Home
 

Rockefeller: Stopping Obamas Environmental End-Around

By Howard Rich

With the "science" of global warming collapsing like a house of cards, the Copenhagen "climate change" conference accomplishing absolutely nothing and a massive energy tax hike going nowhere in the U.S. Senate, President Barack Obama is now faced with a conundrum. He can either read the handwriting on the wall, or seek to accomplish through regulation what he couldn’t accomplish through legislation: the handover of U.S. environmental policy to radical environmentalists.

Does any of this sound familiar?

This is frankly the same dynamic we are witnessing in the health care debate. There, Obama says he will use procedural loopholes to ram his version of a socialized medicine proposal through the U.S. Congress against the expressed will of the American people.

Once again, it appears that Obama simply cannot comprehend the meaning of a word understood by literally millions of toddlers: "No."

As he seeks to push his health care proposals on the one hand, Obama will no doubt attempt to frame the debate along partisan lines. On the energy front, it won’t be so easy.

That’s because West Virginia Senator John D. Rockefeller – who is among the President’s staunchest allies in the U.S. Senate – is standing up to Obama and the radical environmentalists’ power grab. Rockefeller has recently introduced legislation that would place a two-year moratorium on the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants and other stationary emitters, which is precisely the regulatory authority Obama is threatening to use if Congress doesn’t pass his "cap and trade" bill this year.

In unveiling his legislation, Rockefeller noted that his primary objective was to "safeguard jobs," but he bluntly reminded Obama that it was "Congress, not the EPA" which bears responsibility for setting the nation’s energy policy. Additionally, three other Democratic Senators recently joined Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski in supporting a resolution that would overturn the EPA’s "scientific" finding of fact regarding greenhouse gases – a finding that forms the basis of Obama’s promised regulatory push.

Whether it’s through regulation or legislation, though, the bottom line is that Obama is seeking to dramatically raise energy prices on American consumers. In fact, documents obtained from his own Treasury Department show that the so-called "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" (a.k.a. "cap and trade") could drain as much as $200 billion from U.S. taxpayers, or $1,700 per family.

Other estimates place the per-family costs as high as $3,100 a year.

Clearly, that sort of tax hike isn’t something the American taxpayers can afford in any economic environment – let alone this one – even if the legislation were to accomplish its stated objectives of reducing global carbon emissions.

But that’s another fundamental problem.

Neither "cap and trade" nor excessive EPA regulation will do anything to stop countries like China from building dozens of new "dirty" coal plants over the next decade – and perhaps beyond. And frankly, neither will the $50 billion a year that Obama is seeking to steer into a United Nations "climate change fund" for developing nations – part of an international shakedown which columnist Charles Krauthammer has correctly dubbed "wealth redistribution via global socialism."

Speaking of China (and enviro-scams), it’s also worth noting that America’s new "bailout banker" is one of several countries benefiting from billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars that were supposed to create "green jobs" here in America – yet another example of the true face of eco-socialism.

Fortunately, Sen. Rockefeller and others like him are standing up for American jobs by refusing to let Obama hand the reins of the EPA over to the same environmental kooks who recently ran the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into the ground.

Perhaps these courageous Democrats can finally teach the President the meaning of the word "No," although from the looks of it voters may have to do that for themselves in 2012.

Howard Rich, chairman of Americans for Limited Government, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

The People Have Spoken!

 

ALG Editor's Note: William Warren's award-winning cartoons published at GetLiberty.org are a free service of ALG News Bureau. They may be reused and redistributed free of charge.

The Continuing Federal Land Grab

By Michael Swartz

The use and abuse of the Antiquities Act, legislation which dates back to the time of Teddy Roosevelt, is nothing new. While the bulk of the national monuments so created came in the first few decades after the Act’s 1906 adoption, the practice of creating them was again accelerated with President Carter creating 15 national monuments out of Alaskan territory in 1978. By doing so he throttled the resource development of these areas and angered local officials who wanted Washington’s hands off the land.

