Topic: Government and Politics

Shocked, Shocked.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-AZ) on the judicial filibuster, circa 2005 [.pdf]:

Republicans seek to right a wrong that has undermined 214 years of tradition – wise, carefully thought-out tradition. The fact that the Senate rules theoretically allowed the filibuster of judicial nominations but were never used to that end is an important indicator of what is right, and why the precedent of allowing up-or-down votes is so well established. It is that precedent that has been attacked and which we seek to restore….

My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President’s
nominees. To that I say, I don’t think so, and even if true, I’m willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned.

Uh, never mind:

Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal

For the case against the case against the judicial filibuster, check here and here. For good arguments against the JF, check here.

Blagojevich: Business as Usual

Reading over the complaint against Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (D) - which is highly entertaining, by the way - I’m struck not by the brazenness of his attempt to “sell” the Senate seat, but by how typical it is of the horse-trading done in politics.

Fawned over by lobbyists and staff, politicians tend to collapse together the public interest and their personal interests. It is the norm - not some outrageous deviation - to exchange political favors for help with attaining higher office, including campaign contributions. It’s only a small step from there to private emoluments.

Blagojevich may have crossed a legal line, and his foul language certainly sounds in corruption. (Didjya think that politicians don’t swear when they talk to their buddies?) But it’s a line politicians touch their toes to all the time.

Only if you pretend that politicians are selfless do you find Blagojevich’s horse-trading unusual.

What Color Is the Sky on Kristol’s Planet?

Bill Kristol points out the difference between small-government conservatives and big-government conservatives like him.  Among other things:

  • If you’re a small-government conservative, you’ll tend to oppose the bailouts, period. If you more or less accept big government, you’ll be open to the government’s stepping in to save the financial system, or the auto industry.
  • Similarly, if you’re against big government, you’ll oppose a huge public works stimulus package. If you think some government action is inevitable, you might instead point out that the most unambiguous public good is national defense. You might then suggest spending a good chunk of the stimulus on national security.

Kristol goes on to claim that the Republican Revolution collapsed because the GOP tried to cut government (notably some minor Medicare cuts).  President Bush, on the other hand, “seemed to learn the lesson.”  Among his other successes, ”he proposed and signed into law popular (and, it turned out, successful) legislation, opposed by small-government conservatives, adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.”

Undoubtedly, in Kristol’s world, it is President Bush’s commitment to bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive government that has brought about his soaring approval ratings.  Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress were losing because they cut spending to the bone, abolished pork, turned down earmarks, and generally behaved like Barry Goldwater reincarnated. 

Those wondering what actually happened on planet earth, might check out my book, Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Hyperinflation?

Half a century ago, Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen is supposed to have summed up the Federal government’s profligate ways with the comment that “a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” These days it’s “a trillion here, trillion there.” Unfortunately, many don’t believe it’s real money any more. And they may be right, which might explain the eagerness in Congress to shovel some of it to failing enterprises such as the Big 3. How long before it’s “a quadrillion here, a quadrillion there?” At the rate we are going, it will be a lot sooner than another half century.

Convergence at Last?

Back in the days of the Cold War, pundits used to talk about how the conflict between capitalism and communism would end with the “convergence” of the two systems, “blending the personal freedom and profit motive of Western democracies with the Communist system’s government control of the economy.” Well, it didn’t happen, right? Instead, communism failed, and the communist countries moved rapidly toward capitalism.

And then came the Bush-Obama era, and today we read in the New York Times that “the Kremlin seems to be capitalizing on the economic crisis, exploiting the opportunity to establish more control over financially weakened industries that it has long coveted.” Ouch. That’s a little too close for comfort.

Obama’s Vast New Deal

Conservatives and libertarians seem to be reeling, as economic freedom takes another blow from both the outgoing and incoming administrations every day. Remember the good old days of the $1.5 billion Chrysler bailout? Heck, remember the good old days of the $700 billion financial market bailout? Barack Obama used to call for fiscal discipline and denounce “the runaway spending and the record deficits.” Now it seems the sky’s the limit. Pundits talk about whether Obama’s first deficit will come in closer to $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion, and Republican opponents are nowhere to be seen.

Throwing fiscal discipline to the winds, in his radio address Saturday Obama proposed the biggest expansion of government spending in history, ranging from roads and bridges to “a range of programs to expand broadband Internet access, to make government buildings more energy efficient, to improve information technology at hospitals and doctors’ offices, and to upgrade computers in schools.” I just hope Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats were reading the New York Times on Sunday, which actually explained the argument against such programs in its front-page news story:

Mr. Obama’s plan, if enacted, would be in part a government-directed industrial policy, with lawmakers and administration officials picking winners and losers among private projects and raining large amounts of taxpayer money on them….

President Bush and many conservative economists have opposed such large-scale government intervention in the economy because it supports enterprises that might not survive in a free market. That is the crux of the argument against a government bailout of the auto industry….

