Archives: June, 2012

Why Roger Clemens—And John Edwards—Beat the Feds

At Forbes, Daniel Fisher asks a former federal official whether a thread connects the failed white-collar prosecutions of the onetime presidential candidate and the baseball great. Yes, as a matter of fact, there might: “Jurors could be sending a message to Washington they don’t like the awesome firepower of the Justice Dept. brought to bear on borderline cases without an obvious victim.”

Business in the Movies

Libertarians have often complained about the selective and hostile portrayal of business in Hollywood movies. A couple of little-known Hollywood movies that offer a different view are going to be on television this week.

The 1960 film “Cash McCall,” starring James Garner as an early “corporate raider,” was voted ”Best Libertarian Picture” at the 1994 First International Libertarian Film Festival. Take that as you will. But arguably it does show, as the late lamented Miss Liberty website said,  ”a talented investor who overcomes envy and anti-success prejudice.” And it’s on TCM Saturday night at midnight.

USA Network meanwhile, is broadcasting “Taking Woodstock” 22 hours early, at 2 a.m. Saturday (i.e., very late Friday night). I wrote about that movie for Liberty magazine in 2010 (not online):

The movie Taking Woodstock, directed by Ang Lee, led me to the book of the same name by Elliot Tiber. I knew of Woodstock as a hippie happening a bit before my time. What I found interesting about the movie and the book was the portrayal of the Woodstock Festival, “Three Days of Peace and Music,” as an impressive entrepreneurial venture.

In 1969 Tiber was a 33-year-old gay designer living in Manhattan, while spending his weekends trying to save his parents’ rundown Catskills motel. One weekend he read that some concert promoters had been denied a permit in Wallkill, N.Y. He came up with the crazy idea of inviting them to hold the festival on his parents’ property. Lo and behold, they showed up to check it out. Taking the lead was 24-year-old Michael Lang, who went on to become a prominent concert promoter and producer.

The Tiber (actually Teichberg) property wasn’t suitable, but Elliot drove Lang and his team down the road to Max Yasgur’s nearby farm. At least that’s Tiber’s story; other sources say he exaggerates his role. He did play a key role, however, in that he had a permit to hold an annual music festival, which up until then had involved a few local bands.

There’s a wonderful scene, better in the movie than in the book, when Lang and Yasgur negotiate a price for the use of the farm. We see it dawning on Yasgur that this is a big deal. We see Elliot panicking that the deal will fall through, and that without the festival business his parents will lose their motel. And we see Lang’s assistant reassuring Elliot that both parties want to make a deal, so they’ll find an acceptable price, which indeed they do.

And then, with 30 days to transform a dairy farm into a place for tens of thousands of people to show up for a 3-day festival, Tiber describes (and Lee shows) a whirlwind of activity. “Within a couple of hours, the phone company had a small army of trucks and tech people on the grounds, installing the banks of telephones that Lang and his people needed.” Helicopters, limousines, and motorcycles come and go. A few hundred people are erecting scaffolding, stage sets, speakers, and toilets. The motel keepers are trying to find rooms and food for the workers and the early arrivals. The local bank is eagerly providing door-to-door service for the mountains of cash flowing into bucolic White Lake, N.Y.

Meanwhile, there are a few locals who don’t like the whole idea. In Tiber’s telling, they don’t like Jews, queers, outsiders, or hippies. Maybe they just didn’t like a quiet village being overrun with thousands of outsiders. In any case they had a few tools available to them. A dozen kinds of inspectors swarmed around the Teichbergs’ motel. The town council threatened to pull the permit. Tiber writes, “Why is it that the stupidest people alive become politicians? I asked myself.”  At the raucous council meeting Lang offered the town a gift of $25,000 ($150,000 in today’s dollars), and most of the crowd got quiet. Max Yasgur stood and pointed out that “he owned his farm and had a right to lease it as he pleased.” That didn’t stop the opposition, but in the end the concert happened.

The psychedelic posters and language about peace and love – and on the other side, the conservative fulminations about filthy hippies (see John Nolte’s movie review at BigHollywood.com – can obscure the fact that Woodstock was always intended as a profit-making venture. That was the goal of Lang and his partners, and it was also the intention of Tiber, Yasgur, and those of their neighbors who saw the concert as an opportunity and not a nightmare. The festival did rescue the Teichberg finances. It ended up being a free concert, however, which caused problems for Lang and his team. Eventually, though, they profited from the albums and the hit documentary Woodstock….