In recent times, the usage of Antiquities’ declarative power has been almost strictly a Democratic practice – by comparison, neither Ronald Reagan nor George H.W. Bush used the Antiquities Act in this manner during their terms and President George W. Bush did but twice. President Clinton established a total of 19 national monuments, mainly as he was preparing to leave office in 2001.

But a recently leaked internal memo from the Department of the Interior (DOI) detailing thirteen new prospective national monuments may show that President Obama is interested in continuing the recent liberal environmentalist practice of locking resource-rich lands away from development. In fact, this very reason is cited in the memo to preserve Colorado’s Vermillion Basin, a “unique high desert basin (which) is currently under threat of oil and gas development, which would forever alter the region.” Other areas are cited as “critical long-term movement corridors for…wildlife” or “pristine desert wilderness landscapes.”

Once word got out about the proposed land grab the DOI backtracked, calling the memo a product of a “brainstorming session.” But it shows the attitude that placing land off-limits to development and perhaps a higher and better usage is more important to some than the benefits the resources on or underneath the land may provide. The land hasn’t changed perceptively since the previous administration left the White House, but the bureaucrats who have been itching to turn the West back into the wilderness it once was by creating “migration corridors” or placing areas out of reach for human interaction had to wait until they had an ally in the White House to again make their move.

Needless to say, a number of Congressional representatives from western states are unhappy. Their cause was led by Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, who is credited with making this DOI memo public.

Their biggest concern is the potential lost revenue for state and local governments, who already deal with the burden of hosting a huge percentage of federally-owned land within their borders. West of the Great Plains, the federal government owns at least 30 percent of the land mass in every state but Hawaii, with Nevada leading the way – the federal government owns over 4/5 of Silver State land. Aside from those twelve states, only three others have more than ten percent federally owned land with most of the rest checking in at five percent or less. Overall, Washington bureaucrats own about 30 percent of our total land mass but apparently would like to take millions more acres through Presidential mandate.

The DOI’s evaluation seemingly fails to ask how placing areas off-limits is going to affect job creation and local economies, and may not be considering the financial ramifications of taking care of the land once acquired. If areas have unique and wondrous features it’s doubtful that the public will want them to remain hidden from their view.

It seems the only thing hidden from public view is the process and perhaps that’s intentional, knowing the outcry from affected states and individual landowners would be deafening.

Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

ALG In the News: Bushs Union Transparency Rules Retracted Under Obama

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured story from the Washington Times, ALG’s own Nathan Mehrens is asked about how the Obama administration has rolled back union transparency rules.

 

 

Bush’s Union Transparency Rules Retracted Under Obama

By Chuck Neubauer

The Obama administration promised increased transparency in government but has rolled back rules proposed by the Bush administration that expanded the financial disclosure statements required of labor unions and their leaders.

Since President Obama took office, the Labor Department has rescinded or delayed three sets of rules proposed by the George W. Bush administration that would have required unions and their leaders to more specifically detail their finances, according to a review of records by The Washington Times.

The rules were rolled back while the Obama administration was seeking more stringent regulation of corporate America, including banks, insurance companies, health care providers and publicly traded companies.

The proposed Bush rules would have required labor unions to identify from whom they were buying and selling assets, forced union leaders and employees to file more detailed conflict-of-interest forms, and required unions to reveal the finances of hundreds of so-called labor trusts - largely unregulated entities set up to provide benefits for members.

Former Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, one of the architects of the expanded Bush rules, said the Obama administration is "making a mockery of the regulations" and is giving "preferential treatment" to the unions.

"This administration is not enforcing laws on union transparency and democracy," Ms. Chao told The Times. "They are telling unions that they don't have to comply."
A senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee has similar concerns.

Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, ranking member on the health, employment, labor and pensions subcommittee, asked Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis in February why the Labor Department had rescinded rules designed to increase transparency in union finances. He said the rollback made it "more difficult for rank-and-file union workers to see how their dues are being spent."

