Monthly Archives: January 2012

Who’s Out of Touch?

Posted on by
Reply

We see this from the National Journal [emphasis added]:

…the State of the Union address both one of the great opportunities for any president running for another term and one of the best advantages that an incumbent enjoys over a challenger.

Start with the setting: the ornate chamber of the House of Representatives, where so much history has been made. Add in the cheering members who reach out to touch the president as he strides down the aisle and the speaker of the House forced to sit attentively behind him during the speech, showing respect for the leader of the other party. Then factor in the audience arrayed before the president—diplomats, Supreme Court justices, and uniformed leaders of the armed forces. And don’t forget the audience outside the chamber: For his first two State of the Union speeches, Obama was watched by 48 million Americans in 2010 and 43 million in 2011.

The stature gap with his challengers could not be wider. Other than in televised debates (when he was getting beat up by the other candidates), Republican front-runner Mitt Romney has been riding his campaign bus to diners, delis, drafty school gyms, church halls, and barns. His biggest audience on a good day? Maybe 1,000, but usually in the dozens. His attire? Often jeans and an open collar. And the perks? Well, his son Tagg tweeted a photo this month of the candidate crouched down on the bus trying to duct-tape shut a vent blowing cold air on him.

All we lack are the Roman columns.  Which candidate is addressing the people of the United States?

Hmm….

Rights Upheld

Posted on by
Reply

Last fall, I posted about a right-to-privacy case that involved police planting a GPS tracker in a suspect’s car without court sanction.  To briefly recap,  police wished to track the comings and goings of a suspected drug trafficker, so they obtained a search warrant for planting a GPS tracker on the suspect’s car.  In execution, though, the police had let the warrant expire before they acted on it, and then they planted the tracker outside the warrant’s jurisdiction.

The government argued that attaching the tracker to a car’s underside was too trivial a violation of property rights to matter, and further that no one who drove on public streets could expect his movements to go unmonitored.  Of course it was exactly this sort of cynical arrogance that contributed to our Founders’ writing into our Bill of Rights a requirement for the government to show cause to and get permission from a court before that government could invade and search an individual or his property.  Indeed, many of the government’s men understood this today; albeit they were breathtakingly careless in the execution: police had, in fact, obtained a warrant to attach the tracker, but within the District of Columbia.  However, they then installed the device after the warrant had expired and while the car was parked in Maryland.

Today, reports The Wall Street Journal, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling.  In a unanimous opinion, the Court said that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to a suspect’s vehicle—the Founders’ view, and American rights, were vindicated and upheld.

Still, the Court split in its opinion.  Justice Antonin Scalia, in the five-Justice majority opinion, held that the 18th century concept of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” included such private properties as 21st century automobiles in the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches (and seizures).  Thus, the 4th Amendment is technology-agnostic: our rights appertain to us, not to our property.  But we knew that from our Declaration of Independence.

Justice Samuel Alito went even further, in a dissenting concurring opinion (signed  onto by the likes of Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen Breyer).  Alito held that the warrantless (unwarranted?) GPS tracker implant not only violated the victim’s right of privacy, it violated his  “reasonable expectation of privacy,”  because, as the Court had held as long ago as 1967, “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”

Alito was quite clear in his reasoning, as summarized by the WSJ at the above link:

…a property-based approach was too narrow to guard against the proliferating threats to personal privacy modern technology posed.

In broadening Scalia’s argument, we see that technology agnosticism, again, with regard to our rights and freedoms.

In the end, the original obtaining of a warrant, coupled with the administration’s argument  that the warrantless search was only a trivial violation, demonstrates this administration’s utter cynicism when it comes to the rights and freedoms of Americans—and the continued need for the 4th Amendment to be applied rigorously and zealously.

Sanctions and Trust

Posted on by
Reply

Does his own party trust him anymore on sanctions against Iran—or anything else?

In a letter to President Obama (formally to his Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner), two Senators, Robert Menendez (D, NJ), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics Affairs, and Mark Kirk (R, IL), Member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, felt constrained to remind Obama and his administration of Congress’ intent when it passed (and Obama signed into law) the recent Menendez-Kirk Amendment to the Comprehensive Iran Sanction, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISAD).  This amendment authorized oil and financial sanctions against Iran should Iran insist on continuing on their course to obtaining nuclear weapons.

We understand that the administration is drafting rules to guide the implementation of the law and we hereby seek to convey the legislative intent underlying certain terms and phrases in the amendment and to ensure that the positive developments that have occurred as a result of the amendment are buttressed  by the administrative rules[.]

The Senators opened their letter with the above.  Their concern arises from Obama’s attempt to eviscerate the amendment to CISAD while it was being developed, even though it was an amendment that Obama had urged and to which Menendez and Kirk had agreed, and then after that agreement, Obama’s repudiation of it (interestingly, following that repudiation the amendment passed the Senate by a 100-0 vote).  Menendez has separately advised Obama that, as a result of Obama’s…behavior, “This certainly undermines your relationship with me for the future.”