Tiber writes, “One of the great benefits of Woodstock—a benefit that, to my knowledge, has never been written about—was its sexual diversity.” But I think the fact that there were gay awakenings at Woodstock — and three-ways and strapping ex-Marines in sequined dresses — would surprise people less than the realization that Woodstock was a for-profit venture that involved a lot of entrepreneurship, hard-nosed negotiation, organization, and hard work. Taking Woodstock (the book, but better yet the movie) is a great story of sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, and capitalism.

Those of a different political persuasion may prefer TCM’s Dalton Trumbo extravaganza tonight.

Obama on DC Vouchers. No ‘June Surprise.’

Reports circulated yesterday that President Obama had reached an agreement with House speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to not only sustain the DC school voucher program for another few years but to eliminate the legislative cap on student enrollment—theoretically allowing it to grow without limit. Based the program’s performance to date, this would dramatically improve the graduation rate city-wide, likely boost performance academically, and save hundreds of millions of dollars from the bloated DC K12 budget.

But I didn’t write about it, because I didn’t believe it. Sure enough, later in the day, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan offered a clarification. Far from allowing unlimited growth in the program, the president only intended to allow another 85 students to participate—and still opposes the program in principle.

There is simply no way—no way—that President Obama could support an unlimited expansion in this successful, fantastically cost-effective education program. If he did, he would demoralize the most powerful force within the Democratic Party, the teachers’ unions, in the run-up to this fall’s election. Clearly he has no intention of doing that, given his recent advocacy of using federal dollars to grow the public school workforce (despite the fact that public school employment has already grown 11 times faster than enrollment over the past four decades).

We have a president who, for political reasons, cannot throw his full support behind the only federal education program in the nation’s history that is constitutional, successful, and cost-effective.

New Hampshire’s Democratic Governor Signs GOP Bill Blocking ObamaCare Exchange

It is becoming apparent even to members of the party that gave us ObamaCare that helping to implement the law by establishing a health insurance Exchange is a bad deal for states. Yesterday, NewHampshireWatchdog.org reported:

Governor Lynch blocks Health Insurance Exchange for NH

(CONCORD) Governor John Lynch [D] this morning signed legislation blocking implementation of a health insurance exchange in New Hampshire. The Obama Administration has been urging states to set up exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare.

Lynch has supported setting up a New Hampshire exchange, including the proposal in his State of the State address in February. Senate legislation setting up an exchange, SB 163, won Committee approval in January before stalling on the Senate floor. Opponents argued that a state-run exchange would put New Hampshire taxpayers on the hook for the costs of administering much of the federal health care law, while giving the state little flexibility from federal mandates.

Representative Andrew Manuse (R-Derry) introduced HB 1297 to prevent state officials from setting up an exchange without legislative approval. Josiah Bartlett Center President Charlie Arlinghaus led the charge for the bill, arguing that if federal officials wanted to set up a New Hampshire insurance exchange, they could pay for it themselves. (The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy is the parent organization of New Hampshire Watchdog.)

Under the new law, state health and insurance officials may share information with their federal counterparts but may not take any steps to implement a state-controlled insurance marketplace.

Governor Lynch’s office did not respond to requests for comment on HB 1297.

It does not speak well of ObamaCare that Democrats are heading for the exits.

In this video, I explain why all states should flatly refuse to create an ObamaCare Exchange:

For the true ObamaCare junkies, I include my oral and written remarks to New Hampshire legislators back in February about the dangers of creating an ObamaCare Exchange (non-junkies should just stick to the above video):

And let’s not forget Jonathan Adler’s latest take:

Congress Has No Idea What the NSA Is Doing

Didja think that the legislative branch oversees the executive branch? Think again! Congress has no idea what the National Security Agency (NSA) is doing.

Spencer Ackerman at Wired’s Danger Room blog reports on a letter the inspector general of the intelligence community sent earlier this month to Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO). They had asked how many people in the United States have had their communications collected or reviewed by the NSA.

The letter repeated the NSA IG’s conclusion that estimating this number was “beyond the capacity of his office and dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA’s mission.” Not only that, figuring out the number of people in the United States that the NSA has snooped on “would itself violate the privacy of U.S. persons.”

