Saturday, June 22, 2002
NO BLOGS UNTIL LATE TODAY
I’m off to the State GOP convention today. I’ll have some thoughts later this evening.
Some of you might have noticed these two opinion pieces, this one in the Ames Tribune and this one in the Iowa State Daily. Don’t worry—I’m getting to them.
Have a good Saturday.
. . .
Friday, June 21, 2002
SOCIAL SECURITY SCARE TACTICS
Thanks to Croooow Blog for pointing out some good editorials on the demagoguery of privatization opponents. To read, just follow the links.
. . .
A GOOD PIECE ON THE DEATH PENALTY
Okay, okay. This is the last bit on capital punishment for today, I promise. Richard Garnett has this excellent piece in the National Review Online. Thanks to reader John Ferguson for pointing it out.
. . .
ANTHRAX CONSPIRACY THEORY
Nicholas Stix has more on the nutty professor running around saying that the anthrax letters were sent by an American.
. . .
THE RETARDED DEFENSE
Here’s some more on the recent death penalty case. (Boy, obsessive-compulsive disorder is terrible, isn’t it? Where are my pills?)
Consider the following two quotes. The first is from the New York Times editorial today:
In the 20 states that still have laws on the books permitting the execution of retarded people convicted of capital offenses, it is estimated that there are scores, perhaps even hundreds, of inmates whose low I.Q.'s will now qualify them for a sentence reduction to life in prison.
The second is from the New York Times article from yesterday:
The ruling could also affect cases for years to come, as murder suspects of borderline intelligence argue through their lawyers that they should be classified as retarded and therefore ought not to face the death penalty.
It seems that the underlying assumption here is that the new Supreme Court ruling will be used to help mentally-retarded murderers avoid only the death penalty. The Supreme Court ruling yesterday has solidified what I refer to as the Retarded Defense: Most defense attorneys will now argue that their murder clients are of far too low intelligence to understand the graveness of their actions; therefore, they should be spared such a grave punishment as the death penalty. But it is not at all clear why this defense will apply only to capital punishment. After all, life imprisonment is still pretty grave punishment. What will prevent defense attorney from arguing that their clients are of too low intelligence to face a lifetime behind bars? In fact, yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling has probably opened the flood gates for what is likely the next stage in the Retarded Defense.
(Note: The above thoughts do not seem that original to me. I swear I’ve seen something like them before. But a quick google search failed to turn up anything. Neither could I find anything over at the usual suspects—Sullivan, Reynolds, Volokh, Quick, or Croooow. If anyone out there has seen this before and can point me to it, please let me know, so I can give proper credit for these ideas.)
. . .
ANTI-DEATH PENALTY TIDAL WAVE?
In the mandatory editorial celebrating yesterday’s Supreme Court death penalty decision, the New York Times engages in some slippery rhetoric:
Most states now either prohibit capital punishment altogether or ban its use against the mentally retarded.
A less careful reader might think that most states actually ban capital punishment, although only 12 out 50 do so. Even a more careful reader might infer that the tide is turning against the death penalty in the U.S. While some states like Illinois have put a moratorium on the death penalty pending a DNA review, the last decade New York reinstituted capital punishment, while Iowa made a serious, but unsuccessful attempt to do so. Hardly a turning tide.
The Times also suggests that public opinion is part of the turning tide:
In an era in which DNA evidence has shown one death row inmate after another to be innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted, the polls demonstrate steadily dwindling public enthusiasm for capital punishment in general and a widespread revulsion against the idea of executing mentally retarded people in particular.
Actually, the polls still show support for capital punishment in the high 60s to low 70s. First, public support for the death penalty has an awful long way to dwindle before it is solidly in the opposed column. Second, it is questionable whether the recent drop in support is a “steady dwindle” or a “temporary reaction.” Once DNA testing has weeded out the wrongfully convicted, what will remain are those murderers that DNA testing shows were justly convicted. What will happen to public opinion then? Not surprisingly, the Times editorial didn’t bother exploring that question.
. . .
AND THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING
If you need anymore evidence the Illinois Governor George Ryan is a fool, read this article.
. . .
AND THE CELEBRATION CONTINUES
Imagine my complete lack of surprise and amazement this morning when I discovered that, like the New York Times, the Des Moines Register is ecstatic about yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty.
Of course, the Register editorial does not see this as merely a ruling that applies to the mentally retarded. Oh, no:
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday suggests a possible sea change in the justices’ thinking on capital punishment. The days when a majority on the court could find little fault with capital cases may be over.
Can’t you just hear the hope booming from that paragraph? The love-fest continues:
Perhaps there is a change of thinking among members of the court. In a widely reported speech last year, O"Connor said that the judicial system "may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed." Others on the court cannot have missed the widespread coverage of a number of men released from death row based on new DNA evidence.
Oh yes! The Supreme Court may be on its way to ignoring public opinion and throwing out the death penalty. The nine wise men and women showing the rest of us the error of our ways. A liberal dream!
The celebration reaches a fever pitch at the end of the editorial:
The court may still be considerably short of having the votes to declare the very act of capital punishment a violation of the Eighth Amendment, but Thursday's ruling suggests a majority of the court may have a new skepticism for how the punishment is carried out.
Most important, the court obviously is sensitive to public opinion on the subject. Since at least 1958, the Supreme Court has defined the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment using "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
Perhaps under that standard, capital punishment will one day be banished for the barbaric act that it is.
Not just a liberal dream. A liberal wet dream!
Unfortunately for the Register there are two little problems. First, a majority of the American public still supports the death penalty. If the Supreme Court is "sensitive to public opinion"—a dubious assertion at best—then it won’t be declaring capital punishment unconstitutional anytime soon.
The other problem is that capital punishment is constitutional. The Register uses the 8th Amendment’s "cruel and unusual" provision to suggest that capital punishment is unconstitutional. Like most liberals, though, they make selective use of the constitution. They should try looking at 5th and 14th Amendments, both which state that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The implication of those Amendments is pretty clear. That’s probably why the Register and other death penalty opponents choose to ignore them.
. . .
Thursday, June 20, 2002
SELL ALASKA
Writer Christopher Feldman contemplates running for president. His platform consists of selling Alaska to another country. Go read this very funny column in the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald.
. . .
DC FOLK DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT FLYOVER COUNTRY, EVEN DC REPUBLICANS
Josh Marshall has an interesting piece on the South Dakota Senate race between incumbent Senator Tim Johnson and Representative John Thune. He suggests Thune might be abandoned by Republicans in the nation’s capital:
DC Republicans—particularly the folks at the RNC and the NRSC—aren't that happy about the race Thune is running. His staff looks weak; they're easily provoked by their opposites on Johnson's campaign; they've just gotten goaded into a flurry of negative ads against Johnson; and they're apparently not that cooperative with the master-strategists in DC.
It's not that Thune's out of the race. Far from it. The polls have been neck and neck for some time. And Thune's got tons of advantages. It's a strongly Republican state where Bush won by like a million points in 2000.
But the campaign Thune's team has put together is getting decidedly lukewarm reviews. If that doesn't change, might Republicans shift some resources to other races?
Even if this is true, it does not spell trouble for Thune. First, the people at the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senate Committee have a history of misjudging races. For example, in the 1990 New Jersey Senate race, the NRSC spent little money on Christine Todd Whitman, only to see her lose to Bill Bradley by only 50,000 votes.
I’ve also seen this first-hand (well, second-hand, but a very close second-hand.) In Missouri’s 9th Congressional District, the RNC botched it not once, but twice, in 1992 and 1994. In 1992, the Republican in the race was Rick Hardy, a political science professor for whom I later served as a teaching assistant. A friend of mine who worked on Hardy’s campaign told me that Hardy had to beg the RNC to spend money on his campaign. The RNC finally came through with some money—not a lot—in the last few weeks. Despite being outspent nearly 4 to 1, Hardy lost to the Democrat incumbent, Harold Volkmer, by less than 6,000 votes.
In 1994 Hardy was poised to make another run at Volkmer, but had to drop out of the campaign due to depression and exhaustion. In August of that year, Kenny Hulshof jumped into the campaign as the Republican nominee. Despite his late start and being outspent by more than 2 to 1, he lost to Volkmer by just over 9,000 votes. Where was the RNC? According to my friend, who also worked in the Hulshof campaign, it was pretty much missing in action. The RNC finally got its act together in 1996 and helped Hulshof unseat Volkmer.
Thus, if the DC GOP has problems with the Thune campaign, it will be largely irrelevant to how effective Thune will be against Johnson. Thune will raise enough money mount a strong campaign. Further, Thune already has statewide name recognition (South Dakota has only one House seat.)
Finally, the latest poll I can find has Thune leading Johnson 46%-42%. That is huge, huge trouble for an incumbent like Johnson. It is always dangerous for an incumbent to poll below 50%. When an incumbent polls in the low 40s, it is a near certain death knell. The reason is that the undecided voters break, on average, 2 to 1 in favor of the challenger. Assuming that this poll means 12% of South Dakotan voters are undecided, Thune should garner about 54% of the vote in November.
Ultimately, the RNC and NRSC can sit around with their collective thumb up their collective butt with regard to the South Dakota Senate race. It won’t matter. John Thune will be in the Senate come 2003.
. . .
GUNNING DOWN BOGUS STATISTICS
Cut on the Bias has an excellent analysis of a report by the Violence Policy Center that supposedly shows that the Texas concealed carry law has resulted in increased violent crime. It does a very good job of debunking the statistics in the report in terms that the average Joe can understand. (Thanks to Craig Schamp for the link.)
. . .
CAN YOU HEAR THE CELEBRATION?
The New York Times was very excited to write this story:
SUPREME COURT BARS EXECUTING THE MENTALLY RETARDED
The article begins:
In one of the most important capital punishment cases in years, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that executing killers who are mentally retarded is unconstitutional.
The Times can scarcely contain its glee:
The 6-to-3 ruling not only spared the life of Daryl R. Atkins, a Virginia inmate, at least for now, but could save scores of other death-row prisoners in the 20 states that still allow the execution of mentally retarded murderers. Thirty-eight states have capital punishment.
Nothing like a bunch of brutal thugs avoiding the chair to get the Times all hot and bothered. In the next paragraph the party really begins:
The ruling could also affect cases for years to come, as murder suspects of borderline intelligence argue through their lawyers that they should be classified as retarded and therefore ought not to face the death penalty.
In other words, since most murder suspects are dumber than a box of rocks, almost all death penalty cases will be tied up in the courts for years to come. Champagne suppliers must be doing a brisk business down at the Gray Lady today.
. . .
LAND FOR PEACE IS A JOKE
Charles Krauthammer absolutely hits the nail on the head with this one.
. . .
OOPS
In the previous post, I provided a link that was supposed to go to an article in the Quad City Times. Unfortunately, I forgot to put the web address of the article in the blogger code, so the link went nowhere. That has now been fixed.
. . .
HERE WE GO
This article in the Quad City Times explores the ad that Governor Vilsack is running against Doug Gross just four days prior to the state Republican convention:
The TV spot quotes Gross’ former Republican opponents, who attacked him during the primary campaign.
"Steve Sukup says Gross has shown a ‘consistent pattern of blurring the truth,’ " the ad states.
"And Bob Vander Plaats says Gross could be labeled ‘the poster child of special-interest lobbyists who don’t care about other people,’" the ad states.
In an earlier post I recommended that Gross sit down with a reporter from the Cedar Rapids Gazette or the Des Moines Register and air any other dirty laundry now, while the campaign is still young. Otherwise, the dirt that the Vilsack campaign is digging up on Gross—and you can take it to the bank that they are—will be sprung on Gross sometime in October, when the bulk of voters are paying full attention. Do it now Mr. Gross. Time is running short.
The article also notes that the Vilsack ad is designed to create disunity among the Iowa GOP. It appears, though, that Vilsack has plenty of help on that score, if this quote form GOP primary candidate Steve Sukup is any indication:
Sukup said the ad "probably doesn’t help the unifying efforts for the Republicans," but noted that Gross hasn’t made any overtures to enlist his help. "As far as I know, Bob Vander Plaats and myself won’t be at the convention," he said.
Why is it that whenever I think about the Iowa GOP’s chances of retaking the Governor’s mansion, I hear a flushing sound?
. . .
SHOULD GAMBLING SUFFER FOR STATE GOVERNMENT SCREW-UP?
A recent decision by the Iowa Supreme Court declared that the state could not tax racetrack casinos and riverboat casinos in Iowa at different rates. Since the state had been taxing racetracks at a higher rate, the state now owes racetracks about $100 million in tax refunds. It also raises the tricky question of how to equalize the tax rates. If government lowers the rate on racetracks, that means less revenue coming into the state coffers.
This editorial in the Quad City Times more or less favors upping the taxes on riverboats:
On the flip side, gambling opponents will lobby for reduction of gambling but don’t expect legislators to indulge them. This state has become dependent on gaming tax revenue.
Instead, Iowa legislators’ primary task is to ensure that whatever changes they make do not reduce overall revenue from gambling taxes. The state budget already has been slashed because of major shortfalls in other tax receipts, and more cuts will hurt vital services.
Legislators also should keep in mind that the primary reason to legalize gambling in the first place was to generate revenue for specific government projects, such as school infrastructure.
Thus, anything they do to enhance the gaming industry’s profits should be accompanied by a tax rate to match. Just keep it simple and equitable for all the players involved.
Wait a minute. ‘"This state has become dependent on gaming tax revenue. " And whose fault is that? State Government.
And whose fault is it that that racetracks and riverboats have unequal tax schemes? State Government.
So why should riverboats be punished for the sins of State Government? Oh wait, we’re talking about State Government.
. . .
REOCCUPY THE TERRITORIES
And just after I get finished with my usual Des Moines Register bashing a few posts ago, I read this good editorial. It appears that the last two murderous-ba***rd-suicide bombers were just too much for a lot of people.
. . .
BIDDING ON OTHER PEOPLE’S LATE TAXES
Marc Hansen has this interesting column in the Des Moines Register. It deals with the practice of people literally buying other people’s late property taxes. The buyer gets the interest that is attached to the late taxes. In some rare instances, if the delinquent taxpayer doesn’t pony up, the buyer gets the property.
I’m not really sure what to think about this. Any thoughts from all of you would be appreciated.
. . .
WHO SHOULD BE GROSS’ RUNNING MATE?
David Yepsen has a column in the Des Moines Register today speculating about the potential running mate for Doug Gross. Yepsen states "political reality dictates he have a woman on his ticket, preferably a rural one from eastern Iowa."
A woman from rural eastern Iowa. Hmm. Hey, I know! It should be her!
. . .
THE GAZETTE GETS IT RIGHT AGAIN!
I viewed the following headline of a Gazette editorial with trepidation.:
TIME TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FEDERAL DEFICIT AGAIN
For certain, I thought, the Gazette would use the rising federal budget deficit as an excuse to criticize tax cuts. What a nice surprise, then, to read this final paragraph:
Restrained spending must accompany tax-cutting—something to keep in mind during the finger-pointing in this fall's elections, both state and federal.
Whoever is in charge of the Gazette editorial page should also be in charge Des Moines Register’s.
. . .
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
WE’LL GIVE IT BACK….SOONER OR LATER
This article in the Quad City Times gives some glimpse into the priorities of government. These are the first two paragraphs:
The checks are not in the mail for thousands awaiting income tax refunds from the Illinois Department of Revenue.
Revenue department representative Mike Klemens said lagging income tax revenues are leaving the state short of cash to back up refund checks sent to Illinois taxpayers who paid too much.
I’ll bet the checks are in the mail to all of those folks who receive government handouts. Those checks can’t go out fast enough. But tax rebates? Oh well. Those can wait.
The article notes that the state government of Missouri is having a similar, er, problem. This leads me to create the very first Hogberg’s Law of Government: The speed at which politicians return tax money is inversely proportional to the speed at which they spend it.
. . .
WATCH WHAT YOU SAY
This is a good editorial in the Omaha World-Herald about the Reverend at the recent Southern Baptist Convention who made anti-Islamic remarks. This passage is of particular note:
The whole world is now scrutinizing events in this country to determine how Americans will answer an all-important question: In the face of a terrorist threat from radical adherents of a non-Christian faith, will America abandon its professed beliefs in religious pluralism? Vines' comments, picked up by newspapers and TV around the globe, suggest to the world that the answer is an unapologetic “yes.”
. . .
A HALF IS BETTER THAN NONE
In an otherwise interesting article about budget cuts in Fort Madison, Iowa, the Daily Democrat had this opening paragraph:
Three of the 6.5 city employees to be laid off July 1 in accordance with the city's 2002-03 budget have been spared from the chopping block, at least until the next fiscal year, as a result of a resolution approved 6-0 by the Fort Madison City Council at its regular meeting Tuesday night.
I didn’t know you could have 0.5 of a government employee. Who is it, I wonder? Dogcatcher? Police Chief? Mayor?
. . .
TED TURNER DUMB-A-THON
Eric Olsen has a good run down of those pundits taking shots—entirely justified shots, I should add—at Ted Turner’s mouth. In my opinion, the dumbest thing Ted Turner ever did involved not his mouth, but his wallet. Whatever shred of respect I had for him was completely obliterated when he donated one-billion bucks to the United Nations. You might as well flush a big wad of cash down the toilet.
. . .
ELECTION LAW APPLIES TO THEE, NOT TO ME
Ed Boyd has this interesting blog about the Arizona State Attorney General Janet Napolitano. Appears that she can’t follow the same Clean Elections law that she is supposed to enforce.
. . .
I’M PROUD OF HIM TOO
Thanks to Croooow Blog for posting this blog about Sean Hannity telling off a terrorism apologist. Read it. It will make your day.
. . .
BASTARDS!
Seven killed in Jerusalem terror attack
. . .
AIRPORT SECURITY ISN’T SO GOOD. WHO KNEW?
John Carslon in the Des Moines Register has this column about the experience a friend of his, whom he calls "Chuck," had with airport security. His friend managed to get through security at the Kansas City Airport with a little something that he shouldn’t have. In fact, Chuck was pulled out of line at the security checkpoint. Security found nothing, and Chuck boarded his flight for Baltimore.
A few days later, Chuck arrived at the Baltimore airport for the trip home. He went through his bag for a pair of sunglasses. It was then that he discovered the bag contained a bullet from his last hunting trip. When he had been pulled out of line for the security check in Kansas City, his bag had been X-rayed and hand searched!
It gets better.
He went through the normal security channels at Baltimore with no incident, and boarded his flight. Upon arriving home, he was cleaning out his bag and found two more bullets!
When I read this, I was initially a bit skeptical. This story seemed a bit far-fetched. But then I remembered two things. First, we’re talking about airport security. Other news reports have revealed that they aren’t exactly the most competent bunch.
Second, I recalled an experience I had at St. Louis Airport last December. I was on my way home to California to visit the folks for Christmas. Upon nearing the security checkpoint, I realized that I had forgotten to remove the penknife that I keep attached to my key chain. There was no time to catch a shuttle back to my car, where I had intended to leave the penknife, so I resolved myself to forfeiting the knife. (The penknife has some sentimental value—I’ve had it since I was 11.) Figuring I had just better get it over with, I removed the penknife from the key chain and placed it in the plastic basket (along with my keys) before I went through the metal detector. To my utter shock, the security person at the metal detector handed the basket to me after I passed through the metal detector! Remember, this was just over 3 months since 9/11!
I almost said something. But then I figured, "I really don’t want to lose the penknife, and I’m sure as hell not going to assault any pilots with it." So I kept my mouth shut.
In about a week, I’ll again go through St. Louis again on my way for another visit with the folks. This time, I’ll be sure to leave the penknife at home. Hmm…maybe I should also forget about taking my nail clippers.
. . .
GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS
There is some very good news about fourth graders in Des Moines. According to the Des Moines Register, over 71% of fourth graders passed the year-end reading test, meaning that they can read at or above grade level. This is an improvement from last year, when only 65% passed the test. (If I seem to be unusually nice this morning, I’m sorry. The GROUCH-O-MATIC is stuck in low gear.) But read a little further, and you get the depressing news that 71% puts Des Moines among the top performing urban districts in the nation. (Oh wait, it’s starting to kick in.) And then you learn what the public education system considers to be an acceptable goal: "[Superintendent Eric] Witherspoon has pledged that by June 2003, 75 percent of all the district's students will read at the level expected for their age group." 75%!? WOW!!!! (Ah! It’s approaching high speed now!)
What this means is that fully 1 out of 4 fourth graders will not be reading at grade level. This is important, because fourth graders are near the crucial age at which they either have good reading skills, or they are unlikely to ever develop them.
A goal of 90% would seem much more impressive, and much more sensible. Given that there is a high correlation between education and success in life, it would be much better if at least 9 out of 10 kids in the inner-cities could read at grade level.
. . .
IT COULD BE A VERY GOOD DAY
This is the headline in the lead editorial today in the Cedar Rapids Gazette:
MOVE QUICKLY TO END MARRIAGE PENALTY
And this is the first sentence:
IT'S A SHAME Sen. Tom Harkin didn't vote for permanent repeal of the estate tax last week.
And these are the two final paragraphs:
Sure, there are concerns about the size of the federal deficit. But rather than penalizing married couples through a quirk in the federal tax code, Congress should control the deficit by cutting back on unnecessary pork barrel projects, as President Bush has asked it to do.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle should schedule a vote on the marriage penalty as soon as possible, and Harkin should vote to eliminate the penalty.
As Eric Cartman would say, "Sweeeeet!"
. . .
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
FALLING DOWN ON THE JOB, AM I?
Well, there is this bang-up job of an editorial in the Omaha World-Herald today that I missed. Thanks to Croooow Blog.
. . .
NO ONE ARRESTED IN O-HI-O
Well, it looks like the Media Whores Online has less than reliable sources. It seems that Spinsanity found out that MWO’s contention—along with Buzzflash’s, I should add—that a protestor of Bush’s commencement address at Ohio State University was arrested simply wasn’t true. MWO has issued a convoluted explanation (think Bill Clinton testifying.) Needless to say, the nice chaps at MWO Watch are having a field day. Enjoy.
. . .
GUNS IN COCKPITS—OR NOT
The Daily Nonpareil opposes arming airline pilots in this editorial. It lays out the so-called scare tactics of proponents. In so doing, it makes a pretty good case for arming pilots.
. . .
ALL BUT THE PREDICTIONS
Dennis Clayson has a good column in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier. I like everything in it, except for two of the predictions. You can figure out which two.
. . .
FOURTH AMENDMENT AND GEIGER COUNTERS
Eugene Volokh has both an interesting blog and an interesting Slate article about how the 4th Amendment might affect police searches for dirty bombs. I particularly enjoyed this passage in the Slate article:
The law's logic is often counterintuitive, even when it's ultimately sound. Communists, Nazis, and Islamo-fascists, for instance, are currently entitled to the same First Amendment protection as Democrats and Republicans. It may seem odd to let people claim rights under the very Constitution that they are trying to subvert. But bitter experience has shown us that the power to punish such bad speakers often ends up being used to punish good ones, too.
. . .
THE SORT-OF PROTEST AT STANFORD
Instapundit has this very funny blog about the mini-protest at Stanford during Condi Rice’s commencement address. It also has some good links, including one to Bo Cowgill’s site, which is not on my list of links. Hmmm…..
. . .
CARUSO ON KRUGMAN
Oh yes, the Daily Rant takes down Krugman’s latest. Very good, as usual. The takedown, I mean.
. . .
LIBERALS LIKE THEMSELVES
Thanks to Croooow Blog whose link pointed me to an absolute love-fest going on among the lefties of the web. They appear to be collectively patting themselves on the back about Media Whores Online and their fair—oh, so fair—coverage of it. Two links at TAPPED of this little romp are provided here and here. These will lead you to more links, if you are interested.
. . .
THE TECH CENTRAL BABE IS BACK!
Sonia Arrison has another article at Tech Central Station, this time reviewing “Microsoft, Antitrust and the New Economy,” a new book by put out by the Milken Institute. Of particular note is this passage:
In a painstakingly detailed analysis, Bittlingmayer and Hazlett [two of the authors] found that "government action against Microsoft appears to inflict capital losses on the computer sector as a whole." In other words, the time and money that Oracle, Sun, and AOL have spent encouraging government to harm Microsoft has also hurt them and their industry.
While I’m at it, I need to make a shameless plug for my outfit, the Public Interest Institute, which back in April released this study by Dr. Richard Wagner that took the Iowa Attorney General’s case against Microsoft to the mat.
. . .
VERY BAD TIMING AT THE NY TIMES
The poor, hapless New York Times op-ed page. First, they continue to run Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd—the quintessential Blogosphere punching bags—and now they are the victim of some truly awful timing.
Today the Times op-ed page features an editorial titled “Civil Rights on a Greyhound,” in which the editors bemoan a recent Supreme Court decision that expanded police authority to search passengers on a bus. Unfortunately for the Times—and tragically for the people of Israel—another murderous-ba***rd-suicide bomber killed 19 Israeli high school kids this morning—in a bus.
The Times probably now regrets these two paragraphs:
The court majority chose to view bus travel as akin to air travel. But this is not the case. Air passengers have long known that they and their bags are subject to search. Thus far, this has not been true for bus travelers.
As long as the "war on terror" rages, there will be pressure to do away with the fine points of Fourth Amendment law. But with the Bush administration increasingly intent on engaging in domestic spying, often with little or no judicial oversight, we need those protections now more than ever.
I almost feel sorry for the Times. Almost.
. . .
GIVE THE NICE LADY A BREAK
Reading the National Review Online, I noticed that at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday Senator Joseph Biden berated Christina Hoff Sommers for her opposition to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. According to the NRO article, Biden said that Sommers “would have opposed the Declaration of Independence if [she] had been around at the time.” (Yeah, and Biden would have plagiarized it if he had been around at the time.)
This is the same Christina Hoff Sommers who, according to a previous NRO article, during a discussion at a government sponsored conference was “put upon by a group of paid government consultants and told by a man to 'shut the f*ck up, bitch' while the rest of the crowd laughed at her derisively.”
A little over a year ago I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Sommers at a regional conference in Omaha for the National Association of Scholars. (Yes we do have academic conferences here in flyover country. Put your lower jawbone back in place now.) She came to the dinner on the evening preceding the conference and was as nice as could be. She talked intelligently and cordially, and took great interest in the remarks of others. At her speech the next day at Bellevue University (where the conference was hosted), she was insightful and witty. She took questions from the audience with seriousness and good humor. My overall impression of her is that she is a very nice lady who treats others with respect.
Ms. Sommers almost certainly did not elicit the hostility displayed toward her. Indeed, there is no reason for the hostility, other than many on the left are intolerant of conservative ideas.
. . .
PERMANENCE IS A GOOD THING
A very good report was released last week by the Tax Foundation that examines what will happen if President Bush’s tax cut is not made permanent. Most notable is this passage:
In fact, if Congress and the President do not act to make the provisions of [the tax cut] permanent, a typical family of four can expect its federal income tax bill to increase by $2,681 between 2010 and 2011, a 48.8 percent increase. This will amount to 3.3 percent of the family’s adjusted gross income in that year.
