Topic: Government and Politics

Iraq: No Military Redo a Decade Later

Little more than a decade ago the U.S. invaded Iraq.  The promised cakewalk turned out far different than expected.  Today the government—and entire state—created by Washington are in crisis.  Yet the same voices again are being raised calling for military intervention.  With the promise that this time everything will turn out well.

Social engineers never seem to learn.  It is hard enough to redesign and remake individuals, families, and communities in America.  It is far harder to do so overseas.

As I point out in my latest Freeman column:  “Nation-building requires surmounting often vast differences in tradition, culture, history, religion, ethnicity, ideology, geography, and more.  Doing so also requires suppressing the natural desire of people to govern themselves.”

Yet these days Washington continues to try to fix the world’s problems.  However, reentering Iraq would be unique, an attempted redo barely a decade after the first go. 

The original Iraq operation was supposed to be a quick, bloodless war that destroyed dangerous weapons of mass destruction and “drained the swamp,” eliminating terrorism.  The U.S. would guarantee a friendly, compliant government by imposing as president an exile who hadn’t lived in the country for decades.  The new Iraq would implement democracy, eschew sectarian division, protect women’s rights, and even recognize Israel, while providing America bases for use in attacking neighboring states, including Iran.

This wonderful wish list was pure fantasy. 

The conflict killed thousands and wounded tens of thousands of Americans, and killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions of Iraqis.  The ancient Christian community was destroyed. 

The ultimate financial cost, including the expense of caring for those who sustained debilitating wounds, to America likely will run $3 trillion or more.  America’s reputation was stained, Iran was empowered, and terrorists were trained.  Finally, Baghdad’s sectarian misrule wrecked national institutions and fostered the rise of an ugly Islamic totalitarianism. 

The obvious—indeed, only—policy for Americans is to run, not walk, away from the mess.  Yet many of the architects of the original disaster are back, advocating a second shot.

Biden: “I Should Have Had One Republican Kid To Go Out And Make Money”

The Washington Free Beacon reports that Vice President Joseph Biden made his audience “burst into laughter” at the Urban League gathering in Cincinnati when he cracked “I should have had one Republican kid to go out and make money,” noting that instead he has a daughter who went into social work. 

And well should they have burst into laughter. It was a joke, folks! In real life, Biden’s son Beau has worked as an asbestos plaintiff’s lawyer, which is much more of a moneymaking venture than most “Republican kids” ever get near. Both he and another Biden son have been closely associated with one of the biggest such law firms in the nation. This fits a pattern noted by David Boaz a few weeks back, in which reporters keep acting surprised when Democratic politicians are found to be pals with zillionaires and attending fundraisers at mansions. 

Although Vice President Biden has not always been entirely forthcoming about his family’s longstanding ties to plaintiff’s law work, especially considering his own role as a guardian of trial lawyer causes while in the Senate, you might have seen them mentioned in places like the L.A. Times and USA Today a few years back. The L.A. Times story begins: 

When Joe Biden’s brother and son wanted to buy a hedge fund company two years ago, they turned for financing to a law firm that had lobbied the Delaware senator’s office on an important piece of business in Congress – and in fact had recently benefited from his vote. The firm promised James and Hunter Biden that it would invest $2 million, and quickly delivered half of it.

They wanted to buy a hedge fund? At least it presumably wasn’t a Republican hedge fund. 

 

 

 

 

Podcast: The Second Amendment Wins in D.C.

Saturday afternoon, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled that D.C.’s “complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.” Alan Gura is the attorney on the case, entitled Palmer v. D.C. We talked yesterday about the ruling and how D.C. might comply.

Gura, along with Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice and Cato Institute chairman Robert A. Levy, served as co-counsel to Dick Heller in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The lead plaintiff in this case is Cato Institute senior fellow Tom G. Palmer.

On his blog, here’s how Gura characterized the win:

With this decision in Palmer, the nation’s last explicit ban of the right to bear arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn’t going to fly.

Krugman’s ‘Gotcha’ Moment Leaves Something to Be Desired

I’ve had some fun over the years by pointing out that Paul Krugman has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as FranceEstoniaGermany, and the United Kingdom.

So I shouldn’t be surprised that he wants to catch me making an error. But I’m not sure his “gotcha” moment is very persuasive. Here’s some of what he wrote for today’s New York Times.

Gov. Jerry Brown was able to push through a modestly liberal agenda of higher taxes, spending increases and a rise in the minimum wage. California also moved enthusiastically to implement Obamacare. …Needless to say, conservatives predicted doom. …Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute declared that by voting for Proposition 30, which authorized those tax increases, “the looters and moochers of the Golden State” (yes, they really do think they’re living in an Ayn Rand novel) were committing “economic suicide.”

Kudos to Krugman for having read Atlas Shrugged, or for at least knowing that Rand sometimes referred to “looters and moochers.” Though I have to subtract points because he thinks I’m a conservative rather than a libertarian.

But what about his characterization of my position? Well, he’s right, though I’m predicting slow-motion suicide. Voting for a tax hike isn’t akin to jumping off the Golden Gate bridge. Instead, by further penalizing success and expanding the burden of government, California is engaging in the economic equivalent of smoking four packs of cigarettes every day instead of three and one-half packs.

Was the Halbig Decision Political?