Mr. Kline said Mr. Obama had "made it a point on a number of occasions to talk about this administration wanting to be the most transparent and open administration in our nation's history."

Mrs. Solis told the congressman that transparency was the goal, but the department did not want to "overburden a system where information that was previously asked for may not be of much importance or significance."

In an April 2009 report on Mrs. Solis' first 100 days in office, the Labor Department said it was trying to "undo" or "temporarily suspend" Bush administration rules that "had a detrimental impact on workers." The report said the expanded rules "made the union financial reporting requirements not only overly burdensome but ineffectual."

To combat a "rush of rules out the door at the end of the previous administration," the report said, Mrs. Solis had taken "significant steps to undo the most burdensome of these regulations and put in place an enforcement regime that will make union and management transparency a reality."

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment and referred inquiries to the Labor Department.

John Lund, the Labor Department's deputy assistant secretary for labor-management standards, said a "fair and transparent government regulatory regime must consider and balance the interests of labor organizations, their members and the public."

"Any change to a union's record keeping, accounting and reporting practices must be based on a demonstrated and significant need for additional information, consideration of the burden associated with such reporting and any increased costs associated with reporting additional information," he said.

Union officials said many of the expanded disclosures were unnecessary and accused the Bush administration of retaliating against labor unions for their support of Democrats.
Mrs. Chao described as "laughable" any union talk about how "onerous" it would be to comply with the expanded regulations. She said labor organizations repeatedly fought her on the added disclosures and it appeared "many labor leaders feel threatened by transparency."

"What are they afraid of?" she asked.

LM-2 filings

In 2003, the Bush administration announced that the unions had to list on their LM-2 filings -annual reports disclosing union finances - any recipients of $5,000 or more in union funds. This included vendors, charities and political candidates, with specific amounts instead of lump-sum totals. These added disclosures, which took effect in 2004, were designed to shed light on where unions spent their money.

In the closing days of the Bush administration, the Labor Department sought to further increase the number of disclosures the unions had to make on the LM-2 forms. The new rules would have required unions to disclose the name of any party buying or selling union assets of $5,000 or more, making it easier for members to determine whether the transactions were at arm's length. Unions currently need to list only the item and the sale or purchase price.

While unions for decades have been required to list salaries and expenses for each officer and employee by name, the expanded Bush rules would have demanded greater disclosure of benefits such as deferred compensation and union-provided housing.

The first filings under the Bush administration's LM-2 rules would have been due later this year, but the Obama administration said in April 2009 that it wanted to delay implementation and formally withdrew the rules in October. The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), which enforces labor disclosure laws, said it withdrew the new rules because unions said the requirements were burdensome and the department felt it had not sufficiently reviewed the disclosure requirements added in 2003.

A review of LM-2 forms by The Times found disclosures that would not have been available on the filings prior to the Bush administration's 2003 rule changes. For example, 14 national unions were listed as giving $3.2 million to a planning committee responsible for private funding for the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

The top donors, who gave more than $2.2 million, were the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT).

A check of the Labor Department database showed only one large donation to the 2008 Republican convention host committee - $50,000 from the SEIU.

The additional disclosures also helped expose the suspected misuse of funds. Tyrone Freeman, head of the largest union local in California, was forced out of office after the Los Angeles Times found that he had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, including contracts to his wife's video production firm and nearly $10,000 to a cigar bar, based in part on information from the LM-2 forms.

As a result, Mr. Freeman is under federal investigation and his former union, the United Long-Term Care Workers Union of the SEIU, has sued him for $1.1 million.
LM-30 filings

Last year, the Obama administration also backed off a rule requiring union officials and employees to file a more detailed version of the conflict-of-interest form known as the LM-30. The rule also would have forced more people - union shop stewards, in some cases - to file the forms.