Here in Iowa, the increase between 2010 and 2011 will be about $2,216, a 47.5 percent increase.
This four page report is full of good analysis, and well worth a look.
. . .
BOMBING SUSPECTS GET SLAP ON THE WRIST
No, not those bombing suspects. In this case, Adam Fisher, Nathan Krotz, and Andrew Ritchie were arrested last March for building three pipe bombs in Fisher’s dorm room at the University of Iowa.
The story in the Cedar Rapids Gazette states that Fisher and Ritchie were each given two years probation and 100 hours of community service (Krotz will be sentenced in July.) According to the Gazette:
"You've gotten a very small taste of how the criminal justice system works. I don't expect to see you back," [Judge Patrick] Grady told the men, whose parents sat in the courtroom.
That the judge would not sentence these jerks to at least a few months of hard time in the wake of 9/11 seems unconscionable to me. It would certainly send a much stronger message to any campus radicals with ideas exploding in their heads—pun fully intended.
My favorite part of the article was the excuse the three students gave for making then pipe bombs:
The men said the bombs were to be used as depth charges to kill fish.
It looks like the judge swallowed it, hook, line and sinker—pun fully intended.
. . .
VILSACK GETS REGISTER ENDORSEMENT
The Des Moines Register has an article about Vilsack’s desire to spend extra state revenue on education. I’ve already blogged on this issue, as a similar article appeared yesterday in the Ottumwa Courier. The only thing of note here is the headline:
VILSACK PUTS EDUCATION FIRST
Since when did Vilsack campaign staff start writing headlines for the Register?
. . .
Monday, June 17, 2002
SOME PEOPLE NEVER LEARN
You would think that after the recent budget troubles, Governor Vilsack would have learned his lesson about the perils of run-away spending when economically time are good. According to the Ottumwa Courier, Vilsack reports that recent tax collections are better than expected, resulting in a bit more money in the budget. And what is Vilsack’s first instinct? SPEND, SPEND, SPEND!
According to the Courier, Vilsack
said one of his top priorities as the state's budget picture begins to brighten is school technology….
The governor said the size of the technology initiative and its funding source had yet to be determined, but said he will be spending the next few months finding a way to finance the effort.
Never underestimate the ability of a revenue increase to completely obliterate a politician’s memory of fiscal difficulties.
. . .
MOTHERS AGAINST DEAD-BEAT DADS
An inspiring story in the Iowa Falls Times-Citizen. Melissa VanDeWalle, a mother of three, has struggled to get her ex-husband to pay child support. In response, Ms. VanDeWalle has formed an organization called “Mothers Against Dead-Beat Dads.” Let’s hope her organization takes off. And let’s also hope it results in more government enforcement of child-support payments. Although, I’m not a big fan of government (Nooo!! Really??) I do think that enforcing fathers’ legal obligations to pay child support is a legitimate government function.
. . .
GRASSLEY AND ROWLEY
The Dubuque Telegraph Herald has a nice editorial praising Senator Chuck Grassley for backing FBI whistleblower, and Iowa native, Colleen Rowley. As the Telegraph Herald puts it:
It should surprise no one that U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a longtime supporter of whistleblowers, has been a vigilant advocate for FBI agent Coleen Rowley.
No, it shouldn’t surprise anyone. Senator Grassley is a stand-up guy.
. . .
PAY GAP IS GETTING ATTENTION
Bill Mertens in the Burlington Hawkeye has a column from Saturday that makes prominent note of Public Interest Institute research that shows that Iowa has the largest gap between what state employees earn and what private sector employees. Research Analyst Steven Garrison has consistently found that the average state employee earns about 46% more than the average private sector employee in Iowa. In the Hawkeye, Mertens notes,
The battle over state pay levels could become the epicenter of what promises to be a close and heated election.
The fight will have a Mount Pleasant flavor. Vilsack is a former mayor of the town. Gross earned his bachelor's degree from Iowa Wesleyan College, which now serves as home base for the Public Interest Institute.
The institute's Steve Garrison has produced several reports over recent years that single out state employees as Iowa's “privileged class” based on their wages. Gross is sure to refer to the findings often during his campaign.
Actually, Gross already has referred to this finding. He did so twice at the last Republican Primary debate. Here’s hoping he makes it a big issue in the fall campaign.
. . .
