Monthly Archives: January 2012

It Isn’t Always the Government

Posted on by
Reply

The US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform has settled on its view of the most ridiculous lawsuits of the just concluded year, borrowing from FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org.  As the Institute points out, the US has been the lawsuit capital of the world for some time, and foolishness like these cases contributes to the title.

We can’t blame this idiocy on government, however.  I do have to wonder, though, at the lawyers who actually agree to take these things to court.  They must know the frivolous nature, so I speculate about their motives….

The most idiotic case is one that also demonstrates an amazing degree of chutzpah.  The criminal sues his victims because they didn’t keep their end of an extorted bargain.

Convict sues couple he kidnapped for not helping him evade police. A man who kidnapped a couple at knifepoint while he was running from the police is now suing the victims, claiming that they promised to hide him in exchange for an unspecified amount of money.  The plaintiff, currently in jail, is seeking $235,000 for the alleged “breach of contract.”

Here are more examples of our idiocy, beginning with one for the psychiatrist’s couch.  “It all began when I was little, and my mummy violated my Oedipus Complex….”

Young adults sue mother for sending cards without gifts and playing favorites. The plaintiffs, now 20 and 23, claimed the mother “sometimes didn’t include gifts in cards sent to her children; played favorites with her children…did not send care packages until his sixth semester away at college…changed her surname, thus ‘causing attention’ at her daughter’s school events; and refused to buy her a homecoming dress.”

Poor babies….  Let’s see, now.  I didn’t get a care package, ever.  And my mother never bought me a homecoming dress, either.  Or a tux, which would have fit me better.  Or even rent me one.  Hmm….

Everyone’s a critic, too.  Opinions, though, are as ubiquitous as certain body parts; no one is obligated to hear or view either.

Woman sues over movie trailer; says not enough driving in ‘Drive’. A Michigan woman who claims she was misled by the trailers for the movie ‘Drive’ is suing the distributors of the film.  She says she was disappointed by the lack of driving in the film and was expecting something more similar to the ‘Fast and Furious’ films.

Back to misbehaving mothers:

Mom files suit against exclusive preschool over child’s college prospects. A New Yorker is suing a private preschool, saying the school’s curriculum has seriously hurt her 4-year-old’s chances of getting into an Ivy League college.

This assumes an Ivy League education is a worthy goal.  If the private preschool is living up to Mom’s allegations, they’re actually doing little Buffy a favor.  Oh, great—now the Ivy Leaguers are going to sue….

All I can say about the next one is that it’s a good thing he didn’t pull either one of these stunts in Texas.

Man sues bar for not disarming him before he started drinking (and fighting). A Pennsylvania man illegally brought a gun into a bar, then got injured in a drunken shootout with another patron, and now has sued the bar for not searching him for a weapon on his way in.

Finally, there’s this.

Mother sues Chuck E. Cheese – says games encourage gambling in children. A California woman has filed a lawsuit against Chuck E. Cheese on the grounds that their games are actually an illegal form of gambling and could get kids hooked. She is seeking at least $5 million; the restaurant says the games are legal and has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

I played bingo in grade school, matched pennies in junior high, and played poker all through high school.  Nine to two Mom (what is it about mothers?) loses this one.

What’s in it for the New Year?

Posted on by
Reply

Irwin Stelzer, of The Weekly Standard, offers some excessively realistic predictions for 2012.

Some examples follow; their accuracy, as Stelzer points out, depends on the likelihood of some things occurring—whether you believe in certain “ifs,” in his terms.  Stelzer mentions certain possibilities in Europe, but I’ve dwelled on the doings of that continent several times already; I’ll just mention some of his “ifs” for the US.

If you believe that the recent jagged but downward trend in claims for unemployment insurance foretells a drop in the unemployment rate that will be reported on Friday, and if you give weight to recent cheery numbers such as the uptick in regional indices of economic activity, you will stop worrying about the possibility of a renewed collapse in the jobs market.

If you read the recent upsurge in consumer confidence and spending to be suggesting that the demand side of the economy is ready to contribute to a more rapid recovery, you will murmur a word of thanks to the sainted John Maynard Keynes, and face 2012 with equanimity

You’ll also be, I think, ignoring the spike nature of the hiring, as it was primarily for temporary labor to man the retail stores and related endeavors as retailers and suppliers ramped up for that part of the year—Thanksgiving through New Year’s—when consumer shopping itself spikes for holiday buying.  You’ll also be ignoring this same season’s normal spike in optimism as the Christian optimism that underlies the two holidays dominates, as does the festive nature of the season, at least for a little bit.  And you’ll be ignoring three years of belt-tightening under these difficult economic conditions that produced what economists call pent-up demand: buying has been put off, and put off, and put off, until necessary things absolutely must be bought—or the feeling of too-tight living must be relieved at least a little.

The holidays are over.  The next few jobs and spending reports and consumer confidence readings will be interesting.