The Labor Department requires the officials and employees to file the LM-30 statements if they receive any income or economic benefit from any entity that does business with the union or with an employer of union members.

Until Mrs. Chao cracked down in 2005, records show, few union leaders or employees bothered to file the form, although the filing requirement has been on the books for decades.

"There was no compliance and no enforcement," Mrs. Chao said of the LM-30 filings.
In 2005, she said the department would start enforcing the rule with the 2004 reports and offered amnesty to first-time filers. As a result, filings were submitted by 13,326 union officials or employees, compared with 96 the previous year. Mrs Chao then updated the rule and expanded the form, which had been the same for 40 years, requiring more people to file and increasing the detail that had to be disclosed.
The new reports, covering 2008, were due in 2009.

But in 2009, the Labor Department backed off the new LM-30 filing requirement, saying the union leaders and employees could file the older, less-detailed version because of pending litigation and unanswered questions over the new reporting requirements.
The department said, "It would not be a good use of resources to bring enforcement actions" based on failing to file one version of the form over another. For now, union officials and employees can file either version of the form.

Mrs. Solis said at the February subcommittee hearing that the department was reviewing the expanded LM-30 form as proposed by the Bush administration. The Labor Department is expected to modify the rule.

T-1 filings

In February, the Obama administration also proposed rescinding a Bush plan to get annual financial disclosures from union trusts - organizations set up primarily to provide member benefits such as training and apprenticeship programs, building funds and strike funds.

Some of the trusts originally were known as "nickel funds" because employers would contribute 5 cents for every hour a union member worked. A number of the funds have grown to be multimillion-dollar enterprises as the amount of the contributions from employers has increased as part of collective bargaining agreements.

In December 2002, the Bush administration proposed a rule making the trusts file annual reports known as the T-1, similar to union reports detailing how much money they had and itemizing how they spent it. The AFL-CIO twice challenged the proposed rule in court, forcing the Labor Department to make changes and delay its implementation.
The first T-1 reports, covering 2009, were due at the end of March until the Obama Labor Department moved to rescind the rule.

"Basically, labor organizations file no financial reports on how these funds are spent," said Mrs. Chao. "There is no accountability."

The trusts have not been subject to any significant disclosure requirements other than having to file and make public their 990 federal income tax returns as nonprofits. Such tax returns often take years to become public and do not require details on how the money was spent.

For example, the UAW-Daimler Chrysler Skill Development and Training Program said in its 2006 tax return that it spent $16.3 million on sponsorships. It provided no details. The tax return does not show that much of that money was spent on NASCAR sponsorships of cars and a race, the UAW-Daimler Chrysler 400.

The program, now known as the UAW-Chrysler National Training Center, was one of three trust funds that the Big Three automakers operated jointly with the UAW, spending hundreds of millions of dollars with little transparency. The other two autoworker funds also spent millions of dollars without having to detail where that money went.

The Bush Labor Department estimated that 3,131 trusts would have to file T-1 forms under the new rules, detailing salaries as well as itemizing expenses of $10,000 or more.
In its proposal to rescind the T-1, the Obama administration said the required form was "overly broad and is not necessary." Instead, the department proposed that the unions list the information on their annual LM-2 reports for their subsidiaries - entities that are "wholly owned, controlled and financed by a single union."

"What we're doing there is looking at obtaining that information, but placing it in a form we already require people to fill out," Mrs. Solis said at the February hearing. "So it's not as though we're abrogating or trying to decrease or de-emphasize information. I think what we're doing is ... making it easier for people to report this information."

But the finances of the autoworker training centers and some other trusts may not have to be reported under Mrs. Solis' proposal.

Virginia lawyer Nathan Mehrens, who helped write the T-1 rules as a Bush Labor Department special assistant, said the UAW likely would not have to report the finances of the development and training program because it does not fit the definition of a union subsidiary.

He said it does not qualify because the union does not control the boards - half the board members are appointed by management.