A GOOD ONE ON THE CHURCH SEX SCANDAL
Charlotte Allen has this interesting piece in the National Review Online that attributes the pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church to cultural liberalism. It is a good read, with the possible exception of this line:
For liberals such as, say, columnist Andrew Sullivan, the debate is about the Church's celibacy rule for priests, the idea being that bottling up the sex urge makes people do the weirdest things.
Ms. Allen needs to spend some more time at Mr. Sullivan’s website. He is liberal on the matter of homosexuality; he is not liberal on much of anything else.
UPDATE: Reader Thomas Williams makes a good point about Ms. Allen describing Mr. Sullivan as a liberal. Click on the comments to read it.
. . .
LOW GROWTH IN IOWA
My favorite columnist at the Des Moines Register, David Yepsen, has a good piece on the low job growth in Iowa. It contains this gem of a passage:
Iowa's problems are made worse by 1) all the old New Dealer types waiting for some government program to solve all their problems, 2) a lethargic business community and 3) all the mossbacks and naysayers who really don't want to change anything to keep Iowa from dying.
You tell ‘em, Mr. Yepsen!
. . .
MORE ESTATE TAX
The Quad City Times weighs in on the estate tax and, needless to say, gets it wrong. I’m not going to comment, since the Times makes no points that I haven’t already addressed here, here, and here.
. . .
SURPRISE! SENATOR HARKIN DOESN'T LIKE RACIAL PROFILING
The Des Moines Register reports that at the state Democratic Convention over the weekend, Senator Tom Harkin
urged Democrats to support the war on terrorism while criticizing a federal plan to track foreign visitors as a threat to civil liberties.
Harkin, speaking at the Iowa Democratic Party's state convention in Des Moines on Saturday, told delegates that U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's effort to track foreign visitors is racial profiling and reminiscent of the McCarthy era.
He was referring to the plan Ashcroft laid out this month that will require fingerprints, photographs and itineraries of visitors from countries known to be home to terrorist organizations.
Harkin said Ashcroft's plan unfairly targets Arab visitors, and being vigilant about their rights does not subvert the hunt for terrorists or aid those still at large.
"We can't let our support for the war on terrorism quiet our voices in fighting for social justice," Harkin said, calling Ashcroft's plan akin to spying.
Hey, Senator Harkin, here is a little quiz, a similar version of which has been making its way around the internet:
1. The people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were:
A. German
B. French
C. British
D. Arab
2. The people who blew up the USS Cole were:
A. German
B. French
C. British
D. Arab
In response to these remarks, "State Republican Party Chairman Charles Larson Jr. said that by criticizing the plan, Harkin politicizes the war effort." Do they ever. It’s a little hard to believe that Harkin made them in the midst of a reelection campaign. I hope the Ganske campaign is busy putting a commercial together.
. . .
REVISING IOWA HISTORY
An article by Lynn Okamoto in the Dews Moines Register that reports on union support for Governor Vilsack engages in some revisionist history:
Four years of tough fiscal times led Vilsack to take actions that have left a bad taste with some Iowans, even some who voted for him.
Uh, sorry, but the budget crisis didn’t begin to rear its ugly head until early last year. The article fails to note that one of the main causes of Iowa’s current fiscal crunch: Vilsack’s spending orgy his first two years in office. But then, what do you expect from the Democrat friendly Register?
. . .
Sunday, June 16, 2002
A DYNAMIC LOSS OF A WEAPON?
For the last few years, conservatives in Congress have pushed the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee to change the way the score the effect that tax cuts have on the government revenue. Called "Dynamic Analysis," this method accounts for the effect that tax cuts have on the economy. Not surprisingly, the editors of The New Republic have panned this method: "‘Dynamic’ is one way to describe this kind of analysis. A better term would be ‘dishonest.’"
One problem TNR has with dynamic analysis is that it overlooks the negative effects of tax cuts: "….the negative effects of tax cuts—higher interest rates resulting from larger deficits or smaller surpluses—can counteract or completely overwhelm their positive effects." However, there is no evidence that lower budget deficits result in lower interest rates. We have experienced low interest rates in both times of low deficits—the mid-1990s—and high deficits—the 1980s. In short, TNR is relying on a theory that has little empirical support.
Perhaps the biggest problem for the editors of TNR and other liberals in changing the way "Congress decides how much tax cuts cost the federal government" is that dynamic analysis would reduce the size of the cost. As a result, the "official" numbers produced by the CBO and JTE will be much smaller. Thus, liberals will be unable to employ one of the more effective weapons they had against the Bush tax cut—"a cost to the government of $2 trillion in this decade, $4 trillion in the next"—in future tax-cut battles.
Yet that little detail is left out of TNR’s editorial. Talk about dishonest.
. . .
|
. . .
|
