imperfect men, marked by original sin, who have no right to take the lead globally. Our real concern should be with our own failings-not American preeminence.

The italicized portion above is just bizarre. In Schmitt’s reading, spending tax dollars on welfare or education “could well confound finding the policies that would actually help alleviate those problems.” This is a fairly straightforward conservative argument. What’s strange is that Schmitt makes the argument that while the U.S. government likely could not figure out how to improve education or the general welfare in the United States, it can parachute into faraway countries and improve the governance over there. Or it at least ought to try, since “a broader American vision abroad has typically made us a better people at home.” This is, to my mind, utterly, profoundly incoherent. I think the most important point is that we ought not to send our military overseas to kill and die so that we can be “a better people at home.” But I wonder how Schmitt’s view fits into the argument made by Brian Schmidt and Michael Williams in this article. For Schmidt and Williams, neoconservative views on foreign policy are merely an extension of their domestic policy. To wit: A social order based purely on narrowly egoistic interests, neoconservatives argue, is unlikely to survive–and the closer one comes to it, the less liveable and sustainable society will become. Unable to generate a compelling vision of the collective public interest, such a society would be incapable of maintaining itself internally or defending itself externally. As a consequence, neoconservatism regards the ideas at the core of many forms of modern political and economic rationalism–that such a vision of interest can be the foundation for social order–as both wrong and dangerous. It is wrong because all functioning polities require some sense of shared values and common vision of the public interest in order to maintain themselves. It is dangerous because a purely egoistic conception of interest may actually contribute to the erosion of this sense of the public interest, and the individual habits of social virtue and commitment to common values that sustain it.

Taking his lead from Reinhold Niebuhr, Bacevich believes we are on an utopian mission to remake the world–or, in this instance, the Muslim world; it is a program that is immoral both because it is impossible (and hence counterproductive) given human nature and because, in pursuing it, we adopt policies that chip away at our own morality. (The ends begin to justify the means, etc, etc.) The more limited our ambitions in Bacevich’s view, the less damage we do to ourselves and others. All of which contains a kernel of truth–but only a kernel. Whatever problems we face domestically, it is just an historical fact that a broader American vision abroad has typically made us a better people at home. Nor is there any evidence that a less expansive (and hence less expensive) foreign and defense policy would free up monies that

I am reminded of Irving Kristol’s statement that “A nation whose politics turn on the cost of false teeth is a nation whose politics are squalid.” It’s something of a parlor game in IR to debate whether neoconservatism is its own IR theory; whether it’s a theory at all, of anything; whether it’s really just liberalism; et cetera, but what would be really good to have is a clear statement that could be scrutinized on its own merit. Until then one

2

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

29 September 2009

is left guessing or, at best, turning up weird conspiracy theories about

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Leo Strauss and the University of Chicago on the internet.

Bill Frist Supports An Individual Mandate [The Club for Growth]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Das Supply Siders [The Club for Growth]

SEP 28, 2009 04:56P.M. While claiming that he supports limited government and individual responsibility, the former Republican Senate Majority Leader says we need to require people to buy health insurance through an individual

SEP 28, 2009 05:51P.M. Brian Wesbury’s new commentary (pdf) talks about the nice pro-growth results in yesterday’s German elections. Excerpt:

mandate. He says we need to do it based, in part, on “fairness.”

Angela Merkel, the current premier of Germany won reelection this weekend. Back in 2005, Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU - a “center-slightly right” group), had gained power by forming a coalition with the “liberal” Social Democrats (SDP). This time, the SDP saw their worst election returns in 60 years. This means that Merkel will form a coalition with the Free Democrat Party (FDP - a “somewhat free-market” group). The FDP was nearly extinct just ten years ago, but won 14.6% of the vote this time around, a record for their party.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

“How American Health Care Killed My Father” [“Cato at Liberty”] SEP 28, 2009 04:17P.M. Not my father. David Goldhill’s father.

The Free Democrats ran on a platform that included a significant across-the-board cut in marginal income tax rates – the German equivalent of the Kennedy or Reagan tax cuts. At present, income tax rates range from 14% to 45%. The Free Democrats want three brackets – 10%, 25% and 35%.