"They are carving it up," added Mrs. Chao. "The problem is their proposal only applies to union entities."

Current Labor Department officials said they did not want to speculate on what organizations would have to file under the new plan while the rule-making process is under way.

Obamas Reconciliation Lie

By Derek Baker

Less than one week ago, President Obama stood before an assembled audience of hand- picked sympathizers on healthcare reform at the White House and called on Congress to pass his healthcare reform package into law… again.

Having spent his entire year long presidency singularly focused on passing a massive, trillion dollar, federal government takeover of the healthcare industry in America, and failed – Obama had a couple of choices going forward. With an American public now solidly against his healthcare proposal, and his Democrat margins in both houses of Congress now a wee bit slimmer, Obama was forced to choose between either a) substantially altering his healthcare proposal to make it more palatable and bipartisan as he claims is his goal, or b) forging ahead with virtually the same heavy-handed government takeover package and hope to woo skeptical Americans and Democratic lawmakers by the sheer force of his personality.

In Obama’s speech – a rather short one for him of only 21 minutes – he made it clear that he is opting for Plan B. Obama stated: “No matter which approach you favor, I believe the U.S. Congress owes the American people a final vote on healthcare reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly. Not just for the past year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a super-majority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the children’s health insurance program, that was used for cobra health coverage for the unemployed, and by the way for both Bush tax cuts, all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.”

In other words, he plans to utilize budget reconciliation to pass ObamaCare, which requires only a simple majority in both chambers. And Obama appealed to history, citing five specific examples of major legislation that was passed using reconciliation.

Here’s the only problem with Obama’s appeal: every bill he cited was passed with bipartisan support. This is, of course, precisely the opposite of what is occurring on ObamaCare, where the minority party is unanimously opposed to the entire package. In fact, reconciliation has been used nearly 20 times since it’s origination in 1981, but never once in a completely partisan fashion to pass major social legislation. Not once.

A quick review of the actual legislation Obama cited shows example after example of bipartisan support. Both Bush tax cuts were passed with Democrat votes in both chambers. Cobra was enacted in 1986 with a Republican controlled White House and Senate and a Democrat controlled House. Landmark welfare reform was passed by a Republican controlled Congress (with 125 Democrat votes from both chambers) and signed into law by President Clinton, as was the Children’s Health Program in 1997 within the Balanced Budget Act.

Republican claims that Obama’s intended use of reconciliation to pass his version of healthcare reform is unprecedented (what the word really means, not how Obama uses it) and hyper partisan is absolutely true. It would be complimenting Obama to say he was being merely disingenuous in his stated reason for using reconciliation.

In the same speech noted above, Obama portended to take the high road by maintaining “I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right” and saying he would “provide the leadership” the American people so desperately want on healthcare reform. Perhaps Obama is genuine in stating he does not know how this will play politically, but Americans seem to know instinctively, and they are not calling it leadership, they’re calling it a lie.

Derek Baker is a contributor to ALG News.

The Driver Veered Off to the Left

 ALG Editor's Note: William Warren's award-winning cartoons published at GetLiberty.org are a free service of ALG News Bureau. They may be reused and redistributed free of charge.

Union Paybacks Advanced Administratively, Even As They Fail Legislatively

By Kevin Mooney

While addressing the National Press Club (NPC) in January, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka predicted The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) would pass in “the first quarter of 2010,” but declined to say if his organization would support a compromised version.

That time is fast approaching and it appears that Trumka and other union bosses do not have the votes for EFCA, which includes the anti-democratic card check legislation and binding arbitration. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the lead sponsor in the upper chamber, has reportedly discussed the possibility of a repacked bill that would drop card check in exchange for maintaining the arbitration measure.

However, Katie Packer, executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), has said that any bill that would allow for federal mediators to impose contracts remains unacceptable to business.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) has already said that she would oppose EFCA. Other potential swing votes against the bill include Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.).