On the other hand,

If you believe that the continued fall in house prices—down in October for the 13th consecutive year-over-year decline—is more significant a harbinger than the recent modest pickup in sales, you also believe experts who guess that the bottom of the housing market will not be reached until 2015. That bodes ill for the jobs market….

If you believe that the recent spurt in consumer spending will prove unsustainable because it has come at the expense of savings…you believe the demand…will remain too weak to sustain [growth.]

See above re jobs and spending.

If you believe that the new round of regulations being readied by the Obama administration for the new year will frighten businesses, especially job-creating small businesses, you also believe that business investment is unlikely to provide much of a boost to the economy.

See above re jobs, and think about an ability to continue spending, even were a desire to do so present.

Stelzer then concludes, in keeping with the rump of the holidays, on an optimistic note:

…longer term the outlook brightens. America is still the world’s largest source of major innovations. It remains the home of risk-taking venture capitalists, deep and liquid securities markets, and a labor market so flexible that thousands can flee, and indeed are fleeing high-tax, regulation-heavy, union-ridden California for booming Texas. It is a safe haven for investors and the country of choice by immigrants.

But given the state of our educational system, for how much longer can we innovate?  Given the state of our economy, for how much longer can our jobs engine—small and medium businesses—afford to pay for innovation, or take risks involving innovation—or any other risks, come to that?  Given the present administration’s drumbeat of attacks on business—regulations Stelzer also mentions—for how much longer will small and medium businesses be willing even to try?  Given the present administration’s steady drumbeat of attacks on right to work states (vis., NLRB’s attack on South Carolina via its suit against Boeing for the miscreancy of wanting to build airplanes in that state), for how much longer will there be states that are sanctuaries for business, for innovation?  And he misses the fact that, in this economy, immigration is way down.

I’m not as sanguine about the coming year, or the years after, if we continue on our present course.

Governments and Laws

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written before about government’s regulations.  Just as pernicious, though, are government’s laws—and this is even more our own fault, because unlike regulations, which are created by nameless Executive Branch bureaucrats through delegation from Congress, laws are passed by that Congress—the very folks we elect to represent us, and then re-elect, even when they overstep or ignore our instructions to them.

Last year, the National Conference of State Legislatures reports, the states passed 40,000 laws that take effect this year, or took effect after passage last year.  The Daily Caller reports that at the Federal level, it would have taken 12 days(!), at 200 pages per day, to read all the Federal laws and regulations extant in 1925 (before the New Deal, that is).  Today, it’ll take three years.  Obamacare and Dodd–Frank, for all their excessiveness, actually added only 25 days.

Some examples at the State level include the following gems.  You’re already aware of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank; I won’t go into further Federal pearls.

California last year banned the use of UV indoor tanning beds for all minors.  Apparently, the State has decided parents are too negligent and can’t be trusted to do their own jobs.  Nor is their judgment to be trusted.

California has banned “the production, distribution or sale of beer to which caffeine has been directly added as a separate ingredient.”  Apparently the State’s distrust extends to all of its adult citizens.  The Patrons in government Know Better, and good idea or bad, mere adults won’t have that choice to make.

Kentucky has decided that selected prison inmates who have not been granted parole must serve “the final six months of their sentence in the community under supervision.”  In other words, these inmates get parole, anyway, even though they didn’t get parole.  Hmm….

In Oregon, the state’s universities and community colleges must “waive tuition and fees for current and former foster children under age 25,” and this new law also gives foster children (25 is a child?  Still, that’s consistent with the adult “child” that Obamacare allows onto a parents’ health insurance policy—at the parents’ cost) first claim on the state’s Opportunity Grants when funding can’t support 100% of otherwise eligible students.  We get yet more special treatment for favored groups—this time under the guise of glorified “affirmative action.”  The law is silent on orphans or children raised in orphanages; apparently they aren’t as deserving.

More examples can be found at the NCSL link above.

Tacitus warned us long ago:

Corruptisima republica plurimae leges.

Mt. Soledad Memorial

Posted on by
Reply

Many of you will have heard of the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross fiasco and the 9th Circuit’s weaseling related to that case.  In sum, the ACLU sued to have the cross—a war memorial, erected to honor America’s fallen, our soldiers who’ve died defending our country and our freedoms—removed on the manufactured offense that someone might object to the use of a cross for this purpose.  After the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on appeal that the cross had to go, the US Supreme Court, in a strongly worded ruling, said the cross was a legitimate war memorial device and was to be permitted to stay; they then returned to case to the original court to produce a proper ruling.  Following this, vandals tore down the cross, and the current status is that the Obama administration will not permit the cross to be re-erected until that original court gets off its duff and follows its instructions from the Supreme Court.

There is a similar memorial near Mt. Soledad, CA, that honors, among others, America’s Korean War fallen; it was created in 1954.  It’s going through the same vicious ordeal.