The Senators, via their letter, laid out the specifics of some of their concerns.  These included the administration’s definition of the “significant reductions” other nations might claim as a means of continuing to do business with Iran’s Central Bank and to trade for Iranian oil while avoiding the US response mandated by CISAD—the cutting off of those nations’ banks from the US economy.  The strict definition was laid out in that underlying law; the Senators do not trust the administration to hew to that definition in its new implementing rules.  The Senators spelled it out in their letter:

To ascribe more variable terminology to the definition of “significantly reduced” would diminish the ability of countries to understand and comply with the amendment.  An unevenly applied interpretation would also call into question the seriousness of the sanctions policy and send mixed signals to both Iran and our allies.

Menendez and Kirk also are concerned that Obama will use the “national security” waiver in the sanctions law to completely weasel out of applying the sanctions: they fear he won’t apply any waiver on a case-by-case basis, as the amendment requires, attempting instead a blanket waiver that prevents any sanctions anywhere.

It was not our intent that the term “waive the imposition of sanctions under paragraph (1)” as meaning only one waiver is needed to waive the imposition of all sanctions.  In other words, with one report to Congress, the President could decide that not institution will be subject to sanctions….

They concluded,

We would welcome an opportunity to discuss these points with you prior to the publication of the final rule for the Menendez-Kirk amendment.

The Senate no longer trusts this President; his own party no longer trusts him.  Where is the basis for trust on the part of anyone else?  In any event, Obama’s rules are due out this week.  Maybe we’ll see the effect of the Senators’ letter.

Unions and Economic Well-Being

Posted on by
Reply

As Indiana moves toward becoming the 23rd Right to Work state—that is, a state in which its citizens no longer have to join a union, or pay union dues or part of union dues as a condition of finding work—the unions are weighing in on this risk to their awesome political and fiscal power.  Indeed, the unions are so opposed to this fundamental freedom of citizens to seek their own Happiness that they’re preparing to do everything they can to disrupt the National Football League’s Super Bowl, which this year is to be played in Indianapolis.  Jeff Combs, organizing director for Teamsters Local 135 in Indianapolis, assures us

You can tell them we’ll take the Super Bowl and shove it.

Brad Holloway, of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 481, warned that electricians may engage in work slowdowns.

And teamsters gathered at Indiana’s statehouse last week to protest while wearing T-shirts with 46—symbolizing the 46th Super Bowl—crossed out on the back.  The unions are looking for a national stage for their protest, and they’re sure to find one with this tactic.  But is it a stage they want?  And in a state whose unemployment rate is 9%, a half-point worse than the terrible national average?  Investors.com offers some statistics from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research concerning the relative economic well-being of Right to Work states vs. union states.

It seems that Right to Work states had a better than 28% growth in real personal income vs. a shade under 14% growth in union states between 2000 and 2009.  Per capita income in the last year of the period, adjusted for states’ costs of living (so that income in California, for instance, could be compared directly with income in North Dakota), was $35,500 in Right to Work states vs. $33,400 in union states.  Right to Work states experienced a nearly 21% growth in real manufacturing GDP vs. just 6.5% in union states between 2000 and 2008.

And there’s this: Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicate that Right to Work states added 1.5 million private sector jobs in their states, a 3.7% increase, while union states lost 1.8 million jobs, a 2.3% decline, between 1999 and 2009.

Go for it, guys.

Hasn’t Our Economy Been Managed Disastrously Enough?

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D, OH) considers that the oil and gas businessmen are greedy b*stards, and they cannot be trusted.  He wants to put their business’ profits under government control—and not just any part of government; he wants to cut the Congress out of the picture and set up another Board for President Obama.  He’s joined by five more Democrats.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

This “Reasonable Profits Board” is intended to control gas profits in the industry.

Further, in an amazing display of economic ignorance, the bill Kucinich proposes actually requires, in all seriousness, that it’s the oil and gas companies who must pay the tax.  They really don’t believe that the cost increase would be passed on to the customers.  They really don’t understand that the tax, and the cost bump to the end user, would simply depress the business’ ability to fund their own operations, expand hiring, search for more oil and gas supplies, conduct R&D, and so on; and it would similarly reduce consumers’ ability to put food on their tables and pay their rents.

But it’s all for a good cause.  Kucinich earmarks the taxes for funding alternative transportation programs when oil-and-gas prices spike.  This is just ridiculous on its face.  If those “alternative transportation programs” were any good, they wouldn’t need government subsidies—your tax monies—to compete in the market.  Just look at how the Obama High Speed Rail boondoggle, including the California bullet train, for instance, have turned out.  See who’s left holding the bag for that “alternative transportation program” stuff and nonsense.

I’m a bit confused by another aspect of this proposal, though.  It’s a lot of trouble to get such legislation passed these days, especially with unruly Republicans running amok in the House.  It would be a lot easier just to have the EPA issue a rule.

The other Democrats who are pushing this invasion of the free market are these

  • John Conyers, Jr. (D, MI)
  • Bob Filner (D, CA)
  • Marcia Fudge (D, OH)
  • Jim Langevin (D, RI)
  • Lynn Woolsey (D, CA):

All six need to be replaced at the 2012 election, if not in the Democratic Party primaries leading into the election.