But even as they fail to secure coercive policy changes through a straight up and down vote, labor bosses are pursuing non-legislative channels for their paybacks from the Obama Administration and the Democratic congress.

In the 2008 election cycle, unions spent almost $80 million on independent broadcast advertising, mail and advocacy to either elect or defeat candidates for federal office, according to OpenSecrets.org. Federal records also show that labor union political action committees (PACs) contributed over $66 million to federal candidates in 2008, with 92 percent of this total going to Democrats.

They want some return on that investment and this is what concerns business owners. The idea now is to secure portions of the EFCA bill by way of administrative changes that do not require congressional approval. Craig Becker, an associate general counsel for The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), was recently denied a seat on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the basis of extreme positions that he had articulated as a UCLA professor.

In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, Becker argued that traditional notions of democracy should not apply in union elections. The key phrase being, “employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.”

He also wrote that employers should not be permitted to attend NLRB election hearings or to challenge election results in response to possible union misconduct. In addition, Becker has proposed a “new body of campaign” rules replete with new provisos that would restrict the employer’s ability to communicate with workers about the downside of unionization.

While addressing the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) annual meeting in Disney World, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis hinted that a recess appointment was still possible for Becker.

The consternation over non-legislative administrative rulemaking goes a long way toward explaining why the U.S. remains stuck in a jobless recovery. With the private sector looking ahead in anticipation of increased costs, higher taxes, federal mandates and new bureaucracies, there is a little incentive for new hiring.

Instead of putting capital to work, small business owners and entrepreneurs are retrenching in anticipation of potentially burdensome legislation set up to benefit organized labor at the expense of the larger economy.

Steve Forbes, the magazine publisher who previously ran for president as champion of the flat tax, recently warned members of congress in testimony about the parallels that exist between contemporary polices and the heavy handed government intervention of the 1930s.

"Go back to the Great Depression when the government had forced unionization," Forbes said. "The U.S. had one of the worst recovery records in the 1930s but after World War II when the government did nothing to the economy except cut spending with a few small tax cuts and the reform bill of Taft-Hartley and low and behold we experienced a post war boom."

The "culture of favoritism" is one of the main factors holding back what could otherwise be a robust recovery, Forbes explained, because the Obama policies are fueling artificial price increases that have come not in response to consumer demand but to "government diktats."
Consequently, the current "sub-par" recovery is beginning to mimic a cycle last experienced in the 1970s when the economy retracted again after a short period of jobless, economic growth, he added.

Forbes made his remarks during a special forum organized by House Republicans on the Education and Labor Committee. He was joined by former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao who said the jobless recovery now in motion is attributable at least in part to policies set up to benefit “Big Labor” at the expense of the private sector.

“While the administration focused on appeasing its organized labor allies, job creation ground to a halt,” she said. “Current job creation figures are abysmal. The dearth of job creation during this administration distinguishes this recession from other downturns.”

Kevin Mooney is the editor of TimesCheck.com.

Reason: The Clarity of False Choices

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured column from Reason magazine, Senior Editor Jacob Sullum exposes the lies inherent in Obama’s rhetoric.

 

 

 

The Clarity of False Choices

By Jacob Sullum

“There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits…and investing in job creation and economic growth,” President Obama said in December. “This is a false choice.” During the same speech, he asked his audience to “let me just be clear” that, having racked up the biggest budget deficits ever, he is embracing fiscal responsibility, as reflected in his vow that “health insurance reform” will not increase the deficit “by one dime.”

For connoisseurs of Obama-speak, the address featured a trifecta, combining three of his favorite rhetorical tropes: the vague reference to “those who” question his agenda, the “false choice” they use to deceive the public, and the determination to “be clear” and forthright, in contrast with those dishonest naysayers. These devices are useful as signals that the president is about to mislead us.

Obama says his opponents wrongly insist that we choose between “paying down our deficits” and “investing in job creation and economic growth.” But that is not the way his real critics, as opposed to the imaginary, nameless ones who appear in his speeches, would frame the issue.