Writing in the Washington Post about the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Halbig v. Burwell, E. J. Dionne Jr. bemoans 

a conservative judiciary that will use any argument it can muster to win ideological victories that elude their side in the elected branches of our government.

There are several problems with his argument. First, of course, the argument accepted by two judges on the D.C. Circuit is pretty strong: the IRS can’t rewrite a law just because because the law isn’t working out so well.

Second, it’s not so clear that it’s conservatives who couldn’t “win ideological victories … in the elected branches of our government.” Democrats in Congress and other ACA supporters wanted states to establish exchanges, so they wrote the law with subsidies for state exchanges. (See also this original paper by Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler, especially pp. 142ff.) But because of widespread opposition to the law, many states chose not to set up exchanges. That is, supporters of the law were unable to “win ideological victories … in the elected branches of our government,” so they turned to the unelected bureaucracy to rewrite the law, and now they want the courts to uphold their end run around the legislative process.

Third, I wonder if E. J. Dionne Jr. really wants a judiciary that rolls over for the political branches, whether legislative or executive. Does he believe that the Warren Court should not have struck down school segregation, which was clearly the will of the people’s elected representatives–and no doubt the people–in Kansas, as well as in South Carolina and Virginia, whose similar cases were combined with Brown? Does he believe that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down Virginia’s law against interracial marriage in 1967? The Texas law outlawing sodomy in 2003? Does he regret the Supreme Court’s reining in of the Bush administration’s claimed powers in several terrorism cases? Or the court’s 2013 rulings on gay marriage?

Probably not. And that’s why we should judge judicial decisions on the basis of their adherence to the law and the Constitution, not on political grounds. Three cheers for judges who uphold the rule of law without fear or favor and without political intent.

South Carolina Police Are Ready To Crack Down on Uber

Earlier this month UberX, Uber’s rideshare service, launched in four cities in South Carolina. Residents of Charleston, Greenville, Columbia, and Myrtle Beach are free to download Uber’s app and request a ride from a driver using his or her own vehicle. However, police across South Carolina are planning on taking action against UberX drivers, who they believe are violating regulations.

According to the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, Uber is illegally operating in the Palmetto State without state or local business licenses.

The Nerve, a project of the South Carolina Policy Council, reported that police officers in Greenville and Columbia could issue UberX drivers warnings and citations at their discretion.

Myrtle Beach officials claim that Uber is not licensed to work in the city, and Myrtle Beach police have said that they plan to cite UberX drivers for operating without a business license, which Myrtle Beach officials claim each driver needs. Uber believes that it does not need a business license because it is connecting passengers and drivers via its app and not providing rides.

From WPDE NewsChannel 15:

So why doesn’t Uber just get a business license? Taylor Bennett, an Uber spokesperson said they don’t think they need one.

Statement on D.C. Circuit’s Ruling In Halbig v. Burwell

In August 2011, the Internal Revenue Service proposed offering subsidies through health insurance Exchanges established by the federal government, even though the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act clearly and repeatedly provides those subsidies are available only “through an Exchange established by the State.” Due to the PPACA’s interrelated provisions, the decision to offer unauthorized subsidies in federal Exchanges also triggers unauthorized taxes against millions of individuals and employers in the 36 states that ultimately opted not to establish Exchanges. When the IRS finalized this proposal in May 2012, it cited no authority for its decision to depart from the clear language of federal law.

Jonathan Adler and I were the first to criticize this decision in August 2011, and have continued to show how it is contrary to federal law and the PPACA’s legislative history.

Today, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – known as the second-highest court in the land – ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that the Obama administration is indeed imposing taxes and spending funds through those 36 federal Exchanges without statutory authority, and indeed contrary to the plain language of the PPACA.

Simply put, the President is violating the law.

Unlike other courts who have examined Halbig and related cases, the D.C. Circuit looked at the totality of the evidence, reached the only conclusion the law and the evidence permit, and struck down the IRS rule.

The court rejected the seemingly endless string of legal arguments the administration offered in defense of its actions. Despite those arguments, the court held, “the government offers no textual basis…for concluding that a federally-established Exchange is, in fact or legal fiction, established by a state.” As a result, the PPACA “does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges” and the Obama administration’s decision to offer them anyway is not only unauthorized but “gives the individual and employer mandates…broader effect than they would have” if the IRS followed the law.

While the dissent was political, focusing on the plaintiff’s motives, the opinion of the court was authored by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, whom the Washington Post has described as “widely respected by people in both parties, and those who have worked with him elsewhere regard him as a sober lawyer with an open mind. There is considerable reason to think he would make a fine judge.” His nomination to the D.C. Circuit drew praise from prominent Democrats including Seth Waxman and David Kendall. Indeed, then-senator Barack Obama himself supported Griffith’s nomination. Griffith noted that while the court’s ruling could have a significant impact on the PPACA, “high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still.”

The D.C. Circuit applied the law that Congress enacted. Any downstream effects of Halbig are the result of the PPACA itself, not today’s ruling. If those effects are intolerable, then it is up to Congress to change the law, not the IRS. If Halbig results in people losing health-insurance subsidies, the blame lies with a president who recklessly offered millions of Americans tens of billions of dollars in subsidies he had no authority to offer, that could vanish with a single court ruling.