David Goldhill is a Democrat. He is the president and CEO of the Game Show Network. And he’ll be speaking on health care at a Cato Institute event on Capitol Hill this Thursday. Why would you want to hear the president of the Game Show Network discuss about health care reform?

Lower tax rates would not only accelerate the recovery from the recent economic turmoil but also encourage the work, saving, and investment that Germany needs to raise its longterm growth potential and address its massive Baby

Because after Goldhill’s father succumbed to a hospital-acquired infection, Goldhill spent two years studying America’s health care sector. The product of those efforts is “How American Health Care Killed My Father,” an article in this month’s issue of The Atlantic that bloggers have acclaimed as a “stemwinder” and “a fascinating read.”

Boom-related fiscal imbalance.

Goldhill analyzes why America’s health care sector is so dysfunctional and concludes that “this generation of ‘comprehensive’ reform will not address the underlying issues, any more than previous efforts did. Instead it will put yet more patches on the walls of an edifice that is fundamentally unsound—and then build that edifice higher.” The event will take place in room B-340 of the Rayburn House Office Building at noon on Thursday, October 1. Click here to register.

3

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

29 September 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Another “Victory” in the War on Drugs [Cato at Liberty“Victory” in the War on Drugs]

PATRIOT Act Provision Used for Drug Cases [Cato at Liberty]

SEP 28, 2009 03:40P.M.

The PATRIOT Act contained a number of tools that expanded the power of federal law enforcement officials. One of these, the “sneak and peak” warrant, allows investigators to break into the home or business of the warrant’s target and delay notification of the intrusion until 30 days after the warrant’s expiration. This capability was sold to the American people as a necessary tool to fight terrorism.

SEP 28, 2009 03:35P.M.

A grandmother in Indiana has been arrested for purchasing cold medicine. We can all sleep more safely now that this hardened criminal has been taught a lesson. The Terre Haute News reports: When Sally Harpold bought cold medicine for her family back in March, she never dreamed that four months later she would end up in handcuffs.

In Fiscal Year 2008, federal courts issued 763 “sneak and peak” warrants. Only three were for terrorism cases. Sixty-five percent were drug cases. The report is available here.

Now, Harpold is trying to clear her name of criminal charges, and she is speaking out in hopes that a law will change so others won’t endure the same embarrassment she still is facing.

Ryan Grim has more on this, including video of Sen. Russ Feingold (DWI) grilling Assistant Attorney General David Kris.

…Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a week’s time.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Debt Aggravates Spending Disease [Cato at Liberty] SEP 28, 2009 03:34P.M.

Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 3548-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period.

USA Today’s Dennis Cauchon reports that ”state governments are rushing to borrow money to take advantage of cheap and plentiful credit at a time when tax collections are tumbling.” That will allow them to “avoid some painful spending cuts,” Cauchon notes, but it will sadly impose more pain on taxpayers down the road.

When the police came knocking at the door of Harpold’s Parke County residence on July 30, she was arrested on a Vermillion County warrant for a class-C misdemeanor, which carries a sentence of up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500

When politicians have the chance to act irresponsibly, they will act irresponsibly. Give them low interest rates and they go on a borrowing binge. The result is that they are in over their heads with massive piles of bond debt on top of the huge unfunded obligations they have built up for state pension and health care plans.

fine.

The chart shows that total state and local government debt soared 93 percent this decade. It jumped from $1.2 trillion in 2000 to $2.3 trillion by the second quarter of 2009, according to Federal Reserve data (Table D.3).

4

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

29 September 2009

Iran’s test firings over the weekend of its short and medium range missiles, bring a new sense of urgency to the long-scheduled talks between Iran and the P-5 + 1 beginning on Thursday in Geneva. Many in Washington hope that a new round of tough sanctions, supported by all of the major powers including Russia and China, might finally convince the Iranians to abandon their nuclear program. Such hopes are naive. Even multilateral sanctions have an uneven track record, at best. It is difficult to convince a regime to reverse itself when a very high-profile initiative hangs in the balance, and Iran’s nuclear program clearly qualifies. It is particularly unrealistic given that the many years of economic and diplomatic pressure exerted on Tehran by the U.S. government have only in emboldened the regime and marginalized reformers and democracy advocates, who are cast by the regime as lackeys of the United States and the West.

Government debt has soared during good times and bad. During recessions, politicians say that they need to borrow to avoid spending cuts. But during boomtimes, such as from 2003 to 2008, they say that borrowing makes sense because an expanding economy can handle a higher debt load. I’ve argued that there is little reason for allowing state and local government politicians to issue bond debt at all.

But whereas sanctions are likely to fail, war with Iran would be even worse. As Secretary Gates admitted on Sunday, air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities would merely degrade and perhaps delay, not eliminate, Iran’s program. Such attacks would inevitably result in civilian casualties, allowing Ahmadinejad to rally public support for his weak regime. What’s more, the likelihood of escalation following a military attack — which could take the form of asymmetric attacks in the Persian Gulf region, and terrorism worldwide — is not a risk worth taking.

Unfortunately, the political urge to spend has resulted in the states shoving a massive pile of debt onto future taxpayers at the same time that they have built up huge unfunded obligations for worker retirement plans.

The Iranian government must be convinced that it does not need nuclear weapons to deter attacks against the regime. It is likely to push for an indigenous nuclear-enrichment program for matters of national pride, as well as national interest.

We’ve seen how uncontrolled debt issuance has encouraged spending sprees at the federal level. Sadly, it appears that the same debt-fueled spending disease has spread to the states and the cities.

The Obama administration should therefore offer to end Washington’s diplomatic and economic isolation of Iran, and should end all efforts to overthrow the government in Tehran, in exchange for Iran’s pledge to forswear a nuclear weapons program, and to allow free and unfettered access to international inspectors to ensure that its peaceful nuclear program is not diverted for military purposes.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Limited Options in Dealing with Iran [Cato at Liberty] SEP 28, 2009 03:19P.M.

While such an offer might ultimately be rejected by the Iranians, revealing their intentions, it is a realistic option, superior to both feckless economic pressure and stalemate, or war, with all of its horrible ramifications.

The revelation last week of a second secret Iranian nuclear facility, and

5

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

29 September 2009

big labor’s odious “Card Check” bill.

Washington Post On Net Neutrality: Unnecessary, Stifling, Micromanagement [Americans for Tax Reform]

A recent poll released by Club for Growth shows a statistical three-way tie between Hoffman, Scozzafava, and Owens. When asked, “Would you prefer your next member of Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a Conservative party candidate who would align himself with Republicans in Congress,” respondents selected the Conservative by 36%, compared to 31% for the Democrat and 18% for the Republican.

SEP 28, 2009 01:47P.M. Today’s Washington Post Editorial asks the most pertinent question of all regarding proposed government regulation of the internet: Is this

“Doug Hoffman has an excellent chance of winning this race,” concluded Chocola. “He offers New Yorkers a clear choice between electing a typical Albany politician, another liberal Democrat, or a principled leader who will fight for policies that help to grow our economy and put our nation back on the right track.”

intervention necessary? In examining how ‘net neutrali...

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS PAID FOR BY CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S

CFG PAC Endorses Hoffman [The Club for Growth]

COMMITTEE. 202-955-5500.

SEP 28, 2009 01:45P.M. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Club for Growth PAC Endorses Hoffman in New York Special

Honduras’ Interim Government Falls Into Zelaya’s Trap [Cato at Liberty] SEP 28, 2009 01:23P.M. Once again, and as a response to the return of deposed president Manuel Zelaya to Tegucigalpa, the interim government of Honduras has overreacted by decreeing a 45-day suspension of constitutional guarantees such as the freedom to move around the country and the right to assemble. The government is even imposing some restrictions on freedom of the press. More disturbingly, today the army shut down a radio station and a TV station supportive of Zelaya.

Washington - Club for Growth PAC today endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the special election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District. Hoffman, a Republican, decided to run after local GOP leaders hand-picked liberal Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava as their nominee. “After months of runaway spending, bailouts, and record deficits, the last thing we need in Congress is another rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi and the liberal Democrats,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “Doug Hoffman is the only candidate in this race who will stand up for taxpayers and fight to protect our freedoms in Washington.”

As I’ve written before, these measures are unnecessary, counterproductive and unjustified. While Zelaya’s supporters are known for repeatedly relying on violence, their actions have been so far contained by the police and the army. Zelaya himself is secluded at the Brazilian Embassy, and while he is using it as a command center to make constant calls for insurrection, the authorities have so far been in control of the situation.

Hoffman, a certified public accountant and managing partner at a Lake Placid accounting firm, has sworn-off Congressional earmarks and pledged to oppose all tax increases if elected – a clear distinction among the candidates in this three-way contest. In fact, Scozzafava and Democrat Bill Owens both favor higher taxes, bigger government, and more spending, including President Obama’s failed “stimulus” package and

One of the most troubling aspects of the suspension of constitutional guarantees is that they effectively obstruct the development of a clean, free, and transparent election process. Let’s remember that Honduras is holding a presidential election on November 29th, and many regard this electoral process as the best way to solve the country’s political impasse, particularly at an international level.

6

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

There can’t be a free and transparent presidential election while basic constitutional rights have been suspended. By adopting these selfdefeating measures, the interim government of Honduras is lending a hand to Zelaya and his international allies in their effort to disrupt the

29 September 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Tonight on The Kudlow Report [Larry Kudlow’s Money Politic$]

country’s election process.

SEP 28, 2009 12:36P.M. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Keeping Your Doctor Will Be as Easy as 1, 2, 3…1,788, 1789, 1,790 [Cato at Liberty…1,788, 1789, 1,790] SEP 28, 2009 01:20P.M.

This evening at 7pm ET:

This simple little chart shows the steps needed to keep your doctor if the health care plan put forth by Senator Baucus becomes law. For a closer look, click this link.

ONE-ON-ONE WITH WORLD BANK PRESIDENT ROBERT ZOELLICK -Treasury as uber-regulator? -King Dollar -World economic health -Merkel’s German election victory Robert Zoellick, World Bank President will join us for an exclusive interview. REACTION TO ZOELLICK: Was this straight from the supply-side? *Jimmy Pethokoukis, Money & Politics Columnist with Reuters *Robert Reich, Fmr. Labor Secretary; Author, “Supercapitalism”; CNBC Contributor; Univ. of CA., Berkeley, Prof. of Public Policy HEALING SIGNS? An eye on markets and the economy. *Robert Froehlich, Chairman of the Investment Committee for the University of Dayton”, a $500 Million endowment; “A Bull For All Seasons” Author *Jason Trennert, Strategas Research Partners, Chief Investment Strategist & Managing Partner *Joe Battipaglia, Stifel Nicolaus Market Strategist Please join us. The Kudlow Report. 7pm ET. CNBC.

7

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

29 September 2009

all about? New competitors and new products are constantly disrupting markets, to the discomfort of entrenched producers but to the great benefit of the general public and the economy as a whole.

Video on All the Tax Hikes Considered for Obamacare [Americans for Tax Reform]

Human beings once widely practiced an economic system that minimized market disruption. It was called feudalism.

SEP 28, 2009 12:26P.M.

C/P Mad About Trade

... FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Monday’s Daily News [The Club for Growth]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Curbing Free Trade to Save It [Cato at Liberty]

SEP 28, 2009 11:59A.M.

SEP 28, 2009 12:05P.M.

