Friday, February 20, 2004
R.I.P
Bill Mertens, editor and publisher of the Burlington Hawkeye, has passed away. My condolences and prayers to his family.
. . .
CAN EDWARDS WIN THE NOMINATION?
My how-to guide.
. . .
A DREAM SCENARIO
If Governor Viltax is intent on vetoing the School Foundation Aid bill, I say let him. The GOP should stand firm, and either (1) refuse to send him another bill, saying it his met his obligation under the law by passing a bill; or (2) keep sending him the same bill and let him veto it multiple times.
Then, when the fall campaign comes around, bash Viltax over the head with it. Tell voters that Viltax has sacrificed funding for education for his obsession with raising taxes. Bash him again and again and again with the charge or wanting to raise taxes.
That would be my dream scenario.
Alas, here is what I predict (and fear) will happen. The increasingly feckless Iowa GOP will cut some deal with the Governor to raise taxes in a few areas, most likely cigarettes and maybe porn magazines (see post below). One GOP member of the legislature (I can’t recall who) was on the radio yesterday urging a increase in the cigarette tax to insure a revenue stream for the Grow Iowa Values Fund. The Republicans’ infatuation with that ill-conceived corporate welfare boondoggle will eventually be their undoing. It has already yielded some very surreal results.
Despite all of their insistence that they won’t boost taxes, the Republicans will go along with some limited tax increase that will be distributed to both the GIV Fund and State Foundation Aid. They’ll believe the Democrats when they smile and say, "If you agree to the tax increase, we won’t hit you for wanting to hurt education in the fall campaign." Having agreed to a tax increase, the GOP will have lost its most potent weapon in the fall campaign. They’ll act shocked and astonished when the Democrats go back on their pledge and criticize the GOP for not boosting education funding even more. In that type of electoral landscape, the GOP will almost surely lose seats in the legislature, possibly losing the State House of Representatives.
Overly pessimistic? Anyone who wants to make a small bet with me that the GOP won’t go along with a tax increase, please email me.
. . .
SMUT SURCHARGE?
Cedar Pundit notes that Jamie Van Fossen is proposing a tax on porn magazines.
I’ve met Jamie Van Fossen and like him a great deal. All I can say is, what is he thinking? Every Republican that proposes any tax increase of any kind only makes it easier for Governor Viltax to succeed with his own tax increase proposals.
Come on Iowa GOP, get with it!
. . .
Thursday, February 19, 2004
THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
According to the Des Moines Register, judicial activism is defined by whose ox is being gored. The Register pulls a fast one by claiming that judicial activism occurs whenever the Supreme Court hands down a ruling that one does not like. “That's the trouble with judicial activism: It's OK when you win but not when you lose.” Thus,
The trouble is interpreting the law by definition means making law; it's just that some people don't like the result. Conservatives who railed at the "activist" Warren court were only too happy to see the Burger and Rehnquist courts engage in judicial activism to reel in some of those liberal rulings.
Now, how a ruling that scales back an activist ruling is no different from the activist ruling is not clear. But that’s because the Register’s definiton of judicial activism is incorrect. Judicial activism occurs when judges interpret the law in ways that those who wrote the law never intended. Perhaps the prime example of this is when the Supreme Court continually rules that political speech can be restricted via campaign finance laws when it is pretty clear that the Founding Fathers regarded the First Amendment as a near absolute protection of political speech. That is the idea behind original intent: judges should try to discover the intent of the authors of a law when interpreting the law, and not read their own ideas into it.
Indeed, the Register editorialists believe in original intent, at least when it suits their purposes. Recall this editorial from last July when Pocahantas school district decided to use Iowa’s open enrollment law to contract out with K12 Inc., a sort of “cyber school.” What was the Register’s justification for urging the state Department of Education to “decide the cyber school doesn't qualify” under the open enrollment law? Well, “because it [was] not what the Legislature intended.”
I guess that the Register proves what the problem is with original intent. “It's OK when you win but not when you lose.”
. . .
GUESS WHO THINKS THAT TAXES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?
Why, the Vilsack Administration, that’s who.
Well, at least they believe it when it comes to vodka. You see, the Vilsack Administration (with the blessing of the State Legislature, I assume) is taxing expensive vodka at a lower rate than cheap vodka.
Iowa is not trying to stand tax policy on its head, said Lynn Walding, administrator of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division. The goal is to raise revenue by selling more of the pricey vodka.
So, a lower tax rate will result in more sales. Sounds like confirmation of the principle that “tax something more you get less of it, tax something less you get more of it.”
Hmm…taxing different brands of vodka at different rates. Why do I smell a lawsuit?
. . .
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
HELLO WISCONSIN!
Well, that makes things a bit more interesting. With John Kerry falling well short of 50%, John Edwards coming in a strong second, and Howard Dean hunkering down in Vermont today for what should be his decision to drop out (although one can never be too confident making predictions about Dean) it will become, for all intents and purposes, a two-man race.
Apparently more Republicans and independents went for Edwards than Kerry, upsetting the Kerry-electability apple cart. Next week Utah has its primary and Idaho its caucus—both states with somewhat more conservative Democrats. Will Edwards be able to appeal to them? The fact that Wisconsin allows him to undermine Kerry on the electability issue will surely help.
But, in the end, I doubt that Edwards can stop Kerry. Edwards may pick up a few other states and will likely last until mid-March, but it won’t be enough to stop Kerry’s momentum. I’d bet dollars to donuts the primary reason Wisconsin voters were nervous about Kerry was all the revelations last week about Kerry’s possible extra-marital affair. I imagine a lot of voters last night were saying, “Good grief, I don’t want to deal with another eight years of Clinton’s crap!” Thus, they defected to the only other electable alternative, Edwards.
Despite a few lingering questions, it seems that there was really nothing to the story. Within a few days it will fade from the foreground, and whatever damage it did to Kerry will be temporary. Soon, voters won’t care about it at all. And if you look at March 2, there are lot of relatively liberal states that have closed primaries, including New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, and, of course, Massachusetts. Kerry should clean up pretty nicely on March 2, all but ensuring the nomination.
However, Edwards emergence does mean that Kerry will have to spend more of his resources to win the nomination, leaving him with little left (at least for a while) to respond to the eventual Bush counterattack. If Bush gets to define the general election campaign early, and it is now more likely that he will, Kerry’s chances in the fall become even more slim.
. . .
IT’S HOT. NO IT’S COLD.
Take a look at Don Cordts’ fine distillation of the global warming debate over at Tusk and Talon. And while you are there, see Jeff’s nice takedown of the recent Des Moines Register poll.
. . .
Monday, February 16, 2004
GUESS WHO WAS RIGHT?
Yes, friends, never underestimate the prognosticating power of the Hogberg! Last Thursday (scroll down a little) I described the Des Moines Register editorial board’s attempt to persuade us that Iowa schools face a funding crisis as a plea to raise taxes.
Well, well, well. The Register ran another education editorial on Saturday. And what did that editorial say? I’m glad you asked:
Schools do not have plenty of money.
It's important to know that before deciding whether to spend enough on schools next year. Given the tight state budget, a targeted tax increase for education is in order.
If only my investments were that predictable.
Anyway, the Register tries to give us a bunch of facts to prove that schools are in crisis:
…look at annual percent increases in funding through the school-aid formula, according the Legislative Service Agency:
Fiscal year 1999 - 4.24 percent.
Fiscal year 2000 - 3.26 percent.
Fiscal year 2001 - 3.75 percent.
Fiscal year 2002 - 0.44 percent.
Fiscal year 2003 - 4.44 percent.
Fiscal year 2004 - 0.01 percent.
Add those up, and you get a cumulative increase of 16.1%. Here’s a fact for the Register: Over that same period, inflation rose 12.9%
And here’s one more: Over the last ten years, Iowa hired about 3,785 new teachers. During that same period, enrollment rates have declined. Maybe a few teacher layoffs wouldn’t be such a bad idea.
Yes, I know, I’m beating dead horse on that last fact. But that’s about ten fewer dead horses than the Register is beating on the education issue.
UPDATE: A reader emailed to point out that the cumulative increase of 16.1% is too low. It is closer to 17.2%, due to the compounding effect. (Oops! Bonehead error on my part.) Anyway, it only strengthens my case.
. . .
BEING SMUG TOWARD OPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE
Reading the Des Moines Register’s editorial on gay marriage last week, I got the image of someone with a condescending smile, shaking his head, saying, “You’re overreacting.”
This is how the Register dismissed the controversy over gay marriage:
Someday, future generations of Americans will look back at the debate over gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about. History will put today's debates in perspective the way society now has perspective on past subjects of raging cultural warfare, such as whether women should be allowed to vote.
The main argument against letting women vote was that it would undermine the traditional family. Sound familiar?
It takes hindsight to recognize change resisted at the time was actually change that led to what's right.
This is the purview of people who think that all social change, as long as it is in the liberal direction, is good. All such change can be compared to positive changes like women’s or blacks’ suffrage. And sometimes it does take hindsight to see that such changes are good ones, unless you are enlightened lefties like the Des Moines Register editorial writers. Then you have the foresight, absent among most yokels, to see that it will be positive change.
But the fact is that not all change is for the better. To see this, let’s do a slight rewrite of that passage. And while your reading it, roll your mind back in time to the Murphy Brown-Dan Quayle controversy:
Someday, future generations of Americans will look back at the debate over single motherhood and wonder what all the fuss was about. History will put today's debates in perspective the way society now has perspective on past subjects of raging cultural warfare, such as whether women should be allowed to vote.
The main argument against letting women vote was that it would undermine the traditional family. Sound familiar?
It takes hindsight to recognize change resisted at the time was actually change that led to what's right.
Well, as even James Carville now admits, the rise single motherhood—no, screw political correctness—the rise in illegitimacy, was not a “change that led to what’s right.” We now know that children need dads. Illegitimate children have higher rates of delinquency, problems in school, and criminal activity than kids from two-parent families.
Will gay marriage be a change that leads to bad societal outcomes? I, for one, am not sure. But for the Register to smugly dismiss the concerns on that question is about as useful to the public debate over gay marriage as a mountain lion is useful to a whitetail deer.
. . .
|
. . .
|