The real critics question the premise that the spending Obama supports, which he says ultimately will boost tax revenues and curtail outlays for public assistance programs, should be considered an investment at all—and, if so, whether it is a better use of this money than the market would have found. Copying his predecessor by throwing more money at schools, for example, is a dubious strategy for spurring economic growth, or even educational growth, since there is no clear relationship between spending and student achievement.

Likewise, Obama’s promise that health insurance subsidies will not expand the deficit may be “clear,” but it’s not realistic, since it’s based on accounting tricks and wishful thinking. Legislators avoided counting a $240 billion Medicare “fix” by putting it in a separate bill and assumed reimbursement cuts that probably will never materialize.

Here are some other things Obama has asked us to let him be clear about: “Earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects”; the U.S. government “has no interest in running GM”; Medicare cuts will be made “in a way that protects our senior citizens” from changes in benefits or costs; and a “public option” for health care, which would invite businesses to offload their medical costs onto taxpayers and could drive private insurers from the market, “would not impact those of you who already have insurance.” From now on, when you hear Obama speak, replace “let me be clear” with “let me lie to you” and see if it makes more sense.

Speaking of making sense, some of the “false choices” Obama has identified in the last year are more puzzling than misleading. “I reject the false choice between securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars,” he declared in March. So according to Obama, we can secure this nation and waste billions of taxpayer dollars. Actually, that sounds about right.

Obama’s depiction of his critics is further removed from reality. In the health care debate, he says, “there are those who simply don’t believe Washington can bring about this change”; “there are those who will say that we do not go far enough”; “there are those who would have us try what has already failed, who would defend the status quo”; “there are those who will oppose reform no matter what”; and “there are those who want to seek political advantage.”

What about those who do not like the status quo but have a different vision of reform, not because they want to go farther than Obama does but because they want to go in a different direction, toward more choice and less government involvement? In Obama’s world they do not exist. Instead we have his bold yet achievable plan, pitted against socialist utopianism and blind partisan intransigence. Let me be clear: This is a false choice.

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com) is a syndicated columnist. © Copyright 2009 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Washington Times: A constitutional right to welfare?

 

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured editorial from the Washington Times, Barack Obama’s nominee for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Goodwin H. Liu, in his essay, “Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights” views the judiciary as “a culturally situated interpreter of social meaning”:

 

Washington Times: A constitutional right to welfare?

Another day, another radical judicial nominee. President Obama once again has nominated for a federal judgeship a lawyer whose own words demonstrate unfitness for the position. In the case of Goodwin H. Liu, nominated on Feb. 24 for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the substance behind the words is even worse than the verbiage.

Mr. Liu is an assistant dean at the University of California Berkeley law school who once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so he probably boasts some intellectual firepower. Yet it's the sort of firepower that fits better within the walls of academe, marked by its uniquely indecipherable mumbo-jumbo, than on a bench where clarity is essential.

Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center dug up an example of Mr. Liu's written reason so outlandish as to be unacceptable on its face, no matter what the substance of the legal theory being promoted. In a 2008 Stanford Law Review article, Mr. Liu wrote that judges should engage in "socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal ... to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society" and to "determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine."

To which most rational people would ask: Huh?

Mr. Liu was discussing the idea that judges be bound less by the actual language of the Constitution than by "a systematic moral theory." He agonized in print about the need to reject, for practical reasons, that idea of judge as Olympian moralist. But he did the next worst thing: He wrote instead that he "envisions the judiciary ... as a culturally situated interpreter of social meaning."

Let's translate that into plain English. Mr. Liu is saying that a judge should read between the lines of actual laws to a deeper meaning that the judge, in his wisdom, can decipher. Then the judge should apply a cultural "context" to that deeper meaning. And enforce it.

A reader can be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Liu in effect is advocating a judicial dictatorship. Liberated from the strict and limited dictates of the Constitution, Mr. Liu's vision of governance is based on no bedrock principles and thus would be held hostage to trendy intellectual whims.