Mt Soledad Memorial

In response to another ACLU suit alleging offense at using a cross to honor our war dead, the 9th Circuit ruled on appeal that the Mt. Soledad cross had to go, also, overruling a lower court Federal judge’s 2008 decision.  The ruling was so poorly reasoned, and so wrong-headedly done, that five judges on the 26-judge court objected to the 9th‘s refusal to rehear the case en banc.  The essence of the judges’ objections to the Court’s refusal involve arcane mechanics of evaluation, but they center on the plain secular nature of the cross in its use and purpose at the Mt Soledad Memorial.  They wrote

[T]he question is what viewers may fairly understand to be the purpose of the display. That inquiry, of necessity, turns upon the context in which the contested object appears.

They then cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in that Mojave Desert case above:

…recognized the unique history of the Cross as a symbol of respect for fallen soldiers (of all faiths or no faith)….

This is what Justice Kennedy had written, that our five judges were citing:

…a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs.  It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people.  Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion.  It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.

And so it is with the Mt. Soledad cross.

The five judges went on with other arguments, but you get the idea.

As the case now stands, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, represented by the Liberty Institute, are appealing to the Supreme Court; the Court will hear a petition for certiorari (lawyer-talk for “agree to take up the matter”—if they grant certiorari, they will hear the appeal itself) in early February.  One hopes the Supremes will take the case and then rule as they did with Mojave; although nothing is certain in legal disputes.  One hopes also that the Supremes will swat the 9th for their continued…intransigence…, but that’s probably too much to ask.

This case is another example in a long-standing assault on our war memorials through judicial activism and by an ACLU that used to serve a valuable role in protecting the rights of individual Americans, but that now seems bent on attacking the rights of other Americans.

Federal Spending: Why Is It Still Rising?

Posted on by
Reply

As The Wall Street Journal reports, total Federal spending will run to $3.65 trillion in 2012, up from $3.6 trillion for the just concluded 2011.  So, what happened to the spending cuts the Republicans promised in the run up to the 2010 elections?  A funny thing happened on the way to the Washington pig trough.

The Democrats, in the summer debt ceiling “negotiations,” blocked any savings more extensive than $7 billion before they would allow any sort of deal on the debt ceiling to be concluded.  Only 28 programs, out of the thousands Washington uses for vote buying, got cut—and these involved nothing but walking around money: a $1.2 million program for “civic education” was eliminated, for instance.  With the Solyndra scandal pushing hard, DoE’s loan guarantee program for “green” startups got axed, though.

What else?  Amtrak, the Legal Services Corporation, National Public Radio, the United Nations population program, mass transit grants, funding for the UN’s Climate Panel all were retained. Spending actually went up for other programs: the National Institutes of Health, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Indian Health Service, Bureau of Land Management, for instance.

Again, I ask: what happened?  The House did, after all, pass a serious budget with real cuts in it and a plan for entitlement reform.  But Obama and the Democratic Party-controlled Senate simply blocked everything else.  In the Senate, the Democrats simply refused to propose a budget of their own so those negotiations could be carried out—no discussion at all occurred.  The Democrats scored Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WI) for being so rude as to propose changing entitlements, instead of debating the matter, or offering their own ideas.

And the Republican leadership acted like a bunch of neophytes and idiots. The Republicans failed to respond to the attacks on Ryan for his proposals.  They got conned by a boxer from Nevada and a small-time neighborhood organizer from Chicago.  Republicans were suckered into secret meetings with Obama, who publically assured all who would listen that he really wanted fiscal discipline, and then in those secret meetings, he demanded $1 trillion in tax hikes.  When the Republicans could not accept that increase, Obama attacked them publically for blowing up the negotiations.  Then they let the Democrats beat them up over payroll tax cuts instead of calling the Democrats out for defunding Social Security and pushing instead for income tax cuts—of the permanent kind—of the same per centage reductions as the Dems’ payroll cuts.

It went like that all year.  Republican naïve (naïve! after all their years in Washington) leadership being played like a cheap fiddle, and they were unable to respond.  Maybe this crop of Republican leaders are too used to being in the minority, too used to losing: they no longer know how to win.  Worse, they no longer have actual conservative principles to defend and to push for.

The WSJ suggests this for the Republicans:

They need to draw contrasts with Democrats on taxes, spending, regulation and reform that at least educate the public about what’s at stake.  Pick some programs and make them budget-cutting showcases.  Use the savings to finance tax cuts that promote growth.  Or simply vote for tax reform whether or not it is “revenue neutral” under Congress’s silly budget rules.  Follow votes in the House by bringing pro-growth bills to the Senate and forcing Democrats to vote up or down, as they did with the Keystone XL pipeline.

Maybe the Republicans need new leadership—in both chambers—before they’ll be able to do this.  The current crop of leaders started strong—and then let the community organizer lead them around like a trained pony.