Mr. Bush and other Republicans have resisted such an approach in part out of concern for the already soaring federal budget deficit, which could easily hit $1 trillion this year. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars today to try to fix the economy, they argue, will leave a huge bill for the next generation.

Conservative economists have also long derided public works spending as a poor response to tough economic times, saying it has not been a reliable catalyst for short-term growth and instead is more about politicians gaining points with constituents.

Alan D. Viard, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, told the House Ways and Means Committee recently that public works spending should not be authorized out of the “illusory hope of job gains or economic stabilization.”

“If more money is spent on infrastructure, more workers will be employed in that sector,” Mr. Viard added. “In the long run, however, an increase in infrastructure spending requires a reduction in public or private spending for other goods and services. As a result, fewer workers are employed in other sectors of the economy.”

Such warnings don’t carry much weight when they come from President Bush, the trillion-dollar man. But fiscally responsible Republicans and Democrats would do well to read the Times article and start actually making these points. And kudos to Times reporters Peter Baker and John Broder for including such balance in their story.

Woe Canada!

In these heady days of hope, change, puppies, and rainbows, not too many people are paying attention to the political tableau playing out in our northern neighbor.  Those wags who do remember that Canada had its own election in October – resulting in the reelection of Prime Minister Stephen Harper – quip that, come January, the United States will have the most liberal government in North America.

Not so fast.  It turns out that while Harper’s Conservatives did strengthen their minority government – that is, they won by far the largest plurality in the nation’s multi-party parliament, increasing their previous result – by definition a minority government can be outvoted if other parties gang up on them.  Here’s the math: Canada’s House of Commons has 308 seats (meaning 155 constitutes a majority), of which the Conservatives have 143, the Liberals 77, the Bloc Quebecois (whose sole raison d’etre is that Quebec should be a separate country, but who can ideologically be described as populist-socialist) 49, New Democratic Party (socialists) 37, and unaffiliated independents 2.  And here’s the short version of what’s gone down to upset the applecart:  In a new fiscal program unveiled last week, PM Harper announced, among other things, cuts to public funding of political parties and restrictions on public sector unions’ right to strike.  The opposition would have none of this and quickly arranged what in other circumstances might be a called a palace coup: Liberal leader Stephane Dion (already a lame duck after leading his party to its worst showing ever), citing the Conservatives’ failure to prepare for a recession (nevermind that Canada’s economy grew in the third quarter, and by more than it has all year), agreed on a tripartite deal with the NDP and Bloc that would oust the Tory government.

The biggest news here is that, for the first time ever, a separatist party will be a formal part of the government – the king-makers, no less.  The federalism/Quebec “question” is, shall we say, a delicate one in Canada, so this is a pretty big deal. 

While the Bloc will not have any ministers (the Liberals and NDP are to divvy up cabinet spots in a 3:1 ratio), it will, per the formal text of the deal, be part of a “permanent consultation mechanism.”  As blogger and National Post columnist Ezra Levant put it:

Well, we already have one of those – it’s called Parliament. But Parliament is a little too public for this coalition – you know, with nosy Canadians watching how deals are made. This consultation mechanism will be private – a way for the separatists to make their demands in secret, and for Prime Minister Stephane Dion to meet those demands in secret.

Indeed, those demands were many: an immediate $1 billion transfer to Quebec, along with a slew of patronage posts, including Senate seats (the Prime Minister appoints senators, and there are currently 18 vacancies).  Apparently, Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party (which won no seats in parliament but captured 6.8% of the vote) was also offered a Senate seat. 

And, as part of a “Policy Accord to Address the Present Economic Crisis,” the new coalition proposes such “stimulus” measures as “support for culture, including the cancellation of budget cuts announced by the Conservative government” and ”support for Canadian Wheat Board and Supply Management.”  And then came word of a (further) $30 billion national “bailout,” as yet undefined.  In other words, a mish-mash of left-wing policy ideas dressed up as emergency measures.

OK, so now what happens?  Well, according to parliamentary procedure, Dion, as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, will call for a “vote of non-confidence” in the government.  Assuming the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition holds together – Canada’s mainstream media, displaying the same bias as America’s, calls this the “Liberal-NDP” coalition so average Canadians don’t think about the separatists – the prime minister will have to resign and Governor-General Michaelle Jean (the titular head of state, filling the role the British monarch used to, in this case appointed by the Queen on former Liberal PM Paul Martin’s recommendation) can either invite Dion to form a government or call new elections.  Harper plans to head off this turn of events by asking Jean to “prorogue” (suspend) the parliament until January, by which point the Conservatives will have plead their case to the people and thereby either win a confidence motion or force new elections.

The bottom line: Canada is having a bit of a constitutional crisis, the most likely result of which is an unstable governing coalition composed of liberals, socialists, and socialist separatists.  In the meantime, the Toronto Stock Exchange has tanked.  It almost makes card check, the Fairness Doctrine, and the auto bailout look good by comparison.