Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Governing and Elections

What Job Are They Are Applying For?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:09:00 EDT

It's easy to get caught up in the presidential horserace and forget how absurd the whole system has become. It isn't just the ridiculousness of modern campaigns that have would-be presidents running around from venue to venue making unkeepable promises to countless constituencies. The Presidency itself today has taken on a role in American life that is completely beyond what the Founders intended.

This is the case that Gene Healy makes in his new book, The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Presidential Power, and in a piece today in Reason Magazine:

This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as national guardian and spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous it goes virtually unnoticed. Americans, left, right, and other, think of the "commander in chief" as a superhero, responsible for swooping to the rescue when danger strikes. And with great responsibility comes great power.

It's difficult for 21st-century Americans to imagine things any other way. The United States appears stuck with an imperial presidency, an office that concentrates enormous power in the hands of whichever professional politician manages to claw his way to the top. Americans appear deeply ambivalent about the results, alternately cursing the king and pining for Camelot. But executive power will continue to grow, and threats to civil liberties increase, until citizens reconsider the incentives we have given to a post that started out so humble.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. The modern vision of the presidency couldn't be further from the Framers' view of the chief executive's role. In an age long before distrust of power was condemned as cynicism, the Founding Fathers designed a presidency of modest authority and limited responsibilities. The Constitution's architects never conceived of the president as the man in charge of national destiny. They worked amid the living memory of monarchy, and for them the very notion of "national leadership" raised the possibility of authoritarian rule by a demagogue ready to create an atmosphere of crisis in order to enhance his power.

I haven't had a chance to pick up the book yet, but knowing Gene's working, it will undoubtedly be eye opening and entertaining. In the meantime, read the whole article in Reason.

School Choice in NY

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:11:00 EDT

On many issues, Lt. Gov. David Paterson is expected to be even more liberal than Eliot Spitzer. But John Fund offers hope on one important issue, school choice, over at the Wall Street Journal:

But on at least one issue, Mr. Paterson breaks from liberal orthodoxy. He is passionately in favor of school choice and has even spoken at two conferences held by the Alliance for School Choice. At one, he pulled off the rare feat of quoting both Martin Luther King Jr. and individualistic philosopher Ayn Rand approvingly in the same speech.

Here's hoping Mr. Paterson puts education reform ahead of tax policy as he draws up his list of priorities.

Spitzer's Media Enablers

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:26:00 EDT

In today's Wall Street Journal Kim Strassel blasts the press for enabling Eliot Spitzer:

Journalism has many functions, but perhaps the most important is keeping tabs on public officials. That duty is even more vital concerning government positions that are subject to few other checks and balances. Chief among those is the prosecutor, who can use his awesome state power to punish, even destroy, private citizens.

Yet from the start, the press corps acted as an adjunct of Spitzer power, rather than a skeptic of it. Many journalists get into this business because they want to see wrongs righted. Mr. Spitzer portrayed himself as the moral avenger. He was the slayer of the big guy, the fat cat, the Wall Street titan -- all allegedly on behalf of the little guy. The press ate it up, and came back for more.

Time magazine bestowed upon Mr. Spitzer the title "Crusader of the Year," and likened him to Moses. Fortune dubbed him the "Enforcer." A fawning article in the Atlantic Monthly in 2004 explained he was "a rock star," and "the Democratic Party's future." In an uncritical 2006 biography, then Washington Post reporter Brooke Masters compared the attorney general to no less than Teddy Roosevelt.

...

What makes this more embarrassing for any self-respecting journalist is that Mr. Spitzer knew all this, and played the media like a Stradivarius. He knew what sort of storyline they'd be sympathetic to, and spun it. He knew, too, that as financial journalism has become more competitive, breaking news can make a career. He doled out scoops to favored reporters, who repaid him with allegiance. News organizations that dared to criticize him were cut off. After a time, few criticized anymore.

More here.

Right Heart

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) info@iwf.org (Brad Lips) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:52:00 EST

National Review

This primary season has encouraged some serious soul searching about what it means to be a conservative. The discussion is important, not just as the party selects a nominee, but as we at long last move beyond the Bush era of "compassionate conservatism."

An important part of this discussion began when then-candidate Fred Thompson was asked if, as a Christian and a conservative, he supported President Bush's global AIDS initiative. Thompson responded: "Christ didn't tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it." President Bush's former speechwriter, Michael Gerson, excoriated the candidate in a Washington Post oped, "Callous Conservatives." Gerson argued that Thompson's response revealed a "lack of moral seriousness" and failure to understand the strategic value of humanitarian efforts.