Now, let's move beyond theory. For what practical purpose was Mr. Liu laying out his complicated and risky scheme of judging? Here's where things get even worse. As repeated many times in his essay, Mr. Liu's goal was to create a judicially enforceable, constitutional right to welfare. He hastened to add that such a revolution would only be pushed in an "evolutionary" way - not immediately - by "cue[ing] the policymaking process toward greater deliberation and rationality."

This agenda is dangerous. Judges have less business cueing up policy than referees would have to suggest what plays a quarterback should call.

Finally, Mr. Whelan has noted that Mr. Liu doesn't meet the ordinary standards for federal judges outlined by the American Bar Association. These standards include "at least 12 years' experience in the practice of law" and "substantial courtroom and trial experience." Mr. Whelan points out that Mr. Liu, who is only 39 years old, "hasn't even been out of law school for 12 years" and has "zero 'experience as a trial lawyer.'" This nomination should be withdrawn.

Government Spending Does Not Drive the Economy

By Josiah Schmidt

As disturbing new reports come out this month showing that American reliance on government aid is at an all-time high, economists are attempting to quell concerns that the federal spending binge has gone too far. Government spending, they say, drives the economy, and the stimulus bills have saved the economy from dipping into depression. These economists have erred tragically, and their prescription will not only fail to prevent, but will actually help ensure that this recession worsens.

It is saving, and not spending, that drives the economy. By consuming less than we produce, we can plough those savings into the production of factories, machines and technology, which will allow us to produce (and therefore consume) even more in the future.

To illustrate, imagine Robinson Crusoe, stranded on an island. In order to survive, he must scavenge for food at all times. All his free time is devoted to merely keeping himself alive. Each day, he can only consume as much as he can gather. If he wants to increase his consumption in the future, then he must restrict his consumption in the present. He may want to fashion a fishing net, whereby he may increase his daily catch of meat. However, he must set aside some of his food today, in order to sustain himself while he forages for materials and constructs his net over the course of the next few days.

Once the net is finished, he may be able to double his daily food supply, or even acquire the same daily supply of food using half the time and energy. In other words, Robinson Crusoe’s capital structure has been lengthened, and this lengthening of the capital structure was only made possible by saving.

The same holds true for participants in a complex market economy. If an automobile company wants to produce more cars (or produce the same amount of cars with less time and energy), they must not spend out all of their income. They must restrict their present consumption expenditures and invest those savings into capital, which will make the production of cars easier, allowing them to produce more cars with the same amount of time and energy, or to produce the same amount of cars with less time and energy.

However, once the capital structure is lengthened, all is not said and done. As capital is used, it wears down. It must be maintained, and eventually replaced. This too, requires a constant flow of savings. When government encourages spending and discourages saving, they are really encouraging present consumption at the expense of future consumption. Government spending stimuli ensure that there will not be enough resources saved up to maintain the current capital structure. This means that capital is being used up without being repaired or replaced.

We are actually eating into our capital, and as we do so, production will become more difficult and the economy less efficient. As savings disappear, so too does the pool of funds with which firms can hire workers. As production atrophies, our range of production possibilities becomes more and more limited, and society shrinks further back toward the conditions of mere subsistence.

At a certain point, of course, too much saving can be just as detrimental: there is no use in restricting our present consumption so severely that we starve ourselves out of existence. But, above that level of consumption necessary for survival, all savings lead to an increase in material wealth and prosperity. It is only through saving and lengthening of the capital structure that living standards may be raised and that our ability to spend and consume in the future may be increased. Understanding this fact gives the lie to the notion that the government’s “stimulus” bills (excuse me, “jobs” bills) do anything but eat away the economic foundation from right under our feet.

Josiah Schmidt is a Liberty Features Syndicate contributor.
 
© 2008 GETLIBERTY.ORG, AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT