18 May 2010

Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Washington Post Has it Right - Do You Know Which

DC City Council Must Avoid Candidates Have Signed the
Raising Taxes [Americans for Taxpayer Protection Pledge?
Tax Reform] [Americans for Tax Reform]
MAY 17, 2010 08:07P.M. MAY 17, 2010 05:16P.M.

It’s a rare thing for the Washington Post editorial board and ATR to Tomorrow, primary voters in Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, and
agree on matters of public policy; so when it happens, it worth pointing Pennsylvania are heading to the polls to pick their respective candidates
out. Yesterday’s Washington Post included a... for November. Americans for Tax Reform would like to urge these...

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

More Marginal Tax Rate Hikes ATR’s Financial Reform Toolkit

On Tap This Week from [Americans for Tax Reform]
MAY 17, 2010 04:56P.M.
Congress [Americans for Tax
As the U.S. Senate continues debate on Senator Dodd’s “Wall Street
Reform] Bailout” bill, S. 3217 the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of
MAY 17, 2010 05:39P.M. 2010, Americans for Tax Reform wants to...

Just when you thought that the Democrat Congress couldn’t do a worse
job getting the economy back on track, this week the U.S. House will be
serving up two new marginal rate tax hikes, accordin... FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Study: Medicaid Provides

Lower-Quality Care [Cato at
Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 04:34P.M.

By Michael F. Cannon

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2019, ObamaCare will

cover 32 million U.S. residents who would otherwise have been
uninsured. Half of those coverage gains would come from expanding the
Medicaid program, which has been criticized for poor-quality care.

A new study in the journal Inquiry gives another indication that

Medicaid provides low-quality care:

1
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
we find that uninsured and Medicaid patients are treated by
lower-quality physicians both because of the hospitals these
patients attend and because of sorting within hospitals…Our
study concluded that patients in government hospitals that
treat large numbers of uninsured and Medicaid patients are
least likely to be treated by a board-certified or top-trained
physician.
The study has plenty of limitations. For one, physician training is an
input, not an output. What matters are health outcomes, and so it will be
interesting to see what the Oregon Health Study has to say about
Medicaid’s effects on health.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
I Cut Spending 10% [Cato at
Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 04:33P.M.
By Chris Edwards
House Republicans proposed some small cuts to the federal budget on
their new YouCut website last week. I noted that the GOP cuts amounted
to just 0.017 percent of the federal budget, and suggested that the
conservative party in Congress could do much better. Below I’ve listed 10
terminations that would save about $380 billion a year, which is more
than 10 percent of total federal spending.
Many politicians and congressional staffers will look at this list and
consider the cuts too radical. But those folks should take a closer look at
current budget projections, which show federal debt exploding to 100
percent of GDP within a decade and heading to the moon after that.
Rising debt all but guarantees that there will be radical changes to the
budget in coming years. So we can start making changes in an orderly
way right now, or we can make then later when it’s harder to dig out
from an even bigger pile of debt.
Besides, the 10 cuts proposed below are not radical. Canada doesn’t have
a federal Department of Education, so why do we need one? New
Zealand doesn’t hand out farm subsidies, so why should we? Britain’s
new conservative-liberal government is cutting public-sector salaries, so
why can’t we?
Cuts in subsidies will cause short-term dislocations for the groups
dependent on them, but people will adjust quickly and society will be
better off in the long run. Welfare supporters said that the reforms in
1996 would be a social disaster, but benefits were cut and low-income
families prospered.
Americans don’t need subsidies, and the government obviously can’t
afford them anymore. It’s time to start getting rid of them. The savings
listed here are rough and rounded 2010 outlay amounts from the
2
18 May 2010
president’s budget.
1. Community Development Subsidies. The Department of
Housing and Urban Development should not be funding local activities
such as street repairs and parking lots. Save $10 billion.
2. Homeowner Subsidies. Federal subsidies for home ownership
helped to cause the financial meltdown and recession by putting people
into homes they could not afford. Save $10 billion
3. Energy Subsidies. Federal energy subsidies have a long record of
waste and boondoggle. Private markets will invest in energy technologies
when there is a reasonable chance for a return. Save $20 billion.
4. Higher Education Subsidies. Federal student aid contributes to
college tuition inflation, and it can be replaced by private borrowing,
family savings, and private charity. Save $20 billion.
5. Overpaid Federal Workers. Federal workers earn an average
$120,000 a year in wages and benefits—twice what the average
American earns. Federal wages should be cut 10 percent. Save $20
billion.
6. Farm Subsidies. More than 70 percent of aid goes to the largest 10
percent of farm businesses. With an average income 28 percent higher
than the U.S. average, farm households don’t need federal welfare. Save
$30 billion.
7. Public Housing and Rental Subsidies. Federal housing policies
have damaged cities and created concentrations of poverty. They are
based on a myth that markets can’t provide low-income housing. Save
$35 billion.
8. K-12 Education Subsidies. Rising federal funding of the public
schools has not improved test scores. It has only created large
bureaucracies and stifled local control and innovation. Save $60 billion.
9. Transportation Subsidies. State governments and the private
sector can more efficiently fund highways, airports, rail, urban transit,
and air traffic control without federal subsidies and regulations. Save
$85 billion.
10. Food Subsidies (Food Stamps and School Lunch). Low-
income families often suffer from poor food choices and obesity, not a
shortage of calories. Food aid for the needy should be left to private
charities. Save $90 billion.
For details on most of these proposed cuts, see
www.downsizinggovernment.org.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Today’s Other Big Bad Supreme
Court Opinion [Cato at Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 04:31P.M.
By Ilya Shapiro
As Wally points out in his Supreme Court/Kagan roundup, the Court did
further damage to principled constitutional interpretation in citing
foreign law as support for its holding that life-without-parole (LWOP)
sentences are unconstitutional as applied to juveniles committing non-
homicide crimes. As I blogged when we filed a brief in the case, Graham
v. Florida, “Cato takes no position on the wisdom of these types of
sentences, but when evaluating their constitutionality the Court should
only consider American law.”
That is, regardless of the criminological or moral merits of juvenile
LWOP sentences, the Court ought not consider non-binding provisions
of international human rights treaties, other countries’ laws, or
customary international law in its analysis (as it unfortunately has in
several death penalty cases). The Court should leave to the political
branches the decision of whether to transform international norms into
domestic law and only allow duly ratified international agreements to
override domestic law — as I’ve also described in the Cato Supreme
Court Review. Reliance on indefinite international norms undermines
both the democratic process and the rule of law, casting considerable
uncertainty over many U.S. laws. Although looking to international
example is prudent when designing constitutions and drafting
legislation, it is simply not relevant to interpreting the nation’s founding
document.
There are other problems with Justice Kennedy’s opinion. For example,
apparently the fact that 37 states plus the District of Columbia allow
juvenile LWOP sentences does not mean that there is a national
consensus. This is so even though a similar number of states did
constitute a consensus against the death penalty for an adult’s rape of a
child in Kennedy v. Louisiana (which Roger discussed in the pages of the
Supreme Court Review) — even though there the federal government
itself had recently passed a law authorizing the death penalty for such an
offense! The point is that the whole idea of “consensus”-based
constitutional interpretation is flawed. As Josh Blackman and I wrote
in our Privileges or Immunities Pandora’s Box article:
If the Supreme Court could not properly analyze the extent of
the consensus among state laws governing the sentencing of
child rapists, an area that any first-year law student could
understand with the proper Lexis search, how can we expect
judges to understand consensuses on nebulous and polarizing
social issues — on which public opinion ebbs and flows —
such as the right to health care, the right to education, or
reproductive rights?
Moreover, what constitutes a national consensus? Half the
3
18 May 2010
population? Two thirds? Ninety percent? To paraphrase
Justice Brennan’s quip, why not whatever five duly confirmed
justices think? Should the Court commission its own Gallup
Poll? What standard should the consensus be based on? How
long should it exist? These are inherently subjective
determinations, not reducible to judicially or legislatively
manageable standards.
Finally, Eugene Volokh points out the judicial policy-making (the
imposition of a judge’s own views) inherent in Justice Stevens’s
concurring opinion — likely the senior associate justice’s last
pronouncement on the death penalty. And for more on the case
generally, see Lyle Denniston’s write-up at SCOTUSblog.
In short, this is a dog’s breakfast of a case — again, regardless of what
one thinks about the underlying criminological/moral issues – and truly
an unfortunate day for principled jurisprudence and constitutional limits
on power (in Graham’s case, judicial power).
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Chocola: Purity vs. Big Tent is a
False Choice [The Club for
Growth]
MAY 17, 2010 03:56P.M.
The boss has a piece in this week Barack Obama could say the same of
the Democrats. Governing requires compromise, but elevating
compromise itself to a principle is like building a house on sand. Read
the whole thing.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Kagan Nomination, Day 8 [Cato
at Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 03:27P.M.
By Walter Olson
As you know from reading Roger’s and Ilya’s posts, this has been a pretty
dreadful news day for libertarians at the U.S. Supreme Court. (And we
haven’t even gotten into Justice Kennedy’s use of supposed international
consensus in devising new Constitutional standards on excessive
sentencing, despite a Cato amicus brief [pdf] urging the contrary). For
whatever comfort it provides, which may not be much, here’s more
reporting and speculation on the often hard-to-pin-down views of the
newest nominee:
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
• Her participation in Clinton Administration gun-control initiatives
doesn’t (to put it mildly) suggest an expansive view of individual
rights under the Second Amendment [Brian Darling via David
Kopel]
• On Kelo and eminent domain, will she share Justice Stevens’s
property-rights-unfriendly views? [James Ely via Ilya Somin]
• Be advised, Prof. Wagner, that despite her flair for protean mask-
shifting, it is lacking in dignity to refer to the nominee as “Lady
KaGa“.
• Stuart Taylor, Jr. offers a semi-defense of her “inherited and
largely symbolic” stand on military recruiters at Harvard (earlier
here, here, and here).
• From his lips to God’s ears: Marvin Ammori at Balkinization offers
an argument (via ABA Journal) as to why, contrary to all
expectations, Kagan might wind up coming out on the free-speech
side of Citizens United after all. Ira Stoll wonders how effectively
critics can raise the free-speech-in-campaigning issue at the
hearings anyway: “it’s a bit much for Republicans, having watched
President Bush sign BCRA [the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002] into law, now to oppose putting Elena Kagan on the court
because she defended its constitutionality.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Comstock & Health Care
Litigation [Cato at Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 02:35P.M.
By Randy E. Barnett
Some will immediately claim that today’s decision in United States v.
Comstock bodes ill to pending challenges to the individual health
insurance mandate, but this would be a mistake. It is one thing to uphold
as “necessary and proper” a law confining sexual predators who were
already incarcerated pursuant to the enumerated powers of Congress. It
is quite another to impose a mandate on every citizen of the United
States as necessary and proper to its power “to regulate commerce . . .
among the several states.” The justices who sided with the government
today cannot all be counted on to uphold the unprecedented claim of
federal power to require that all persons engage in economic activity.
4
18 May 2010
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
ATR Urges Senators to Join
Murkowski in Opposing EPA’s
Regulation of Carbon
[Americans for Tax Reform]
MAY 17, 2010 02:33P.M.
Today, Americans for Tax Reform sent the following letter to all
members of the Senate urging them to join Sen. Murkowski and 41 other
members in opposing the EPA’s regulation of carbon. An...
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Proclamation of ‘World Trade
Week’ Tops President’s Trade
Policy Achievement List [Cato at
Liberty‘World Trade Week’
Tops President’s Trade Policy
Achievement List]
MAY 17, 2010 02:19P.M.
By Daniel Ikenson
Dear President Obama:
Just when I was ready to concede that U.S. trade policy is hopelessly
adrift in a sea of incoherence, bouncing around randomly in the swirling
cross currents of laughably dissonant policy objectives, while U.S.
businesses and workers suffer the consequences of Washington’s
unfettered allegiance to anachronistic and ruinous trade policy group
think, you’ve given me pause by taking the decisive step, on Friday, to
decree World Trade Week. You wrote:
I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America,
by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, do herby proclaim May 16
through May 22, 2010, as World Trade Week. I encourage all
Americans to observe this week with events, trade shows, and
educational programs that celebrate the benefits of trade to
our Nation, American workers, and the Global economy.
Mr. President, I applaud your efforts and recognize that decision must
not have come easily. There were probably late-night discussions with
your staff, contemplative 2am walks through the Rose Garden, and
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
perhaps some sleepless nights. To even imply that trade may be
beneficial to Americans—this close to November, no less—was an act of
profound political courage.
Well, Mr. President, thank you for the encouragement. I will do my part
to fulfill your vision of World Trade Week, which is actually something
my colleagues and I have been doing for many years—often with citation
to the data collected and published by your numerous administrative
departments and agencies. I guess one might say that World Trade Week
is a 24/7 proposition over here at the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade
Policy Studies.
So, rather than reinvent the wheel and since we specialize in “increasing
public awareness about the benefits of free trade and the costs of
protectionism,” perhaps you can ask the White House webmaster to post
a link to our educational materials about trade, including these
recommendations for policymakers, on www.whitehouse.gov.
If you’re as committed as we are, Mr. President, to correcting the long-
festering myths about trade and helping Americans discern the truth
from the heaps of misleading rhetoric and lies they hear so frequently
(here’s a blueprint for that course), we just might be able to right the
trade policy ship.
Sincerely,
Dan Ikenson
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Do We Need to Raise Taxes in
Order to Prevent a Tax Hike?
Huh? [Americans for Tax
Reform]
MAY 17, 2010 02:10P.M.
This week, the U.S. House will be taking up (again) a “tax extenders
package.” Many people don’t realize that lots of pieces of tax law have
expiration dates on them. Cong...
5
18 May 2010
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Supreme Court Further Reduces
Constitutional Limits on
Federal Power [Cato at Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 01:39P.M.
By Ilya Shapiro
As Roger has just blogged, the Supreme Court in today’s Comstock
decision has ”turned an instrumental power, dependent on Congress’s
other powers, into an independent power.” That is, Justice Breyer’s
decision has imbued the Necessary and Proper Clause — which merely
gives Congress the power to enact laws that are “necessary and proper”
for “carrying into execution” one of the powers enumerated in Article I,
section 8 — with independent authority to justify federal power. Thus, in
effect, Congress has the power to do anything it deems “necessary and
proper” (or, indeed “convenient or useful”), quite apart from whether
that thing relates to an anumerated power or not. I explained here why
this view — and Breyer’s elaboration on it during oral argument — is
wrong.
Without exaggeration, the Comstock decision is one of the most harmful
Supreme Court decisions in recent memory. If there is anything worse
than the Court’s radical expansion of the Necessary and Proper Clause, it
is that seven justices signed onto this sweeping pronouncement. While it
isn’t surprising that Justice Breyer, joined by his “progressive”
colleagues, would have such an expansive view of federal power, it is
disconcerting that Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority opinion in
its entirety. And while Justice Kennedy separately counsels that “the
Constitution does require the invalidation of congressional attempts to
extend federal power in some instances,” it’s hard to see what those
instances are in the wake of Comstock. Justice Alito also has some
qualms about the reach of the Necessary and Proper Clause but
unfortunately is left satisfied that here “there is a substantial link to
Congress’ constitutional powers” (adding yet another exception that
swallows the constitutional rule on limited congressional power).
Only Justice Thomas, whose magisterial dissent is joined by Justice
Scalia, sees today’s decision for what it is, the transformation of the
Necessary and Proper Clause into a sort of federal police power, the
existence of which the Court has long denied. As Thomas says, ”the
Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society
from every bad act that might befall it.” (This is of course counter not
only the Court majority but also the immortal words of President George
W. Bush that “when somebody hurts, government has got to move.”)
About the only good thing about this opinion is that it declined to expand
Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause – an alternative
justification for the law at issue that the government offered
unsuccessfully in the court below and which Solicitor General Elena
Kagan abandoned before the Supreme Court.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
For more coverage of Comstock, see Josh Blackman’s series of post and
Randy Barnett at the Volokh Conspiracy. Also, here is Cato’s brief on the
case (which I summarize here) and my description of Kagan’s response
to some of the points we raised.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Gangbuster Greenback [Larry
Kudlow’s Money Politic$]
MAY 17, 2010 12:55P.M.
A strong and steady King Dollar is always essential to overall free-market
prosperity and economic growth. But a wildly fluctuating greenback is
not.
Since last November, the trade-weighted dollar index has risen roughly
16 percent. Moreover, the dollar has jumped approximately 25 percent
against the euro alone. Of course, the euro’s collapse is a function of the
debt crisis in Greece and the European debt-default contagion threat.
But roughly 15 percent of U.S. trade is done with the European area. So
here’s my point: This huge dollar jump against the euro negatively
impacts the terms of trade for U.S. exporters and the S&P; corporate
profits of global companies.
It’s a deflationary influence when the dollar shoots up way too fast.
Incidentally, during the dollar-appreciation move that began late last
year, the stock market has basically stopped advancing. In fact, since
mid-April, when the dollar made another big move versus the euro,
cyclical sectors like commodity materials, energy, industrials, and
retailers have gotten clobbered by nearly 10 percent. There is clearly a
dollar influence going on here.
Look, currency stability — a steady King Dollar — is what we want for
growth. We need steady money. But with all these currencies fluctuating
so wildly right now, it’s difficult to see how a dollar that keeps shooting
higher and higher is going to be a good thing.
Then, of course, there is the related currency issue of a surging gold
price. Gold, in dollars, euros, and everything else, is roaring higher. It is
saying a pox on all your houses. That’s the message. Too much deficit
spending. Too much debt. Too much central-bank liquidity, especially
since the European Central Bank threw in the towel.
Nothing good ever came out of a gigantic gold move like this. Nothing. It
reminds me of the 1970s, when gold shot from $35 an ounce to $800
across a ten-year span. Look, in just the last ten years, gold has gone
from $250 to $1,230. Historically, that’s a stagflation signal. It’s not
good.
We need steady money and much smaller government. And guess what?
We’re not getting it.
6
18 May 2010
I don’t want to see the dollar shooting up by leaps and bounds every
week. I want a steady dollar. And I sure don’t want to see gold shooting
up by leaps and bounds every week either. These are terrible signals. And
the currency complication is screwing up the other Washington
problems of too much taxing and spending and debt creation.
It’s all another big V-shaped economic worry.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
California Candidates Pledge to
Rein in Taxes and Spending
[Americans for Tax Reform]
MAY 17, 2010 12:45P.M.
The following was originally published this morning on The Flash
Report, the preeminent political news source in California: WHO IS
MOST LIKELY TO HOLD THE LINE ON TAXES? PEOPLE WHO SI...
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Lessons From Venezuela’s 21st
Century Socialism [Cato at
Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 12:43P.M.
By Ian Vasquez
The accomplishments of Venezuela’s “Socialism of the 21st Century” are
looking very much like those of old-fashioned socialism with basic goods
shortages, high inflation, negative growth, blackouts, water rationing,
the persecution of Hugo Chávez’s critics, plus skyrocketing crime.
Now Chávez is accusing his enemies of sabotaging his TV and Radio
program, “Alo Presidente” because it suffers from continuous technical
problems on the air, including sound interruptions and the loss of the
satellite signal.
An upset Chávez observes: ”The problems are very frequent here, almost
every day. I don’t understand how you have so much equipment, so
much technology…. By contrast, you see the private channels and that
doesn’t happen…. And for me it’s almost every day that there is a
problem here and there.”
Chávez’s 21st century solution? He has ordered his military intelligence
to investigate.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 18 May 2010

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS New Poll: Crist Bounce is Gone

U.S. v. Comstock Is About [The Club for Growth]
MAY 17, 2010 12:00P.M.
Policy Over Law [Cato at
This was inevitable. S COMMITTEE. 202-955-5500.
Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 12:12P.M.

By Roger Pilon FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

In his opinion today in United States v. Comstock, Justice Breyer gives Is D.C. Paris? [Cato at Liberty]
us a textbook example of how the Supreme Court, over the years, has MAY 17, 2010 11:57A.M.
converted the Constitution into modern “constitutional law,” which is
connected to the Constitution only occasionally. This is policy trumping By David Boaz
law, pure and simple.
The Washington Post reports that the D.C. Council is getting yet more
The question before the Court was whether Congress had the power, “progressive,” especially on “quality of life” issues.
under the Constitution, to commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous
prisoners beyond the date they would otherwise be released. The “People are looking for a fresh approach and a progressive
problem, as Breyer grants, is that Congress has only certain enumerated approach,” said [Council member Tommy] Wells, who said he
powers, and the only power it has to criminalize conduct, beyond the travels to Europe each spring in search of initiatives to
three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, is pursuant to one of those replicate at home.
enumerated powers — in particular, through the last of its 18
enumerated powers, its power to enact laws that are “necessary and Apparently Europeans recommend bike lanes, bag taxes, and organic
proper” for “carrying into execution” one of the previous 17 enumerated foods, but not lower taxes, better schools, and less crime.
powers or ends. In other words, Congress can criminalize conduct only if
doing so is necessary and proper for carrying out one of its other
constitutionally authorized powers.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Under its power to regulate interstate commerce, however, Congress has
criminalized all manner of conduct not remotely related to insuring a DeMint, Flake, Hensarling Lead
free national market, the main function of the commerce power. The
conduct criminalized here is the possession of child pornography. That’s 2009 Club for Growth
a responsibility that belongs to the states, under state police power, not
to the federal government. And that’s where today’s problem began. Scorecard [The Club for
But Breyer has compounded it by holding that even though the Growth]
Constitution nowhere grants Congress the power to criminalize the MAY 17, 2010 11:44A.M.
conduct in question, Congress can invoke its instrumental power under
the Necessary and Proper Clause to commit these prisoners beyond the WASHINGTON s website, here. ###
date they would otherwise be released. In other words, he has turned an
instrumental power, dependent on Congress’s other powers, into an
independent power. That’s how government expands beyond the limits
imposed by the Constitution.

7
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 18 May 2010

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

The 2009 Club for Growth

Scorecard [The Club for
Growth]
MAY 17, 2010 11:43A.M.

Today we launched the 2009 Club for Growth scorecard. In a lot of cases,
the two are quite different.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS The Times mentions the “feeding frenzy at the Pentagon budget trough”
since 9/11. It notes that defense spending has roughly doubled in the last
Pelosi: ObamaCare Helps decade. It admits that the recent QDR “failed to start making the hard
choices” about defense spending.
Artists Avoid Hassle of Working
But there’s almost nothing of substance in the Times editorial about
[Cato at Liberty] what the United States should be doing to its military budget.
MAY 17, 2010 11:34A.M. Nonsensically, it argues that as the U.S. gets out of Iraq and Afghanistan,
“Washington will have to consider trimming troop strength, beginning
By Michael F. Cannon with the Navy and the Air Force.” But why wait? The Navy and Air Force
have played almost no role in the wars in those two countries. If the Navy
ObamaCare creates incentives not to climb the economic ladder. It also and Air Force should be undergoing personnel cuts, Iraq and
creates incentives not to work at all; able-bodied people can quit their Afghanistan provide no reason to hold off, and arguably provide reason
jobs, safe in the knowledge that the suckers working man will foot the to hurry up in order to free up scarce resources in order to “win the wars
bill for any health care they may need. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi we’re in,” as Gates is fond of saying.
thinks that’s a not a bug, but a feature of the new law, at least if those
able-bodied non-paycheck earners are artists. (HT: CNS News.) Conservative editorial pages bang away on their war/military
spending/nationalism drum all the time, helping to embed militarism in
Repeal the bill. conservative identity. Liberals need cues here, too: is it okay for liberals
to be advocating cuts in defense spending? Not only is it okay, but should
they do so? The Times had an opportunity to give its views on these
questions in this editorial, and it shrugged.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

With Liberal Editorial Pages

Like These… [Cato at Liberty…]
MAY 17, 2010 11:18A.M.

By Justin Logan

…who needs conservative editorial pages?

It’s rather sad that the nation’s leading liberal editorial page dedicates an
editorial to Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ milquetoast call for less-
huge defense spending, but can only muster dissembling and throat-
clearing.

8
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 18 May 2010

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS learning, they’ll be increasingly swept up in national political storms, just
as happened last September.
President Just Can’t Leave
Unfortunately, with President Obama’s address in Parade, we see exactly
Them Kids Alone [Cato at why people of all political stripes should demand that the president stay
out of their kids’ classrooms: the president very well might push political
Liberty] and social ideas on their kids that they find unacceptable. In the case of
MAY 17, 2010 10:38A.M. President Obama, he has chosen to push his not-so-
subtle campaign against Americans who dare to to earn profits —
By Neal McCluskey charlatans who try to produce things that others want and need, and
earn a living through voluntary exchange – and to continue to elevate to
sainthood those who work for nonprofits and, of course, government.
Oh, and he throws a bit of alternative-energy environmentalism in there,
too:

Of course, each of you has the right to take your diploma and
seek the quickest path to the biggest paycheck or the highest
title possible. But remember: You can choose to broaden your
concerns to include your fellow citizens and country instead.
By tying your ambitions to America’s, you’ll hitch your wagon
to a cause larger than yourself. You can choose a career in
public service or the nonprofit sector, or teach in an
underserved school. If you have medical training, you can
work in an understaffed clinic. Love science? You can
discover new sources of clean energy or launch a business
that makes the most efficient and affordable solar panels or
wind turbines.
Remember back in September, the huge hullabaloo over President
Obama’s planned address to America’s students to start the new school
That their kids would be subjected to this sort of politicized, collectivist
year? Remember how concerned many people were that the speech
rhetoric from the president is exactly what numerous parents — many of
would be heavily politicized, and perhaps even designed to “indoctrinate”
whom pursue the filthy paychecks that come with manufacturing
kids about the President’s views on such controversial issues as health-
computers, building houses, keeping a company’s books, editing
care reform? You probably don’t remember because the media buried
magazines, and myriad other things that make all Americans’ lives
it and the speech ended up being fairly innocuous, but do you recall that
richer – feared in September. And it might very well be what they would
the uproar was largely a result of U.S. Department of Education lesson
have gotten had there not been a public furor well before Obama’s
plans that advised teachers to have kids talk about how they could help
speech was delivered.
President Obama, and a cover letter from Education Secretary Arne
Duncan that noted that schools are engines of “social progress“? Well it
Perhaps, though, we owe the President a debt of gratitude for his
turns out that alarmed parents and taxpayers might have had very good
insatiable desire to interject himself into our children’s education.
reason to be concerned: In the pages of the most recent Parade
Thanks to both the uproar created by his September address, and the
magazine, the President furnishes just the sort of politics and social-
objectionable content of his Parade message, the President has provided
change laden message to students that lots of parents and taxpayers
two terrific illustrations of why the federal government should get out of
feared.
education. He has also illustrated why overall we need to take
education away from politicians and let parents freely choose among
The President begins his Parade address by expressing his regret that he
private educational options. In short, he has unwittingly cast a bright
“couldn’t be at every high school and college commencement this year.”
light on a huge reason we need full educational freedom: Without it, our
This might seem uncontroversial, but it actually raises one of the most
children will at best be embroiled in repeated political conflict, and at
fundamental problems with any president forcing himself into a child’s
schooling: Under the Constitution, the federal government has no worst truly face political indoctrination.
authority to interfere in education. With this president especially,
though, it appears that among the ever-growing titles accompanying the
presidency is now Principal-in-Chief. But that is most definitely not a
legitimate presidential title, and at the very least taking it ensures that
education — even if unintended — will constantly be wrapped up in
White House level politics. So when kids should be sitting in their classes

9
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Internet Regulation: How About
This Ad Hominem? [Cato at
Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 10:25A.M.
By Jim Harper
The New York Times starts its commentary on proposed Internet
regulations with a clever ad hominem argument: “The Republican attack
on the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to classify
broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service sounded a
lot like the G.O.P. talking points on health care reform.”
The GOP are being like themselves. Accordingly, Times readers should
think their viewpoint is yucky. It’s not the most substantive argument
you’ll come across today.
There are good reasons not to encumber the Internet with regulations
designed for the telephone system. Here are four: The Internet is not like
the telephone system, and the FCC doesn’t have the institutional ability
to manage a changing, competitive system of networks. Extending
“universal service” telephone taxes to the Internet will drive down
adoption and frustrate universal service goals. The FCC is subject to
capture by the very interests from which the Times thinks regulation
would “protect.” The Internet’s large cadre of technologists and active
consumers will do a better job than the FCC of protecting consumers’
interests.
But ad hominem is more fun. So let’s ask why the New York Times didn’t
disclose that, as a content provider, it has a dog in the fight? Net
neutrality regulation would act as a subsidy to content providers like the
Times, ultimately paid by consumers as higher prices for Internet
access.
10
18 May 2010
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The Mote in Paul Krugman’s
Eye [Cato at Liberty]
MAY 17, 2010 10:21A.M.
By Michael F. Cannon
Paul Krugman says libertarianism is not a serious political philosophy
because politicians are corruptible, do stupid things, et cetera. My
colleagues Aaron Powell and David Boaz demonstrate why that’s a bigger
problem for Krugman than for libertarians: Krugman’s statism wouldn’t
make politicians any less ignorant or corruptible, it would just give those
ignorant and corruptible politicians more power.
I made the same point to Krugman during a health care debate. He
complained that Republicans complain that government doesn’t work,
and then they get elected and prove themselves correct. (It’s a good line,
but I think he stole it from P.J. O’Rourke.) I responded, “Unless you have
a plan to abolish Republicans, they’re part of your plan. Maybe we can
put them in camps?” Krugman seems impervious to the point.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Illinois Budget at Impasse [Tax
Foundation]
MAY 17, 2010 12:00A.M.
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn refuses to consider a proposal to cut state
spending by 10%, and the Legislature refuses to consider Quinn’s plan to
raise the state’s income tax from 3% to 4%. The result (from the State
Journal-Register):
Lawmakers abruptly left Springfield Friday without approving a
spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1. There is no schedule
for them to return to finish, but unless the Democrat-controlled
legislature passes a budget by May 31, they’ll need Republican votes to
do so.
Three times last week, the House rejected plans to borrow money to
make a required $3.8 billion payment to the pension systems next year.
Quinn said that was a mistake.
“We have to borrow. I’ve said that from Day One,” he said.
Just kicking the can down the road.
More on Illinois here.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Happy Tax (Plus Deficit)
Freedom Day [Tax Foundation]
MAY 17, 2010 12:00A.M.
Tax Freedom Day® was April 9, 2010, but today — May 17, 2010 —
represents the date on which Americans have worked enough to pay this
year’s tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels plus the federal
budget deficit. Another way to put it: If tax collections matched
spending, Tax Freedom Day would be today, an additional 38 days of
work.
Federal spending is at its highest since World War II. Using current
deficit projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the average
household’s share of total spending is $31,737, and the average
household’s share of total taxes is $18,579, leaving a per-household
deficit of $13,158.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
“Hauser’s Law”: Can Tax
Revenues Exceed 19% of GDP?
[Tax Foundation]
MAY 17, 2010 12:00A.M.
David Ranson has an interesting piece at the Wall Street Journal about
“Hauser’s Law,” the observation that federal tax revenues have
historically not exceeded about 19%-20% of GDP despite significant
increases and decreases in tax rates. The implication is that attempts to
raise revenue above this purported ceiling will reduce GDP and thus
reduce collections under the ceiling.
An interesting read with a neat chart.
11
18 May 2010
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Food & Beverage Tax
Developments in California, DC,
Philadelphia, and Washington
[Tax Foundation]
MAY 17, 2010 12:00A.M.
Imposing new excise taxes on food and beverage seems to be a trend now
in state and local taxation. Those areas with some of the worst business
tax climates and/or highest tax burdens seem to be jumping first:
• California Democratic Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez has
introduced a bill to impose a 1-cent-per-teaspoon-of-sugar tax on
commercial beverage sales.
• D.C. City Council member Mary Cheh has proposed a 1-cent per
ounce soda tax to fund a new program she’s sponsoring to require
healthier food at public schools. After opposition from at least one
of her colleagues on the soda tax, Cheh has indicated she may now
pursue expanding the city’s sales tax to soda, emulating Maryland
and Virginia. That would raise $6.5 million per year as opposed to
$9 million from the special tax.
• Philadelphia has a 2-cent-per-ounce soda tax proposal.
• Washington State has a new candy and bottled water tax going into
effect on June 1, followed by a 2-cent-per-can soda tax taking effect
July 1. Wholesalers are considering going to the ballot to repeal.
An interesting note: the D.C. proposal and probably others base the tax
on the amount of beverage a concentrated powder would produce. So a
19-ounce canister of lemonade powder, for instance, would face a tax of
$2.56 based on the D.C. formula.
More on food and beverage taxes here.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 18 May 2010

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Legalize-It-and-Tax-It: States
Considering New Excise Taxes
[Tax Foundation]
MAY 17, 2010 12:00A.M.

In the 1790s, Congress imposed federal excise taxes on the “sin” of

drinking whiskey and the luxury of owning a carriage. The whiskey tax
provoked an outcry and violence against tax collectors, resulting in
President Washington federalizing the militia and the tax’s repeal in
1803. The carriage tax proved more durable, and over time other
“luxuries” (telephones, cars, yacht purchases, electric suntanning) have
been subject to federal and state excise taxes.

For the most part, such hefty, targeted taxes work because only a
minority of people pay them; if a majority paid them they’re less likely to
be enacted in the first place. (Witness Maine’s public repeal of an
increase in the beer excise tax or Pittsburgh’s outrage at their poured
drink tax.) Going after a less politically powerful group of people, like
cigarette smokers or car renters, is more common.

There’s one big exception: imposing an excise tax as part of legalizing a

product. The federal alcohol excise tax came into being as Prohibition
was ended, for instance. Across the country, purveyors and consumers of
illegal or semi-legal products and services are pushing for legalize-it-
and-tax-it.

The Wall Street Journal summarizes some developments:

• Ohio is adding video lottery machines to racetracks after residents

voted to approve new casinos; other states expanding gambling or
considering it include California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, and New
Jersey.

• Arkansas, Colorado, South Dakota, Virginia, and Washington are

easing restrictions on Sunday sales of liquor.

• Alabama, California, Delaware, D.C., Illinois, Massachusetts,

Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee are considering easing
restrictions on marijuana. California voters will face the issue in
November.

• Detroit cancelled efforts to shut down erotic businesses in part

because of the negative fiscal and job impacts.

More on excise taxes here.

12