A federal agency can write a tart, dry non-response like this because Congress is utterly supine before the security bureaucracy. The tough-talking politicians in both parties have no idea what is happening in the agencies they routinely defend as essential. And Congress still hasn’t approved nominations for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, weak sauce that it is, nearly five years since it was reconstituted with greater independence and subpoena power.

The letter concludes with a hopeful note: “I will continue to work with you and the Committee to identify ways that we can enhance our ability to conduct effective oversight.” That also serves as a confession: We have no idea what the NSA is doing.

More Skepticism on Romney’s Military Spending Promise

On Sunday, Defense News published a good article by Kate Brannen that looks into Mitt Romney’s plans for military spending. This is not the first examination of Romney’s lofty campaign promise to spend at least four percent of GDP on the Pentagon’s base budget. Since October 2011, when I first crunched the numbers on his plan, others have followed with their own estimates.

In my first analysis, his plan totaled $2.046 trillion above projected defense budgets based on CBO totals from FY 2012 to FY 2021. That total does not include war costs, nor does it take into account the possibility of military action toward Iran, which Romney has made clear is on the table, with or without Congressional approval. My number one question at the time—beyond the fact that GDP is not the proper guide for military spending—was: Where is this money going to come from?

In April, I recalculated Romney’s gimmick, adjusting my numbers with the help of my colleague Charles Zakaib, based on the Obama administration’s latest 10-year projections. We presented the data in the graph below:

The conclusion: Romney’s four percent gimmick would now necessitate $2.58 trillion in additional military spending above the new baseline. I tried to put this in context:

Romney’s Four Percent Gimmick would result in taxpayers spending more than twice as much on the Pentagon as in 2000 (111 percent higher, to be precise), and 45 percent more than in 1985, the height of the Reagan buildup. Over the next ten years, Romney’s annual spending (in constant dollars) for the Pentagon would average 64 percent higher than annual post-Cold War budgets (1990-2012), and 42 percent more than the average during the Reagan era (1981-1989).

Does Romney genuinely believe we have enemies that approach the Soviet Union’s might, let alone ones that are 42 percent more threatening? We would be wise to question his judgment if so.

Back in the realm of the reality, further cuts to military spending are fast approaching as sequestration looms. The debate in Washington is now largely focused on how much to cut from the defense budget and in what manner. This is consistent with what the majority of Americans favor and has sidelined those arguing for ever-greater military spending. And yet Mitt Romney remains committed to his Four Percent idea. In this instance, Romney should embrace his supposed conservatism and leave the spendthrift gimmicks to the opposition.

Much more in the podcast below:

Campaign Finance: The Obsession of Liberal Democrats

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Is Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) proposed constitutional amendment aimed at overturning the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision on campaign finance a good idea?

My response:

Leave it to liberal Democrats, phony friends of liberty, to destroy the First Amendment. Their true colors emerged with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 – especially with the 1974 amendments. Ever since they’ve tried, at every level of government, to restrict the rights of Americans to support candidates of their choosing, alone or together with others. And the result is a body of law that is so complex, with such draconian sanctions, that no one would dare run for the lowest office without a gaggle of lawyers behind him to keep him out of jail. What was John Edwards just tried for, infidelity? No, campaign finance violations.

Today, these phonies complain about “super PACs.” Why do we have those? Because people can’t give unlimited amounts directly to candidates. And the candidates complain that they have no control over what their independent “friends” say, often to their detriment – because the law requires their friends to be “independent” of the candidate. And on it goes, with one restriction after another, all to prevent “corruption,” we’re told – corruption that no one can quite seem to locate.

It’s time to bring this farce to an end and restore the political freedom the First Amendment was written to protect. The Supreme Court can do that with the Montana case now before it on a petition for certiorari. It can take the case, not to reverse Citizens United, as liberal Democrats plus the hapless John McCain hope, nor even to summarily reverse the insubordinate Montana Supreme Court, but to revisit the errors it made in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 when it upheld many of the 1974 FICA amendments.

There never was a campaign finance problem, as states with minimal restrictions have made clear to this day. There was an incumbents facing well-funded challengers problem, and that’s the dirty little secret of this whole sordid business.