The particulars of the AIDS global initiative are less important than the broader principle at stake. It's true that targeted development and aid can be important foreign-policy tools. In certain circumstances, a federal investment can make sense. But Gerson wasn't simply criticizing an underestimation of such initiatives' foreign-policy benefits; he suggested that it's a moral failing to question if government's duties extend "to the treatment of sick people in extreme poverty."

Yet this is a very important question. Is it government's duty to care for all those in need? Most politicians accept Gerson's view of "moral seriousness" and use promises of government action to showcase their compassion. Is this really compassion and charity?

It takes no sacrifice on the part of a politician to use taxpayer money to alleviate some group's particular misery. In fact, these gestures tend to be the easiest politically, providing a visible photo-op and easy applause from the media.

Yet there was a time when both parties respected the limited role and responsibilities of government. Democrat Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill in 1887 that would have sent federal relief to drought-stricken farmers in Texas. He didn't want to encourage "the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government" and believed that individual Americans could best help Texan farmers through private acts of charity. (They did, sending several multiples of the aid proposed in Congress.)

Cleveland understood that government efforts - even, and perhaps especially, those motivated by compassion - tend to have unintended consequences that render them ineffective. Decades of foreign aid to African countries served to prop up failing governments and undermine private development, exasperating the misery it was supposed to relieve. The "compassionate" War on Poverty within the U.S. had a similar effect, devastating the very communities it was intended to uplift.

Advocates of limited government recognize that angels will never run Washington. Politicians will favor spending on a problem when it is advantageous to do so, and they will avoid accountability when the spending fails to solve the problem. Once it's established that the government will aid all who suffer, the definition of suffering invariably expands, from drought victims to ill-advised recipients of adjustable-rate mortgages. Finally, a "moral hazard" is created - citizens realize that, if the decisions they make turn out badly, preening, crisis-hungry politicians will rescue them.

If being a conservative means anything, it should be skepticism toward big-government solutions and faith in the decency and competence of ordinary Americans. Gerson shows as little of the latter as he does of the former.

He jibes at Thompson's assertion that private charity can address major problems, "One wonders . . . if responding to the 2004 tsunami should also have been a private responsibility." Yet as National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out, private American donors gave twice as much as the U.S. government did to assist tsunami victims. And certainly the growing expectation that government will respond to crisis dampens private behavior. How many over-taxed Americans hesitate to support the local church's food bank, because they know they are already forced to contribute to a food-stamp program and a government-run homeless shelter down the street?

What's true at home is also true abroad. Doing what seems obvious often is not the route to doing good. You might assume that a major investment in public education in poor countries would be worthwhile. But the E. G. West Centre's research in India and Africa has shown how markets for private education serving the poor have emerged in response to terribly corrupt, incompetent government-run schools. It would be counter-productive to more heavily subsidize what already is not working.

Kenyan think-tank leader James Shikwati has urged Western leaders to stop sending aid to Africa. He explained, "Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. . . . development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems."

This kind of realistic talk often falls on deaf ears among so-called compassionate conservatives and other advocates of big government. In reality, it isn't callous to question the value of government programs. It is the attempt to stifle debate and demonize skeptical views that truly shows a lack of moral seriousness.

Brad Lips is the executive vice president at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum.

Bloggingheads

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:58:00 EST

Be sure to catch Inkwell's own Charlotte Hays on a new episode at Bloggingheads.tv. Charlotte debates L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks on subjects ranging from the surge to President Bush's maturity level.

View the surge segment here or watch the whole episode here.

Condi's Story

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:36:00 EST

In Sunday's New York Post, IWF President and CEO Michelle Bernard reviews Elizabeth Bumiller's new book, Condoleezza Rice: An American Life.

Read her review here.

A Sad Day in Utah

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:37:00 EST

The editors of National Review eloquently sum up yesterday's disappointing loss in the Utah school choice battle:

What was probably the most significant - and disappointing - outcome [of yesterday's elections] involved school choice in Utah, which more than 60 percent of voters rejected on Tuesday. School-choice ballot initiatives have a long record of poor performance - just like many public schools, it might be said. Reformers had hoped that conservative Utah would prove different. Voters were asked to endorse a plan that their state legislature had narrowly adopted earlier this year, giving financial support to families that choose private schools for their children. The teacher unions poured money into the state - by one estimate, the National Education Association spent $1 for every teacher in the United States to defeat school choice in Utah. This effort crushed a local movement. The ultimate victims are kids who remain trapped in government-run schools, not just in Utah but in other states that might have found inspiration in Utah's example, had it actually set one.

Today's Election

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:20:00 EST

Charlotte already mentioned the important school choice vote out in Utah today. If you want details on the other hot votes to follow today, Dave Freddoso has a good election guide over at National Review Online.

Michael Mukasey: The American Salman Rushdie

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:31:00 EDT

Okay, with a pitch like that, you're going to want to read John Podhoretz's column on the new AG nominee. Mukasey presided over the trial of blind sheik Abdul Rahman. Podhoretz notes:

For his labors, which were extraordinarily complex, Mukasey was considered a possible target for violent reprisal by Rahman's followers.
He was, in effect, an American Salman Rushdie.
Unlike Rushdie, Mukasey couldn't go into hiding: He was a sitting federal judge. But he and his wife basically lived for years inside a security cocoon.

Podhoretz adds:

This is, of course, not a qualification to serve as attorney general. But it represents a profound cost he incurred for a career as a public servant - a cost that should give the Ready-to-Fire Brigade that greets all presidential nominations a moment's pause when they start thinking about ginning up a campaign of character assassination.
That doesn't just mean the Angry Left. It means the Right as well. Conservative bloggers over the weekend expressed their concern about Mukasey's nomination, in part because Mukasey was chosen on grounds of 'confirmability.'

FOX's Your World with Neil Cavuto: Low approval ratings for Congress

info@iwf.org (Leslie Sanchez) — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:29:00 EDT

...

Politicians Set Their Prices

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 17 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT

National Review

Apparently some lessons we must relearn. One might assume our disastrous economic flirtation with socialism in the 1970s - never mind the sorry record of command-and-control economics in the former Soviet bloc - would have buried the concept of government wage- and price-controls for at least a generation. Yet this Congress appears intent on resurrecting the worst policies of the past.

Price controls have superficial appeal. The average gas-price rose more than 10 percent last month, allowing pandering politicians to promise relief. They don't say that consumers will suffer worse consequences if the government begins dictating how much oil companies and refiners can charge. And they ignore that government regulations and taxes already are largely responsible for high fuel prices. Instead they offer fantasy.

Take Rep. Bart Stupak's (D., Mich.) "Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act." This legislation would empower the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on anyone in the energy supply and distribution chain who "artificially inflates the price of energy." Those found guilty would be subject to multi-million dollar fines and possible jail time. Overlooking the distasteful Stalinist flavor of this bill - locking up people for trying to sell at the best possible prices - this is economic ignorance on steroids.

Harsh penalties might discourage companies from raising prices, but also would convince many not to do business at all, particularly in times of crisis. In dire circumstances it costs more to deliver products, and companies have to charge more. Business owners who fear that raising prices will expose them to criminal penalties may simply close up shop.

This would have been a disaster, for example, during Hurricane Katrina. Suppliers would have been reluctant to ship fuel into devastated areas, and fuel would become even scarcer there. According to a study by the American Council for Capital Formation, if this legislation had been in effect during that tragic 2005 hurricane season, it would have imposed $1.9 billion in economic costs.

Thoughtful consumers understand the role prices play in the marketplace. We've all faced the dilemma of either paying more at the conveniently located gas station or going out of the way to someplace cheaper. Forcing both establishments to charge the same means the better-located store would have trouble keeping up with demand, perhaps running out of gas, while the less convenient store would fold.

Prices play an equally important role on the national level. If they rise significantly, individuals change their behavior. We can't eliminate all driving, but we may rethink a long, summer road-trip or explore the possibility of carpooling. Some may forego a gas-guzzling SUV for smaller, more efficient vehicles or hybrids. And if a business "artificially" inflates prices, people turn to other sellers. Competition, not Congress, is the only effective way to keep prices down.

Prices also signal to the rest of the world that the United States needs fuel and is willing to pay for it. If prices aren't allowed to rise, exporters will take their supplies elsewhere.

While price controls in the energy sector would create big problems, they're nothing compared to the potential nightmare of the government meddling in setting wages. Yet that's the direction many Democrats are heading.

Senator Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) has revived the 1970s idea of "comparable worth" in his "Fair Pay Act," which he claims will "address the historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called ‘women's' jobs." Senator Harkin thinks he and likeminded politicos have a better understanding of the value created by a given job. For example, the male-dominated profession of probation officers and the female-dominated field of social workers are rough equivalent in terms of level of skill and responsibility, according to Harkin, and therefore deserve the same pay.

Such hubris is astounding, even by Washington standards. Individuals consider countless factors when evaluating jobs: co-workers, clients, level of danger, dress code, commute, hours, flexibility, and opportunities for advancement, to name but a few. Wages are one factor that allows employers to attract enough qualified employees. If they offer too little, they won't get sufficient help. They'll have to increase the salary or do something else to make the job more attractive.

Outlaw this flexibility and there will be over-supply of labor in some professions and shortages in others. Imagine the political maneuvering that would determine the respective value of each job. Who's more valuable: an elementary school teacher, nurse practitioner, sanitation worker, prison guard, public defender, or computer programmer? Who should we trust to make that determination: "experts" in Washington or the cumulative judgments of millions of free individuals?

The answer should be obvious. If it's not, then America faces grim days ahead.

- Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

This article was first published on National Review.

IWF Event: Is Speaker Pelosi Really Good for Women?

Sun, 13 May 2007 13:58:00 EDT

At a March 13, 2007 IWF event, National Review's Kathryn Lopez and IWF's Carrie Lukas talk about Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They ask the important question, "Is Speaker Pelosi really good for women?" The conversation is moderated by IWF senior editor Charlotte Hays.

Market Solutions for Paid Leave

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 09 May 2007 14:59:00 EDT

Over at Townhall.com today, IWF vice president Carrie Lukas talks about the Healthy Families Act (which would require businesses with 15 or more employees to provide seven days of paid sick leave per year). The consequences of such regulation aren't nearly as positive as you might think:

"Such government regulations infringe on an individual's right to freely contract for employment. These laws make it illegal to offer or accept a job that fails to provide this one specific form of compensation. That's a loss of liberty for individuals. It makes our workplaces a little less flexible, and is another step away from the concept of the free market economy and toward greater government control.
"The practical effect for employees is that there will be fewer jobs and lower pay. Mandates create new costs for employers, and that means less money for employees. Many workers will find that there is a direct trade-off between more benefits and more take-home pay. Benefits accounted for more than 30 percent of the average worker�s total compensation in 2006. A new mandate like paid leave means that this portion will grow, leaving less money in the average worker's pocket to spend or save as he sees fit.
"The increased cost of hiring a worker also gives employers another reason to cut down on staff and look for opportunities to outsource jobs, so they don't have to pay to administer and implement these costly benefits."

So, if government intervention isn't the answer, what is? Read the rest of Carrie's piece for some potential market solutions to deal with paid leave.

Is George Bush more literate than the editor of the New York Review of Books?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 07 May 2007 08:14:00 EDT

An interview with Tom Wolfe from the Financial Times quotes the author giving President Bush higher marks from literacy than the editor of the super-chic New York Review of Books:

"Bush is portrayed as a moron. I've only conversed with him a couple of times - not for very long- but I found he was more literate on literature than the editor of the New York Review of Books, Bob Silvers. I've talked to both of them, and he makes Bob Silvers look like a slug." He laughs, possibly at the idea of New York's literary-set frothing into their cappuccinos over the latest blow in a long but low-intensity conflict. (In the 1960s Wolfe mocked the Review as the "chief theoretical organ of Radical Chic", after it published a cover picture showing how to make a Molotov cocktail. Three decades later Silvers published Norman Mailer's review of A Man in Full, in which the veteran pugilist remarked that reading Wolfe's 742-page novel of power and racial politics in Atlanta was like "making love to a 300lb woman. Once she gets on top, it's over. Fall in love or be asphyxiated.") "Unfortunately," continues Wolfe, possibly sensing that making someone look like a slug is neither very presidential nor very promising, "We don't win wars with literature."

Even David Broder Isn't Wild about Harry

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:57:00 EDT

Sorry to be putting this up late, but it's today's must-read: Joe Lieberman on why we can't just come home from Iraq:

"When politicians here declare that Iraq is �lost� in reaction to al-Qaeda�s terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent."

As for the politician who declared that the war is "lost," the usually mild-mannered David Broder, a reliable liberal, aka dean of the press corps, has a choice description: "continuing embarrassment."

Reid's remarks may have a profound impact. And disastrously so, writes Amir Tahari:

"WITHOUT meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction.
"Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated.
"The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, America and its Iraqi allies remain the only objective victors in this war...
"Convinced that the Americans will run away, mostly thanks to political maneuvers by Reid and his friends, Ahmadinejad has gone on the offensive in Iraq and throughout the region. By heightening his profile, he wants to make sure that Iran reaps the fruits of what Reid is sowing in Washington.
"But even then, it's unlikely that most Iraqis would acknowledge Ahmadinejad as winner and bow to his diktat. The Islamic Republic cannot act as victor solely because Reid says so.
"It's possible that Reid imagined that his analytical problems are over simply because he has identified the war's loser. The truth is that his troubles are only beginning. He must tell Americans to whom they wish their army to surrender in Iraq.
"That Reid is desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory isn't surprising. His party requires an American defeat in Iraq in order to win the congressional and presidential elections next year."

Why is history such a mess?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:57:00 EDT

"It would appear that the great divide in both public opinion and between politicians is not Republican-Democrat, liberal-conservative, pro or anti-Bush, or even pro or anti-war (or, in Europe: pro-or anti-American),' writes Tony Blankley. 'Rather, the great divide is between those, such as me, who believe that the rise of radical Islam poses an existential threat to Western Civilization; and those who believe it is a nuisance, if, episodically, a very dangerous nuisance."

Belonging to the side that sees radical Islam as an existential threat to our civilization, I share Blankley's 'sense of futility' about the current debate. What will it take for the West to grasp the nature of its perio"

"Neither side," writes Blankley, "seems remotely capable of persuading the other of the accuracy of our respective foresights. Two years ago, I wrote a book on the subject. I have talked to thousands and thousands in speeches and millions on radio and TV (as have so many authors these last five years). But the net effect seems to be to re-enforce the opinions of those who already share my view, rather than persuade others to change their mind.

"Thus, while others and I will continue to make our case in public, it seems probably inevitable that the correctness or incorrectness of our views will only become persuasive to the multitude when history teaches its cruel, unavoidable lessons. It was ever thus, which is why history is strewed with broken nations and civilizations that couldn't read the writing on the wall. Of course, it is also strewed with sad hulks of false predictors of doom."

Should D.C. get a vote in Congress?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:47:00 EDT

National Review Online's editorial on the D.C. voting rights debate is a must read:

"The Washington Post described the bill's passage as D.C.'s 'biggest legislative victory in its quest for voting rights in nearly three decades.' Yet it is a hollow triumph, for it is so obviously unconstitutional. The Congressional Research Service said as much in a January report. The fig leaf of an argument made by supporters of the bill is that the Constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over D.C., and thus gives Congress the power to give it voting representation in Congress. This argument is a classic case of proving too much: May the Congress therefore create a monarchy for D.C.? Obviously not: The grant of exclusive jurisdiction does not permit Congress to do anything that the rest of the Constitution forbids -- and the rest of the Constitution clearly forbids it to treat D.C. as a state.

"When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they were concerned about the possibility of a single state's holding too much influence over the seat of national government. So they created a special federal district, outside the jurisdiction of the states and under the exclusive authority of Congress. Today, the balance of power between the states and the federal government has reversed, with the states more worried about federal encroachments than vice versa. But the words of the Founders remain, and they cannot be disregarded.

"The problems with the current legislation are manifold. If D.C. is not a state but is nevertheless entitled to a seat in the House of Representatives, then what about other federal commonwealths and territories? Are the good people of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands also worthy of full congressional representation? If a non-state such as D.C. deserves a seat in the House, then by what principle will it be denied a pair of senators, another privilege reserved by the Constitution for 'each state'? Moreover, congressional representation should be rooted in the text of the Constitution, not the whims of a majority. What Congress may give, Congress also may take away: If D.C. truly deserves voting rights, then these rights should be placed beyond the ordinary reach of the party in power."

Read the whole article here.

How is our tax system like a Galapagos finch?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:09:00 EDT

"No Taxation without Representation" is the rallying cry for those who want DC statehood. I shudder. My guess is that the fools probably want to pay MORE taxes.

Kevin Hassett had a fine piece yesterday comparing the original no-taxation without representation crowd to today's happily overtaxed citoyen:

"Early American history was a conservative's nirvana: It was one long tax revolt.
"The British imposed taxes on everything from molasses to tea, and Americans smuggled the molasses, tossed the tea into a harbor and reached for their muskets. Thomas Jefferson's incendiary Declaration of Independence listed King George III's basest transgressions; prominent among them was that he had "sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." The descendants of those royal minions are now, of course, nestled in thousands of cubicles in Internal Revenue Service offices across the country.
"Looking at that history, it's astonishing how low the taxes were. Talk about men being men. One historian estimated the combined burden of the infamous "Navigation Acts," for example, to be 1 percent of income. The other assorted taxes added up to about the same, making the total bite a measly 2 percent.
"And that set off a war.
"Today taxes eat up about 30 percent of income, a much heavier burden. And like our ancestors, we don't believe that our money is particularly well spent. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last April found that Americans believe that 51 cents of every tax dollar is wasted. But where's the outrage? Most of us don't even own muskets, and the few of us who have revolted against the IRS are settled safely behind bars, to popular acclaim....
"Like a finch in the Galapagos Islands, the tax code has gradually evolved in a manner that maximizes its chances for survival. So a natural history of our tax system provides an interesting mirror on ourselves and reveals some surprising facts."

Read the column. And weep.

iPods for Everyone!

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:15:00 EDT

This Detroit News editorial is stunningly frank in its assessment of their state’s Democratic leaership. The piece, entitled, "An iPod for every kid? Are they !#$!ing idiots?" lambasts the state’s leaders for embracing such ludicrious spending initiaitives when it faces a substantial deficit:

We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.

No cost estimate was attached to their hare-brained idea to "invest" in education. Details, we are promised, will follow.

The Democrats, led by their increasingly erratic speaker Andy Dillon of Redford Township, also pledge $100 million to make better downtowns.

Their plan goes beyond cluelessness. Democrats are either entirely indifferent to the idea that extreme hard times demand extreme belt tightening, or they are bone stupid. We lean toward the latter.

We say that because the House plan also keeps alive, again without specifics, the promise of tax hikes.

The range of options, according to Rep. Steve Tobocman, D-Detroit, includes raising the income tax, levying a 6 percent tax on some services, and taxing junk food and soda.

We wonder how financially strained Michigan residents will feel about paying higher taxes to buy someone else’s kid an iPod.

That they would include such frivolity in a crisis budget plan indicates how tough it will be to bring real spending reform to Michigan.

The piece urges Republican leaders to listen to Michigan’s citizens (who overwhelmingly oppose tax hikes) and push for real spending reform. Let’s hope they listen.

Virginia Enacts Meaningful Eminent Domain Reform

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:40:00 EDT

From the Institute for Justice:

"Arlington, Va.-Yesterday, the Virginia General Assembly approved Gov. Tim Kaine's amendments to H.B. 2954, commonsense eminent domain reform that provides Virginians with much-needed protection from tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers. Virginia is now the 36th state to pass legislation aimed at protecting home and small business owners in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allows government to forcibly take property for private gain. It joins Wyoming in passing eminent domain reform this year.

"'This is a proud day for Virginians,' said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition, the Institute for Justice's grassroots eminent domain advocacy project. The Institute for Justice litigated the Kelo case. 'After failing to pass reform last session, the General Assembly responded to the popular outcry against eminent domain abuse and returned this year committed to protecting the Commonwealth's home and small business owners.'

"H.B. 2954, sponsored by Delegate Rob Bell, requires that private property be seized for only traditional 'public uses,' like roads, schools and post offices. It also tightens the Housing Authorities Law's definition of 'blight,' which was so broad that almost any property could be designated 'blighted.' Local governments can still acquire properties that pose a real threat to public health or safety, but perfectly fine homes and businesses can no longer be seized using vague and subjective criteria like 'deteriorated' and 'dilapidated,' nor can they be seized because they happen to sit within 'blighted' areas.

"H.B. 2954 received overwhelming support in both chambers and Gov. Kaine offered mostly nominal amendments to the legislation, leaving intact the bill's strong protections, though one amendment does exempt the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority from the provisions of the bill until July 1, 2010, as the city builds a new public recreational facility.

"'Many people worked on this bill-from activists to legislators-and they all should be applauded for finally getting protection for Virginians,’ said Anderson. 'Nationwide, homes and small businesses are seized for big-box stores and luxury condominiums. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would surely be proud that this is no longer the case in their home state.'"

ACU Ratings

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:18:00 EDT

The annual ACU ratings of members of Congress are out.

See how your favorite politicians stacked up here.

Tax and Spend Democrats Return

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:58:00 EDT

With all media attention focused on the battle over the Iraq War supplemental appropriations bill, few are paying attention to the Democrats budget proposal. It should surprise no one that the Democrats are proposing rolling back the recent tax cuts which will amount to the largest tax increases in American history. Robert Novack writes about it in today’s Washington Post:

The bill set to reach the House floor today (resembling the Senate version) would raise taxes an average of $1,795 on 115 million taxpayers in 2011. Some 26 million small-business owners would pay an average of $3,960 more. The decreased number of Americans subject to income taxes would all pay higher taxes, and 5 million low-income Americans would be returned to the rolls.

Republicans are offering an alternative that should remind the public about the differences between the parties:

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the fifth-termer who is the House Budget Committee’s new ranking Republican, has proposed an alternative resolution. It not only retains Bush tax cuts but also proposes deep reductions in spending, protects Social Security payments and runs down the national debt.

As Novak highlights, its a shame that Republican leaders never got behind such a bold vision when they were in charge. Better late than never I suppose and at least this gives Republicans an opportunity to remember what they are supposed to support (and oppose).

Gun-lover Without Honor

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:42:00 EDT

Mostly the discussion about the scandal surrounding Senator Webb's aid's arrest for trying to bring his gun into the Capitol has been about whether it is strange that Senator Webb feels it's necessary to carry a gun around to defend himself. Senator Webb has seized on the opportunity to prove himself a true Red Stater and highlight his love of guns and that he is a skilled marksman.

Fair enough. But the real scandal in my mind is his complete failure to defend his aid who seemingly was just doing his bidding when he was shlepping around the Senator's gun. This aid spent the night in a DC jail. Dana Milbank discusses this angle in today's Washington Post:

The senator was less forthcoming in his defense of Thompson. "He is going to be arraigned today," Webb said. "I do not in any way want to prejudice his case and the situation that he's involved in."

Prejudice the case? But wasn't it Webb's gun that his aide was carrying for him?

Webb wouldn't even acknowledge it was his gun. "I have never carried a gun in the Capitol complex, and I did not give the weapon to Phillip Thompson," he stipulated.

Webb had kind words for his aide -- "a longtime friend" and "a fine individual" -- but he seemed to be trying to cut Thompson loose as he spoke of the incident. "I find that what has happened with Phillip Thompson is enormously unfortunate," Webb reported. "I was in New Orleans from last Friday until yesterday evening. I was not in town. I learned about this when I was in New Orleans."

Upon reflection, Webb must have decided that he had been stinting in his defense of Thompson. An hour later, his office sent out an amended statement. "I can say with great confidence that this was an inadvertent mistake on his part," the statement said. It was a little late for Lockup No. 1.

It seems that the Senator should be taking more responsibility for his part in this and doing more to defend his staffer, instead of trying to use the situation to score political points.

Democrats stay the course despite evidence

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Townhall

During the last election, Democrats lampooned the "stay the course" philosophy. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democrat House campaign, consistently contrasted Republican "stay the course" with the Democrat "new direction." The criticism arguably stuck. With daily stories of American casualties and sectarian violence in Iraq, most Americans agreed that whatever the current war strategy, it wasn't working. Democrats didn't articulate what they would do differently, and they didn't have to. Vague promises of change were sufficient for voters who knew almost nothing of the war's details.

The election should educate Republicans to the reality that no policy can be justified merely by precedent; if voters believe-rightly or wrongly-that something is broken, they want it fixed. Unfortunately, on many of the major domestic policy challenges facing America, the Democrat party is slavishly "stay the course" even in the face of irrefutable evidence of past failures.

During the 1990s, Democrats staunchly defended the federal welfare system. Americans knew better. They understood that the existing system wasn't working, and was contributing to the problem of poverty by fostering dependency. The Republican Congress doggedly passed reform bill after reform bill until President Clinton finally relented. Welfare case loads fell by nearly 60 percent in the first five years after the program's implementation. Now the reform almost universally is acknowledged as a success.

Today, the Democrat party is again allowing ideology and special interest pressure to overwhelm common sense in its approach to K-12 education. For decades, Democrats have insisted more money will improve America's public schools. And government has heeded this call. Since 1980, per-pupil spending on K-12 students has increased by 70 percent after adjusting for inflation. Senator Kennedy and Rep. George Miller continue to call for billions more in new funding for No Child Left Behind. Yet there has been little to show for this investment; indeed, by many measures, things have gotten worse. The recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, found reading scores for 12th graders declined between 1992 and 2005.

Americans increasingly recognize that throwing money at the problem doesn't work. Conservatives across the country have developed and pressed a new approach: injecting competition into education by giving parents power to select their children's schools. And school choice programs have shown results. Research has consistently shown that kids who use vouchers to go to private school outperform their peers.

Instead of defending the status quo, Democrats ought to take a step back and consider they would do if designing an education from scratch. Would they really force all 50 million five through seventeen-year-olds into government-run schools assigned by zip-code? Probably not, since most would consider this unfair to low-income families that can't afford to opt out of the public system or move to better neighborhoods. With a little perspective, it's clear that the status quo isn't serving our students well.

Social Security is another example of the Democrats' stubborn determination to "stay the course" regardless of where that course leads. For years, actuaries-Social Security's equivalent of generals on the ground-have warned of a coming financial crisis. People are living longer, the baby boomers are about to retire, and soon there will be too few workers to support Social Security crippling tax hikes.

How have Democrats responded? They've consciously avoided offering any proposal to address Social Security's financial shortfall and instead criticized anyone who dares admit Social Security's dire problems. Not just Republicans have been subject to the attacks, but also the few brave Democrats willing to engage in a frank discussion of Social Security's future.

Many Republicans-President Bush in particular-have attempted to talk honestly about the problems inherent in Social Security's financing scheme, which relies on taxes collected today to immediately pay beneficiaries, while saving nothing for the future.

Again, policymakers must ask: If creating a public pension system today, would this kind of financing make sense? The answer clearly is "no." The manager of any private pension fund run this way would quickly be thrown in jail; all honest experts agree that the key to true financial stability is pre-funding future benefits through responsible savings and investment. Yet Democrats consider it heresy to question the status quo, facts be damned.

Public frustration over Social Security's raw deal and failing public schools may not yet equal its disillusionment with Iraq. But truth is, many Democrat-beloved big government programs aren't working and eventually voters will see it. Party leaders would be wise to apply their rhetoric about Iraq on the home front by embracing a change of course.

This article was first published on Townhall.com.

Noonan on Time's Weeping Reagan

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:04:00 EDT

"I will never forget the stunning Oct. 7, 1962, Time magazine cover that showed Franklin D. Roosevelt weeping, a shining tear snaking its way down his pale and sunken cheek as he surveyed the destruction wrought by the New Frontier--tax cuts, a Republican running Treasury. What an indictment of the Democratic Party; what a dirge for the New Deal.

"Oh wait, that didn't happen.

"Well, I do remember the great Time cover of JFK sobbing as he looked down on a cartoon of dope-smoking hippies holding a banner that said "McGovern." It was the summer of '72, and the little bubble over JFK's head said "Amnesty, Acid, Abortion . . . that's not A-OK!"

"Oh wait, that didn't happen either.

"Could I be correct that they only front-page weeping Republicans, and only laud conservatives when they're dead?"

This is Peggy Noonan on Time magazine's disingenuous weeping Reagan cover. The article, writes Peggy, actually made some good points. A veteran of the revolution, she adds:

"For Republicans especially he should be a reorienting memory. He was modern conservatism. If they are for more government, more spending, a more imposing state, what are they?

"For Democrats he should function as a reminder that ideas and philosophy count, that they give politics meaning.

"Republicans should take heart from his memory but not be sunk in him or spooked by him. Life moves. Reagan's meaning cannot be forgotten. But where does it get you if it's 1885, and Republicans are pulling their hair out saying, "Oh no, we're not doing well. We could win if only we had a Lincoln, but they shot him 20 years ago!" That's not how serious people talk, and it's not how serious people think. You face the challenges of your time with the brains and guts you have. You can't sit around and say, 'Oh what would Lincoln do?' For one thing it is an impractical attitude. Lincolns don't come along every day. What you want to do with the memory of a great man is recognize his greatness, laud it, take succor from it, and keep moving. You can't be transfixed by a memory. Hold it close and take it into the future with you."