THE DAILY NEWS Poor Children Learn, Teachers Unions Not Pleased - Wshington Post Editorial Max’s Mad Mandate - Wall Street Journal Editorial You Mislead! Fact-Checking Obama - M. Cannon & R. Ponnuru, NRO If Air Travel Worked Like Health Care - Jonathan Rauch, National Journal Public Option Divide Democrats on Healthcare Jeffrey Young, The Hill A Ripe Time For Florida’s Marco Rubio - George Will, Washington Post Wall Street Money Rains on Chuck Schumer McGrane & Lerer, Politico Union Chief Pushes Tough Line on Trade Peter Whoriskey, WaPo Trade Liberalization Continues, But Risks Abound - Markheim & Miller, Heritage Nanny State Doesn’t Like Competition - David Boaz, Cato Institute Cubs 1, Giants 5 - Associated

In the latest example of “We had to burn the village to save it” logic, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argues in a letter in the Washington Post this morning that the way to “support more trade” in the future is to raise barriers to trade today. Brown criticizes Post columnist George Will for criticizing President Obama for imposing new tariffs on imported tires from China. Like President Obama himself, Brown claims that by invoking the Section 421 safeguard, the president was merely “enforcing” the trade laws that China agreed to but has failed to follow. He scolds advocates of trade for talking about the “rule of law” but failing to enforce it when it comes to trade agreements. Brown concludes, “If America is ever to support more trade, its people need to know that the rules will be enforced. And Mr. Obama did exactly that.”

Press

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

The Land Is There, the Cubans Are There, but the Incentives Are Not [Cato at Liberty]

Nothing in U.S. trade law required President Obama to impose tariffs on imported Chinese tires. As my colleague Dan Ikenson explained in a recent Free Trade Bulletin, Section 421 allows private parties to petition the U.S. government for protection if rising imports from China have caused or just threaten to cause “market disruption” to domestic producers. If the U.S. International Trade Commission recommends tariff relief, the president can decide to impose tariffs, or not.

SEP 28, 2009 11:57A.M. The Washington Post has an interesting story today on the program of the Cuban government to transfer idle state-owned land to private farmers so they can resurrect the dilapidated agricultural sector on the communist island. As Ian Vásquez and I wrote in the chapter on U.S. policy toward Cuba in Cato Handbook for Policymakers, before this reform, the agricultural productivity of Cuba’s tiny non-state sector (comprising cooperatives and small private farmers) was already 25 percent higher than that of the state sector.

The law allows the president to refrain from imposing tariffs if he finds they are “not in the national economic interest of the United States or … would cause serious harm to the national security of the United States.” As I argue at length in my new Cato book Mad about Trade, trade barriers invariably damage our national economic interests and weaken our national security, and the tire tariffs are no exception. If the president had followed the letter and spirit of the law, he would have rejected the tariff.

At stake is an issue of incentives. Collective land doesn’t give farmers an incentive to work hard and be productive, since the benefits of their labor go to the government who distributes them (in theory) evenly among everyone, regardless of who worked hard or not. While with

And since when is causing “market disruption” something to be punished by law? Isn’t that what capitalism and market competition are

8

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

private property, “The harder you work, the better you do,” as a Cuban farmer said in the Post story.

29 September 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

A Federal Ban on Texting While Driving? [Cato at Liberty]

The country’s ruler, Raúl Castro, recently declared that “The land is there, and here are the Cubans! Let’s see if we can get to work or not, if we produce or not… The land is there waiting for our sweat.” However, it’s not a matter of just having land and lots of people. It’s also a matter of incentives to produce. Failing to see this, as in the case of Cuba’s failed

SEP 28, 2009 10:56A.M.

communist model, is a recipe for failure.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

You Could Go to Jail Under ObamaCare [The Club for Growth] SEP 28, 2009 11:27A.M. Failure to buy mandated health insurance under ObamaCare could result In response to claims that texting-while-driving (TWD) causes traffic accidents, Congress is considering “a federal bill that would force states to ban texting while driving if they want to keep receiving federal highway money.”

in a fine of $25,000 and up to a year in jail. HT: Steve Bartin

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS This approach to forcing a particular policy on the states mimics the 1984 Federal Uniform Driving Age Act, which threatened to withhold federal highway funds unless states adopted a 21-year-old minimum legal drinking age. The justification for that law was reducing traffic fatalities among 18-20 year olds.

Pres. Obama: “Let Them Eat Cake. Wait, Make that Rice Crackers. And Take Away the Soda, Too.” [Americans for Tax Reform“Let Them Eat Cake. Wait, Make that Rice Crackers. And Take Away the Soda, Too.”]

A federal ban on TWD is not compelling: 1. Federal imposition of the 21-year old minimum drinking age did not save lives. 2. A ban on texting might increase other distractions: adjusting the radio, putting on makeup, eating a sandwich, reading a map, and so on. Relatedly, the evidence that TWD causes accidents is far from convincing. Traffic fatalities per vehicle mile travelled have declined substantially over the past 15 years, despite the explosion in text messaging.

SEP 28, 2009 11:12A.M. While public attention focuses in on the tax increases in the Baucus healthcare overhaul bill, the threat a tax increase on sugar sweetened

3. TWD has benefits, not just costs. Truckers, for example, claim that

beverages got a new lease on life with a recent interview ...

Crisscrossing the country, hundreds of thousands of longhaul truckers use computers in their cabs to get directions and stay in close contact with dispatchers, saving precious minutes that might otherwise be spent at the side of the road. 4. If the benefits of banning TWD become clear, most states will ban on their own.

9

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

Thus laws that penalize TWD might make sense. But this is an issue for states, not the federal government.

29 September 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

How Cap and Tax Will Hurt New Mexico [Americans for Tax Reform]

C/P Libertarianism, from A to Z.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

SEP 28, 2009 09:51A.M.

Youth Unemployment at 52.2% Post “Stimulus” [Americans for Tax Reform]

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...

SEP 28, 2009 10:22A.M. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS The New York Post yesterday ran with this staggering story on newly released figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: “The unemployment

Who’s Blogging about Cato [Cato at Liberty]

rate for young Americans has exploded to 52.2 percent ...

SEP 28, 2009 09:40A.M. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Here’s a round-up of bloggers writing about Cato research and analysis:

Is This Intervention Necessary? [Cato at Liberty]

• Blogging from Korea, Joseph Steinberg writes about Cato’s foreign policy views on East Asia.

SEP 28, 2009 10:17A.M.

• Chris Estes defends Obama’s decision to slap a tariff on Chinese tire imports, and cites Dan Ikenson’s research on the subject.

So asks the Washington Post in a cogent editorial about FCC Chairman Jules Genachowski’s speech proposing to regulate the terms on which broadband service is provided. (More from TLJ, Julian Sanchez, and me.) The WaPo piece nicely dismantles the few incidents and arguments that underlie Genachowski’s call for regulation.

• A blog that just started up this summer, Political Policy takes a look at Cato’s analysis of Obama’s health care address to Congress. • Wes Messamore rounds up libertarian responses to the 9/12 demonstration in Washington DC.

As the debate about “‘net neutrality” regulation continues, I imagine it will move from principled arguments, such as whether the government should control communications infrastructure, to practical ones: Will limitations on ISPs’ ability to manage their networks cause Internet brown-outs and failures? (This is what Comcast was trying to avoid when it ham-handedly degraded the use of the BitTorrent protocol on its network.) Will regulation bar ISPs from shifting costs to heavy users, cause individual consumers to pay more, and hasten a move from all-

• Y-Intercept takes a look at Jim Harper’s analysis of government transparency. • Bloggers at The Liberty Pen cite Michael Cannon’s research on the “public option” provision that has been debated for inclusion in the final health care reform bill.

you-can-eat to metered Internet service? We’ll have much to discuss.

10

Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Exclusive: Zoellick on Kudlow Report [Larry Kudlow’s Money Politic$] SEP 28, 2009 08:07A.M. We’ve got a big, exclusive interview with World Bank President Robert Zoellick on this evening’s Kudlow Report. Mr. Zoellick is making headlines today questioning the wisdom of giving the Federal Reserve more power over the banks. He believes that Treasury, which is more accountable to Congress, should be given this authority. He’s also raising big red flags over the dollar’s reserve currency status. CNBC. KUDLOW REPORT. 7PM ET.

11

29 September 2009