Category: Politics

News flash: Politicians abuse the Constitution when left alone

I’ll believe this when I see it:

If Democrats gain the 15 seats they need to win control of the House — and most analysts think they will — one of the first things the new House will do is restrict or end outright a slew of lobbying practices.

In a little-publicized statement, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House Democratic leader, has promised to change the chamber’s rules to reflect the provisions of her not-so-modestly-named Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006. The months-old measure would, among other things, prohibit House members from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists or from organizations that employ lobbyists.

Such a reform will be admirable, and an obvious path, given the propensity our current representatives have to whore out the American people for a few extra dollars. But politicians are still politicians, whether they’re riding the bigot wave of the last few years or the reform wave many now believe will occur next Tuesday. I’m still not sold, because too many voters don’t think. Even limited success by Sen. George Allen on the absurd accusation he’s directed at Jim Webb provide enough proof that voters simply look for excuses to vote in a pre-determined manner.

However, this explanation is the meat of this story:

Congress has come close to reining in lobbyists before, and it wound up doing nothing of the kind. Several of the proposals in Pelosi’s bill (H.R. 4682, for you wonks out there) were wending their way through the system but died after lawmakers concluded — incorrectly, it turned out — that voters didn’t care much about congressional “corruption.” Pelosi’s bill, with small modifications, was tested in the House and lost by just three votes.

The problem here is that Congress seems to think that corruption is okay as long as the voters don’t care about it. That’s the same logic that allows legislators to target gays, stirring up animosity and fear to win votes. All around in politics, we’re willing to only inhabit a ridiculous low. We shouldn’t need a scandal to do what’s right. That we wait until there is such a scandal further demonstrates why limited government is the best strategy.

Legislating in broad, populist strokes

This quote from two years ago is floating around The Internets again now that New Jersey accepts same-sex marriage. It’s from President Bush:

“I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman,” Bush said. “Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass … laws that enable people to you know, be able to have rights, like others.”

I blogged the President’s quote at the time. I’m not going to harp on how his stated view essentially coincides with New Jersey’s ruling. He’s a politician using this issue as an election year wedge when he really is fine with gays having equal rights? Old news. Instead, the bits I’ve placed in bold are more significant.

As strange as it may seem to the President and his base, we already have a legal arrangement that enables people to have rights. It’s called the United States Constitution. It’s an interesting document that everyone should read. But, again, it’s worth remembering that it doesn’t enable as much as it guarantees. There’s an important distinction between those two words.

Moving on, his last sentence is stunning. I can’t believe I ignored it, but I know more now, so I have a better response. The notion of majoritarianism in that sentence is clear. States have the right to pass laws to force itself to treat one group of people with the same respect it treats another group? If you want to be nice to everyone, you can, but you don’t have to do so if the majority doesn’t want to do it? Wow, so wrong. I certainly hope the President’s learned how ridiculous this is, although I doubt he has. (I’ve been reading the news.) He really should think about how history is going to judge him, because it isn’t going to be kind.

It’s nice that people realize that President Bush stated this, as it shows a bit of his character. But I fail to see how it’s complimentary to the President, since he still contradicts it with his political push, reducing my opinion of his character. It was at one point in the past, but it’s not useful to the discussion any more. I’d never think to quote it approvingly, as some are, in relation to New Jersey. If anything, it contradicts how stupid the “separate but equal” solution will be.

Whew, George Allen weighed in on New Jersey’s decision

I’ll have more thoughts later on yesterday’s ruling by New Jersey’s Supreme Court. Until then, I do want to note Sen. George Allen’s statement:

“Today’s decision by the NJ Supreme Court is another example of activist judges inventing the law and subverting the will of the people. This is why I support the marriage amendment, because it will protect the values and views of the people of Virginia from judges who would want to impose their elitist views on us. This is a clear difference between my opponent and me – I support protecting marriage from judges who do not understand their role: to interpret the law, not invent the law. My opponent does not. “My opponent says that this amendment would infringe upon the rights of ordinary Virginians, and he opposes it. But I and many members of the Virginia Assembly joined in asking the Attorney General of Virginia to render an opinion. His response: ‘I can find no legal basis for the proposition that passage of the marriage amendment will limit or infringe upon the ordinary civil and legal rights of unmarried Virginians’. “This amendment does exactly what it says it does; it defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and I’m for marriage between a man and a woman while my opponent is against it.”

I’m sure that majoritarian plea about the will of the people (and current law being more than individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution) is a sacred part of his own libertarianism. Of course, I’ve already debunked the silly notion that values will disintegrate if we don’t pass draconian bills and amendments. I’ll refute the rest of what Sen. Allen said when I post my thoughts on the ruling. Until then, perhaps someone should tell Jim Webb’s wife that he’s against marriage between a man and a woman. Although, I’m amazed she doesn’t know, since that is a giant plank of The Homosexual Agenda&#153.

Wanting to do and Doing are not the same

It’s now obvious that the Republican strategy over the next two weeks will be to hammer away at the supposed fringe liberal agenda Speaker Pelosi would force upon America. It’s an amusing narrative, if only because what it ignores – the benefit of divided government – is so painfully obvious. We’re not changing the president in this election, and I don’t even buy the promise of impeachment proceedings. That leaves a Republican president to veto any and every fringe bill that comes from Congress. That assumes the Democrats gain both houses. If not, the “dangers” of a Democratic Congress never arrive on the president’s desk. This fear is overblown.

Not surprisingly, more of this appeared in yesterday’s Opinion Journal. It’s a valiant effort, I suppose, except it ignores the last half-decade and pretends that we don’t remember it. Among many hilarious bits of nonsense:

Second, President Bush will not be able to re-energize his effort for individually owned Social Security accounts, for “preventing the privatization of social security” is in the Democratic National Committee’s “6-Point Plan for 2006.” Democrats don’t trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds–better to let a wise government do that, for as socialist Noam Chomsky says, “putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together.” And since Congress gets to spend Social Security tax receipts that aren’t needed to pay benefits, letting people invest their payments in their own retirement accounts would be a costly revenue reduction that the new, bigger-spending Congress won’t allow to happen.

Privatizing Social Security is necessary. The longer we wait, the worse the pain when we finally fix it. I get it. But provide me one example of how the current Republican Congress fought for privatization. Show me evidence that President Bush didn’t pack up his reform agenda (saving his political capital for other expenditures?) at the first hint of resistance from the Republican Congress. And, no, quoting Noam Chomsky’s stupidity isn’t proof.

I don’t like the idea of Democrats in power, but I despise the reality of Republicans in power. A few years out of power won’t hurt any more than what we’re suffering now. Maybe I’m wrong, but shouting “they suck more” won’t convince me.

I might vote for myself for Senate

Skimming my hometown newspaper today, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, I found this Q&A with Sen. George Allen and James Webb, dealing with domestic issues such as Social Security, federal deficits, making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, No Child Left Behind, illegal immigration, manned space flights to the moon (huh?), and various federal and state constitutional amendments. I won’t bore anyone, most of all myself, with a recap of each position. Neither candidate is one I’d happily support. I know I won’t support Sen. Allen, but I can’t believe the Virginia’s Democratic Party can’t do better than Webb. I can’t believe I have to vote for this if I want to cast a lesser-of-two-evils protest vote. On immigration, courtesy of James Webb:

I do not support guest-worker programs. I do not believe the myth of the tech-worker shortage. Our priority as a society should be to invest in and improve domestic technical and scientific education programs so that there are enough qualified job applicants available from the pool of domestic labor. Until our borders are secure, and the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants already in America is resolved, guest-worker programs are counterproductive.

If the tech-worker shortage is a myth, then why does society (i.e., the federal government) need to “invest” in domestic technical and scientific education programs? There are either enough qualified domestic applicants or there aren’t. You can’t deny the latter and propose a solution to correct it. This is what Republicans mean when they complain abouot Speaker Pelosi. It’s crap, because a vote for Democrats this year is a vote to have the hacks bicker with each other rather than continuing to increase spending and reduce civil liberties. But, good lord, this is why I am not a Democrat.

Of course, Sen. Allen’s answers were no better, as a whole. That didn’t stop the Times-Dispatch from announcing its predictable support for Sen. Allen. But, really, shouldn’t they at least use facts as support?

On taxes, Allen supports making the temporary federal tax cuts permanent, including repeal of the federal estate tax. He says: “I trust free people with free enterprise.” His opponent says we cannot have permanent tax cuts in time of war (meaning he would let the temporary tax cuts expire, thus raising taxes). And he is on record as favoring higher state taxes for transportation.

That’s his famous self-proclaimed “libertarian” streak, I presume. So, that explains his support for an increase in the federal minimum wage? And why he voted for the port security bill without trying to strip out the anti-free enterprise internet gambling ban? And what about this?

The most important institution in our society is the family. For the raising of children, the ideal is to have a mother and a father. I strongly believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. In our representative democracy, the will and values of the people should be determined by the people or their elected legislatures, not activist judges who superimpose their elitist point of view legislating from the bench. I support passage of the Virginia definition of marriage to uphold the views of Virginians against activist judges. I’m a sponsor of a Federal Marriage Amendment.

And the rights of individuals should be protected by the Constitution. We can’t always get what we want, I guess. But wouldn’t civil marriage, which is a pre-defined contract blessed by the Commonwealth, be a form of free enterprise? Virginia’s proposed marriage amendment would adversely impact me, if interpreted as some believe it should be since we’re going for the whole “no judicial interpretation of something not mentioned by the words” thing?

Contrary to Sen. Allen’s belief, not all Virginians believe we’re in a cultural war with our judges. Okay, that’s not true, we are. But Sen. Allen’s side fired the first shots. That’s not the mark of a man who cares about free people, let alone free enterprise. I can do better than that with my vote, even if it’s James Webb.

This isn’t a video game

Charles Krauthammer gets it right on the issue of Japan and nuclear weapons:

Japan is a true anomaly. All the other Great Powers went nuclear decades ago — even the once-and-no-longer great, such as France; the wannabe great, such as India; and the never-will-be great, such as North Korea. There are nukes in the hands of Pakistan, which overnight could turn into an al-Qaeda state, and North Korea, a country so cosmically deranged that it reports that the “Dear Leader” shot five holes-in-one in his first time playing golf and also wrote six operas. Yet we are plagued by doubts about Japan’s joining this club.
…

The immediate effect of Japan’s considering going nuclear would be to concentrate China’s mind on denuclearizing North Korea. China calculates that North Korea is a convenient buffer between it and a dynamic, capitalist South Korea bolstered by American troops. China is quite content with a client regime that is a thorn in our side, keeping us tied down while it pursues its ambitions in the rest of Asia. Pyongyang’s nukes, after all, are pointed not west but east.

Japan’s threatening to go nuclear would alter that calculation. It might even persuade China to squeeze Kim Jong Il as a way to prevent Japan from going nuclear. The Japan card remains the only one that carries even the remote possibility of reversing North Korea’s nuclear program.

For whatever reason nuclear weapons are proliferating in East Asia (Pakistan, India, and apparently North Korea), the problem is here to stay. We must work to solutions based in present reality. Considering the only sway we have is with our allies, of whom Japan is the clear winner in Asia, we must use their power to promote stability. Rather, we mustn’t stand in the way of Japan using its power.

It would be nice if we could just make this go away, but deterrent is all we have left. As Mr. Krauthammer points out, we’re delusional if we think China is going to act in our best interest as a matter of policy. The only nations with which we hold any power to negotiate towards success are allies. We wish to persuade the Japanese from joining us as a superpower at the precise time we most need them to match us in ability.

The administration’s policy is understandable, but stuck in a worldview where we haven’t squandered our flexibility, if not our capacity for leadership. As such, it is wrong.

Ice Cream Man!!!!

I wonder if administration officials camped out at the U.S. District court to deliver this message, the way college kids camp out for tickets to the biggest game of the year?

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that “no court, justice, or judge” can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents.

That would cause whiplash if it wasn’t so unsurprising. That sort of reminds me of this routine by Eddie Murphy:

Any guesses as to which character President Bush is? And let’s not forget what happens to his ice cream in the end.

I don’t trust either, which is why I want divided

From yesterday, two editorial essays describing what Democrats would do if elected. First, from Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post, explaining why returning the Democrats to the majority would be good:

Should they make it through both houses, many of these measures will face a presidential veto. George W. Bush has already vetoed stem cell legislation, and he has staunchly opposed raising the minimum wage since the day he entered politics. What will congressional Republicans do if they’re confronted with a series of vetoes of popular legislation? How large will the lame duck president loom in their calculations?

If they’re so popular, and the public is clamoring for them, how can Mr. Meyerson believe that Republicans wouldn’t try to raise at least one of those flags? Does he believe that the current GOP isn’t so shallow as to support an issue for its supposed popular appeal, regardless of its policy impact? That assumes that President Bush would even sign the legislation. I suspect he’d find his Stem Cell Research-only veto pen.

Of course, it’s worth stepping back from that and asking the more fundamental question of whether or not public policy should be set by popular demand. I hope that popular demand correlates to good policy, but it doesn’t. That makes majoritarian arguments unacceptable.

Next, from Mallory Factor of the Free Enterprise Fund, explaining why returning the Democrats to the majority would be bad:

Next, let’s look at spending. One has to admit that the Republicans have given into the spending temptation, too, in the last few years. But the answer is structural reform to fight Congressional earmarks, not a change in party control. Rep. Pelosi suggests that most new spending would be “pay as you go.” At first, this sounds good, with its hint of not adding new government programs until we can afford them. But “pay as you go” really means “pay before passing go”—and certainly don’t collect any $300 tax refund checks as with the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Rep. Pelosi would be much more convincing on spending if her party had not already proposed $90 billion in new government spending, even before it takes control of the House. The only way to “pay as you go” and fund these programs is for “you” (the taxpayer) to “pay” more. That’s why Rep. Rangel has to say that middle class tax increases have to be considered, too—just raising taxes on the rich won’t pay for everything.

Who will enact this structural reform? The current GOP? Please. And Rep. Pelosi’s spending increases still must pass the president’s desk before we need to worry about her “pay as you go” theory. And does Mr. Factor really believe that the $300 refund check was fiscally responsible, as opposed to political opportunism?

For fun, consider this one extra bit of wishful thinking:

With $90 billion in spending proposals, and 12 years out of power, can we really believe that Democrats will turn on a dime to become the party of spending restraint? Instead, let’s hope that this year’s near-death experience for the Republicans will help keep them focused on cutting government spending and keeping taxes low.

Let’s assume the Republicans might discover fiscal restraint, just for giggles. The word keep in Mr. Factor’s prayer is an interesting choice. For this year’s near-death experience to keep them focused on cutting government spending, they would have to already be focused on it. Who believes that, other than partisans more interested in keeping power than fiscal restraint.

Both sides are wrong, regardless of how they got there. Giving us popular spending won’t help our mess, and arguing that we’re bad, but they’re worse is dumb. Neither party should have complete control. Ever.

Traditional marriage would decrease marriage

La Shawn Barber has an entry today about outing closeted public officials. It’s a topic worth considering, but a passage in the middle caught my attention.

… When I say I don’t care who people sleep with, I mean it…as long as it’s not in my face. Keep your business to yourself, and don’t define yourself by or try to turn your bedroom activities into a political cause. But that is what the homosexual agenda is about. Two to three percent of the population, people whose sexual orientation got mixed up somehow — genetically, environmentally, or how ever — want to flip the culture upside, demand special rights, and tell the rest of us how to think. It won’t work with me.

I read Ms. Barber’s blog because she’s intelligent and I agree with almost nothing she writes. Reading opposing views helps me flesh out my ideas and beliefs. I don’t see this issue as gay Americans fighting for special rights based on their sexual orientation. They are asking for the equal recognition of their rights by our government. It’s that simple. If they’re right, and I think they are, it doesn’t matter if that flips the culture upside, causes a few minor blips, or results in a collective yawn. Rights are inherent, not granted by the majority (telling the minority how to think).

More to the point, turn your bedroom activities into a political cause is not exclusive to gays within the realm of marriage. With accusations that gays have done that by asking for their right to marry, supporters of “traditional” marriage have turned their (heterosexual) bedroom activities into a political cause. Just yesterday, I posted a quote from a gentleman who claimed that marriage is about procreation. If that’s truly the case as it surely must be with a push for “traditional” marriage, then the freedom that heterosexuals maintain to marry anyone they please is unjustifiably broad. If this is the legitimate standard, we must begin reducing the right to marry to those who may create children. No one else would hold the right to state-sanctioned civil marriage. Or to procreation outside of marriage, if we want to be consistent in our defining our rights by some standard of values.

For example, my grandmother became engaged recently. She’ll be married with the full sanction of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Yet, I reasonably assume that she is beyond her child-bearing years. Some other criteria must be at work. Love? Happiness? What is it? Are those enough, since she will have no more children? Whatever it is, surely gay Americans possess the same capacity and desire to exercise this fundamental right.

This is not an argument for unions

Why do we keep hearing that employees are powerless against big, bad corporations? Lately, it’s always Wal-Mart, as it is in this story, except the story reveals the lie in the anti-capitalist sales pitch:

For months, politicians and activists have been saying that the low prices at the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), come at a tremendous cost to its low-paid employees. They point to lawsuits that contend the company discriminates against women and forces low-paid employees to work through lunch breaks and after their shifts, without extra compensation. Wal-Mart has also been boosting its political contributions to stop initiatives aimed at forcing the retailer to raise pay and benefits … .

Using contentions in a lawsuit is little more than hearsay until the case is resolved, of course. And I’m not sure how any company could “force” employees to do anything. Barring accusations of slavery, grudgingly acquiescing to an employer request isn’t a forced action.

Oh, wait, sorry. I got lost on the way to the bulk of the story. Here it is:

Now, as Wal-Mart rolls out a new round of workplace restrictions, employees at a Wal-Mart Super Center in Hialeah Gardens, Fla., are taking matters into their own hands. On Oct. 16, workers on the morning shift walked out in protest against the new policies and rallied outside the store, shouting “We want justice” and criticizing the company’s recent policies as “inhuman.” Workers said the number of participants was about 200, or nearly all of the people on the shift.

This demonstrates an intelligent response. If they don’t like what’s going on, they should leave. Granted, stopping at the front entrance isn’t quite far enough, and chanting “We want justice” is probably excessive. But I’m missing the forced part that amounts to an injustice. They’re equal partners in a transaction. When they accept that, they’ll find they’re not as powerless as they’re told. This concept is simple enough, and here is another data point, if they’re interested in learning the real lesson.